10,000 mosques destroyed is an outlandish claims, but knowing that the CCP is actively destroying mosques and working off you not using sources, I didn’t have a problem with that since at least I was reporting on the factual demolition of cultural Uyghur sites by the CCP
I did use sources… you’re just trying to justify being caught in a lie. Well we know how satellite images worked last time for proving the demolition of cultural sites (I used a source for this last time but you’ll have to grapple with your new lie to see it).
Next you cite two sources for being forced to speak Mandarin; the first is an article which just cites RFA reports relying on their independent verification of testimony (impossible since RFA is a CIA-founded and U.S. government funded source); the next is just an RFA report on documents they “retrieved.” Color me unimpressed, certainly considering that you admitted these same bodies foment unrest in Xinjiang.
Let’s see, my sources for the Uyghur genocide are all credited as least biased and credible, while your one cherry picked report is subtitled “It is not in the interests of British workers to accept the lies being propagated by our rulers.” Why does this seem biased…oh, because most of the words are loaded and vague, I get it!
It could not matter less what Media Bias Fact Check calls “least biased and credible.” I want you to let this sink in. The pinnacle of “non-bias” requires no “anti-corporation bias” as cited for Grayzone being biased (I wonder why). And the subtitle is explained further in the article, I can’t help if you can’t get past the beginning.
Okay you still haven’t addressed the AP news article or anything else (and then lied saying that my only sources were Grayzone and Twitter). I used Twitter for analysis, not as a citation of itself, but it’s almost like you’re aiming to convince some phantom third party of your claims with this level of dishonesty.
Uyghur re-education camps - even though the CCP is banning Uyghur language, you are convinced they are not forcing Uyghurs to speak Mandarin in cultural re-education camps on the basis of a wall-hanging in a specific concentration camp the CCP has put on display, scheduled a dance and cultural exhibition for and has prepared to be broadcast globally.
Just using your source (sorry). Anyways we know the CPC hasn’t banned the Uyghur language (this is what the wall-hanging was about), the AP News article where they visit Xinjiang also showed Uyghur language books for sale. Mandarin is one of the skills practiced for employment, but you aren’t forbidden from speaking Uyghur.
Looks like after this, you just reiterate that you don’t like that video(there are others), and there are multiple articles in this comment that prove the existence of Uyghur-language bans by the government, so the rest of your 4th point crumbles. Let’s move on!
By multiple you mean two; great response to my points on the BBC video by the way /s.
Last part, this is where you genuinely go crazy, like so nonsensical that I’m worried for you
Oh my gosh, still on Zenz? I get it. You don’t like him. Whatever, the point of your paragraph here is that you agree with me that the human transmissibility of covid-19 was announced by China in January 2020. Cool. Don’t know how you took two paragraphs to agree again, but thanks anyway.
Firstly you said January 2019, but we’ll let that slide again. The covid transmissibility was a point I brought up to show that Zenz has been dishonest and that his prejudices seep into his analysis of China as well (would be great if you read the Grayzone articles, but I’m okay with whatever dishonest sophism you need to justify not doing this). You corrected this point by saying that my “day earlier” note was incorrect because there was a “five month gap.” I explained how this was incorrect, and now you’re acting like there was just an argument on when China confirmed transmissibility? Just admit that your “is that 5 month gap what you mean by “the day after”?” point was nonsense; it’s that simple. There is nothing else to discuss, and you’re speaking gibberish.
Embarrassing for you, but fun for me! If you are actually trying to make convincing arguments, you/re going to have to use better sources than obscure, biased cherrypicked headlines and a link to a screenshot of screenshotted, undated tweets. Try what I did! Direct links and crushing, undeniable evidence from multiple, least-biased sources.
Good job practicing self-love, but you made a pathetic reply that refuted nothing I said. I never cited headlines, you just couldn’t read past them; everything I cited was analysis, thus making obscurity irrelevant, but that’s definitely a fun emotional argument for you; the link to a tweet with screenshots, not a “screenshot of screenshot[s” (although this sounds better), and furthermore only one tweet was screenshotted, the other was an article of which we could verify the dates. Even if you’re right and the author fabricated his tweet for some reason, your “five months” dunk is still complete nonsense (try admitting this).
Love that you don’t deny that you’re peddling propaganda, just that I’m not going to feel good for stopping your propaganda in its tracks. I mean, I guess mediabiasfactcheck and the UN and every credible news organization(including your own special AP article) proved it pretty undeniably for me, but still funny that’s how you start out.
Let’s see what you tried for - seems like you replied much faster this time, forgoing the assistance of sources nearly altogether and just calling me a liar(super convincing). You don’t like unbiased, fact-checked sources(cool, cool). Agreed-upon rational, dispersed assessment of collected data about human rights violations by the CCP against Uyghurs according to the United Nations, multiple trusted news organizations, the victims, detainees, guards is just “propaganda” to you, noted.
Then you rail against credible sources some more, say that even though you specifically mentioned my response lacking the US stance on Taiwan, you don’t care about the US stance on Taiwan…haha, I do like the almost hysterical laughter and desperate tone you have in all of these paragraphs.
Agreeing with me about Chengchi and your own source disagreeing with you about reunification, cheers, change the goalpost from reunification to autonomy, ignoring that polled Taiwanese think the CCP is “bad,” saying that there’s no way to invade yourself by narrowly defining oneself, hey a link!
A link! First non-opinion/epithet piece! Let’s see what you have here. A debunking of a credible article you don’t like because “conspiracy”(boy it’s really everywhere except the Gray Zone(but wait, that website is know for disproven conspiracy theory. Hm.)).
Oh no, Zenz, that irritating loudmouth you can’t disprove! Sorry about using him again, I see now that you need all the composure you can muster to make a coherent point. Ah, it’s not just Zenz who uses the 1+ million number, it’s pretty much every credible news organization(and as you point out, Amnesty International and the United Nations).
You’re just angry that Zenz is proving you wrong. Unerstandable.
Then you claim that data is reliable regardless of where it comes from, which is absurd and untrue.
You assume the UN has a single source for all of their data(you know “United” implies more than one, right?), which is amazing.
Apology accepted. You laugh hysterically again at how your articles are biased and least-credible, implying credibility isn’t important for sources, so let it go, bro.
You said “Wilkerson admitted” although he said the US “could” take action hypothetically through Xinjiang and made it clear that he was not saying that was happening. So he didn’t admit anything, he’s providing plausible context to a situation.
Edmonds can be concerned all she wants, it doesn’t change the fact that the “energy artery” through Xinjiang is becoming quickly irrelevant as the CCP continues to invest in operational, sustiainable energy in the East.
Yes, we agree that Xinjiang is vulnerable and important for China. Literally why the Uyghurs are in concentration camps. Boy, you run circles around yourself.
In part 2, you continue calling me a liar because you don’t trust satellites and are ignoring the 100 Uyghur burial sites that were demolished, I guess?
