On November 21, Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed an extraordinary joint meeting of the leaders of the BRICS countries, along with the leaders of those countries who have been invited to join the cooperation mechanism from January 1, 2024, called to discuss the situation in the Middle East with particular reference to Gaza. The meeting … Continue reading Xi Jinping: the collective punishment of people in Gaza must stop
It’s not about baiting to post a link, it’s about not being able to prove a negative.You made an (outrageous) claim and you need to back it up with a source.
(Most of us actually tried to find a credible source on this topic but couldn’t find one. It always boils down to a Zenz or ASPI or another defense Industry sponsored piece)
No, the onus is on you because my views on this particular topic happens to be inline with the status quo who already provide a large body of primary sources (wikipedia, BBC, guardian, the list goes on). It is you that is challenging this status quo, and so by the scientific method, it is you who must provide the evidence to change the prevailing model.
First of all, that’s not how the “scientific method” works. If you make a claim or hypothesis, you must provide sufficient evidence to prove it. You have not. The “scientific method” is definitely not “status quo says this so it is true”, even if the status quo was on your side (it is not). It is not a surprise that your understanding of the world is so myopic if this is the level of discourse you bring here.
Secondly, you have not posited any proper claim. You have merely implied it. If you want to have some weird debate here, then at least abide by the rules of proper debates and bring forth a properly phrased claim. If your claim is that “genocide is happening in Xinjaing”, then that can be dismissed, as no credible source is still parroting that claim - it was claimed without evidence by Zenz (a far right Christian lunatic who thinks god sent him on a mission to destroy China) and amplified by American NGOs like UHRP and WUC, which are CIA-funded organizations. By your own debate rules, a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There can be other claims about Xinjiang that we would happily discuss with you, but seeing as you clearly do not respect discussion rules, it is clear that you participate in bad faith.
If you choose to present evidence to support the extraordinary claims of “genocide” then sure, we can engage. But as it stands, the genocide against Palestine is continuously filmed, and you may see kids be blown up in videos out of Gaza. There are records of close to 80 years of genocidal rhetoric from the Israeli government calling Palestinians animals, and vowing to erase them, calling to nuke them, and ordering the mass murder of them - there is intent.
To date, there has not been a single credible claim of genocide against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Not only that, but there is no record of even the intent to genocide them by China. The laughable claim that they hate Muslims is easily countered by the fact that Uyghurs enjoy privileged status that follows from the government’s affirmative action policies towards them, and that Hui Muslims are untouched even by the claims of your own American propaganda. So please, show us the evidence and videos of people killed by China, or I challenge you to even show a single clip of China’s intent to genocide, and we may talk.
I think you’ve strongly erred here. The prevailing scientific model in any field is determined by a majority consensus of scientists who find the particular evidence compelling enough to form an authority on the matter. Anyone who wishes to change this prevailing model must have enough evidence. The onus, once again, is on those who wish to change the status quo.
As for Palestine, it has many willing neighbours to record the atrocities happening there, and tiny borders to prevent them from doing so. China has the opposite.
That is not the scientific method, a simple Google search will show you its actual meaning. If you are implying that scientists have studied… the “uyghur genocide”?? I don’t even know what you are trying to imply. It’s just laughable. No scientist has studied the XUAR to claim there is a genocide. No amount of evidence will suffice if you haven’t formed your opinions logically. You do not know what your own claims are (is it that scientists say there’s an Uyghur genocide?), and you do not have a clear vision of how someone is expected to challenge you because of it. Additionally, you have not presented a single shred of evidence, and it is clear you engage in bad faith and do not care to get to the truth of the matter so I fully expect you to bury your head in the sand - I will not reply further.
I will present evidence suggesting the absence of such a program, but naturally because you have not presented evidence for the existence of it, the claim that “China is genociding Uyghurs” is unfalsifiable. It is like claiming God exists - you don’t care to prove it, and no one can disprove it.
Welcomes the outcomes of the visit conducted by the General Secretariat’s delegation upon invitation from the People’s Republic of China; commends the efforts of the People’s Republic of China in providing care to its Muslim citizens; and looks forward to further cooperation between the OIC and the People’s Republic of China.
In this same document, the OIC expressed much greater concern about the Rohingya Muslim Community in Myanmar, which the West was relatively silent on.
Over 50+ UN member states (mostly Muslim-majority nations) signed a letter (A/HRC/41/G/17) to the UN Human Rights Commission approving of the de-radicalization efforts in Xinjiang.
Even the US state department walks back its claim that there is a genocide. Instead, from their rhetoric and in the absence of even the smallest shred of evidence it is clear that their internal logic in claiming that there was a genocide (or even forced labour or ethnic cleansing) is based entirely on their political aims.
