Yeah like frig China. Why aren't you killing them? Whats wrong with you? Clearly the most morally correct thing to do is exterminate them, what are you trying to hide?
Is it though? People hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. No one wants to believe that their privileges are predicated on suffering elsewhere.
Westerners in particularly have always been very "heads in the sand" when it comes to modern history but it's not surprising. Every nation struggles with the darker aspects of their history.
I’ve become very skeptical of the concept of “brainwashing.” Over the past few months this skepticism has boiled over into open and explicit disagreement with even well-meaning pushers within the Marxist-Leninist corner.
Listen, I'm sure there's a very good reason why we have radically different policies towards Afghani Muslims and Uyghur Muslims, despite the fact they share a border and a litany of cultural practices.
These people, who don’t know shit about fuck, are absolutely sure that they already know everything that needs to be known, and that we don’t know shit about fuck.
And in twenty years they’ll say they knew it all along.
This has been the US playbook since before we were born, and funding, arming, and influencing Salafi jihadists in particular has been going on since at least the 1980s. Previously:
FAIR: Forgotten Coverage of Afghan ‘Freedom Fighters’ But the U.S. government and the American press have not always opposed Afghan extremists. During the 1980s, the Mujahiddin guerrilla groups battling Soviet occupation had key features in common with the Taliban. In many
... show more
Please elaborate: where’s the racism?
This has been the US playbook since before we were born, and funding, arming, and influencing Salafi jihadists in particular has been going on since at least the 1980s. Previously:
FAIR: Forgotten Coverage of Afghan ‘Freedom Fighters’ But the U.S. government and the American press have not always opposed Afghan extremists. During the 1980s, the Mujahiddin guerrilla groups battling Soviet occupation had key features in common with the Taliban. In many ways, the Mujahiddin groups acted as an incubator for the later rise of the Taliban in the 1990s.
Despite CIA denials of any direct Agency support for Bin Laden’s activities, a considerable body of circumstantial evidence suggests the contrary. During the 1980s, Bin Laden’s activities in Afghanistan closely paralleled those of the CIA. Bin Laden held accounts in the Bank for Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the bank the CIA used to finance its own covert actions. Bin Laden worked especially closely with Hekmatyar—the CIA’s favored Mujahiddin commander. In 1989, the U.S. shipped high-powered sniper rifles to a Mujahiddin faction that included bin Laden, according to a former bin Laden aide.
Who said anything about his socioeconomic position? He was in fact wildly rich. He was a product of US interventionism. He had been a CIA asset for years. He didn’t just wake up one day and decide that Allah wanted him to blow up buildings on the other side of the world, for no reasons connected to US foreign policy.
But the U.S. government and the American press have not always opposed Afghan extremists. During the 1980s, the Mujahiddin guerrilla groups battling Soviet occupation had key features in common with the Taliban. In many ways, the Mujahiddin groups acted as an incubator for the later rise of the Taliban in the 1990s.
Despite CIA denials of any direct Agency support for Bin Laden’s activities, a considerable body of circumstantial evidence suggests the contrary. During the 1980s, Bin Laden’s activities in Afghanistan closely paralleled those of the CIA. Bin Laden held accounts in the Bank for Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the bank the CIA used to finance its own covert actions. Bin Laden worked especially closely with Hekmatyar—the CIA’s favored Mujahiddin commander. In 1989, the U.S. shipped high-powered sniper rifles to a Mujahiddin faction that included bin Laden, according to a former bin Laden aide.
To liberals, "simping so fucking hard" literally just means, "not believing literally every piece of propaganda that right wing western propaganda outlets pump out about them.
If they were old enough to be paying attention in 2002, they would be accusing anyone who didn't believe Iraq had WMDs of "simping so fucking hard" for Saddam.
“Authoritarian state” is a bullshit category. Authoritarian states are just states insufficiently subservient to Washington. It’s no more or less coherent than “terrorist state,” which the US uses in the same way.
“Authoritarianism” is the contemporary word for “totalitarianism,” which is just an erudite-seming term for horseshoe theory, which is horseshit. Previously:
Funny thing about Hannah Arendt’s construction of “totalitarianism”: She
... show more
“Authoritarian state” is a bullshit category. Authoritarian states are just states insufficiently subservient to Washington. It’s no more or less coherent than “terrorist state,” which the US uses in the same way.
“Authoritarianism” is the contemporary word for “totalitarianism,” which is just an erudite-seming term for horseshoe theory, which is horseshit. Previously:
Funny thing about Hannah Arendt’s construction of “totalitarianism”: She came from a bourgeois family and so was unsurprisingly anti-communist, and she was funded & promoted by the CIA. Imperialist Propaganda and the Ideology of the Western Left Intelligentsia: From Anticommunism and Identity Politics to Democratic Illusions and Fascism One of the centerpieces of the cultural cold war was the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which was revealed in 1966 to be a CIA front. Hugh Wilford, who has researched the topic extensively, described the CCF as nothing short of one of the largest patrons of art and culture in the history of the world. Established in 1950, it promoted on the international scene the work of collaborationist academics such as Raymond Aron and Hannah Arendt over and against their Marxian rivals, including the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir.
One of the centerpieces of the cultural cold war was the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which was revealed in 1966 to be a CIA front. Hugh Wilford, who has researched the topic extensively, described the CCF as nothing short of one of the largest patrons of art and culture in the history of the world. Established in 1950, it promoted on the international scene the work of collaborationist academics such as Raymond Aron and Hannah Arendt over and against their Marxian rivals, including the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir.
