all 72 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 24 points 11 months ago

Its only legal if you just want to steal their natural resources

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    No need to censor, you can say A on lemmy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago

    Listen, I'm sure there's a very good reason why we have radically different policies towards Afghani Muslims and Uyghur Muslims, despite the fact they share a border and a litany of cultural practices.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    “Our genocides are the good genocides” thinking persisting this long is baffling. Even more disturbing is these people are in power.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Is it though? People hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. No one wants to believe that their privileges are predicated on suffering elsewhere.

    Westerners in particularly have always been very "heads in the sand" when it comes to modern history but it's not surprising. Every nation struggles with the darker aspects of their history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Genocide is bad. If your ideology prevents you from agreeing with that statement, you are a monster.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Genocide IS bad, but the "muslim genocide" in China is nothing but a CIA op, as usual

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 11 months ago (16 children)

    (Mass dislikes time!)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    “Authoritarian state” is a bullshit category. Authoritarian states are just states insufficiently subservient to Washington. It’s no more or less coherent than “terrorist state,” which the US uses in the same way.

    “Authoritarianism” is the contemporary word for “totalitarianism,” which is just an erudite-seming term for horseshoe theory, which is horseshit. Previously:

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    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.
    https://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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Would you prefer something from America's own fox news or New York Times?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    No, neither. You’re making up a position and pretending like I believe that to make my argument look weak. I’m not the one posting shit sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Wow, I wonder why there aren’t any Western corporate media sources with a Media Bias/Fact Check seal of approval…

    Previously:

    The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media* are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.

    The new post-Trump/“post-truth” media literacy curricula won’t teach it to you either, because it was paid for and crafted by the US military-industrial complex: New Media Literacy Standards Aim to Combat ‘Truth Decay’.

    This week, the RAND Corporation released a new set of media literacy standards designed to support schools in this task.

    The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”

    None of it is a secret, though, and it can be learned.


    * I’ve criticized MBFC & Ad Fontes before:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -13 points 11 months ago

    Nobody said anything about MBFC. Good luck, like I said in another comment I’m not going to argue with anyone from .ml. I was pointing out the faults in your sources because they’re not proper sources no matter what region of the world you’re from.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    I trust OIC and Muslim countries more than I trust any Western source. It is borderline farcical for Western governments and media to pretend to care about the welfare of Muslims in China while directly or indirectly enabling the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine and invasions and war crimes in many other countries as well as the discriminatory policies in their own countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 11 months ago

    You're arguing with a guy that doesn't want to change their mind. He literally sent me a video whose sources contradicted him and guess what happened when I pointed that to him? Never bothered to reply and he still uses that video as proof that he's right.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 11 months ago

    We’re very butthurt about our failed color revolution, and we’re very concerned that we can’t even manage to make lemonade out of our lemon.

    Westerners, every time:

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    The people that try to equate fake genocide with real genocide are like the school staff punishing bully and victim alike. They are enabling the abuses. Also it must be deeply insulting to the real victims in gaza.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    So concerned that we bribed foreign terrorists to blow shit up in Xinjiang, forcing China to spend on education and job programs there.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    These people, who don’t know shit about fuck, are absolutely sure that they already know everything that needs to be known, and that we don’t know shit about fuck.

    And in twenty years they’ll say they knew it all along.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    This is some next level racism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    Please elaborate: where’s the racism?

    This has been the US playbook since before we were born, and funding, arming, and influencing Salafi jihadists in particular has been going on since at least the 1980s. Previously:

    6 December 1993: Anti-Soviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace

    FAIR: Forgotten Coverage of Afghan ‘Freedom Fighters’ But the U.S. government and the American press have not always opposed Afghan extremists. During the 1980s, the Mujahiddin guerrilla groups battling Soviet occupation had key features in common with the Taliban. In many ways, the Mujahiddin groups acted as an incubator for the later rise of the Taliban in the 1990s.

    Despite CIA denials of any direct Agency support for Bin Laden’s activities, a considerable body of circumstantial evidence suggests the contrary. During the 1980s, Bin Laden’s activities in Afghanistan closely paralleled those of the CIA. Bin Laden held accounts in the Bank for Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the bank the CIA used to finance its own covert actions. Bin Laden worked especially closely with Hekmatyar—the CIA’s favored Mujahiddin commander. In 1989, the U.S. shipped high-powered sniper rifles to a Mujahiddin faction that included bin Laden, according to a former bin Laden aide.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (16 children)

    Hot take:

    The US has committed horrifying war crimes and crimes against humanity against Muslims and continues to do so.