Then you ignore the two sources I provide because why not, oh right- Your AP article!
Okay, specific article you’ve noted twice from a credible source. Let’s see, the AP reports on the terror of Xinjiang citizens based on the actions of the CCP, the censorship of Xinjiang in the press, being escorted through a specifically displayed part of Xinjiang that seems uncanny, they agree that there are ongoing permanent mass detentions of Uyghurs - I don’t get it, what do you want me to get from this article? Are you obliquely admitting to making a mistake and showing that you do, in fact have a credible source for the detention and cultural genocide of Uyghurs? Because big ol’ pats on the back for you.
Ah, pretending I said you only used two sources when I didn’t with a throwaway line, bitter, but classic. Claiming that “it doesn’t matter if Grayzone is bad” even though, yea it does, if you’re using an article of theirs as evidence for anything.
Another apology! Maybe you are obliquely trying to apologize without admitting anything. Also accepted.
Haha, okay, Uyghur isn’t forbidden but none of the Uyguhrs in the curated parts of Xinjiang they were led through by CCP representatives spoke Uyghur? What a coincidence, that all the fluent Mandarin-speakers(a second tongue to Uyghurs) in Xinjiang were all in the exact same city and neighborhood the AP team was led to.
Multiple means “more than one”, but maybe I should have used the less confusing “many” for you. I only provided two credible sources per fact/debunk because there are so many sources. When you have two verified sources, that is enough for mast people who are afraid of those sources to use a search engine themselves.
Yes, you are clearly letting a typo slide by bringing it up “multiple” times(see what I did there?). Okay, you agree that you linked an outdated screenshot of screenshotted tweets, but it doesn’t matter and you don’t care and you think I shouldn’t care either! I do not. Done.
You cited analysis from poor sources, you cherrypicked irrelevant data points like the “energy artery,” the existence of a book in a city proving t hat Uyghurs aren’t being forced to speak Mandarin even though they all spoke Mandarin, denied the crediblity of every news organization except the AP(who apparently agrees that the cultural genocide is occurring) and Twitter(who…is twitter, why do you keep citing twitter?), these singular points of unverified claims contrary to all credible sources are not actual arguments for your hopeful “points”, I hope you realize.
Don’t know why you’re hung up on the end of May being five months separate from the beginning of January, but it’s definitely not your silliest misunderstanding, so have fun.
You said “Wilkerson admitted” although he said the US “could” take action hypothetically through Xinjiang and made it clear that he was not saying that was happening. So he didn’t admit anything, he’s providing plausible context to a situation.
He said that another reason they were in Xinjiang is because they “could” use Uyghurs in the future (aka exactly what I claimed, see last post).
Yes, we agree that Xinjiang is vulnerable and important for China. Literally why the Uyghurs are in concentration camps. Boy, you run circles around yourself.
I already said it was a polysemous point. Keep up.
In part 2, you continue calling me a liar because you don’t trust satellites and are ignoring the 100 Uyghur burial sites that were demolished, I guess?
Now are we really going to do this? I called you a liar because you claimed 10,000+ mosques were demolished and then admitted you made it up when asked for a source (that’s called a lie, when you say something you know isn’t true). Who are you trying to fool with these omissions? You’re talking to me, so you won’t get away with misrepresenting my points. It’s that simple. And what a weak way of summarizing that I proved satellite images were abused in the past by the Western press for this exact purpose.
Then you ignore the two sources I provide because why not, oh right- Your AP article!
I didn’t ignore them, I explained why they weren’t viable. Again, who do you think these obvious lies will work on?
Okay, specific article you’ve noted twice from a credible source. Let’s see, the AP reports on the terror of Xinjiang citizens based on the actions of the CCP, the censorship of Xinjiang in the press, being escorted through a specifically displayed part of Xinjiang that seems uncanny, they agree that there are ongoing permanent mass detentions of Uyghurs - I don’t get it, what do you want me to get from this article? Are you obliquely admitting to making a mistake and showing that you do, in fact have a credible source for the detention and cultural genocide of Uyghurs? Because big ol’ pats on the back for you.
The AP News article is a proof of Western lies surrounding the detention of Uyghurs although they don’t admit it. See the New Atlas commentary I linked when I first added this source (remember analysis does not require MBFC “credibility”, just soundness; you could have done this analysis yourself, but I knew you weren’t capable). Now short-term memory gets the best of you.
Ah, pretending I said you only used two sources when I didn’t with a throwaway line, bitter, but classic. Claiming that “it doesn’t matter if Grayzone is bad” even though, yea it does, if you’re using an article of theirs as evidence for anything.
I was using it for analysis (no need for blind trust). Your arguments are the exact reason the genetic fallacy was created. I already said that Grayzone can publish bad info (with reporting, notice the difference between his and analysis), but throwing all of their articles out of hand as a rule for this reason and then acting like I don’t have any sources is absurd. And you did claim that, so congrats.
Another apology! Maybe you are obliquely trying to apologize without admitting anything. Also accepted.
This reception to sarcasm is incredibly childish.
Haha, okay, Uyghur isn’t forbidden but none of the Uyguhrs in the curated parts of Xinjiang they were led through by CCP representatives spoke Uyghur? What a coincidence, that all the fluent Mandarin-speakers(a second tongue to Uyghurs) in Xinjiang were all in the exact same city and neighborhood the AP team was led to.
This isn’t an argument at all. And thanks for admitting Uyghur isn’t forbidden (.~.). Yeah no, Uyghur language books for sale settles it, see the New Atlas analysis for the rest.
Okay, you agree that you linked an outdated screenshot of screenshotted tweets, but it doesn’t matter and you don’t care and you think I shouldn’t care either! I do not. Done.
It’s pedantic but it’s strange you’re still saying “screenshot of screenshotted tweets”, when I linked a tweet which screenshotted another tweet (no double screenshot or multiple screenshots of tweets; you’re just saying this to convince yourself).
You cited analysis from poor sources, you cherrypicked irrelevant data points like the “energy artery,” the existence of a book in a city proving t hat [you meant that] Uyghurs aren’t being forced to speak Mandarin even though they all spoke Mandarin
The source has no bearing on analysis, I don’t get how you can’t understand this yet. Let’s roll this back. You first cited the BBC video for proof the Uyghur language was banned and I showed that there was Uyghur language script above a door. You say the CPC could have put that there specifically for the visit, fine, then I show that Uyghur language books are being sold. Your response is to move the goalposts from the language being banned.
denied the crediblity [here you meant ‘credibility’] of every news organization except the AP(who apparently agrees that the cultural genocide is occurring) and Twitter(who…is twitter, why do you keep citing twitter?), these singular points of unverified claims contrary to all credible sources are not actual arguments for your hopeful “points”, I hope you realize.
