If, in discussing the veracity of claims about Iran, you’re allowed to throw out the Grayzone as a whole because of stories they’ve written about Russia, then I am absolutely allowed to throw out your source as a whole when it cites - again - a literal Nazi.
I don’t think you understand why I asked you for a source on the genocide claims. That was a softball. That was me asking you to provide a source that:
A) alleges genocide in Xinjiang, and
B) does not rely on testimony from Adrien Zenz
You then replied with a source that doesn’t satisfy either condition. 🤣 Dog, you could’ve at least picked a source that satisfied one of the two conditions.
“Well although the UN report strategically omits the term genocide, I still think it is one!”
So then your source is not the UN. The source was your ass all along. Why did you cite a source that explicitly disagrees with your point of view?
“Again”? All you showed was a completely out-of-context tweet which expressly denounces Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime – literally comparing their actions to the CCP’s treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
I don’t know if you just got that screenshot from some random Lemmygrad post or something and never bothered to plumb for the context, but in case you did: how do you square the fact that Adrian Zenz is comparing something he’s clearly made his life’s work to dismantle – China’s systemic persection of the Uyghurs – with the genocidal actions of the Nazi regime as his being a Nazi? I know when I call Donald Trump a neo-Nazi, that’s my way of expressing that I’m a card-carrying Nazi somehow.
All you’ve shown is that the OHCHR report in one footnote out of hundreds cited Zenz who works for a right-wing think tank.
Dog, I don’t got to show you shit! Your claim was that there’s a genocide. The onus is on you to prove that extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence. You are confused.
All you’ve shown is that the OHCHR report in one footnote out of hundreds cited Zenz who works for a right-wing think tank.
Okay, just for fun, lets pick another footnote at random.
See for example, research by S. Zhang, https://medium.com/@shawnwzhang and “Detention
Facilities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region”, Xinjiang Victims Database
This footnote itself does not reference Zenz. Let’s look at it.
You’re extremely reluctant to address the fact that your use of that tweet out of context amounts to disinformation, aren’t you? You really tiptoed around it this entire comment; it’s almost funny to watch you contort yourself, because you know owning up to it will make you look like a complete idiot and that denying it will make you look like a bigger one. You had to pull a “[…]” on the entire substance of the argument.
You now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tweet was denouncing the Nazi regime (even though you already should’ve suspected and checked yourself), and you’re still implicitly using that to call Zenz a “Nazi”. Even then, Brophy rightly points out that reducing this to the machinations of right-wing think tanks is disingenuous propaganda – in an article you also refuse to acknowledge debunking the AI slop you introduced here.
I’m going to leave it at that, because it’s completely evident at this point that you’re a shameless liar, that you don’t care about making good-faith arguments and prefer to take material out of context as a cheap “gotcha”, that you’ll try to manufacture logical fallacies where they don’t exist, and that you’re a tankie totally divorced from reality.
I don’t think you understand.
If, in discussing the veracity of claims about Iran, you’re allowed to throw out the Grayzone as a whole because of stories they’ve written about Russia, then I am absolutely allowed to throw out your source as a whole when it cites - again - a literal Nazi.
I don’t think you understand why I asked you for a source on the genocide claims. That was a softball. That was me asking you to provide a source that:
A) alleges genocide in Xinjiang, and
B) does not rely on testimony from Adrien Zenz
You then replied with a source that doesn’t satisfy either condition. 🤣 Dog, you could’ve at least picked a source that satisfied one of the two conditions.
“Well although the UN report strategically omits the term genocide, I still think it is one!”
So then your source is not the UN. The source was your ass all along. Why did you cite a source that explicitly disagrees with your point of view?
“Again”? All you showed was a completely out-of-context tweet which expressly denounces Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime – literally comparing their actions to the CCP’s treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
I don’t know if you just got that screenshot from some random Lemmygrad post or something and never bothered to plumb for the context, but in case you did: how do you square the fact that Adrian Zenz is comparing something he’s clearly made his life’s work to dismantle – China’s systemic persection of the Uyghurs – with the genocidal actions of the Nazi regime as his being a Nazi? I know when I call Donald Trump a neo-Nazi, that’s my way of expressing that I’m a card-carrying Nazi somehow.
All you’ve shown is that the OHCHR report in one footnote out of hundreds cited Zenz who works for a right-wing think tank.
Dog, I don’t got to show you shit! Your claim was that there’s a genocide. The onus is on you to prove that extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence. You are confused.
Okay, just for fun, lets pick another footnote at random.
This footnote itself does not reference Zenz. Let’s look at it.
https://shahit.biz/xjvictims_facilities.pdf
And when we look at the sources…
Whoops! More Zenz! These types of reports use all sorts of circular citations that all lead back to that Nazi.
You’re extremely reluctant to address the fact that your use of that tweet out of context amounts to disinformation, aren’t you? You really tiptoed around it this entire comment; it’s almost funny to watch you contort yourself, because you know owning up to it will make you look like a complete idiot and that denying it will make you look like a bigger one. You had to pull a “[…]” on the entire substance of the argument.
You now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tweet was denouncing the Nazi regime (even though you already should’ve suspected and checked yourself), and you’re still implicitly using that to call Zenz a “Nazi”. Even then, Brophy rightly points out that reducing this to the machinations of right-wing think tanks is disingenuous propaganda – in an article you also refuse to acknowledge debunking the AI slop you introduced here.
I’m going to leave it at that, because it’s completely evident at this point that you’re a shameless liar, that you don’t care about making good-faith arguments and prefer to take material out of context as a cheap “gotcha”, that you’ll try to manufacture logical fallacies where they don’t exist, and that you’re a tankie totally divorced from reality.