you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -23 points 5 months ago (36 children)

This is still happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China

So let’s play a game. The USA is bad, and China is bad. Your turn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Your assessment of China is based on state department propaganda

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    And yours is based on??????

    Are you saying you don't believe in the treatment of wighurs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Are you saying you don't believe in the white genocide going on in south africa right now?

    Are you saying you don't believe that Hamas beheaded 40 babies?

    It's spelled "Uyghurs", by the way

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (9 children)
  • [+] -17 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    And you believe this is the truth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    The burden of proof is on you. I can only provide context for the claims that have been raised. If you look at the sources they're all western

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The burden of proof is on you.

    The burden of proof should be on you since you claimed https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang as a source?

    Also, talking about burden of proof here makes not sense. You provided a source, one can either trust it or not. And the question was if you belived it to be true or not (which I assume you do since you linked it. I haven't read it).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Just read the evidence, it won't bite

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago

    I did, and they had to call an ambulance. I don't think I will be able to walk again. /s

    I won't read the whole thing, I don't have that time. I read the ingress and (a summary to get a basic understand of the message meant to be convyed).

    Now what? I never disputed nor did I affirm anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    The burden of proof is on you since you claim: "There is a genocide happening in Xinjiang". I can't prove a negative. The proof your type (western propagandized libs) usually provides are western sources, which have been debunked by providing context (in the link I provided)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago

    I'm not Tabooki2, I'm only here for the intresting dicussions and different view points and arguments. What stuck with me was the Tabooki2 asked if you believed what was stated in your link to which you responded with "the burden of proof is on you".

    When a claim is stated, the burden of proof is on that person. My argument here was that you claimed a source, and if proof has to be provided the claimer should have that burden. But that is a strange take since a a source is a proof and one can chose to trust it (or not).

    So in the end, I was confused about your comment and tought you asked Tabooki2 to verify your source for you, not the original claim about "the treatment of wighurs". I appologise for the confusion on my part.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    This is still happening

    Yeah? Got any primary sources that aren't a decade old?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    I have not stake in this, but here you go: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-uyghur-uighur-turkey-oppression-rcna97238. I took one at random that was semi-recent and look somewhat relevant.

    Just look at the date of the references on Wikipedia and you will find plenty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    This shit is so tiring.

    NBC is pretty shit that almost every hyperlink is to another nbc news but one of those hyperlinks go to Safeguard Defenders and other go to Amnesty International and both direct to a report made by OHCHR which just cite Adrian Zenz and his propaganda made by Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

    Holy shit is just impossible to find a source that doesn't have bullshit propaganda. For any lib reading this, if a news source is citing a propaganda piece they are not writing news, they are writing propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    I just took one at random and read the first few lines to make sure it was actually on topic. I have no clue about NBC News credability, I only wanted to illustrate that there were a lot of resources linked in the Wikipedia article, since BrainInABox asked for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    that there were a lot of resources linked in the Wikipedia article.

    Yeah and all of them go back to Adrian Zenz.

    You talking about a fucking genocide "reading a few lines" is insulting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Got any primary sources

    Fucking hell, I swear you people can't read

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Why is my link not a primary source?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Are you fucking serious right now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Please educate me.

    A primary source is a source with first hand information (e.g. a witness) or a source that does not cite other sources as their source. Disregarding the credability of NBC, how does the article I linked not fit that description?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments