I’ve seen his modlog so I know he’s been banned here twice in the past year, both times being due to genocide denial (I’m wondering if this is about the Uyghur?).

I wonder what everyone’s experiences of conversing w him has been.

I definitely think he at the very least has a wholly uncritical acceptance of China and I directly probed him on that and he essentially did admit to being open to accept it and not criticize the nation because he wasn’t part of it (which is just a biased outlook— and mentioning that made him strawman by saying “everyone’s biased” when this is a clear thing one can control).

  • YliasterOPEnglish
    91·
    17 hours ago

    Said verbosity made me engage with him much more than I normally would have otherwise, it gave him an air of knowledge and it did feel like he had done more “research” than I did, at least on some things.

    w.r.t. the Uyghur genocide he says all these claims go back to one journalist (apparently), but I’ve not investigated the claim to know any better

    …Stalin had his “war communism” spiel where he banned factions so I’m pretty sure he wasn’t democratic, though.

    • PugJesus@piefed.socialMEnglish
      82·
      17 hours ago

      w.r.t. the Uyghur genocide he says all these claims go back to one journalist (apparently), but I’ve not investigated the claim to know any better

      There’s a particularly partisan journalist who beats the drum very loudly, but the claims are supported by a much broader selection of evidence.

      • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
        71·
        16 hours ago

        Yes a while back not cowbee. But another tankie was attacking someone in a thread with regards to the oppression of the Uhygers. Crowing how he was the only one with the truth. How everyone else was merely spouting unsubstantiated CIA agitprop. And couldn’t provide any links to back up their claims. I immediately did. And of course their first action was to attack not even the messenger of the claims. Which was family members of people being held by the Chinese government. But the host of the media segment on which they appeared. I wasn’t quite sure what to call this fallacy, as it wasn’t technically attacking the messenger. It was even further removed than that. And just as stupid as it sounded.

      • YliasterOPEnglish
        32·
        17 hours ago

        Yeah, that’s what I thought.

        When I said “there’s lots of independent evidence from victims” he related it to how that’s also the case for the “white genocide” spiel (which both of us thought to be false) and then went on to say I was therefore engaging in “genocide denialism” the same I thought of him.

        Apart from this there was something about it being a “re-education center” to “crackdown on crime” and that it “reduced crime rates”, but I’m not too keen on that because it sounds like segragation.