In this interview with Zhao Dingqi of World Socialism Studies, Gabriel Rockhill dives deep into the CIA’s campaign to propagate thinly veiled imperialist and…
Widely considered unconnected to reality among people who believe that Ukraine is winning the war and there's an invisible genocide in China. I wonder what Occam's Razor says about this🤔
"Yes, the US does evil shit in the Middle East. Killing brown-skinned practitioners of the other Abrahamic religion overseas is an American tradition.
That still doesn't change the fact that Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction to attack the USA.
You can’t shit-talk one authoritarian state and cheer on another."
Seriously, how many times do you need to hear it before you western chauvanists realise it's not about "good or bad", it's about trustworthy or untrustworthy.
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
If not reeducation, which method would you prefer China use to combat the foreign radical Wahhabism and terrorism spread by the CIA in Xinjiang for the purpose of regional destabilization and regime change?
We all know how the US chose to implement its own war on terror. Muslim majority countries in the Middle East support China's method.
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.
The only countries pushing this narrative are the “always the same map” imperial core countries, which just so happen to be largely the same ones supporting Israel’s genocide.
Almost no predomi
... show more
That still doesn’t change the fact that China is persecuting Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province.
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.
The only countries pushing this narrative are the “always the same map” imperial core countries, which just so happen to be largely the same ones supporting Israel’s genocide.
Almost no predominantly-Muslim country buys the Uyghur genocide narrative, because they know it’s bullshit, because they talked to the Uyghurs themselves. twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578… #HRC51 | Draft resolution A/HRC/51/L.6 on holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of #China, was REJECTED.
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.
Much like how after China foiled their color revolution attempt in 1989, the CIA had to pivot to the "Tinyman Square Massacre" narrative.
Very much like that, and they’re still getting mileage out of it with no effort, because Lemmitors get an endorphin rush every time they do the CIA’s work for free, the brave defenders of freedom & democracy that they are 🤦♂️
Sources: - china news propaganda site - medium article from rando - project syndicate link which is an op-ed site (not news) - a wiki page from an incredibly biased group - a youtube link... - a site calling itself a news site, yet no actual credentials, but seems to be associated with China (Ajit Singh has written Chinese propaganda books) - a substack link
This has to be the least compelling list of evidence one could provide, and yet you get upvotes because it looks like you've provided proof of something. All you've done is provide a lot of incredibly, seriously biased opinions with no actual facts at all.
The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media* are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.
The new post-Trump/“post-truth” media literacy curricula won’t teach it to you either, because it was paid for and crafted by the US military-industrial complex:
... show more
Wow, I wonder why there aren’t any Western corporate media sources with a Media Bias/Fact Check seal of approval…
The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media* are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.
The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”
It's OK to distrust more than one Government, but how anyone can believe the Chineses Government in this matter is beyond me.
Did you not see the insanely violent crack down on Hong Kong Democracy Movement with you own eyes? Do you not remember Tianamen Square? Great Fire-Wall?
Theres liyteraly over 10GB or evidence of the persecution of Uyghurs by the Chinese Government:
I’ve already asked another commenter this but it’s valid here too: Would you class the western oppression of dissent to be on the same level as that famous student protest in China?
Only someone misinformed about the 1989 protest and US/CIA/NED-orchestrated, murderously violent riot would ask this, which to be fair is 99% of Westerners.
📺 The Tiananmen Square "Massacre" Never Happened: , part 2, — [Sources]
Edit to add: YouTube took down for “violating YouTube’s terms of service,” but I found a reploaded a copy, splitting it up into three pieces. This is why you don’t know what really happened, because Western corporate media don’t want you to know. They were reuploaded just today; who knows how long they’ll stay up.
Washington Post, 1989: Rebel Without a Magazine > [Chinese Intellectual’s founder] Liang [Heng] had come from his New York office, where he serves as the magazine's foreign editor, to Washington Thursday and Friday to address the board of directors at the National Endowment for Democracy -- a substantial financial backer of the magazine -- to tell it what he knows, what he thinks and what will possibly happen. > After his arrival in the United States, he earned his master's degree in literature from Columbia University and secured an initial $200,000 grant from the NED, a private corporation created in 1983 to "strengthen democratic efforts worldwide," to start his magazine.
The Seattle Times, 2011: Quiet scholar who inspired uprisings > That is not to say [Gene] Sharp has not seen any action. In 1989, he jetted off to China to witness the uprising in Tiananmen Square. In the early 1990s, he sneaked into a Myanmar rebel camp at the invitation of Robert Helvey, a retired Army colonel who advised the opposition there. They met when Helvey was on a fellowship at Harvard; the military man thought the professor had ideas that could avoid war.
The firewall isn’t there to keep Chinese people from The Truth. It’s there to keep imperial core meddling out, and to help China develop its own domestic internet services. In contrast, the rest of the world is dependent on / addicted to US internet services from Google/Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook/Meta, Microsoft, etc., which many countries are beginning to regret. - 📺 - 📺 The Great Firewall of China
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.
The only countries pushing this narrative are the “always the same map” imperial core countries, which just so happen to be largely the same ones supporting Israel’s genocide.
Almost no predominantly-Muslim country buys the Uyghur genocide narrative, because they know it’s bullshit, because they talked to the Uyghurs themselves. twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578… #HRC51 | Draft resolution A/HRC/51/L.6 on holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of #China, was REJECTED.
Then you should try it, you hypocritical dipshit. You believe everything that comes out of the western propaganda machine without question, and then assume anyone who doesn't believe them are "believing the Chinese government"
If it were 2002 you would be accusing anyone who didn't believe Iraq of having WMDs of "believing Saddam!"
Do you not remember Tianamen Square
So do you do this in the opposite direction? When people doubt a claim made by China, do you start randomly bringing up unrelated events from forty years ago. What exactly was the chain of reasoning that made you thought this was relevant? Oh right, there wasn't one: you've just been trained like a literal dog to compulsively blurt out "Tinyman Square!" every time you hear the word "China".
The Xinjiang Police Files are said to be leaked documents from the Xinjiang internment camps, forwarded to anthropologist Adrian Zenz from an anonymous source.
Adrian Nikolaus Zenz (born 1974) is a German anthropologist known for his studies of the Xinjiang internment camps and persecution of Uyghurs in China. He is a director and senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an anti-communist think tank established by the US government and based in Washington, DC.
It’s OK to distrust more than one Government, but how anyone can believe the the west in this matter is beyond me.
The west has repeatedly coup'd, invaded, destroyed, killed, bombed, sanctioned everyone that dares look at them wrong. But sure, daddy west is completely right when it comes to China.
Hong Kong Democracy Movement
Democracy is when you have west funded protests trying to do a color revolution. Sure.
By Matthew John Every June in the United States we are subjected to a barrage of anti-China propaganda from major media outlets and prominent political pundits (on top of the regularly-scheduled China bashing).
Nobody said anything about MBFC. Good luck, like I said in another comment I’m not going to argue with anyone from .ml. I was pointing out the faults in your sources because they’re not proper sources no matter what region of the world you’re from.
You're arguing with a guy that doesn't want to change their mind. He literally sent me a video whose sources contradicted him and guess what happened when I pointed that to him? Never bothered to reply and he still uses that video as proof that he's right.
Seeing as how I actually watched his video and looked at their sources and other sources and only after that did I reply? Yes. And even to this day I still leave room for doubt. I still think the truth is actually somewhere in the middle. Not you, tho. You're convinced that what you believe is correct.
I’m absolutely not going to provide sources or even argue with anyone from .ml on an .ml community because it’s pointless. You all do not care about proper sourcing and think it’s even a detractor because it’s “western”. I’m pointing out the problems with the sources for all the other people that are observing that comment and being swayed, because it’s a bunch of baloney.
You're conflating "proper sourcing" with being western, that's already an error, and second of all it's the west that has been most prominently pushing the genocide theory. Of course it's going to be contested by China. The validity of sources used by posts on YouTube and Medium aren't in question because of where they are hosted, they are often hosted on these kinds of platforms because opposing western narratives gets you blacklisted.
If that were true then non western sources would have plenty of news articles, yet all ml users post are things directly from Russia or China or “alternative” “sources” like medium (which isn’t a source). There are plenty of regimes that do not align with anything America has to say, yet no news articles from them.
Not really true. We post sources from all over, especially groups like Al Mayadeen that post in English. If we post something in spanish from Granma, for example, people can't read that.
Critisizing someone's sources and then refusing to provide any other ones "because it's pointless" seems a little hypocritical to me.
I’m pointing out the problems with the sources for all the other people that are observing that comment and being swayed, because it’s a bunch of baloney.
So we should trust your word over someone's who has at least put in the effort to provide sources?
Look, you don't need to prove anything, but if you're gonna argue or act like you're defending people from misinformation, then I'd expect to see more than just "don't listen to that guy". It's not exactly easy finding objective information about various issues in China and filtering out all the American propaganda. Personally, I'd very much appreciate any links that don't lead to obvious manipulation.
How is it hypocritical? Either the sources are biased or not. The poster not providing proof for a counterargument is irrelevant. Or do you mean they should provide proof for the original sources being biased?
Mate, the person literally said "Either the sources are biased or not"
are you telling me that
Fun fact: every single time someone writes this, whatever follows is guaranteed to be an outrageous strawman that in no way it's what the other person was saying.
If someone claims to solve string theory and then provides shit sources there is never an obligation to provide sources that solve string theory. Pointing out sources are shit is part of science. I don’t need to provide a counter argument because that’s not the purpose of the conversation. I don’t need to provide proof of the alternative because the only thing I’m trying to accomplish is to stop this liar from spreading misinformation.
A lie can travel around the world before the truth takes a few steps. That’s exactly what that user is trying to do. Post as many lies as possible so that refuting them takes hours if not days if not months or years.
How can you know if the sources really are bad if it's not obvious aftet reading? Do you just trust a random person's words? In this case, you're essentially arbitrarily picking one version over another.
The problem with 'stopping lies' is it requires effort, which not everyone may wish to dedicate. I'm by no means denouncing the other person for trying to stop misinformation (assuming that's the case, since I still have no idea). However, it's all in vain if they don't bother to do anything to prove their point.
Anyone can post misinformation as sources, just as anyone can post that the sources are bad. Fundamentally there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two. If you really feel the need to defend people from being misinformed, some better source or other form of proof, or at the very least a deeper explanation would go a long way.
I mean it is obvious after reading, the problem is that most people aren’t going to read the sources, they’re just reading the comment. They’re not going to click through and see that several are literally Chinese propaganda sites. They’re going to take the original comment at face value. If they then skip the sources and read my comment stating what the sources actually are then they’re less likely to be influenced.
I trust OIC and Muslim countries more than I trust any Western source. It is borderline farcical for Western governments and media to pretend to care about the welfare of Muslims in China while directly or indirectly enabling the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine and invasions and war crimes in many other countries as well as the discriminatory policies in their own countries.
Not only is China indisputably persecuting Uyghurs, but we have far more proof for the genocide in the Xinjiang province than we do for the one in Gaza. Millions of scholars who are not at all associated with either Adrian Zenz or Uyghur separatists agree that the Uyghur genocide is the deadliest, most important, and best documented atrocity of all time. If you need links to the evidence, I can give you as many links as you want. \ \ \ But first, I need you to solve a CAPTCHA to make sure that you are not a robot.