I refuted the “credible sources”, reasserting their “credibility” shows you can’t do thorough analysis. The AP note is stupid because I linked analysis along with it (NA); the AP article is proof of my point but only if you understand the context. I linked Twitter threads where people analyzed things, I didn’t cite twitter. This “credibility” thing is all you have, as if these sources are impenetrable or cannot be incorrect, as I proved they were.
Don’t know why you’re hung up on the end of May being five months separate from the beginning of January, but it’s definitely not your silliest misunderstanding, so have fun.
??? Genuinely this is your dumbest point. Yes, May is five months from the beginning of January. Never claimed it wasn’t, and this has no bearing on anything I said (and is a misunderstanding of my “day earlier” comment).
Double down that your comments are propaganda, love it.
Pretend I admitted to a lie even though the 10,000 mosques comment hasn’t been debunked, you just don’t like it.
Then, you say you hate fact-checking, which cheeeecks out.
And you pretend that you refuted all of my sources when all you’ve done is agree with me that 10,000 is an outlandish claim that I’ve already agreed with. Not disproven, of course, just uncertain as to the extent of the number of mosques destroyed by virtue of the quality of satellite images provided.
Ignoring the destroyed burial grounds again, natch.
Change what you asked to a new question - no, the US government does not officially recognize Taiwan as a country, the government only treats Taiwan and behaves toward Taiwan as if it were a country. You hate opinion polls, even when you ask for them, sure.
Chengchi data disagrees with your claim about Chengchi data, don’t know why you’re proud of this(do you have a source for your special Chengchi data yet?).
You reiterate that you hate credible sources(we know). Call names, invite me to pick through your mud(nah, I’m good) that goes against all corroborating evidence, and then zap back to the Gray Zone, complain about me not paying more attention three replies ago to sources that you, yourself say are “bad”.
Then, you wiffle waffle to finally agree that Zenz hasn’t been disproven, which is appreciated, but must burn. Proud of you, though.
I thought your refutation of the Amnesty International was just your paper about satellites maybe not verifying the extent of reported. destruction That? As soon as we found out your do pretend to like credible sources, I admitted to finding the 10,000 round number outlandish, though not disproven. Are you referring to something else or are you just taken by all the zeroes?
Sorry you had to admit you were wrong about Zenz, but he talks a lot, so I’m sure you’ll find something of his to actually refute(you know this means you actually have to prove something wrong, right? You might be thinking of the word “argue” when you keep using the word “refute” without proof) sooner or later.
You keep pretending I say things I don’t. I guess since you can’t directly refute my claims, you just pretend I made different claims and argue against them? But you don’t even win those arguments, like that AP article that blew up in your face.
But this is funny, so keep it up.
You say that the United Nations(more than one country, and even one country has multiple sources, which may shock you) using multiple data routes is “childish nonsense”? That is wild.
You, ironically, admit that Wilkerson admitted to nothing and was proposing a hypothetical scenario.
Appreciate it.
Even though the satellite images haven’t been disproven, you insist that I’m a liar. Cool.
You maintain that credible sources are not credible because you say so.
That AP article you shared is very clearly using subtext to reflect the double-talk the CCP is using to discount “genocide” even though they won’t let Uyghurs practice their culture. Did you actually miss the point of that article or did you not read past the headline(no wait, even the headline evidences the oppression of Uyghurs)? The AP outright states that permanent mass detention is being carried out and repression against the Uyghurs and their culture is ongoing in China and the Chinese officials are lying about it. To their face.
Haha, your argument against the AP article that you are using as evidence(that whoops, supports the accusations of cultural genocide) is that they don’t agree with your fanciful thinking, but they do agree with every credible, evidenced and documented news source? The fiends.
If the Gray Zone happens to occasionally use a non-erroneous statistical data set among their other manipulated or outright false data, bully for them. Sifting through a provably poor-quality news source for less-false information that will still be editorially manipulated doesn’t make any sense when there are plenty of legitimate, corroborated news sources to use as references. No point digging through mud if you don’t have to.
You truly believe that Uyghurs in Xinjiang speaking Mandarin as their first language is normal even though it never happened before the concentration camps and all of those now-Mandarin speakers are coincidentally in front of a news group invited to one neighborhood of “reformed extremists” surrounded by CCP officials? No wonder you have trouble distinguishing credible sources.
Yes, your screenshot of screenshots of undated Tweets, might as well cling to that as evidence. It’s as strong as anything else you’ve got.
The fact that you think a piece of paper in a purposefully designed show concentration camp disproves the reports from China of spoken language repression is an impressively wide leap, and then your assumption that a specifically curated concentration camp meant to be displayed is indicative of the abuses going on in the other, non-public concentration camps is ludicrous. But cling, right? Cling to that scrap of parchment.
Then you malign credibility itself as a way to attack unassailable evidence because your indefensible sources haven’t stood up to scrutiny. Rad.
And then you finally agree that your tweet is outdated, but, why? It is so difficult for me to care about tweets. Confirming your mistake about a tweet is like gilding irrelevance.
Well, this was fun, but since you haven’t refuted the points I’ve made(and you’ve supplied in support of the Uyghurs, thanks AP) about the mass detainment and cultural genocide the CCP is perpetrating against the Uyghurs, and the points you’ve tried to make in previous comments have all fallen apart(two replies ago, why rehash them?), do you want to try a new piece of “evidence” or maybe a new topic? Since you’ve included none here and just keep crying foul because you’ve been proved wrong?
Maybe try to focus on just one article, maybe the big picture supported by multiple(more than one, remember) credible sources that create a provable cohesive thesis just isn’t your forte. Just try not to pick a stance or issue that I’m already advocating, because(like AP and your satellite pictures and Zenz is not a liar but is irritating(preach)), then you aren’t arguing against anything, you’re just supporting my positions.
Really outdid yourself here. And not a source in sight! Probably wise, but still.
Love that you don’t deny that you’re peddling propadgnda [propaganda is spelled wrong], just that I’m not going to feel good for stopping your propaganda [there you go] in its tracks.
I just figured that was a word you just learned; “your propaganda” was just how you referred to my comment.
Let’s see what you tried for - seems like you replied much faster this time, forgoing the assistance of sources nearly altogether and just calling me a liar(super convincing). You don’t like unbiased, fact-checked sources(cool, cool). Agreed-upon rational, dispersed assessment of collected data about human rights violations by the CCP against Uyghurs according to the United Nations, multiple trusted news organizations, the victims, detainees, guards is just “propaganda” to you, noted.
I don’t get notifications for this site, I just check it whenever; there is not a single claim I made that needed a source for which it wasn’t provided. And calling you a liar? You admitted to lying about mosque demolition, let’s forget how insecure you have to be in your position to completely lie (and then still act snarky when caught). I don’t think anything can convince you, but it looks like I’ve convinced other people judging by the comment likes. And unbiased sources like checks notes CNN and RFA? Yeah sorry your fact-checking website is utter garbage, and let’s not forget that I refuted each of your sources. Ooh an appeal to authority, I think that might be all you have left. You seem to be under the impression that “trusted news organizations” are beyond critique.
