An angle I haven’t seen very much in pointing out the cynical realpolitik strategy behind Xinjiang stuff is how the US has maintained relations with other Central Asian states despite their own crimes against Muslims. I’ve seen plenty of the “this is hypocrisy, look at the War on Terror and the border camps” and stuff like that, but not much of the apples to apples comparison of the US response to China’s neighbors. This is basically a more Chomsky like approach of just saying, look at what they aren’t telling you.
For instance, the US has consistently sent economic aid to Uzbekistan and invested in the country even though Uzbekistan has restrictive laws on state sanctioned mosques, and at various points has actually been accused of not only imprisoning and torturing Muslims for breaking laws regulating the Muslim Faith (like conditions restricting pilgrimage to Mecca), but has also been accused of boiling Muslim dissidents alive. Tajikistan has also both made a prominent Islamic political party illegal, and jailed and tortured Muslims, and forced Muslims to shave their beards. America actually sent direct military aid to Tajikistan in its counter-terrorism operations when its own high state officials defected to ISIS, even though the US knew that Tajikistan was torturing and repressing Muslims under the same auspices of “counter-terrorism”. And this was happening as recently as 2015, under Obama.
The US media and state department have blatantly ignored many of these abuses and had no particular push to sanction them as human rights catastrophes, and the foreign policy think tanks were even advising the US to take a neutral stance on human rights issues in order to continue having strong relations with the Central Asian post-soviet states. No surprise that they take such a neutral policy position of course, because they openly acknowledge the utility in doing so is countering Russian and Chinese dominance in the region.
I think it is important to attempt to spread realistic geopolitical perspectives among average people when talking about this stuff. Too many people are trapped in the moralist perspective and believe when they take a position on US action, it is motivated by morality. And they may be right for themselves, but the US is amoral, and so they aren’t actually endorsing an entity that has the same motivations. They’re effectively asking a lion to save a gazelle. It has no particular interest in the gazelle, it is just staking out its own hunting grounds. And maybe even after knowing this they just become more self-conscious American chauvinists, but then at least you are living in reality.