To prove that you are not a robot, enter the number of trees visible in the image below:
The people that try to equate fake genocide with real genocide are like the school staff punishing bully and victim alike. They are enabling the abuses. Also it must be deeply insulting to the real victims in gaza.
It's supposedly been a decade long genocide and yet still nobody has been able to present any evidence beyond uncorroborated and inconsistent testimonials from a single digit number of sources, filtered exclusively through right wing American NGOs.
Meanwhile two years of genocide in Gaza produced an endless stream of audio-visual and forensic evidence so overwhelmingly undeniable that even governments participateing in the genocide have started to admit it.
In accordance with China's affirmative action policies towards ethnic minorities, all non-Han ethnic groups were subject to different laws and were usually allowed to have two children in urban areas, and three or four in rural areas.
(e) Show me the forcible transfer of children from one group to another group
All you have are a couple of photos of prisons, which proves nothing, and some garbage testimonies that we’ve debunked a thousand fucking times already.
Both things can be true, China has very tight control of media and they're officially doing only stuff to terrorists. It's literally impossible to hide carpet bombing apartment blocks anywhere in the world. Disappearing people into reeducation camps inside isn't.
"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting t
... show more
"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum."
The real victims in Xinjiang were the people who got stabbed & bombed & run over by CIA-funded Salafi jihad terrorists, which fortunately is no longer a thing, much to the CIA’s chagrin.
No shit the CIA isn’t mentioned. Do you think CIA agents would have been there at the scenes of these terrorist attacks? That’s not how any of this works.
Your argument seams conflicting. On one hand your arguing that there isn't enough evidence to argue that there is no genocide in china (which I agree with) but your also stating that the US has covered up all the evidence of there involvement with terrorism in china but the cia is still involved. What evidence heavily suggests or proves there involvement?
It will 200% be declassified as a CIA operation in 40 years, but by then new accusations on new enemies of he US will be the new topic no one is able to question. If the US still exists by then lol
Where is the evidence? This article is an interview showing two people telling stories, one of which is selling a book, just like Yeonmi Park. I can too volunteer for an interview as I tell how Greenland is genociding left handed people. But nobody will ever want to pay me for that.
Reporter: [REDACTED] Reason: Chinese genocide denialist
Yes, reporter, that is precisely what we’re doing. We’re denying that there was or is a genocide in Xinjiang. We also deny the white genocide in South Africa, among other bogus accusations.
Genocides are real things, so it's important we reliably identify them with factual evidence, not falling for atrocity propaganda. Incorrectly identifying something as genocide is irresponsible much like denying a case of genocide that is actually taking place.
Whataboutism, and possibly propaganda. They are both horrible and should not exist. Moral superiority doesn't matter if people are being systematically murdered.
Jesus Christ, "Whataboutism" really does just mean anything other than complete blind belief in the American Nat-sec blob now. "Oh, you don't believe that people who activity cheer on the genocide of Palestinians are being sincere in their claimed concern for Chinese Muslims? WHATABOUTISM!"
people are being systematically murdered.
I assume you're referring to Gaza? Because not even the most frothing sinophobes have tried to claim a "systematic murder" of Muslims in China, so if you're not referring to Gaza, you are literally making up lies whole cloth.
When dealing with hypocrites, whataboutism is the correct and logically consistent response.
People who complain about whataboutism are 99% hypocrites whose hypocrisy has been pointed out. And they have no rational arguments to defend their view other than deflecting the topic.
Since the beginning of what’s generally called ‘RussiaGate’ three years ago, pundits, media outlets, even comedians have all become insta-experts on supposed Russian propaganda techniques. The most cunning of these tricks, we are told, is that of “whataboutism” – a devious Soviet tactic of deflecting criticism by pointing out the accusers’ hypocrisy and inconsistencies. The tu quoque - or, “you, also” - fallacy, but with a unique Slavic flavor of nihilism, used by Trump and leftists alike in an effort to change the subject and focus on the faults of the United States rather than the crimes of Official State Enemies.
But what if "whataboutism" isn’t describing a propaganda technique, but in fact is on
Since the beginning of what’s generally called ‘RussiaGate’ three years ago, pundits, media outlets, even comedians have all become insta-experts on supposed Russian propaganda techniques. The most cunning of these tricks, we are told, is that of “whataboutism” – a devious Soviet tactic of deflecting criticism by pointing out the accusers’ hypocrisy and inconsistencies. The tu quoque - or, “you, also” - fallacy, but with a unique Slavic flavor of nihilism, used by Trump and leftists alike in an effort to change the subject and focus on the faults of the United States rather than the crimes of Official State Enemies.
But what if "whataboutism" isn’t describing a propaganda technique, but in fact is one itself: a zombie phrase that’s seeped into everyday liberal discourse that – while perhaps useful in the abstract - has manifestly turned any appeal to moral consistency into a cunning Russian psyop. From its origins in the Cold War as a means of deflecting and apologizing for Jim Crow to its braindead contemporary usage as a way of not engaging any criticism of the United States as the supposed arbiter of human rights, the term "whataboutism" has become a term that - 100 percent of the time - is simply used to defend and legitimizing American empire’s moral narratives.
Oh cool, you also gargle propaganda from an evangelical nutjob Adrian Zens and from the U.S State Department on it's number-one global rival. Very analytical and socialist of you.
There is no "plight", the U.N found nothing and reported nothing. Again and again, people like you do the work of the feds back in the 50s-60s.
Nobody here is denying that genocide is bad, what's in question is what the US Empire says is happening vs what is actually happening. The US Empire has lied before, such as the babies taken from incubators story or Iraq's WMD, but it was only long after the dust had begun to settle in Iraq that the liberals started to agree with the leftists that the evidence was actually insufficient after all.