Then you rail against credible sources some more, say that even though you specifically mentioned my response lacking the US stance on Taiwan, you don’t care about the US stance on Taiwan…haha, I do like the almost hysterical laughter and desperate tone you have in all of these paragraphs.
Man this “credible source” thing is all you have (MBFC is not infallible); I guess you didn’t want to address that you admitted the CIA was sowing unrest in Xinjiang and then cited the CIA (though RFA) for proof of your claims. I wouldn’t either. And your Taiwan point is absurd. I meant the official stance of the U.S. on Taiwan, not the stance of U.S. citizens from a single opinion poll of which I’m sure you’re aware is irrelevant—American citizens, famous for having worthwhile and informed geopolitical opinions.
Agreeing with me about Chengchi and your own source disagreeing with you about reunification, cheers, change the goalpost from reunification to autonomy, ignoring that polled Taiwanese think the CCP is “bad,” saying that there’s no way to invade yourself by narrowly defining oneself…
Let’s see what I said when I originally cited the Chengchi study: “Taiwan’s National Chengchi University, an explicitly anti-CPC source, in 2022, showed the following results with regards to the perspective of Taiwanese citizens on independence and reunification: (Status Quo as Autonomous Part of China and Complete Unification Compiled [part of PRC] : 63.4%) (General Support for Independence Including Status Quo Moving Towards Independence [not part of PRC]: 30.3%) (Non-Response: 6.3%).” Remember that none of this was proven incorrect by you.
The argument was recognition as a separate country (complete reunification is not the only path to being part of China, with Status Quo encompassing this) which I’m sure you know and ignored for this pathetic dunk. Taiwanese people not liking the CPC does not refute my point, and just asserting that I narrowly defined oneself is not an argument.
A link! First non-opinion/epithet piece! Let’s see what you have here. A debunking of a credible article you don’t like because “conspiracy”(boy it’s really everywhere except the Gray Zone(but wait, that website is know for disproven conspiracy theory. Hm.)).
JFC this “credible” thing is getting old. Apparently anything refuting a source which MBFC lists as “credible” is impossible? Your whole argument just appeals to authority and the genetic fallacy. And are you referring to the study refuting Amnesty International’s report? It doesn’t just call it a conspiracy and move on, I dare you to actually engage with the material. I know you won’t because you’re incapable. The Grayzone articles I linked on Zenz’s research were merely analytical. Refute them if you like, otherwise it doesn’t matter what the Grayzone is “known for”, because the genetic fallacy only works when you have to engage in trust, of which the Grayzone articles did not require.
Oh no, Zenz, that irritating loudmouth you can’t disprove! Sorry about using him again, I see now that you need all the composure you can muster to make a coherent point. Ah, it’s not just Zenz who uses the 1+ million number, it’s pretty much every credible news organization(and as you point out, Amnesty International and the United Nations). You’re just angry that Zenz is proving you wrong. Unerstandable. [typo]
If you ignore the Grayzone’s analysis because of the genetic fallacy and ignore my analysis of his 1+ million number I suppose I haven’t refuted him. I don’t care how “credible” these organizations are that use the number because I’m not interested in appeals to authority, prove your claim. The article you linked cited Zenz (and you quoted Zenz) on this “mass internment”, so I addressed it. You can’t then circularly appeal back to the article quoting him as proof of separate corroboration. I cannot believe your only argument now is this “credible” thing as if we can’t see and test the methodology of these sources. I already linked a refutation of Amnesty International’s report which you dismissed with no rebuttal. The NPR article you cited then cited AI, Zenz, and the UN; I know I’m gonna be saying “appeal to authority” a lot but it’s the only argument you’re making. I refuted all of these sources.
Then you claim that data is reliable regardless of where it comes from, which is absurd and untrue.
Outright lie, I said analysis can be sound regardless of where it comes from (and that you need to judge the analysis not the source), but your misrepresentation probably sounded better in your head.
You assume the UN has a single source for all of their data(you know “United” implies more than one, right?), which is amazing.
This might be the dumbest point I’ve seen in a while. I’m not saying that; the NPR article cited a UN claim based on a report outsourced to CHRD, which I critiqued. Saying “they have united in their name therefore they have multiple sources” is obviously childish nonsense, with the UN claim at this point (NPR article published) being directly linked to the CHRD report they commissioned. The UN has done many things since, but this isn’t what you cited, and I’m not required to refute the whole of the UN.
Apology accepted. You laugh hysterically again at how your articles are biased and least-credible, implying credibility isn’t important for sources, so let it go, bro.
Double down that your comments are propaganda, love it.
Pretend I admitted to a lie even though the 10,000 mosques comment hasn’t been debunked, you just don’t like it.
Then, you say you hate fact-checking, which cheeeecks out.
And you pretend that you refuted all of my sources when all you’ve done is agree with me that 10,000 is an outlandish claim that I’ve already agreed with. Not disproven, of course, just uncertain as to the extent of the number of mosques destroyed by virtue of the quality of satellite images provided.
Ignoring the destroyed burial grounds again, natch.
Change what you asked to a new question - no, the US government does not officially recognize Taiwan as a country, the government only treats Taiwan and behaves toward Taiwan as if it were a country. You hate opinion polls, even when you ask for them, sure.
Chengchi data disagrees with your claim about Chengchi data, don’t know why you’re proud of this(do you have a source for your special Chengchi data yet?).
You reiterate that you hate credible sources(we know). Call names, invite me to pick through your mud(nah, I’m good) that goes against all corroborating evidence, and then zap back to the Gray Zone, complain about me not paying more attention three replies ago to sources that you, yourself say are “bad”.
Then, you wiffle waffle to finally agree that Zenz hasn’t been disproven, which is appreciated, but must burn. Proud of you, though.
I thought your refutation of the Amnesty International was just your paper about satellites maybe not verifying the extent of reported. destruction That? As soon as we found out your do pretend to like credible sources, I admitted to finding the 10,000 round number outlandish, though not disproven. Are you referring to something else or are you just taken by all the zeroes?
Sorry you had to admit you were wrong about Zenz, but he talks a lot, so I’m sure you’ll find something of his to actually refute(you know this means you actually have to prove something wrong, right? You might be thinking of the word “argue” when you keep using the word “refute” without proof) sooner or later.
You keep pretending I say things I don’t. I guess since you can’t directly refute my claims, you just pretend I made different claims and argue against them? But you don’t even win those arguments, like that AP article that blew up in your face.
But this is funny, so keep it up.
You say that the United Nations(more than one country, and even one country has multiple sources, which may shock you) using multiple data routes is “childish nonsense”? That is wild.
You, ironically, admit that Wilkerson admitted to nothing and was proposing a hypothetical scenario.
Appreciate it.
