208
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2026
208 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
42977 readers
210 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
No, there's hearsay. Not evidence. Not one "victim" or "surviving family member" has ever actually even testified to their treatment or presented any evidence whatsoever for the claim of genocide. They just say things happened. Incidentally every single one also is not and has never been a Chinese citizen. Which is weird for a genocide that supposedly happened in China.
Unless you're counting the AI-generated "logs" that showed up 4 years ago, made headlines, and then promptly disappeared when it was pointed out literally all the text except a few names were absolute nonsense that vaguely looked Chinese.
Hearsay is a type of evidence.
Like I said, the fact you can list something to argue against means there is evidence. You proved the point beautifully. It doesn't live up to your standard of proof, but that doesn't make it not evidence.
(Also, there's more than that, but whatever. You've already decided you don't care about it. Again though, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You just don't like it.)
Hearsay isn't evidence, hence why it is almost always inadmissible, in all court systems, across the world.
I've been arguing with you people for a decade. I have seen and heard everything your Masters and Owners say is totally evidence of a genocide. I've read through the UN reports which explicitly state it is not a genocide. I've read through the leaked US state department documents that explicitly state it is not a genocide. I've read through the CIA docs that state that they created the "East Turkistan" movement which spawned the terror attacks which caused China to crack down on terrorism in the region. I've read the released CIA documents that stated they attempted to do the same thing for Tibet and that at least one Dalai Lama was explicitly a CIA asset with no actual ties to the region.
I came to a different conclusion than you not because I know less than you, but because I have thoroughly reviewed everything your owners have to say, and find it less credible because of your owners' actions.
Hearsay literally is evidence. It's usually not allowed in court, because it can't be verified, though there are several exceptions. Regardless, it not being allowed doesn't make it not evidence. It's only because it isn't reliable.
Here's how when hearsay evidence is allowed, or not allowed, in the US.
Here's when hearsay evidence is allowed in China.
Both of them it's essentially based on if the person that supposedly made the statement can be presented in court. If they can't, hearsay is the best alternative and is therefore allowed. It's evidence regardless, but they'd rather have it directly from the source if they can.
Anyway, this is all when hearsay evidence is allowed in a court of law. We are not in a court of law. There's no rules when hearsay evidence is allowed to be presented on the internet. Each person just has to decide for themselves what they think about it, and you've decided it doesn't reach your standard.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about though. The US department of state said "Genocide and crimes against humanity occurred during the year in China against predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang." (Literally the first paragraph of the report.)
The UN report doesn't say it isn't genocide. It doesn't make a claim on genocide. It just lists the human rights violations that it has found, which are re-education caps, and things like that. When the US and Canada did the same to the native people, that was genocide. It's the same for China. The definition of genocide is: "The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group." Trying to eliminate a religious or cultural group, through killing or re-education, is genocide.