The US has committed horrifying war crimes and crimes against humanity against Muslims and continues to do so.
And so does China
Its always fascinating to see the war between Nazis and Tankies fight over which imperial power is based, rather than demonstrating a working frontal lobe and damning both for their crimes.
Not only has China been an imperialist regional super power for the majority of its lo g history, but simply ask Taiwan, the Uyghurs, Tibet, Hong Kong, Vietnam or any of the various countries China is practicing neocolonialism in in Africa or Island nations
This is fanfiction. China isn't practicing neocolonialism in Africa, it's engaging in south-south trade that is actually helping African countries escape the trappings of western imperialism. Taiwan was invaded by the KMT when they lost the war, and took over the island. The Xinjiang and Tibet are both doing well and support the PRC, and Hong Kong is gradually doing better now that they aren't under British colonial rule. Vietnam is a strong trade partner with China.
Someone once put together a book titled, "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein." Einstein dismissed the book with the quip, "Why one hundred? If I were really wrong, they'd only need one."
Sounds like a colossal reach at best, and pathetic cope at worst.
You understand the colossal differences between multiple independent journalists researching and reporting on the same topic, and a large organized group of pseudointellectuals trying to disprove a single person based on vibes alone, right?
You seem to be very desperately, and pathetically holding onto a form of fallacy of composition:
We've all heard the saying, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." But what if we assumed that what's true for one part must be true for the
Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of public information
Yeah if you're looking up wood joints and math theorems. Not if you're trying to learn anything about politics or history that ties into the interests of the systems and institutions that filter the media allowed as valid citations.
You need to provide actual evidence that the source is untrustworthy
Do they ban the New York Times because they lied the country into every war it's been in since McKinley?
rando895 [she/her]
in reply to jankforlife • • •小莱卡
in reply to rando895 [she/her] • • •Broadfern
in reply to jankforlife • • •shawn1122
in reply to Broadfern • • •Is it though? People hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. No one wants to believe that their privileges are predicated on suffering elsewhere.
Westerners in particularly have always been very "heads in the sand" when it comes to modern history but it's not surprising. Every nation struggles with the darker aspects of their history.
davel
in reply to shawn1122 • • •Correct: redsails.org/masses-elites-and…
Meanwhile I get nothing out of it but insults and the hope that a (very) few will begin their deprogramming journey, as I did soon after 9/11.
Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing”
redsails.orgDeceptichum
in reply to Broadfern • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Deceptichum • • •davel
in reply to jankforlife • • •We’re very butthurt about our failed color revolution, and we’re very concerned that we can’t even manage to make lemonade out of our lemon.
Westerners, every time:
Okokimup
in reply to jankforlife • • •HiddenLayer555
in reply to Okokimup • • •5oap10116
in reply to jankforlife • • •DeathsEmbrace
in reply to jankforlife • • •tacosanonymous
in reply to jankforlife • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to jankforlife • • •humanspiral
in reply to jankforlife • • •davel
in reply to humanspiral • • •These people, who don’t know shit about fuck, are absolutely sure that they already know everything that needs to be known, and that we don’t know shit about fuck.
And in twenty years they’ll say they knew it all along.
FranklyIGiveADarn
in reply to humanspiral • • •davel
in reply to FranklyIGiveADarn • • •Please elaborate: where’s the racism?
This has been the US playbook since before we were born, and funding, arming, and influencing Salafi jihadists in particular has been going on since at least the 1980s. Previously:
... show morePlease elaborate: where’s the racism?
This has been the US playbook since before we were born, and funding, arming, and influencing Salafi jihadists in particular has been going on since at least the 1980s. Previously:
6 December 1993: Anti-Soviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace
Robert Fisk (The Independent)davel
2024-12-02 07:46:23
SpiceDealer
in reply to jankforlife • • •(Mass dislikes time!)
Yes, the US does evil shit in the Middle East. Killing brown-skinned practitioners of the other Abrahamic religion overseas is an American tradition.
That still doesn't change the fact that China is persecuting Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province.
You can't shit-talk one authoritarian state and cheer on another.
MelodiousFunk
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •Deceptichum
in reply to MelodiousFunk • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Deceptichum • • •To liberals, "simping so fucking hard" literally just means, "not believing literally every piece of propaganda that right wing western propaganda outlets pump out about them.
If they were old enough to be paying attention in 2002, they would be accusing anyone who didn't believe Iraq had WMDs of "simping so fucking hard" for Saddam.
Oppopity
in reply to BrainInABox • • •davel
in reply to Oppopity • • •davel
in reply to MelodiousFunk • • •“Authoritarian state” is a bullshit category. Authoritarian states are just states insufficiently subservient to Washington. It’s no more or less coherent than “terrorist state,” which the US uses in the same way.
“Authoritarianism” is the contemporary word for “totalitarianism,” which is just an erudite-seming term for horseshoe theory, which is horseshit. Previously:
... show more“Authoritarian state” is a bullshit category. Authoritarian states are just states insufficiently subservient to Washington. It’s no more or less coherent than “terrorist state,” which the US uses in the same way.
“Authoritarianism” is the contemporary word for “totalitarianism,” which is just an erudite-seming term for horseshoe theory, which is horseshit. Previously:
davel
2025-04-05 23:52:58
MDCCCLV
in reply to MelodiousFunk • • •BrainInABox
in reply to MDCCCLV • • •MDCCCLV
in reply to BrainInABox • • •RiverRock
in reply to MDCCCLV • • •BrainInABox
in reply to MDCCCLV • • •"I guess I'll block it now"
Proceeds to not block it
MDCCCLV
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to MDCCCLV • • •Horse {they/them}
in reply to MDCCCLV • • •robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •this post isn't cheering on china, it's shitting on the west's hypocrisy.
also you might want to look up who funded the wahabis who groomed the terrorists that the crackdown is a response to.