Even though the satellite images haven’t been disproven, you insist that I’m a liar. Cool.
You maintain that credible sources are not credible because you say so.
That AP article you shared is very clearly using subtext to reflect the double-talk the CCP is using to discount “genocide” even though they won’t let Uyghurs practice their culture. Did you actually miss the point of that article or did you not read past the headline(no wait, even the headline evidences the oppression of Uyghurs)? The AP outright states that permanent mass detention is being carried out and repression against the Uyghurs and their culture is ongoing in China and the Chinese officials are lying about it. To their face.
Haha, your argument against the AP article that you are using as evidence(that whoops, supports the accusations of cultural genocide) is that they don’t agree with your fanciful thinking, but they do agree with every credible, evidenced and documented news source? The fiends.
If the Gray Zone happens to occasionally use a non-erroneous statistical data set among their other manipulated or outright false data, bully for them. Sifting through a provably poor-quality news source for less-false information that will still be editorially manipulated doesn’t make any sense when there are plenty of legitimate, corroborated news sources to use as references. No point digging through mud if you don’t have to.
You truly believe that Uyghurs in Xinjiang speaking Mandarin as their first language is normal even though it never happened before the concentration camps and all of those now-Mandarin speakers are coincidentally in front of a news group invited to one neighborhood of “reformed extremists” surrounded by CCP officials? No wonder you have trouble distinguishing credible sources.
Yes, your screenshot of screenshots of undated Tweets, might as well cling to that as evidence. It’s as strong as anything else you’ve got.
The fact that you think a piece of paper in a purposefully designed show concentration camp disproves the reports from China of spoken language repression is an impressively wide leap, and then your assumption that a specifically curated concentration camp meant to be displayed is indicative of the abuses going on in the other, non-public concentration camps is ludicrous. But cling, right? Cling to that scrap of parchment.
Then you malign credibility itself as a way to attack unassailable evidence because your indefensible sources haven’t stood up to scrutiny. Rad.
And then you finally agree that your tweet is outdated, but, why? It is so difficult for me to care about tweets. Confirming your mistake about a tweet is like gilding irrelevance.
Well, this was fun, but since you haven’t refuted the points I’ve made(and you’ve supplied in support of the Uyghurs, thanks AP) about the mass detainment and cultural genocide the CCP is perpetrating against the Uyghurs, and the points you’ve tried to make in previous comments have all fallen apart(two replies ago, why rehash them?), do you want to try a new piece of “evidence” or maybe a new topic? Since you’ve included none here and just keep crying foul because you’ve been proved wrong?
Maybe try to focus on just one article, maybe the big picture supported by multiple(more than one, remember) credible sources that create a provable cohesive thesis just isn’t your forte. Just try not to pick a stance or issue that I’m already advocating, because(like AP and your satellite pictures and Zenz is not a liar but is irritating(preach)), then you aren’t arguing against anything, you’re just supporting my positions.
Really outdid yourself here. And not a source in sight! Probably wise, but still.
PART 2
I did use sources… you’re just trying to justify being caught in a lie. Well we know how satellite images worked last time for proving the demolition of cultural sites (I used a source for this last time but you’ll have to grapple with your new lie to see it).
Next you cite two sources for being forced to speak Mandarin; the first is an article which just cites RFA reports relying on their independent verification of testimony (impossible since RFA is a CIA-founded and U.S. government funded source); the next is just an RFA report on documents they “retrieved.” Color me unimpressed, certainly considering that you admitted these same bodies foment unrest in Xinjiang.
It could not matter less what Media Bias Fact Check calls “least biased and credible.” I want you to let this sink in. The pinnacle of “non-bias” requires no “anti-corporation bias” as cited for Grayzone being biased (I wonder why). And the subtitle is explained further in the article, I can’t help if you can’t get past the beginning.
Okay you still haven’t addressed the AP news article or anything else (and then lied saying that my only sources were Grayzone and Twitter). I used Twitter for analysis, not as a citation of itself, but it’s almost like you’re aiming to convince some phantom third party of your claims with this level of dishonesty.
Just using your source (sorry). Anyways we know the CPC hasn’t banned the Uyghur language (this is what the wall-hanging was about), the AP News article where they visit Xinjiang also showed Uyghur language books for sale. Mandarin is one of the skills practiced for employment, but you aren’t forbidden from speaking Uyghur.
By multiple you mean two; great response to my points on the BBC video by the way /s.
Last part, this is where you genuinely go crazy, like so nonsensical that I’m worried for you
Firstly you said January 2019, but we’ll let that slide again. The covid transmissibility was a point I brought up to show that Zenz has been dishonest and that his prejudices seep into his analysis of China as well (would be great if you read the Grayzone articles, but I’m okay with whatever dishonest sophism you need to justify not doing this). You corrected this point by saying that my “day earlier” note was incorrect because there was a “five month gap.” I explained how this was incorrect, and now you’re acting like there was just an argument on when China confirmed transmissibility? Just admit that your “is that 5 month gap what you mean by “the day after”?” point was nonsense; it’s that simple. There is nothing else to discuss, and you’re speaking gibberish.
Good job practicing self-love, but you made a pathetic reply that refuted nothing I said. I never cited headlines, you just couldn’t read past them; everything I cited was analysis, thus making obscurity irrelevant, but that’s definitely a fun emotional argument for you; the link to a tweet with screenshots, not a “screenshot of screenshot[s” (although this sounds better), and furthermore only one tweet was screenshotted, the other was an article of which we could verify the dates. Even if you’re right and the author fabricated his tweet for some reason, your “five months” dunk is still complete nonsense (try admitting this).
Love that you don’t deny that you’re peddling propaganda, just that I’m not going to feel good for stopping your propaganda in its tracks. I mean, I guess mediabiasfactcheck and the UN and every credible news organization(including your own special AP article) proved it pretty undeniably for me, but still funny that’s how you start out.
Let’s see what you tried for - seems like you replied much faster this time, forgoing the assistance of sources nearly altogether and just calling me a liar(super convincing). You don’t like unbiased, fact-checked sources(cool, cool). Agreed-upon rational, dispersed assessment of collected data about human rights violations by the CCP against Uyghurs according to the United Nations, multiple trusted news organizations, the victims, detainees, guards is just “propaganda” to you, noted.
Then you rail against credible sources some more, say that even though you specifically mentioned my response lacking the US stance on Taiwan, you don’t care about the US stance on Taiwan…haha, I do like the almost hysterical laughter and desperate tone you have in all of these paragraphs.
Agreeing with me about Chengchi and your own source disagreeing with you about reunification, cheers, change the goalpost from reunification to autonomy, ignoring that polled Taiwanese think the CCP is “bad,” saying that there’s no way to invade yourself by narrowly defining oneself, hey a link!
