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 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.