BrainInABox
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •"Yes, the US does evil shit in the Middle East. Killing brown-skinned practitioners of the other Abrahamic religion overseas is an American tradition.
That still doesn't change the fact that Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction to attack the USA.
You can’t shit-talk one authoritarian state and cheer on another."
Seriously, how many times do you need to hear it before you western chauvanists realise it's not about "good or bad", it's about trustworthy or untrustworthy.
davel
in reply to BrainInABox • • •Ironically Abrahamic religion’s influence feeds into liberalism’s good vs. evil worldview.
Philosophy professor Hans-Georg Moeller:
- YouTube
www.youtube.comTankieTanuki [he/him]
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •If not reeducation, which method would you prefer China use to combat the foreign radical Wahhabism and terrorism spread by the CIA in Xinjiang for the purpose of regional destabilization and regime change?
We all know how the US chose to implement its own war on terror. Muslim majority countries in the Middle East support China's method.
Knife Attack Kills Dozens in China's Xinjiang
Bill Ide (Voice of America (VOA News))davel
in reply to TankieTanuki [he/him] • • •davel
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •Previously:
... show morePreviously:
The blueprint of regime change operations
CriticalResist (Crit) (Critical Stack)TankieTanuki [he/him]
in reply to davel • • •Much like how after China foiled their color revolution attempt in 1989, the CIA had to pivot to the "Tinyman Square Massacre" narrative.
davel
in reply to TankieTanuki [he/him] • • •tyler
in reply to davel • • •Sources:
- china news propaganda site
- medium article from rando
- project syndicate link which is an op-ed site (not news)
- a wiki page from an incredibly biased group
- a youtube link...
- a site calling itself a news site, yet no actual credentials, but seems to be associated with China (Ajit Singh has written Chinese propaganda books)
- a substack link
This has to be the least compelling list of evidence one could provide, and yet you get upvotes because it looks like you've provided proof of something. All you've done is provide a lot of incredibly, seriously biased opinions with no actual facts at all.
davel
in reply to tyler • • •Wow, I wonder why there aren’t any Western corporate media sources with a Media Bias/Fact Check seal of approval…
Previously:
... show moreWow, I wonder why there aren’t any Western corporate media sources with a Media Bias/Fact Check seal of approval…
Previously:
Book
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)dangrousperson
in reply to davel • • •It's OK to distrust more than one Government, but how anyone can believe the Chineses Government in this matter is beyond me.
Did you not see the insanely violent crack down on Hong Kong Democracy Movement with you own eyes? Do you not remember Tianamen Square? Great Fire-Wall?
Theres liyteraly over 10GB or evidence of the persecution of Uyghurs by the Chinese Government:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang…
I can understand not wanting to believe/trust the US and EU Govs, but trusting the Chinese Government is (IMO) insane.
2022 data breach
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)m532
in reply to dangrousperson • • •"How anyone can believe the foreigners is beyond me" Let me guess you don't consider foreigners human
"All foreigners are 'insane' btw" calm down hitler
davel
in reply to dangrousperson • • •
... show morePreviously:
Previously:
Previously:
The firewall isn’t there to keep Chinese people from The Truth. It’s there to keep imperial core meddling out, and to help China develop its own domestic internet services. In contrast, the rest of the world is dependent on / addicted to US internet services from Google/Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook/Meta, Microsoft, etc., which many countries are beginning to regret.
- 📺
- 📺 The Great Firewall of China
I already covered Xinjang elsewhere in this post, and if you had read it you would know that Adrian Zenz is a crackpot.
2022 data breach
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)davel
2025-12-01 02:51:31
BrainInABox
in reply to dangrousperson • • •Then you should try it, you hypocritical dipshit. You believe everything that comes out of the western propaganda machine without question, and then assume anyone who doesn't believe them are "believing the Chinese government"
If it were 2002 you would be accusing anyone who didn't believe Iraq of having WMDs of "believing Saddam!"
So do you do this in the opposite direction? When people doubt a claim made by China, do you start randomly bringing up unrelated events from forty years ago. What exactly was the chain of reasoning that made you thought this was relevant? Oh right, there wasn't one: you've just been trained like a literal dog to compulsively blurt out "Tinyman Square!" every time you hear the word "China".
davel
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to davel • • •Spectrism
in reply to dangrousperson • • •Yeah... not suspicious at all.
davel
in reply to Spectrism • • •Kras Mazov
in reply to dangrousperson • • •It’s OK to distrust more than one Government, but how anyone can believe the the west in this matter is beyond me.
The west has repeatedly coup'd, invaded, destroyed, killed, bombed, sanctioned everyone that dares look at them wrong. But sure, daddy west is completely right when it comes to China.
Democracy is when you have west funded protests trying to do a color revolution. Sure.
Oh, one of the biggest propaganda lies the west ever made about China? Have you actually watched the tank man video? How about the evidence of the contrary to the so called "massacre on Tiananmen square".
Oh no, China doesn't allow the west to propagandize to it's citizens, while simultaneously propping it's own national platforms, the horror!!!11!!1!
Also, let's just ignore how the Arab League literally investigated the so called "Xinjiang genocide", and found nothing.
But sure, Adrian Zenz is right, lmao.
Debunking the "Tiananmen Square Massacre"
Matthew John (Hampton Institute)tyler
in reply to davel • • •Kras Mazov
in reply to tyler • • •nyctre
in reply to tyler • • •BrainInABox
in reply to nyctre • • •nyctre
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to nyctre • • •Yeah, as opposed to believing what I believe is incorrect...