A link! First non-opinion/epithet piece! Let’s see what you have here. A debunking of a credible article you don’t like because “conspiracy”(boy it’s really everywhere except the Gray Zone(but wait, that website is know for disproven conspiracy theory. Hm.)).
Oh no, Zenz, that irritating loudmouth you can’t disprove! Sorry about using him again, I see now that you need all the composure you can muster to make a coherent point. Ah, it’s not just Zenz who uses the 1+ million number, it’s pretty much every credible news organization(and as you point out, Amnesty International and the United Nations). You’re just angry that Zenz is proving you wrong. Unerstandable.
Then you claim that data is reliable regardless of where it comes from, which is absurd and untrue.
You assume the UN has a single source for all of their data(you know “United” implies more than one, right?), which is amazing.
Apology accepted. You laugh hysterically again at how your articles are biased and least-credible, implying credibility isn’t important for sources, so let it go, bro.
You said “Wilkerson admitted” although he said the US “could” take action hypothetically through Xinjiang and made it clear that he was not saying that was happening. So he didn’t admit anything, he’s providing plausible context to a situation.
Edmonds can be concerned all she wants, it doesn’t change the fact that the “energy artery” through Xinjiang is becoming quickly irrelevant as the CCP continues to invest in operational, sustiainable energy in the East.
Yes, we agree that Xinjiang is vulnerable and important for China. Literally why the Uyghurs are in concentration camps. Boy, you run circles around yourself.
In part 2, you continue calling me a liar because you don’t trust satellites and are ignoring the 100 Uyghur burial sites that were demolished, I guess?
Then you ignore the two sources I provide because why not, oh right- Your AP article!
Okay, specific article you’ve noted twice from a credible source. Let’s see, the AP reports on the terror of Xinjiang citizens based on the actions of the CCP, the censorship of Xinjiang in the press, being escorted through a specifically displayed part of Xinjiang that seems uncanny, they agree that there are ongoing permanent mass detentions of Uyghurs - I don’t get it, what do you want me to get from this article? Are you obliquely admitting to making a mistake and showing that you do, in fact have a credible source for the detention and cultural genocide of Uyghurs? Because big ol’ pats on the back for you.
Ah, pretending I said you only used two sources when I didn’t with a throwaway line, bitter, but classic. Claiming that “it doesn’t matter if Grayzone is bad” even though, yea it does, if you’re using an article of theirs as evidence for anything.
Another apology! Maybe you are obliquely trying to apologize without admitting anything. Also accepted.
Haha, okay, Uyghur isn’t forbidden but none of the Uyguhrs in the curated parts of Xinjiang they were led through by CCP representatives spoke Uyghur? What a coincidence, that all the fluent Mandarin-speakers(a second tongue to Uyghurs) in Xinjiang were all in the exact same city and neighborhood the AP team was led to.
Multiple means “more than one”, but maybe I should have used the less confusing “many” for you. I only provided two credible sources per fact/debunk because there are so many sources. When you have two verified sources, that is enough for mast people who are afraid of those sources to use a search engine themselves.
Yes, you are clearly letting a typo slide by bringing it up “multiple” times(see what I did there?). Okay, you agree that you linked an outdated screenshot of screenshotted tweets, but it doesn’t matter and you don’t care and you think I shouldn’t care either! I do not. Done.
You cited analysis from poor sources, you cherrypicked irrelevant data points like the “energy artery,” the existence of a book in a city proving t hat Uyghurs aren’t being forced to speak Mandarin even though they all spoke Mandarin, denied the crediblity of every news organization except the AP(who apparently agrees that the cultural genocide is occurring) and Twitter(who…is twitter, why do you keep citing twitter?), these singular points of unverified claims contrary to all credible sources are not actual arguments for your hopeful “points”, I hope you realize.
Don’t know why you’re hung up on the end of May being five months separate from the beginning of January, but it’s definitely not your silliest misunderstanding, so have fun.
PART II
He said that another reason they were in Xinjiang is because they “could” use Uyghurs in the future (aka exactly what I claimed, see last post).
I already said it was a polysemous point. Keep up.
Now are we really going to do this? I called you a liar because you claimed 10,000+ mosques were demolished and then admitted you made it up when asked for a source (that’s called a lie, when you say something you know isn’t true). Who are you trying to fool with these omissions? You’re talking to me, so you won’t get away with misrepresenting my points. It’s that simple. And what a weak way of summarizing that I proved satellite images were abused in the past by the Western press for this exact purpose.
I didn’t ignore them, I explained why they weren’t viable. Again, who do you think these obvious lies will work on?
The AP News article is a proof of Western lies surrounding the detention of Uyghurs although they don’t admit it. See the New Atlas commentary I linked when I first added this source (remember analysis does not require MBFC “credibility”, just soundness; you could have done this analysis yourself, but I knew you weren’t capable). Now short-term memory gets the best of you.
I was using it for analysis (no need for blind trust). Your arguments are the exact reason the genetic fallacy was created. I already said that Grayzone can publish bad info (with reporting, notice the difference between his and analysis), but throwing all of their articles out of hand as a rule for this reason and then acting like I don’t have any sources is absurd. And you did claim that, so congrats.
This reception to sarcasm is incredibly childish.
This isn’t an argument at all. And thanks for admitting Uyghur isn’t forbidden (.~.). Yeah no, Uyghur language books for sale settles it, see the New Atlas analysis for the rest.
It’s pedantic but it’s strange you’re still saying “screenshot of screenshotted tweets”, when I linked a tweet which screenshotted another tweet (no double screenshot or multiple screenshots of tweets; you’re just saying this to convince yourself).
The source has no bearing on analysis, I don’t get how you can’t understand this yet. Let’s roll this back. You first cited the BBC video for proof the Uyghur language was banned and I showed that there was Uyghur language script above a door. You say the CPC could have put that there specifically for the visit, fine, then I show that Uyghur language books are being sold. Your response is to move the goalposts from the language being banned.
I refuted the “credible sources”, reasserting their “credibility” shows you can’t do thorough analysis. The AP note is stupid because I linked analysis along with it (NA); the AP article is proof of my point but only if you understand the context. I linked Twitter threads where people analyzed things, I didn’t cite twitter. This “credibility” thing is all you have, as if these sources are impenetrable or cannot be incorrect, as I proved they were.
??? Genuinely this is your dumbest point. Yes, May is five months from the beginning of January. Never claimed it wasn’t, and this has no bearing on anything I said (and is a misunderstanding of my “day earlier” comment).
Trying again? It’s fun for me, at least.
Double down that your comments are propaganda, love it.
Pretend I admitted to a lie even though the 10,000 mosques comment hasn’t been debunked, you just don’t like it.
Then, you say you hate fact-checking, which cheeeecks out.
And you pretend that you refuted all of my sources when all you’ve done is agree with me that 10,000 is an outlandish claim that I’ve already agreed with. Not disproven, of course, just uncertain as to the extent of the number of mosques destroyed by virtue of the quality of satellite images provided.