The US also prevented the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights from visiting China for more than 3.5 years, while China has been inviting them since 2018. This is a classic US tactic that it has employed since the founding of the UN (ever since the 1948 with the Korean elections).
It can be, most information on wikipedia is good enough for most things. Political issues are sadly more sensitive to influence or bias, especially on a public (mainly english) encyclopedia like wikipedia.
The way citations are picked and presented can have bias, the selection of sources used for wikipedia articles can have bias, and the sources themselves can have bias…
-> Wikipedia is indeed an easy way to find a lot of primary and secondary sources, but that does not mean that these sources are always good or credible.
In context of the above, using wikipedia as a valid base for your political beliefs is, in my opinion, a bit problematic. (not saying that you do that btw, just that it is)
You are mistaking how burden of proof actually works for how cultural norms are enforced. If I assert that gravity is real, the burden of proof is still on me for making a positive claim, no matter how extremely common of a claim it is. Incidentally, it is quite easy to demonstrate by a wide range of methods. If I assert that the Holocaust is real, the burden of proof is still on me, and again it is very easy to prove because it had extensive documentation (though Nazis did also destroy a lot of the documents).
If I assert a Uighur genocide, I would need to prove it, but here I would struggle since there is very, very little documentation supporting g the claim.
my views on this particular topic happens to be inline with the status quo
Aka the hegemon which is the US
Seeing your approach to sources/science I can tell why you hold your skewed view of china. Since I can’t prove an negative, I’ll give you the Chinese perspective that gives a proper context:
my views on this particular topic happens to be inline with the status quo who already provide a large body of primary sources
“You have to prove me wrong because I agree with the governments of occidental nations who only represent 1/8th the population of the world.” Fuck off with your white supremacist “gardener” world view.
At least it cites its claims with a large burden of primary and secondary sources. I am left scratching dirt with what you guys have provided (podcasters with hour long videos).
That being said, one of you finally linked to a report that I will read later. It looks like it tries to be at least a little impartial and it was put together by at least some independent thought.
Citation needed
I feel like I’m being baited into posting links, so I won’t - but on duckduckduckgo schreib “!w Xianjiang Int* ca*ps”
Wikipedia tends to be a good source of information.
I’ve found one part of the problem
It’s not about baiting to post a link, it’s about not being able to prove a negative.You made an (outrageous) claim and you need to back it up with a source. (Most of us actually tried to find a credible source on this topic but couldn’t find one. It always boils down to a Zenz or ASPI or another defense Industry sponsored piece)
deleted by creator
No, the onus is on you because my views on this particular topic happens to be inline with the status quo who already provide a large body of primary sources (wikipedia, BBC, guardian, the list goes on). It is you that is challenging this status quo, and so by the scientific method, it is you who must provide the evidence to change the prevailing model.
First of all, that’s not how the “scientific method” works. If you make a claim or hypothesis, you must provide sufficient evidence to prove it. You have not. The “scientific method” is definitely not “status quo says this so it is true”, even if the status quo was on your side (it is not). It is not a surprise that your understanding of the world is so myopic if this is the level of discourse you bring here.
Secondly, you have not posited any proper claim. You have merely implied it. If you want to have some weird debate here, then at least abide by the rules of proper debates and bring forth a properly phrased claim. If your claim is that “genocide is happening in Xinjaing”, then that can be dismissed, as no credible source is still parroting that claim - it was claimed without evidence by Zenz (a far right Christian lunatic who thinks god sent him on a mission to destroy China) and amplified by American NGOs like UHRP and WUC, which are CIA-funded organizations. By your own debate rules, a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There can be other claims about Xinjiang that we would happily discuss with you, but seeing as you clearly do not respect discussion rules, it is clear that you participate in bad faith.
If you choose to present evidence to support the extraordinary claims of “genocide” then sure, we can engage. But as it stands, the genocide against Palestine is continuously filmed, and you may see kids be blown up in videos out of Gaza. There are records of close to 80 years of genocidal rhetoric from the Israeli government calling Palestinians animals, and vowing to erase them, calling to nuke them, and ordering the mass murder of them - there is intent.
To date, there has not been a single credible claim of genocide against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Not only that, but there is no record of even the intent to genocide them by China. The laughable claim that they hate Muslims is easily countered by the fact that Uyghurs enjoy privileged status that follows from the government’s affirmative action policies towards them, and that Hui Muslims are untouched even by the claims of your own American propaganda. So please, show us the evidence and videos of people killed by China, or I challenge you to even show a single clip of China’s intent to genocide, and we may talk.