Do you even understand the concept of other minds?
BrainInABox
in reply to tyler • • •tyler
in reply to BrainInABox • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to tyler • • •tyler
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to tyler • • •DupaCycki
in reply to tyler • • •Disclaimer: not .ml.
Critisizing someone's sources and then refusing to provide any other ones "because it's pointless" seems a little hypocritical to me.
So we should trust your word over someone's who has at least put in the effort to provide sources?
Look, you don't need to prove anything, but if you're gonna argue or act like you're defending people from misinformation, then I'd expect to see more than just "don't listen to that guy". It's not exactly easy finding objective information about various issues in China and filtering out all the American propaganda. Personally, I'd very much appreciate any links that don't lead to obvious manipulation.
Zabjam
in reply to DupaCycki • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Zabjam • • •Zabjam
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Zabjam • • •Mate, the person literally said "Either the sources are biased or not"
Fun fact: every single time someone writes this, whatever follows is guaranteed to be an outrageous strawman that in no way it's what the other person was saying.
tyler
in reply to DupaCycki • • •If someone claims to solve string theory and then provides shit sources there is never an obligation to provide sources that solve string theory. Pointing out sources are shit is part of science. I don’t need to provide a counter argument because that’s not the purpose of the conversation. I don’t need to provide proof of the alternative because the only thing I’m trying to accomplish is to stop this liar from spreading misinformation.
A lie can travel around the world before the truth takes a few steps. That’s exactly what that user is trying to do. Post as many lies as possible so that refuting them takes hours if not days if not months or years.
RiverRock
in reply to tyler • • •So like
If someone claims there's totally a genocide
Then provides shit sources...
🤔
pineapple
in reply to RiverRock • • •DupaCycki
in reply to tyler • • •How can you know if the sources really are bad if it's not obvious aftet reading? Do you just trust a random person's words? In this case, you're essentially arbitrarily picking one version over another.
The problem with 'stopping lies' is it requires effort, which not everyone may wish to dedicate. I'm by no means denouncing the other person for trying to stop misinformation (assuming that's the case, since I still have no idea). However, it's all in vain if they don't bother to do anything to prove their point.
Anyone can post misinformation as sources, just as anyone can post that the sources are bad. Fundamentally there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two. If you really feel the need to defend people from being misinformed, some better source or other form of proof, or at the very least a deeper explanation would go a long way.
tyler
in reply to DupaCycki • • •pineapple
in reply to tyler • • •tyler
in reply to pineapple • • •RiverRock
in reply to tyler • • •pineapple
in reply to tyler • • •تحريرها كلها ممكن
in reply to tyler • • •Evilsandwichman [none/use name]
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •But it's not a fact though? You can't imagine up some fictional scenario and then just claim it's a fact; words have meanings
Anarcho-Bolshevik
in reply to Evilsandwichman [none/use name] • • •Not only is China indisputably persecuting Uyghurs, but we have far more proof for the genocide in the Xinjiang province than we do for the one in Gaza. Millions of scholars who are not at all associated with either Adrian Zenz or Uyghur separatists agree that the Uyghur genocide is the deadliest, most important, and best documented atrocity of all time. If you need links to the evidence, I can give you as many links as you want.
\
\
\
But first, I need you to solve a CAPTCHA to make sure that you are not a robot.
To prove that you are not a robot, enter the number of trees visible in the image below:
∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
in reply to Anarcho-Bolshevik • • •The image isn't loading for me.
So here it is uploaded:
porous_grey_matter
in reply to Anarcho-Bolshevik • • •Velypso
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •CleoCommunist
in reply to SpiceDealer • • •Cruxifux
in reply to jankforlife • • •davel
in reply to Cruxifux • • •BrainInABox
in reply to davel • • •narwhal
in reply to jankforlife • • •dangrousperson
in reply to narwhal • • •And you're insanely insulting the the real victims in Xinjiang
hrf.org/latest/whats-happening…
What’s Happening In China’s Concentration Camps? Q&A with Uyghur Camp Survivors - Human Rights Foundation
Human Rights Foundation1984
in reply to dangrousperson • • •BrainInABox
in reply to dangrousperson • • •It's supposedly been a decade long genocide and yet still nobody has been able to present any evidence beyond uncorroborated and inconsistent testimonials from a single digit number of sources, filtered exclusively through right wing American NGOs.
Meanwhile two years of genocide in Gaza produced an endless stream of audio-visual and forensic evidence so overwhelmingly undeniable that even governments participateing in the genocide have started to admit it.
davel
in reply to BrainInABox • • •Seriously.
The time jordanlund came here to make an ass of himself about the “Uyghur genocide”: lemmy.ml/post/25050001/1626891…
A snippet from my response:
MDCCCLV
in reply to BrainInABox • • •AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to MDCCCLV • • •Anything can be true if you retreat into your mind palace of pure logic and reasoning
Then you can literally just say whatever the fuck you want
BrainInABox
in reply to MDCCCLV • • •"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting t
... show more"During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum."
-Michael Parenti
ZeroHora
in reply to MDCCCLV • • •davel
in reply to dangrousperson • • •The real victims in Xinjiang were the people who got stabbed & bombed & run over by CIA-funded Salafi jihad terrorists, which fortunately is no longer a thing, much to the CIA’s chagrin.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroris…
overview of terrorism in the People's Republic of China
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)dangrousperson
in reply to davel • • •davel
in reply to dangrousperson • • •deHaga
in reply to davel • • •pineapple
in reply to davel • • •CommanderCloon
in reply to dangrousperson • • •narwhal
in reply to dangrousperson • • •I can too volunteer for an interview as I tell how Greenland is genociding left handed people. But nobody will ever want to pay me for that.
davel
in reply to narwhal • • •Yes, reporter, that is precisely what we’re doing. We’re denying that there was or is a genocide in Xinjiang.