Ignoring the destroyed burial grounds again, natch.
Change what you asked to a new question - no, the US government does not officially recognize Taiwan as a country, the government only treats Taiwan and behaves toward Taiwan as if it were a country. You hate opinion polls, even when you ask for them, sure.
Chengchi data disagrees with your claim about Chengchi data, don’t know why you’re proud of this(do you have a source for your special Chengchi data yet?).
You reiterate that you hate credible sources(we know). Call names, invite me to pick through your mud(nah, I’m good) that goes against all corroborating evidence, and then zap back to the Gray Zone, complain about me not paying more attention three replies ago to sources that you, yourself say are “bad”.
Then, you wiffle waffle to finally agree that Zenz hasn’t been disproven, which is appreciated, but must burn. Proud of you, though.
I thought your refutation of the Amnesty International was just your paper about satellites maybe not verifying the extent of reported. destruction That? As soon as we found out your do pretend to like credible sources, I admitted to finding the 10,000 round number outlandish, though not disproven. Are you referring to something else or are you just taken by all the zeroes?
Sorry you had to admit you were wrong about Zenz, but he talks a lot, so I’m sure you’ll find something of his to actually refute(you know this means you actually have to prove something wrong, right? You might be thinking of the word “argue” when you keep using the word “refute” without proof) sooner or later.
You keep pretending I say things I don’t. I guess since you can’t directly refute my claims, you just pretend I made different claims and argue against them? But you don’t even win those arguments, like that AP article that blew up in your face.
But this is funny, so keep it up.
You say that the United Nations(more than one country, and even one country has multiple sources, which may shock you) using multiple data routes is “childish nonsense”? That is wild.
You, ironically, admit that Wilkerson admitted to nothing and was proposing a hypothetical scenario.
Appreciate it.
Even though the satellite images haven’t been disproven, you insist that I’m a liar. Cool.
You maintain that credible sources are not credible because you say so.
That AP article you shared is very clearly using subtext to reflect the double-talk the CCP is using to discount “genocide” even though they won’t let Uyghurs practice their culture. Did you actually miss the point of that article or did you not read past the headline(no wait, even the headline evidences the oppression of Uyghurs)? The AP outright states that permanent mass detention is being carried out and repression against the Uyghurs and their culture is ongoing in China and the Chinese officials are lying about it. To their face.
Haha, your argument against the AP article that you are using as evidence(that whoops, supports the accusations of cultural genocide) is that they don’t agree with your fanciful thinking, but they do agree with every credible, evidenced and documented news source? The fiends.
If the Gray Zone happens to occasionally use a non-erroneous statistical data set among their other manipulated or outright false data, bully for them. Sifting through a provably poor-quality news source for less-false information that will still be editorially manipulated doesn’t make any sense when there are plenty of legitimate, corroborated news sources to use as references. No point digging through mud if you don’t have to.
You truly believe that Uyghurs in Xinjiang speaking Mandarin as their first language is normal even though it never happened before the concentration camps and all of those now-Mandarin speakers are coincidentally in front of a news group invited to one neighborhood of “reformed extremists” surrounded by CCP officials? No wonder you have trouble distinguishing credible sources.
Yes, your screenshot of screenshots of undated Tweets, might as well cling to that as evidence. It’s as strong as anything else you’ve got.
The fact that you think a piece of paper in a purposefully designed show concentration camp disproves the reports from China of spoken language repression is an impressively wide leap, and then your assumption that a specifically curated concentration camp meant to be displayed is indicative of the abuses going on in the other, non-public concentration camps is ludicrous. But cling, right? Cling to that scrap of parchment.
Then you malign credibility itself as a way to attack unassailable evidence because your indefensible sources haven’t stood up to scrutiny. Rad.
And then you finally agree that your tweet is outdated, but, why? It is so difficult for me to care about tweets. Confirming your mistake about a tweet is like gilding irrelevance.
Well, this was fun, but since you haven’t refuted the points I’ve made(and you’ve supplied in support of the Uyghurs, thanks AP) about the mass detainment and cultural genocide the CCP is perpetrating against the Uyghurs, and the points you’ve tried to make in previous comments have all fallen apart(two replies ago, why rehash them?), do you want to try a new piece of “evidence” or maybe a new topic? Since you’ve included none here and just keep crying foul because you’ve been proved wrong?
Maybe try to focus on just one article, maybe the big picture supported by multiple(more than one, remember) credible sources that create a provable cohesive thesis just isn’t your forte. Just try not to pick a stance or issue that I’m already advocating, because(like AP and your satellite pictures and Zenz is not a liar but is irritating(preach)), then you aren’t arguing against anything, you’re just supporting my positions.
Really outdid yourself here. And not a source in sight! Probably wise, but still.
PART I
I just figured that was a word you just learned; “your propaganda” was just how you referred to my comment.
I don’t get notifications for this site, I just check it whenever; there is not a single claim I made that needed a source for which it wasn’t provided. And calling you a liar? You admitted to lying about mosque demolition, let’s forget how insecure you have to be in your position to completely lie (and then still act snarky when caught). I don’t think anything can convince you, but it looks like I’ve convinced other people judging by the comment likes. And unbiased sources like checks notes CNN and RFA? Yeah sorry your fact-checking website is utter garbage, and let’s not forget that I refuted each of your sources. Ooh an appeal to authority, I think that might be all you have left. You seem to be under the impression that “trusted news organizations” are beyond critique.
Man this “credible source” thing is all you have (MBFC is not infallible); I guess you didn’t want to address that you admitted the CIA was sowing unrest in Xinjiang and then cited the CIA (though RFA) for proof of your claims. I wouldn’t either. And your Taiwan point is absurd. I meant the official stance of the U.S. on Taiwan, not the stance of U.S. citizens from a single opinion poll of which I’m sure you’re aware is irrelevant—American citizens, famous for having worthwhile and informed geopolitical opinions.
Let’s see what I said when I originally cited the Chengchi study: “Taiwan’s National Chengchi University, an explicitly anti-CPC source, in 2022, showed the following results with regards to the perspective of Taiwanese citizens on independence and reunification: (Status Quo as Autonomous Part of China and Complete Unification Compiled [part of PRC] : 63.4%) (General Support for Independence Including Status Quo Moving Towards Independence [not part of PRC]: 30.3%) (Non-Response: 6.3%).” Remember that none of this was proven incorrect by you.
The argument was recognition as a separate country (complete reunification is not the only path to being part of China, with Status Quo encompassing this) which I’m sure you know and ignored for this pathetic dunk. Taiwanese people not liking the CPC does not refute my point, and just asserting that I narrowly defined oneself is not an argument.
