The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.
The only countries pushing this narrative are the “always the same map” imperial core countries, which just so happen to be largely the same ones supporting Israel’s genocide.
Almost no predominantly-Muslim country buys the Uyghur genocide narrative, because they know it’s bullshit, because they talked to the Uyghurs themselves. https://twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578003299827171330
#HRC51 | Draft resolution A/HRC/51/L.6 on holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of #China, was REJECTED.
project syndicate link which is an op-ed site (not news)
a wiki page from an incredibly biased group
a youtube link…
a site calling itself a news site, yet no actual credentials, but seems to be associated with China (Ajit Singh has written Chinese propaganda books)
a substack link
This has to be the least compelling list of evidence one could provide, and yet you get upvotes because it looks like you’ve provided proof of something. All you’ve done is provide a lot of incredibly, seriously biased opinions with no actual facts at all.
The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media* are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.
The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”
None of it is a secret, though, and it can be learned.
Nobody said anything about MBFC. Good luck, like I said in another comment I’m not going to argue with anyone from .ml. I was pointing out the faults in your sources because they’re not proper sources no matter what region of the world you’re from.
I’m absolutely not going to provide sources or even argue with anyone from .ml on an .ml community because it’s pointless. You all do not care about proper sourcing and think it’s even a detractor because it’s “western”. I’m pointing out the problems with the sources for all the other people that are observing that comment and being swayed, because it’s a bunch of baloney.
You’re conflating “proper sourcing” with being western, that’s already an error, and second of all it’s the west that has been most prominently pushing the genocide theory. Of course it’s going to be contested by China. The validity of sources used by posts on YouTube and Medium aren’t in question because of where they are hosted, they are often hosted on these kinds of platforms because opposing western narratives gets you blacklisted.
If that were true then non western sources would have plenty of news articles, yet all ml users post are things directly from Russia or China or “alternative” “sources” like medium (which isn’t a source). There are plenty of regimes that do not align with anything America has to say, yet no news articles from them.
Not really true. We post sources from all over, especially groups like Al Mayadeen that post in English. If we post something in spanish from Granma, for example, people can’t read that.
Critisizing someone’s sources and then refusing to provide any other ones “because it’s pointless” seems a little hypocritical to me.
I’m pointing out the problems with the sources for all the other people that are observing that comment and being swayed, because it’s a bunch of baloney.
So we should trust your word over someone’s who has at least put in the effort to provide sources?
Look, you don’t need to prove anything, but if you’re gonna argue or act like you’re defending people from misinformation, then I’d expect to see more than just “don’t listen to that guy”. It’s not exactly easy finding objective information about various issues in China and filtering out all the American propaganda. Personally, I’d very much appreciate any links that don’t lead to obvious manipulation.
If someone claims to solve string theory and then provides shit sources there is never an obligation to provide sources that solve string theory. Pointing out sources are shit is part of science. I don’t need to provide a counter argument because that’s not the purpose of the conversation. I don’t need to provide proof of the alternative because the only thing I’m trying to accomplish is to stop this liar from spreading misinformation.
A lie can travel around the world before the truth takes a few steps. That’s exactly what that user is trying to do. Post as many lies as possible so that refuting them takes hours if not days if not months or years.
How can you know if the sources really are bad if it’s not obvious aftet reading? Do you just trust a random person’s words? In this case, you’re essentially arbitrarily picking one version over another.
The problem with ‘stopping lies’ is it requires effort, which not everyone may wish to dedicate. I’m by no means denouncing the other person for trying to stop misinformation (assuming that’s the case, since I still have no idea). However, it’s all in vain if they don’t bother to do anything to prove their point.
Anyone can post misinformation as sources, just as anyone can post that the sources are bad. Fundamentally there isn’t a whole lot of difference between the two. If you really feel the need to defend people from being misinformed, some better source or other form of proof, or at the very least a deeper explanation would go a long way.
I mean it is obvious after reading, the problem is that most people aren’t going to read the sources, they’re just reading the comment. They’re not going to click through and see that several are literally Chinese propaganda sites. They’re going to take the original comment at face value. If they then skip the sources and read my comment stating what the sources actually are then they’re less likely to be influenced.
