You realise that Wikipedia is not one iota more credible than a lemmy comment right? You won’t believe people here, but funnyguy1234 (actual name of one that articles writers) is a font of academic rigor? Also lol at well sourced - you never bothered to check them, if you did you wouldn’t say that. Here’s a challenge; what were the pieces of primary evidence that convinced you?
Once when I compared the Uyghur genocide conspiracy to WMDs in Iraq, I had a Lemmy Worlder unironically reply “They’re completely different! WMDs in Iraq was just a claim from the Bush admin, but we have satellite pictures of the Uyghur genocide!”.
They are completely different and this is a dumbass comment.
Just because a massive organization made up of millions of people lied once doesn’t mean everything else they ever say is a lie. That’s dumbass child level reasoning. Present sourced evidence that contradicts the sourced infromation in the wikipedia article or don’t bother commenting.
Perhaps you’re unaware of many of the US’s atrocities, because many are hidden or distorted through the above methods. Nobody lies like the imperial core propaganda machine.
a few of the journal articles, though many of the reports from human rights groups, and the sheer volume of independent reports from different new outlets (big and small) is also rather compelling (as well as bellingcat’s reporting):
That article is a masterclass in laundering false information to make propaganda palatable to impressionable people. From the very first paragraph it regurgitates false information. The funny thing is that the claim that more than one million Uyghers are interned does have a source, but they didn’t specify it. Probably because the source’s reliability has been dismantled and they think leaving it out is less blatant. Garbage journalistic standards either way, and obvious dishonest propagandizing. For the rest of the article, we already know the media spread misinformation about Xinjiang. Compiling it in a Wikipedia article does not make it any more legitimate or convincing.
Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.
Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.
Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.
Listen man, even in the very good college that I went to, everyone starts at Wikipedia and then uses it’s sources since if they’re good sources then they’ll be a helpful jumping off point.
Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.
Peer reviewed journal articles are not the lowest effort citation that the CIA could manipulate. Again, the wiki article has numerous sources (which I’ve read through), do you have any sources to contradict the information that they contain?
You do realize that… The peer review process is not, inherently, robust, right?
There’s a reason different publication venues have different levels of prestige. Nature and Science? Very prestigious. The Lancet? Very prestigious. NeurIPS? Very prestigious. The Journal of Genocide Research? Not so prestigious.
Imagine citing nothing and thinking it’s better than wikipedia’s readily available citations. You’d get laughed out of any context, academic or otherwise.
Who do I believe, a random smug lemmier, or a well sourced wikipedia article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
You spelled NATOpedia wrong.
Lmao go back to Russia you fucking troll.
deleted by creator
Is there any reason to think wikipedia is reliable?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You realise that Wikipedia is not one iota more credible than a lemmy comment right? You won’t believe people here, but funnyguy1234 (actual name of one that articles writers) is a font of academic rigor? Also lol at well sourced - you never bothered to check them, if you did you wouldn’t say that. Here’s a challenge; what were the pieces of primary evidence that convinced you?
I was convinced by this Bell¿ncat satellite image of a concentration camp interning over a million people: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=31.416944&lon=34.365234&z=11&m=w
Once when I compared the Uyghur genocide conspiracy to WMDs in Iraq, I had a Lemmy Worlder unironically reply “They’re completely different! WMDs in Iraq was just a claim from the Bush admin, but we have satellite pictures of the Uyghur genocide!”.
They are completely different and this is a dumbass comment.
Just because a massive organization made up of millions of people lied once doesn’t mean everything else they ever say is a lie. That’s dumbass child level reasoning. Present sourced evidence that contradicts the sourced infromation in the wikipedia article or don’t bother commenting.
It seems you are unaware that these kinds of lies are rampant and have been documented for decades, to the point where reliable patterns have emerged:
A five minute primer: Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
.
Perhaps you’re unaware of many of the US’s atrocities, because many are hidden or distorted through the above methods. Nobody lies like the imperial core propaganda machine.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Uh yeah it is, it sources it’s information
Yeah, and those sources are often dog shit.
They’re better than yours, the ones in that article link to journal articles, you’ve provided absolutely nothing.
Which journal articles did you find compelling?
a few of the journal articles, though many of the reports from human rights groups, and the sheer volume of independent reports from different new outlets (big and small) is also rather compelling (as well as bellingcat’s reporting):
Your failure to provide a reliable source for your claims is not my problem.
If you cannot provide a reliable source of your claims, your claim will be dismissed.
Ctrl+F Zenz
22 matches
Lol, this one is straight up written by Zenz
Behind a paywall
Do you have a source to discredit zenz?
That article is a masterclass in laundering false information to make propaganda palatable to impressionable people. From the very first paragraph it regurgitates false information. The funny thing is that the claim that more than one million Uyghers are interned does have a source, but they didn’t specify it. Probably because the source’s reliability has been dismantled and they think leaving it out is less blatant. Garbage journalistic standards either way, and obvious dishonest propagandizing. For the rest of the article, we already know the media spread misinformation about Xinjiang. Compiling it in a Wikipedia article does not make it any more legitimate or convincing.
What the fuck are you taking about? It’s sourced directly to a journal article.
Kindly present alternate SOURCES, or shut the fuck up.
Lmfao, provide a source or shut up.
Let’s see a source for your argument? The wiki links to journal articles to back up it’s claims, what do you have?
The burden of proof is on you to prove that a genocide is actually happening. (One can’t prove a negative)
There is a chinese context to it though: https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang
Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.
Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.
Listen man, even in the very good college that I went to, everyone starts at Wikipedia and then uses it’s sources since if they’re good sources then they’ll be a helpful jumping off point.
Peer reviewed journal articles are not the lowest effort citation that the CIA could manipulate. Again, the wiki article has numerous sources (which I’ve read through), do you have any sources to contradict the information that they contain?
You do realize that… The peer review process is not, inherently, robust, right?
There’s a reason different publication venues have different levels of prestige. Nature and Science? Very prestigious. The Lancet? Very prestigious. NeurIPS? Very prestigious. The Journal of Genocide Research? Not so prestigious.
Bro it too late to get your money back from that college?
Imagine citing Wikipedia lmao
You’d get laughed out of any academic context in a heartbeat
Imagine citing nothing and thinking it’s better than wikipedia’s readily available citations. You’d get laughed out of any context, academic or otherwise.