JFC this “credible” thing is getting old. Apparently anything refuting a source which MBFC lists as “credible” is impossible? Your whole argument just appeals to authority and the genetic fallacy. And are you referring to the study refuting Amnesty International’s report? It doesn’t just call it a conspiracy and move on, I dare you to actually engage with the material. I know you won’t because you’re incapable. The Grayzone articles I linked on Zenz’s research were merely analytical. Refute them if you like, otherwise it doesn’t matter what the Grayzone is “known for”, because the genetic fallacy only works when you have to engage in trust, of which the Grayzone articles did not require.
If you ignore the Grayzone’s analysis because of the genetic fallacy and ignore my analysis of his 1+ million number I suppose I haven’t refuted him. I don’t care how “credible” these organizations are that use the number because I’m not interested in appeals to authority, prove your claim. The article you linked cited Zenz (and you quoted Zenz) on this “mass internment”, so I addressed it. You can’t then circularly appeal back to the article quoting him as proof of separate corroboration. I cannot believe your only argument now is this “credible” thing as if we can’t see and test the methodology of these sources. I already linked a refutation of Amnesty International’s report which you dismissed with no rebuttal. The NPR article you cited then cited AI, Zenz, and the UN; I know I’m gonna be saying “appeal to authority” a lot but it’s the only argument you’re making. I refuted all of these sources.
Outright lie, I said analysis can be sound regardless of where it comes from (and that you need to judge the analysis not the source), but your misrepresentation probably sounded better in your head.
This might be the dumbest point I’ve seen in a while. I’m not saying that; the NPR article cited a UN claim based on a report outsourced to CHRD, which I critiqued. Saying “they have united in their name therefore they have multiple sources” is obviously childish nonsense, with the UN claim at this point (NPR article published) being directly linked to the CHRD report they commissioned. The UN has done many things since, but this isn’t what you cited, and I’m not required to refute the whole of the UN.
Complete nonsense
Trying again? It’s fun for me, at least.
Double down that your comments are propaganda, love it.
Pretend I admitted to a lie even though the 10,000 mosques comment hasn’t been debunked, you just don’t like it.
Then, you say you hate fact-checking, which cheeeecks out.
And you pretend that you refuted all of my sources when all you’ve done is agree with me that 10,000 is an outlandish claim that I’ve already agreed with. Not disproven, of course, just uncertain as to the extent of the number of mosques destroyed by virtue of the quality of satellite images provided.
Ignoring the destroyed burial grounds again, natch.
Change what you asked to a new question - no, the US government does not officially recognize Taiwan as a country, the government only treats Taiwan and behaves toward Taiwan as if it were a country. You hate opinion polls, even when you ask for them, sure.
Chengchi data disagrees with your claim about Chengchi data, don’t know why you’re proud of this(do you have a source for your special Chengchi data yet?).
You reiterate that you hate credible sources(we know). Call names, invite me to pick through your mud(nah, I’m good) that goes against all corroborating evidence, and then zap back to the Gray Zone, complain about me not paying more attention three replies ago to sources that you, yourself say are “bad”.
Then, you wiffle waffle to finally agree that Zenz hasn’t been disproven, which is appreciated, but must burn. Proud of you, though.
I thought your refutation of the Amnesty International was just your paper about satellites maybe not verifying the extent of reported. destruction That? As soon as we found out your do pretend to like credible sources, I admitted to finding the 10,000 round number outlandish, though not disproven. Are you referring to something else or are you just taken by all the zeroes?
Sorry you had to admit you were wrong about Zenz, but he talks a lot, so I’m sure you’ll find something of his to actually refute(you know this means you actually have to prove something wrong, right? You might be thinking of the word “argue” when you keep using the word “refute” without proof) sooner or later.
You keep pretending I say things I don’t. I guess since you can’t directly refute my claims, you just pretend I made different claims and argue against them? But you don’t even win those arguments, like that AP article that blew up in your face.
But this is funny, so keep it up.
You say that the United Nations(more than one country, and even one country has multiple sources, which may shock you) using multiple data routes is “childish nonsense”? That is wild.
You, ironically, admit that Wilkerson admitted to nothing and was proposing a hypothetical scenario.
Appreciate it.
Even though the satellite images haven’t been disproven, you insist that I’m a liar. Cool.
You maintain that credible sources are not credible because you say so.
That AP article you shared is very clearly using subtext to reflect the double-talk the CCP is using to discount “genocide” even though they won’t let Uyghurs practice their culture. Did you actually miss the point of that article or did you not read past the headline(no wait, even the headline evidences the oppression of Uyghurs)? The AP outright states that permanent mass detention is being carried out and repression against the Uyghurs and their culture is ongoing in China and the Chinese officials are lying about it. To their face.
Haha, your argument against the AP article that you are using as evidence(that whoops, supports the accusations of cultural genocide) is that they don’t agree with your fanciful thinking, but they do agree with every credible, evidenced and documented news source? The fiends.
If the Gray Zone happens to occasionally use a non-erroneous statistical data set among their other manipulated or outright false data, bully for them. Sifting through a provably poor-quality news source for less-false information that will still be editorially manipulated doesn’t make any sense when there are plenty of legitimate, corroborated news sources to use as references. No point digging through mud if you don’t have to.
You truly believe that Uyghurs in Xinjiang speaking Mandarin as their first language is normal even though it never happened before the concentration camps and all of those now-Mandarin speakers are coincidentally in front of a news group invited to one neighborhood of “reformed extremists” surrounded by CCP officials? No wonder you have trouble distinguishing credible sources.
Yes, your screenshot of screenshots of undated Tweets, might as well cling to that as evidence. It’s as strong as anything else you’ve got.
The fact that you think a piece of paper in a purposefully designed show concentration camp disproves the reports from China of spoken language repression is an impressively wide leap, and then your assumption that a specifically curated concentration camp meant to be displayed is indicative of the abuses going on in the other, non-public concentration camps is ludicrous. But cling, right? Cling to that scrap of parchment.
Then you malign credibility itself as a way to attack unassailable evidence because your indefensible sources haven’t stood up to scrutiny. Rad.
And then you finally agree that your tweet is outdated, but, why? It is so difficult for me to care about tweets. Confirming your mistake about a tweet is like gilding irrelevance.
Well, this was fun, but since you haven’t refuted the points I’ve made(and you’ve supplied in support of the Uyghurs, thanks AP) about the mass detainment and cultural genocide the CCP is perpetrating against the Uyghurs, and the points you’ve tried to make in previous comments have all fallen apart(two replies ago, why rehash them?), do you want to try a new piece of “evidence” or maybe a new topic? Since you’ve included none here and just keep crying foul because you’ve been proved wrong?
Maybe try to focus on just one article, maybe the big picture supported by multiple(more than one, remember) credible sources that create a provable cohesive thesis just isn’t your forte. Just try not to pick a stance or issue that I’m already advocating, because(like AP and your satellite pictures and Zenz is not a liar but is irritating(preach)), then you aren’t arguing against anything, you’re just supporting my positions.
Really outdid yourself here. And not a source in sight! Probably wise, but still.