You’re arguing with a guy that doesn’t want to change their mind. He literally sent me a video whose sources contradicted him and guess what happened when I pointed that to him? Never bothered to reply and he still uses that video as proof that he’s right.
Seeing as how I actually watched his video and looked at their sources and other sources and only after that did I reply? Yes. And even to this day I still leave room for doubt. I still think the truth is actually somewhere in the middle. Not you, tho. You’re convinced that what you believe is correct.
Exactly. He went from insulting my intelligence in one word to having to use more. But it’s still the same reply in essence. Not sure what you’re trying to add here, however. Probably same as always, just posturing and pretending you’re right hoping nobody would care to check.
Wow, you really do have comprehension issues. In that context, “you” refers to a person in general. As in “a person can believe something but still be only 90% sure that it’s true”. I don’t care what you personally believe and it’s irrelevant to the discussion, not sure why you’re bringing it up.
As for the “insult”…I mean, it was a true story. You never cared to hear the details, because like I said, you don’t care about the truth, and he never refuted it because it’s true. But sure. Keep pretending how you’ve got a leg to stand on while stacking up “removed by moderator” comments.
And I love how you say stuff like “and you are a dipshit, by the way!” as if your opinion matters, lol. That, coupled with the whole “you don’t get to dictate what I believe!!” makes me think you might have some ego issues that you should look into. Especially with all the other flaws you’re displaying. Like… you realize it’s not healthy to have an ego that big when you misread and misunderstand things constantly and you have to resort to name-calling, don’t you?
Also, most psychiatrists believe that everyone can benefit from their services, not only people with “issues”. So please, do seek help.
I trust OIC and Muslim countries more than I trust any Western source. It is borderline farcical for Western governments and media to pretend to care about the welfare of Muslims in China while directly or indirectly enabling the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine and invasions and war crimes in many other countries as well as the discriminatory policies in their own countries.
Previously:
Sources:
This has to be the least compelling list of evidence one could provide, and yet you get upvotes because it looks like you’ve provided proof of something. All you’ve done is provide a lot of incredibly, seriously biased opinions with no actual facts at all.
Wow, I wonder why there aren’t any Western corporate media sources with a Media Bias/Fact Check seal of approval…
Previously:
Nobody said anything about MBFC. Good luck, like I said in another comment I’m not going to argue with anyone from .ml. I was pointing out the faults in your sources because they’re not proper sources no matter what region of the world you’re from.
As opposed to all those unbiased sources you’ve provided, lol.
I’m absolutely not going to provide sources or even argue with anyone from .ml on an .ml community because it’s pointless. You all do not care about proper sourcing and think it’s even a detractor because it’s “western”. I’m pointing out the problems with the sources for all the other people that are observing that comment and being swayed, because it’s a bunch of baloney.
You’re conflating “proper sourcing” with being western, that’s already an error, and second of all it’s the west that has been most prominently pushing the genocide theory. Of course it’s going to be contested by China. The validity of sources used by posts on YouTube and Medium aren’t in question because of where they are hosted, they are often hosted on these kinds of platforms because opposing western narratives gets you blacklisted.
If that were true then non western sources would have plenty of news articles, yet all ml users post are things directly from Russia or China or “alternative” “sources” like medium (which isn’t a source). There are plenty of regimes that do not align with anything America has to say, yet no news articles from them.
Not really true. We post sources from all over, especially groups like Al Mayadeen that post in English. If we post something in spanish from Granma, for example, people can’t read that.
Disclaimer: not .ml.
Critisizing someone’s sources and then refusing to provide any other ones “because it’s pointless” seems a little hypocritical to me.
So we should trust your word over someone’s who has at least put in the effort to provide sources?
Look, you don’t need to prove anything, but if you’re gonna argue or act like you’re defending people from misinformation, then I’d expect to see more than just “don’t listen to that guy”. It’s not exactly easy finding objective information about various issues in China and filtering out all the American propaganda. Personally, I’d very much appreciate any links that don’t lead to obvious manipulation.