I think you’ve strongly erred here. The prevailing scientific model in any field is determined by a majority consensus of scientists who find the particular evidence compelling enough to form an authority on the matter. Anyone who wishes to change this prevailing model must have enough evidence. The onus, once again, is on those who wish to change the status quo.
As for Palestine, it has many willing neighbours to record the atrocities happening there, and tiny borders to prevent them from doing so. China has the opposite.
That is not the scientific method, a simple Google search will show you its actual meaning. If you are implying that scientists have studied… the “uyghur genocide”?? I don’t even know what you are trying to imply. It’s just laughable. No scientist has studied the XUAR to claim there is a genocide. No amount of evidence will suffice if you haven’t formed your opinions logically. You do not know what your own claims are (is it that scientists say there’s an Uyghur genocide?), and you do not have a clear vision of how someone is expected to challenge you because of it. Additionally, you have not presented a single shred of evidence, and it is clear you engage in bad faith and do not care to get to the truth of the matter so I fully expect you to bury your head in the sand - I will not reply further.
I will present evidence suggesting the absence of such a program, but naturally because you have not presented evidence for the existence of it, the claim that “China is genociding Uyghurs” is unfalsifiable. It is like claiming God exists - you don’t care to prove it, and no one can disprove it.
My sources:
The World Bank sent a team to investigate in 2019 and found that, “The review did not substantiate the allegations.” (See: World Bank Statement on Review of Project in Xinjiang, China
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the second largest organization after the United Nations with a membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The OIC released Resolutions on Muslim Communities and Muslim Minorities in the non-OIC Member States in 2019 which:
In this same document, the OIC expressed much greater concern about the Rohingya Muslim Community in Myanmar, which the West was relatively silent on.
Over 50+ UN member states (mostly Muslim-majority nations) signed a letter (A/HRC/41/G/17) to the UN Human Rights Commission approving of the de-radicalization efforts in Xinjiang.
1000 delegates of 30 Muslim countries visited Xinjiang and envoys expressed that “freedom of religious belief and various rights of Muslims are duly guaranteed.” And that what the delegation saw and heard along the way “is completely different from what some Western media reported.”
Even the US state department walks back its claim that there is a genocide. Instead, from their rhetoric and in the absence of even the smallest shred of evidence it is clear that their internal logic in claiming that there was a genocide (or even forced labour or ethnic cleansing) is based entirely on their political aims.
The US also prevented the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights from visiting China for more than 3.5 years, while China has been inviting them since 2018. This is a classic US tactic that it has employed since the founding of the UN (ever since the 1948 with the Korean elections).
I don’t think you understand what a primary source is… https://apus.libanswers.com/faq/2299 => Wikipedia is (like all encyclopedias) a tertiary source
Yeah, sad that it just happens to be a fantastic provider of primary sources
It can be, most information on wikipedia is good enough for most things. Political issues are sadly more sensitive to influence or bias, especially on a public (mainly english) encyclopedia like wikipedia.
The way citations are picked and presented can have bias, the selection of sources used for wikipedia articles can have bias, and the sources themselves can have bias…
-> Wikipedia is indeed an easy way to find a lot of primary and secondary sources, but that does not mean that these sources are always good or credible.
In context of the above, using wikipedia as a valid base for your political beliefs is, in my opinion, a bit problematic. (not saying that you do that btw, just that it is)
How would you know?
You are mistaking how burden of proof actually works for how cultural norms are enforced. If I assert that gravity is real, the burden of proof is still on me for making a positive claim, no matter how extremely common of a claim it is. Incidentally, it is quite easy to demonstrate by a wide range of methods. If I assert that the Holocaust is real, the burden of proof is still on me, and again it is very easy to prove because it had extensive documentation (though Nazis did also destroy a lot of the documents).
If I assert a Uighur genocide, I would need to prove it, but here I would struggle since there is very, very little documentation supporting g the claim.
Aka the hegemon which is the US
Seeing your approach to sources/science I can tell why you hold your skewed view of china. Since I can’t prove an negative, I’ll give you the Chinese perspective that gives a proper context:
https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang
The onus is now on you to prove that you don’t fuck trashcans. After all, my feeling that you do it in line with the status quo here.
Wikipedia is not a good source of information, didn’t they teach you that in grade school?
The entire platform was written more or less by one guy and the place is censored to shit after neoliberals captured the mod team.
At least it cites its claims with a large burden of primary and secondary sources. I am left scratching dirt with what you guys have provided (podcasters with hour long videos).
That being said, one of you finally linked to a report that I will read later. It looks like it tries to be at least a little impartial and it was put together by at least some independent thought.
It is a decidedly bad source of information on enemies of the State Department.
Also, just as an ESL thing, it looks like you slipped back into German there with “schreib” instead of “write” or “type”