The only thing I’ve ever seen here labelled “extremist” and I’ve never really looked into it, is the claim that the Tiananmen Square Massacre was instigated by the CIA. Agian, I have never looked into it, but that’s the only thing I’ve ever seen ruffle people’s feathers.
I really think we all have a lot in common here, and maybe it’s just boredom, but we shouldn’t be at each other’s throats.
I’m a strong believer in facts (wow can’t believe I have to say that) but if someone compiled a large list of grievances with sources, that would be great. I always see lemmings labeld as “tankies” coming in with troves of links and sources, but never anyone else.
There’s no argument here to defend. But posting a blog from someone in China and calling it a proper source is never going to be correct. They also think that the UN is “western imperialism” and so sources from them will be deleted (even though those sources are from every nation state in the UN).
Not trying to argue just that different people have different standards of what constitutes a proper source. Personally I wouldn’t consider Wikipedia or RadioFreeAsia as proper sources for instance.
They also think that the UN is “western imperialism” and so sources from them will be deleted
I don’t think it’s inherently wrong to point out that much of those with sway within the UN come from within the US sphere of influence (look at the UN intervention on the side of the US in their war of exterminaton against the DPRK for example) and thus treat it as such however with that being said I also haven’t really seen UN sources being deleted before unless the comment containing it breaks rules such as being chauvinist for example (as tends to unfortunately happen).
even though those sources are from every nation state in the UN
Not entirely true, not every paper etc published by the UN is signed off on by every member (hence the back and forth between the un commission and Chinese government on Xinjiang).
Those back and forths happen with every nation in the UN, especially when those nations are trying to avoid blame. It’s like claiming that the US and Israel aren’t committing a genocide because they didn’t sign off on the papers the UN released saying they did. The exact same thing is true of all the sources saying China and Russia are doing the same. And yet if you post those sources, immediate ban and comments removed.
I don’t think you really understood what I’m saying. You claimed every UN source is from every member nation this isn’t true, the UN has many members under the US umbrella this is true. Being skeptical is thus reasonable given these 2 facts.
Also the UN report on Xinjiang explicitly did not call it a genocide but that there were abuses which is true, during the ETIM crackdowns there definitely were abuses genocide however is another story the only “source” for which is a German evangelical on a mission from god to destroy china who speaks neither Uyghur nor mandarin and works for the victims of communism memorial foundation (I really should have to explain why that would cast doubt in this case I hope).
The only thing I’ve ever seen here labelled “extremist” and I’ve never really looked into it, is the claim that the Tiananmen Square Massacre was instigated by the CIA. Agian, I have never looked into it, but that’s the only thing I’ve ever seen ruffle people’s feathers.
I really think we all have a lot in common here, and maybe it’s just boredom, but we shouldn’t be at each other’s throats.
I’m a strong believer in facts (wow can’t believe I have to say that) but if someone compiled a large list of grievances with sources, that would be great. I always see lemmings labeld as “tankies” coming in with troves of links and sources, but never anyone else.
Anyone that comes in with proper sources is immediately banned and their comments removed, that’s why you never see them.
Such as?
There’s no argument here to defend. But posting a blog from someone in China and calling it a proper source is never going to be correct. They also think that the UN is “western imperialism” and so sources from them will be deleted (even though those sources are from every nation state in the UN).
Not trying to argue just that different people have different standards of what constitutes a proper source. Personally I wouldn’t consider Wikipedia or RadioFreeAsia as proper sources for instance.
I don’t think it’s inherently wrong to point out that much of those with sway within the UN come from within the US sphere of influence (look at the UN intervention on the side of the US in their war of exterminaton against the DPRK for example) and thus treat it as such however with that being said I also haven’t really seen UN sources being deleted before unless the comment containing it breaks rules such as being chauvinist for example (as tends to unfortunately happen).
Not entirely true, not every paper etc published by the UN is signed off on by every member (hence the back and forth between the un commission and Chinese government on Xinjiang).
Those back and forths happen with every nation in the UN, especially when those nations are trying to avoid blame. It’s like claiming that the US and Israel aren’t committing a genocide because they didn’t sign off on the papers the UN released saying they did. The exact same thing is true of all the sources saying China and Russia are doing the same. And yet if you post those sources, immediate ban and comments removed.
I don’t think you really understood what I’m saying. You claimed every UN source is from every member nation this isn’t true, the UN has many members under the US umbrella this is true. Being skeptical is thus reasonable given these 2 facts.
Also the UN report on Xinjiang explicitly did not call it a genocide but that there were abuses which is true, during the ETIM crackdowns there definitely were abuses genocide however is another story the only “source” for which is a German evangelical on a mission from god to destroy china who speaks neither Uyghur nor mandarin and works for the victims of communism memorial foundation (I really should have to explain why that would cast doubt in this case I hope).