If someone claims to solve string theory and then provides shit sources there is never an obligation to provide sources that solve string theory. Pointing out sources are shit is part of science. I don’t need to provide a counter argument because that’s not the purpose of the conversation. I don’t need to provide proof of the alternative because the only thing I’m trying to accomplish is to stop this liar from spreading misinformation.
A lie can travel around the world before the truth takes a few steps. That’s exactly what that user is trying to do. Post as many lies as possible so that refuting them takes hours if not days if not months or years.
How can you know if the sources really are bad if it’s not obvious aftet reading? Do you just trust a random person’s words? In this case, you’re essentially arbitrarily picking one version over another.
The problem with ‘stopping lies’ is it requires effort, which not everyone may wish to dedicate. I’m by no means denouncing the other person for trying to stop misinformation (assuming that’s the case, since I still have no idea). However, it’s all in vain if they don’t bother to do anything to prove their point.
Anyone can post misinformation as sources, just as anyone can post that the sources are bad. Fundamentally there isn’t a whole lot of difference between the two. If you really feel the need to defend people from being misinformed, some better source or other form of proof, or at the very least a deeper explanation would go a long way.
I mean it is obvious after reading, the problem is that most people aren’t going to read the sources, they’re just reading the comment. They’re not going to click through and see that several are literally Chinese propaganda sites. They’re going to take the original comment at face value. If they then skip the sources and read my comment stating what the sources actually are then they’re less likely to be influenced.
So like
If someone claims there’s totally a genocide
Then provides shit sources…
🤔
🤔 I wonder who would do that?
Would you prefer something from America’s own fox news or New York Times?
No, neither. You’re making up a position and pretending like I believe that to make my argument look weak. I’m not the one posting shit sources.
What is an example of an axtually credible spurce in your opinion?
You’re not posting any sources at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You’re arguing with a guy that doesn’t want to change their mind. He literally sent me a video whose sources contradicted him and guess what happened when I pointed that to him? Never bothered to reply and he still uses that video as proof that he’s right.
As opposed to you people, who are totally open and eager to change your minds
Seeing as how I actually watched his video and looked at their sources and other sources and only after that did I reply? Yes. And even to this day I still leave room for doubt. I still think the truth is actually somewhere in the middle. Not you, tho. You’re convinced that what you believe is correct.
Removed by mod
Yeah, as opposed to believing what I believe is incorrect…
Do you even understand the concept of other minds?
Removed by mod
What previous argument that “got deleted within minutes lol”? See this is why Lemmy’s modlog is public.
Exactly. He went from insulting my intelligence in one word to having to use more. But it’s still the same reply in essence. Not sure what you’re trying to add here, however. Probably same as always, just posturing and pretending you’re right hoping nobody would care to check.
Removed by mod
Wow, you really do have comprehension issues. In that context, “you” refers to a person in general. As in “a person can believe something but still be only 90% sure that it’s true”. I don’t care what you personally believe and it’s irrelevant to the discussion, not sure why you’re bringing it up.
As for the “insult”…I mean, it was a true story. You never cared to hear the details, because like I said, you don’t care about the truth, and he never refuted it because it’s true. But sure. Keep pretending how you’ve got a leg to stand on while stacking up “removed by moderator” comments.
And I love how you say stuff like “and you are a dipshit, by the way!” as if your opinion matters, lol. That, coupled with the whole “you don’t get to dictate what I believe!!” makes me think you might have some ego issues that you should look into. Especially with all the other flaws you’re displaying. Like… you realize it’s not healthy to have an ego that big when you misread and misunderstand things constantly and you have to resort to name-calling, don’t you?
Also, most psychiatrists believe that everyone can benefit from their services, not only people with “issues”. So please, do seek help.
I trust OIC and Muslim countries more than I trust any Western source. It is borderline farcical for Western governments and media to pretend to care about the welfare of Muslims in China while directly or indirectly enabling the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine and invasions and war crimes in many other countries as well as the discriminatory policies in their own countries.