    And so does China

    Its always fascinating to see the war between Nazis and Tankies fight over which imperial power is based, rather than demonstrating a working frontal lobe and damning both for their crimes.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 11 months ago (15 children)

    And so does China

    The only "evidence" of this comes from the empire and is demonstrably false

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago* (10 children)

    Idk man, this page has over 401 citations from various sources.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China?wprov=sfla1

    Edit: This also has a lot of citations ns from various sources too.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_in_China?wprov=sfla1

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    The 400 citations in question:

    [1] Victims of Communism Memorial Association

    [2] Burger Eagle Freedom Institute

    [3] China Freedom NGO (Washington DC)

    [4-399] Western State Television Station (retrieved in 2020)

    [400] Literally the CIA

    The article editors in question:

    u/USA_STEM_Edgelord_USA_1990

    u/TotallyNotAFed69

    u/WhiteCisManInHis30s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    And you've read zero of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Someone once put together a book titled, "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein." Einstein dismissed the book with the quip, "Why one hundred? If I were really wrong, they'd only need one."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Sounds like a colossal reach at best, and pathetic cope at worst.

    You understand the colossal differences between multiple independent journalists researching and reporting on the same topic, and a large organized group of pseudointellectuals trying to disprove a single person based on vibes alone, right?

    You seem to be very desperately, and pathetically holding onto a form of fallacy of composition:

    https://practicalpie.com/fallacy-of-composition/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    No, I'm simply calling out a lazy gish gallop. It's the same in both cases.

    How many sources are listed on the Wikipedia page for Christianity? If I accept your logic as valid, it seems I'll have to convert.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Ah yes. Libopedia the pinnicle of (western) truth!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of public information, most especially do to the international collaboration efforts on it.

    You can't just dismiss a source on the basis that you don't like it. You need to provide actual evidence that the source is untrustworthy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago*

    Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of public information

    Yeah if you're looking up wood joints and math theorems. Not if you're trying to learn anything about politics or history that ties into the interests of the systems and institutions that filter the media allowed as valid citations.

    You need to provide actual evidence that the source is untrustworthy

    Do they ban the New York Times because they lied the country into every war it's been in since McKinley?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    China not empire. Behehehehehhehehehehehhehehhe!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago

    Not only has China been an imperialist regional super power for the majority of its lo g history, but simply ask Taiwan, the Uyghurs, Tibet, Hong Kong, Vietnam or any of the various countries China is practicing neocolonialism in in Africa or Island nations

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    lol seriously. Most obvious propaganda scam of all time. Libs fell hook line and sinker though.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    Translation, we are very concerned because someone else is doing the killing, they took ur, joooobsss

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Well, they can’t let another country move into their game.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Valid meme but hopefully it doesn't minimize the plight of Uyghurs in peoples minds.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago* (7 children)

    Whataboutism, and possibly propaganda. They are both horrible and should not exist. Moral superiority doesn't matter if people are being systematically murdered.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    When dealing with hypocrites, whataboutism is the correct and logically consistent response.

    People who complain about whataboutism are 99% hypocrites whose hypocrisy has been pointed out. And they have no rational arguments to defend their view other than deflecting the topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Citations Needed podcast:
    Whataboutism - The Media's Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US Policy

    Since the beginning of what’s generally called ‘RussiaGate’ three years ago, pundits, media outlets, even comedians have all become insta-experts on supposed Russian propaganda techniques. The most cunning of these tricks, we are told, is that of “whataboutism” – a devious Soviet tactic of deflecting criticism by pointing out the accusers’ hypocrisy and inconsistencies. The tu quoque - or, “you, also” - fallacy, but with a unique Slavic flavor of nihilism, used by Trump and leftists alike in an effort to change the subject and focus on the faults of the United States rather than the crimes of Official State Enemies.

    But what if "whataboutism" isn’t describing a propaganda technique, but in fact is one itself: a zombie phrase that’s seeped into everyday liberal discourse that – while perhaps useful in the abstract - has manifestly turned any appeal to moral consistency into a cunning Russian psyop. From its origins in the Cold War as a means of deflecting and apologizing for Jim Crow to its braindead contemporary usage as a way of not engaging any criticism of the United States as the supposed arbiter of human rights, the term "whataboutism" has become a term that - 100 percent of the time - is simply used to defend and legitimizing American empire’s moral narratives.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    This meme doesn't need the word "Muslims"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago

    Thats because those are “terrorists” so its completely fine now.

  • source