142
pinned post (quokk.au)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/mop
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 3 points 5 months ago (15 children)
[deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 30 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    No, it’s not.

    The easiest way to prove this would be to go and speak to a Uyghur. Everyone I’ve ever spoken with has confirmed what is happening to their families back home.

    This is a “vocational centre”, pretty nice looking school isn’t it? Very generous of China to offer such friendly reeducation.

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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iyFw8UF85A

    That's Carl Sagan describing healthy skepticism.

    How do you know that image is what you claim it is?
    Do you know the location of the image?
    Do you know the photographer?
    Do you know when the image was taken?
    Do you have any evidence of what that is even an image of?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Oh boy here it is

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] 3 points 5 months ago (9 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Wikipedia is a wonderful online encyclopedia. It's not a source and they don't claim to be a source. It's a starting point for people who want to learn about a topic, it's not evidence of anything.

    If you actually go to the sources section of that link you'll see they're all secondary sources. For some reason, nobody can get reliable evidence on what is supposedly one of the biggest human rights violations in history.

    The excuse is always that China is so secretive and tightly managed that it's impossible to smuggle actual evidence out of the country. The best we can do is an endless stream of anonymous and semi-anonymous sources that keep changing their story.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Thanks for explaining how an encyclopedia works, I guess.

    Of course an encyclopedia is going to cite mostly secondary sources, especially when covering a matter that cannot be proven based on a single account or piece of evidence. That's not some kind of gotcha.

    Personally I trust Wikipedia enough to assume they'll cite mostly reliable secondary sources that are based on a significant amount of credible witness accounts and evidence (aka primary sources). Of course a bit of healthy skepticism is a good thing, so if you'd like to take a closer look at Wikipedia's sources and what their claims are based on, more power to you!

    I'm curious, how many of the 403 sources cited by Wikipedia did you look at before deciding none of them are based on credible primary sources?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    I’m curious, how many of the 403 sources cited by Wikipedia did you look at before deciding none of them are based on credible primary sources?

    That's the neat part. They don't! Why bother checking things when you can dismiss reality!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    There isn't enough time in universe to attempt constructive engagement with every genocide denialist out there. If you have access to all the same data and come with an angle "uyghur genocide is CIA story", there's nothing to engage with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    You'll never get that.
    The "point of view" is based entirely off unverifiable claims.

    At best, you'll get a wall of "articles" that only reference each other in a giant attribution circle. They'll downvote you and call you a tankie all day long but they'll never show you real evidence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)