We also deny the white genocide in South Africa, among other bogus accusations.
conspiracy theory which contends white populations are being replaced, removed, or liquidated
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)narwhal
in reply to davel • • •Incorrectly identifying something as genocide is irresponsible much like denying a case of genocide that is actually taking place.
⛓️💥
in reply to narwhal • • •RiverRock
in reply to ⛓️💥 • • •narwhal
in reply to ⛓️💥 • • •barnaclebutt
in reply to jankforlife • • •BrainInABox
in reply to barnaclebutt • • •Jesus Christ, "Whataboutism" really does just mean anything other than complete blind belief in the American Nat-sec blob now. "Oh, you don't believe that people who activity cheer on the genocide of Palestinians are being sincere in their claimed concern for Chinese Muslims? WHATABOUTISM!"
I assume you're referring to Gaza? Because not even the most frothing sinophobes have tried to claim a "systematic murder" of Muslims in China, so if you're not referring to Gaza, you are literally making up lies whole cloth.
davel
in reply to barnaclebutt • • •herseycokguzelolacak
in reply to barnaclebutt • • •When dealing with hypocrites, whataboutism is the correct and logically consistent response.
People who complain about whataboutism are 99% hypocrites whose hypocrisy has been pointed out. And they have no rational arguments to defend their view other than deflecting the topic.
davel
in reply to herseycokguzelolacak • • •Citations Needed podcast:
... show moreWhataboutism - The Media's Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US Policy
Citations Needed podcast:
Whataboutism - The Media's Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US Policy
Citations Needed: Episode 66: Whataboutism - The Media's Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US Policy
citationsneeded.libsyn.comKnock_Knock_Lemmy_In
in reply to barnaclebutt • • •davel
in reply to Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In • • •Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
in reply to davel • • •marmaraunimezunu
in reply to barnaclebutt • • •Shamber
in reply to jankforlife • • •Aljernon
in reply to jankforlife • • •davel
in reply to Aljernon • • •-6-6-6-
in reply to Aljernon • • •Oh cool, you also gargle propaganda from an evangelical nutjob Adrian Zens and from the U.S State Department on it's number-one global rival. Very analytical and socialist of you.
There is no "plight", the U.N found nothing and reported nothing. Again and again, people like you do the work of the feds back in the 50s-60s.
ayyy
in reply to jankforlife • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ayyy • • •jankforlife
in reply to ayyy • • •hunnybubny
in reply to jankforlife • • •jankforlife
in reply to hunnybubny • • •hunnybubny
in reply to jankforlife • • •HazardousBanjo
in reply to jankforlife • • •Hot take:
The US has committed horrifying war crimes and crimes against humanity against Muslims and continues to do so.
And so does China
Its always fascinating to see the war between Nazis and Tankies fight over which imperial power is based, rather than demonstrating a working frontal lobe and damning both for their crimes.
jankforlife
in reply to HazardousBanjo • • •The only "evidence" of this comes from the empire and is demonstrably false
hunnybubny
in reply to jankforlife • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to hunnybubny • • •hunnybubny
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Skip to the nameca...
Oh wait. We are at the belittling flowchart. I do not know this one yet.
Let me grab popcorn.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to hunnybubny • • •HazardousBanjo
in reply to hunnybubny • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to HazardousBanjo • • •HazardousBanjo
in reply to jankforlife • • •Idk man, this page has over 401 citations from various sources.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecut…
Edit: This also has a lot of citations ns from various sources too.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamoph…
hostility or prejudice toward Muslims in China
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)OBJECTION!
in reply to HazardousBanjo • • •HazardousBanjo
in reply to OBJECTION! • • •OBJECTION!
in reply to HazardousBanjo • • •HazardousBanjo
in reply to OBJECTION! • • •Sounds like a colossal reach at best, and pathetic cope at worst.
You understand the colossal differences between multiple independent journalists researching and reporting on the same topic, and a large organized group of pseudointellectuals trying to disprove a single person based on vibes alone, right?
You seem to be very desperately, and pathetically holding onto a form of fallacy of composition:
practicalpie.com/fallacy-of-co…
Fallacy of Composition (27 Examples + Definition) - Practical Psychology
Practical PsychologyOBJECTION!
in reply to HazardousBanjo • • •No, I'm simply calling out a lazy gish gallop. It's the same in both cases.
How many sources are listed on the Wikipedia page for Christianity? If I accept your logic as valid, it seems I'll have to convert.
Socialism_Everyday
in reply to HazardousBanjo • • •The 400 citations in question:
[1] Victims of Communism Memorial Association
[2] Burger Eagle Freedom Institute
[3] China Freedom NGO (Washington DC)
[4-399] Western State Television Station (retrieved in 2020)
[400] Literally the CIA
The article editors in question:
u/USA_STEM_Edgelord_USA_1990
u/TotallyNotAFed69
u/WhiteCisManInHis30s
HazardousBanjo
in reply to Socialism_Everyday • • •jankforlife
in reply to HazardousBanjo • • •HazardousBanjo
in reply to jankforlife • • •Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of public information, most especially do to the international collaboration efforts on it.
You can't just dismiss a source on the basis that you don't like it. You need to provide actual evidence that the source is untrustworthy
AntiOutsideAktion
in reply to HazardousBanjo • • •Yeah if you're looking up wood joints and math theorems. Not if you're trying to learn anything about politics or history that ties into the interests of the systems and institutions that filter the media allowed as valid citations.
Do they ban the New York Times because they lied the country into every war it's been in since McKinley?
JamesBoeing737MAX
in reply to jankforlife • • •