That still doesn’t change the fact that China is persecuting Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province.

Previously:

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.
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.

• The Uyghur Human Rights Project is a product of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is the American government’s main regime change NGO.
• A Reddit AMA Claiming To Be A Uyghur Quickly Exposes A CIA Asset Slandering China
• The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified
• Uyghur genocide allegations
• American Debunks All Major Western Propaganda on Uyghurs and Xinjiang
• US-Funded Uyghur Activists Train as Soldiers of Empire
• The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent

Sources:

• china news propaganda site
• medium article from rando
• 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.

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.

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.