There’s absolutely nothing wrong with denying that something is happening when there’s no evidence of it happening. You can use whatever social pressure or rhetorical tricks you want to paint me as a bad person, and downvote me all you want. At the end of the day, none of that matters because there’s no evidence, so I’m right and you’re wrong, simple as. If you think it’s more virtuous to believe nonsense than to base your beliefs on what’s actually true, you do you I guess, but I want none of that.
I could provide 20 more sources, but you get the point. Unless you are able to disprove every single one, you are the one who is wrong.
And there is a difference you know, if I am wrong, there is no genocide happening. And boy I wish I was wrong. If you are wrong, you are a genocide denying piece of garbage.
If you are wrong, you are a genocide denying piece of garbage.
No, that’s not how this works. There is no moral fault is disbelieving a claim because you haven’t been presented with adequate evidence. You might as well try to tell me that I’m a bad person for not believing in God. “Genocide denial” is not an inherently bad thing, even if the genocide were real, provided that it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your claims do not get some special privilege to circumvent the proper process of investigation just because they are extreme or emotionally evocative. If anything, the fact that everyone on your side is so reliant on the emotional appeals and social pressure should be an additional reason to scrutinize your claims even harder.
The idea that you can just throw 20 sources at me and I’d have to disprove every single one is also incorrect, as that would be a gish gallop. If I told you there was definitive proof that the genocide was not happening in between the lines of James Joyce’s Ulysses, you would not be compelled to read the whole thing to tell me I’m wrong.
This article is as long as a book, as far as I read, I saw no mention of genocide and the majority of it seemed to be hearsay from one person. You’re going to have to cite anything relevant.
You mean thinking critically and doing due diligence into investigating sources as opposed to blindly accepting anything you’re told without question? Yes, that is a certified tankie tactic.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with denying that something is happening when there’s no evidence of it happening. You can use whatever social pressure or rhetorical tricks you want to paint me as a bad person, and downvote me all you want. At the end of the day, none of that matters because there’s no evidence, so I’m right and you’re wrong, simple as. If you think it’s more virtuous to believe nonsense than to base your beliefs on what’s actually true, you do you I guess, but I want none of that.
https://bjwa.brown.edu/28-1/the-rise-of-global-islamophobia-and-the-uyghur-genocide/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol15/iss1/6/
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10281.pdf
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-xinjiang-rights/muslim-minority-in-chinas-xinjiang-face-political-indoctrination-human-rights-watch-idUSKCN1LQ01F/
https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c
I could provide 20 more sources, but you get the point. Unless you are able to disprove every single one, you are the one who is wrong.
And there is a difference you know, if I am wrong, there is no genocide happening. And boy I wish I was wrong. If you are wrong, you are a genocide denying piece of garbage.
No, that’s not how this works. There is no moral fault is disbelieving a claim because you haven’t been presented with adequate evidence. You might as well try to tell me that I’m a bad person for not believing in God. “Genocide denial” is not an inherently bad thing, even if the genocide were real, provided that it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your claims do not get some special privilege to circumvent the proper process of investigation just because they are extreme or emotionally evocative. If anything, the fact that everyone on your side is so reliant on the emotional appeals and social pressure should be an additional reason to scrutinize your claims even harder.
The idea that you can just throw 20 sources at me and I’d have to disprove every single one is also incorrect, as that would be a gish gallop. If I told you there was definitive proof that the genocide was not happening in between the lines of James Joyce’s Ulysses, you would not be compelled to read the whole thing to tell me I’m wrong.
Now let's move on to your sources.
Rushan Abbas is a CIA agent who literally worked at Guantanamo Bay. She is not a credible source.
This article is as long as a book, as far as I read, I saw no mention of genocide and the majority of it seemed to be hearsay from one person. You’re going to have to cite anything relevant.
Extensively cites noted crackpot and CIA asset Adrian Zenz, as well as random hearsay.
The only thing this one says is that the US State Department called it a genocide.
No mention of genocide.
Oh hey, it’s our old buddy Adrian Zenz again.
Maybe I should’ve clarified. When I asked for evidence, I didn’t mean:
Hearsay from random nobodies
The CIA
The US State department.
I meant things like what we’re seeing in Palestine. Or like the evidence for the Holocaust, or any other genocide that’s, you know, actually real.
But I’m highly skeptical that you read even a single one of your sources before linking them anyway, let alone actually investigating them.
Straight up denial of evidence is a certified tankie tactic
You mean thinking critically and doing due diligence into investigating sources as opposed to blindly accepting anything you’re told without question? Yes, that is a certified tankie tactic.