SpiceDealerDec 1

(Mass dislikes time!)

Yes, the US does evil shit in the Middle East. Killing brown-skinned practitioners of the other Abrahamic religion overseas is as American tradition.

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

You can’t shit-talk one authoritarian state and cheer on another.

Show threaddavelDec 1

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.

What's up with this straight up pro-china and pro-russia stuff on Lemmy lately? - Lemmy

What’s up with this straight up pro-china and pro-russia stuff on Lemmy lately? It’s not even praising the people of China and Russia, but rather their gov directly. Obviously the states have problems, and the EU to a lesser degree, but they at least have some human rights. Is this some kind of organized disinformation campaign?

Show threadtylerDec 1

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.

Show threadBrainInABoxDec 1
As opposed to all those unbiased sources you’ve provided, lol.
Show threadtylerDec 1
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.
Show threadDupaCyckiDec 1

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.

Show threadZabjamDec 1
How is it hypocritical? Either the sources are biased or not. The poster not providing proof for a counterargument is irrelevant. Or do you mean they should provide proof for the original sources being biased?
Show threadBrainInABoxDec 3
There’s no such thing as a source with no bias
Show threadZabjam
But there is a spectrum. Or are you telling me that every source is as biased as any other?
Dec 4 at 5:59amWeb
Show threadBrainInABoxDec 4

Mate, the person literally said “Either the sources are biased or not”

are you telling me that

Fun fact: every single time someone writes this, whatever follows is guaranteed to be an outrageous strawman that in no way it’s what the other person was saying.

Show threadZabjamDec 4
Sure buddy. It is still irrelevant. It is not hypocritical to ciritice a source. You don’t have to prove a different point to bring forward criticism. The only question should be “is the criticism valid?” And not “do have a better point?”
Show threadBrainInABoxDec 4
And the answer to that question is “there’s no such thing as a source with no bias”
Show threadZabjamDec 4
No it is not. That’s only an answer if one thinks that every sources bias is as bad as any other, which was rejected earlier as “outrages strawman”. Under the assumption that sources can be more or less biased, it is worth questioning the bias and the statement “there’s no such thing as a source with no bias” is a moot point.
Show threadBrainInABoxDec 4
Mate, the person literally said “Either the sources are biased or not”. Fuck off with your “outrageous strawman” nonsense.
Show threadZabjamDec 4
Damnit you are dense. I will not explain a third time that this is completely irrelevant. This is getting to levels of “your argument is invalid because you made spelling mistake”… Don’t know how .ml got back into my feed, but back in the blocklist it goes.
Show threadBrainInABoxDec 4

Mate, you said it was a "outrageous strawman”. You cannot seriously be trying to argue that the fact they literally said the thing you are accusing me of strawmanning as being “irrelevant”.

Don’t know how .ml got back into my feed, but back in the blocklist it goes.

“Your argument is invalid because you come from the wrong instance”