Have you ever considered using some of the time you spend repeating stuff over and over on actually investigating whether there’s evidence behind your claims?
Last time I asked for a source regarding the Uighur stuff he just banned me lol. I guess it works on a lot of people to just apply social pressure on made up shit with zero concern about what’s true or not.
It’s cool how you can just make up a claim of genocide, then anyone who questions it at all is automatically a genocide denier and therefore a fascist and therefore operating in bad faith, and therefore it’s completely unnecessary to provide even a shred of evidence for anything. Very reasonable.
But that’s about what I’d expect from someone who denies the Sugondese Genocide, you fascist.
Sometimes I wonder, how could all those Germans believe white people were being genocide by Jews when there was precisely zero evidence of it? But the PugJesus reminds me, if someone, anyone tells you a genocide is happening, you are obligated to instantly, 100% accept it, and asking for evidence actually makes you the real fascist.
Still zero evidence presented, at all. You can look at the Palestinian genocide, for example, the one PugJesus is fine with, and see all kinds of images of the atrocities, ditto for the Holocaust, ditto for every actual genocide, and it’s trivially easy to present a mountain of evidence to deniers. It’s just the made up ones like this one or the white genocide myth that there’s zero evidence for, that the believers will never and can never present evidence and will only ever try to play rhetorical games and apply social pressure, while constantly dodging the actual facts. Fascists use the exact same tactics when pushing their false claims too.
Oh, so you’re not fine with that genocide? That’s great, because I’m not either, which is why I plan to vote third party. I assume you’ll join me in that, since you’re also not fine with it.
Wow, after calling this a genocide since even before the latest post Oct-7 phase of the war, you finally figured out that I’m not okay with Palestinian genocide! How quick you are on the uptake!
That’s great, because I’m not either, which is why I plan to vote third party.
“I don’t support genocide, so I’m going to support the candidate who’s most in favor of it” is a really funny way of opposing genocide, but about what I would expect from a fascist.
I was well aware of your positions from the start, which is why I correctly said that you are fine with the Palestinian genocide.
“I don’t support genocide, so I’m going to support the candidate who’s most in favor of it”
I’m not supporting any candidate who’s in favor of genocide. I see you’re adding another strawman on top of your already constant strawmanning of calling me a fascist.
It seems that your belief is that the United States has no chance of electing a candidate who is opposed to the Palestinian genocide, which you’re Very Definitely Not Fine With™. So then, it seems like if they can’t be stopped domestically, maybe they can be pressured internationally. There’s really only one country that’s in a position to challenge the American hegemony which enables the Palestinian genocide, which you are again, Very Definitely Not Fine With™. And yet, you’re repeating completely baseless rumors and hearsay put out by the country supporting the thing you’re Very Definitely Not Fine With™ against its chief rival. So then, it seems clear that you’re not interested in actually applying any sort of pressure at all, whether domestic or international, to stop the thing you’re Very Definitely Not Fine With™. It seems to me that your claims of being not fine with it are completely meaningless and performative, and you are, in actuality, Fine With It™.
If you’d like to suggest a better solution to stoping the genocide, I’m all ears. And no, voting for people supporting and perpetuating it is not a solution.
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.
Have you ever considered using some of the time you spend repeating stuff over and over on actually investigating whether there’s evidence behind your claims?
Last time I asked for a source regarding the Uighur stuff he just banned me lol. I guess it works on a lot of people to just apply social pressure on made up shit with zero concern about what’s true or not.
It’s so terrible that I don’t engage with fascists who argue in bad faith. I really should hand out more asspats for genocide denialism, shouldn’t I?
It’s cool how you can just make up a claim of genocide, then anyone who questions it at all is automatically a genocide denier and therefore a fascist and therefore operating in bad faith, and therefore it’s completely unnecessary to provide even a shred of evidence for anything. Very reasonable.
But that’s about what I’d expect from someone who denies the Sugondese Genocide, you fascist.
lmao
Sometimes I wonder, how could all those Germans believe white people were being genocide by Jews when there was precisely zero evidence of it? But the PugJesus reminds me, if someone, anyone tells you a genocide is happening, you are obligated to instantly, 100% accept it, and asking for evidence actually makes you the real fascist.
Still zero evidence presented, at all. You can look at the Palestinian genocide, for example, the one PugJesus is fine with, and see all kinds of images of the atrocities, ditto for the Holocaust, ditto for every actual genocide, and it’s trivially easy to present a mountain of evidence to deniers. It’s just the made up ones like this one or the white genocide myth that there’s zero evidence for, that the believers will never and can never present evidence and will only ever try to play rhetorical games and apply social pressure, while constantly dodging the actual facts. Fascists use the exact same tactics when pushing their false claims too.
lol
You really don’t have anything except a cookie-cutter response for a strawman of what non-fascists look like to you, huh?
Oh, so you’re not fine with that genocide? That’s great, because I’m not either, which is why I plan to vote third party. I assume you’ll join me in that, since you’re also not fine with it.
Wow, after calling this a genocide since even before the latest post Oct-7 phase of the war, you finally figured out that I’m not okay with Palestinian genocide! How quick you are on the uptake!
“I don’t support genocide, so I’m going to support the candidate who’s most in favor of it” is a really funny way of opposing genocide, but about what I would expect from a fascist.
I was well aware of your positions from the start, which is why I correctly said that you are fine with the Palestinian genocide.
I’m not supporting any candidate who’s in favor of genocide. I see you’re adding another strawman on top of your already constant strawmanning of calling me a fascist.
It seems that your belief is that the United States has no chance of electing a candidate who is opposed to the Palestinian genocide, which you’re Very Definitely Not Fine With™. So then, it seems like if they can’t be stopped domestically, maybe they can be pressured internationally. There’s really only one country that’s in a position to challenge the American hegemony which enables the Palestinian genocide, which you are again, Very Definitely Not Fine With™. And yet, you’re repeating completely baseless rumors and hearsay put out by the country supporting the thing you’re Very Definitely Not Fine With™ against its chief rival. So then, it seems clear that you’re not interested in actually applying any sort of pressure at all, whether domestic or international, to stop the thing you’re Very Definitely Not Fine With™. It seems to me that your claims of being not fine with it are completely meaningless and performative, and you are, in actuality, Fine With It™.
The best part of that strategy is that makes you feel like you’ve accomplished something, which is really what matters.
If you’d like to suggest a better solution to stoping the genocide, I’m all ears. And no, voting for people supporting and perpetuating it is not a solution.
Aaaaaand here come .ml folks denying genocide
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.