PART II

You said “Wilkerson admitted” although he said the US “could” take action hypothetically through Xinjiang and made it clear that he was not saying that was happening. So he didn’t admit anything, he’s providing plausible context to a situation.

He said that another reason they were in Xinjiang is because they “could” use Uyghurs in the future (aka exactly what I claimed, see last post).

Yes, we agree that Xinjiang is vulnerable and important for China. Literally why the Uyghurs are in concentration camps. Boy, you run circles around yourself.

I already said it was a polysemous point. Keep up.

In part 2, you continue calling me a liar because you don’t trust satellites and are ignoring the 100 Uyghur burial sites that were demolished, I guess?

Now are we really going to do this? I called you a liar because you claimed 10,000+ mosques were demolished and then admitted you made it up when asked for a source (that’s called a lie, when you say something you know isn’t true). Who are you trying to fool with these omissions? You’re talking to me, so you won’t get away with misrepresenting my points. It’s that simple. And what a weak way of summarizing that I proved satellite images were abused in the past by the Western press for this exact purpose.

Then you ignore the two sources I provide because why not, oh right- Your AP article!

I didn’t ignore them, I explained why they weren’t viable. Again, who do you think these obvious lies will work on?

Okay, specific article you’ve noted twice from a credible source. Let’s see, the AP reports on the terror of Xinjiang citizens based on the actions of the CCP, the censorship of Xinjiang in the press, being escorted through a specifically displayed part of Xinjiang that seems uncanny, they agree that there are ongoing permanent mass detentions of Uyghurs - I don’t get it, what do you want me to get from this article? Are you obliquely admitting to making a mistake and showing that you do, in fact have a credible source for the detention and cultural genocide of Uyghurs? Because big ol’ pats on the back for you.

The AP News article is a proof of Western lies surrounding the detention of Uyghurs although they don’t admit it. See the New Atlas commentary I linked when I first added this source (remember analysis does not require MBFC “credibility”, just soundness; you could have done this analysis yourself, but I knew you weren’t capable). Now short-term memory gets the best of you.

Ah, pretending I said you only used two sources when I didn’t with a throwaway line, bitter, but classic. Claiming that “it doesn’t matter if Grayzone is bad” even though, yea it does, if you’re using an article of theirs as evidence for anything.

I was using it for analysis (no need for blind trust). Your arguments are the exact reason the genetic fallacy was created. I already said that Grayzone can publish bad info (with reporting, notice the difference between his and analysis), but throwing all of their articles out of hand as a rule for this reason and then acting like I don’t have any sources is absurd. And you did claim that, so congrats.

Another apology! Maybe you are obliquely trying to apologize without admitting anything. Also accepted.

This reception to sarcasm is incredibly childish.

Haha, okay, Uyghur isn’t forbidden but none of the Uyguhrs in the curated parts of Xinjiang they were led through by CCP representatives spoke Uyghur? What a coincidence, that all the fluent Mandarin-speakers(a second tongue to Uyghurs) in Xinjiang were all in the exact same city and neighborhood the AP team was led to.

This isn’t an argument at all. And thanks for admitting Uyghur isn’t forbidden (.~.). Yeah no, Uyghur language books for sale settles it, see the New Atlas analysis for the rest.

Okay, you agree that you linked an outdated screenshot of screenshotted tweets, but it doesn’t matter and you don’t care and you think I shouldn’t care either! I do not. Done.

It’s pedantic but it’s strange you’re still saying “screenshot of screenshotted tweets”, when I linked a tweet which screenshotted another tweet (no double screenshot or multiple screenshots of tweets; you’re just saying this to convince yourself).

You cited analysis from poor sources, you cherrypicked irrelevant data points like the “energy artery,” the existence of a book in a city proving t hat [you meant that] Uyghurs aren’t being forced to speak Mandarin even though they all spoke Mandarin

The source has no bearing on analysis, I don’t get how you can’t understand this yet. Let’s roll this back. You first cited the BBC video for proof the Uyghur language was banned and I showed that there was Uyghur language script above a door. You say the CPC could have put that there specifically for the visit, fine, then I show that Uyghur language books are being sold. Your response is to move the goalposts from the language being banned.

denied the crediblity [here you meant ‘credibility’] of every news organization except the AP(who apparently agrees that the cultural genocide is occurring) and Twitter(who…is twitter, why do you keep citing twitter?), these singular points of unverified claims contrary to all credible sources are not actual arguments for your hopeful “points”, I hope you realize.

I refuted the “credible sources”, reasserting their “credibility” shows you can’t do thorough analysis. The AP note is stupid because I linked analysis along with it (NA); the AP article is proof of my point but only if you understand the context. I linked Twitter threads where people analyzed things, I didn’t cite twitter. This “credibility” thing is all you have, as if these sources are impenetrable or cannot be incorrect, as I proved they were.

Don’t know why you’re hung up on the end of May being five months separate from the beginning of January, but it’s definitely not your silliest misunderstanding, so have fun.

??? Genuinely this is your dumbest point. Yes, May is five months from the beginning of January. Never claimed it wasn’t, and this has no bearing on anything I said (and is a misunderstanding of my “day earlier” comment).

PART I

Love that you don’t deny that you’re peddling propadgnda [propaganda is spelled wrong], just that I’m not going to feel good for stopping your propaganda [there you go] in its tracks.

I just figured that was a word you just learned; “your propaganda” was just how you referred to my comment.

Let’s see what you tried for - seems like you replied much faster this time, forgoing the assistance of sources nearly altogether and just calling me a liar(super convincing). You don’t like unbiased, fact-checked sources(cool, cool). Agreed-upon rational, dispersed assessment of collected data about human rights violations by the CCP against Uyghurs according to the United Nations, multiple trusted news organizations, the victims, detainees, guards is just “propaganda” to you, noted.

I don’t get notifications for this site, I just check it whenever; there is not a single claim I made that needed a source for which it wasn’t provided. And calling you a liar? You admitted to lying about mosque demolition, let’s forget how insecure you have to be in your position to completely lie (and then still act snarky when caught). I don’t think anything can convince you, but it looks like I’ve convinced other people judging by the comment likes. And unbiased sources like checks notes CNN and RFA? Yeah sorry your fact-checking website is utter garbage, and let’s not forget that I refuted each of your sources. Ooh an appeal to authority, I think that might be all you have left. You seem to be under the impression that “trusted news organizations” are beyond critique.

Then you rail against credible sources some more, say that even though you specifically mentioned my response lacking the US stance on Taiwan, you don’t care about the US stance on Taiwan…haha, I do like the almost hysterical laughter and desperate tone you have in all of these paragraphs.

Man this “credible source” thing is all you have (MBFC is not infallible); I guess you didn’t want to address that you admitted the CIA was sowing unrest in Xinjiang and then cited the CIA (though RFA) for proof of your claims. I wouldn’t either. And your Taiwan point is absurd. I meant the official stance of the U.S. on Taiwan, not the stance of U.S. citizens from a single opinion poll of which I’m sure you’re aware is irrelevant—American citizens, famous for having worthwhile and informed geopolitical opinions.

Agreeing with me about Chengchi and your own source disagreeing with you about reunification, cheers, change the goalpost from reunification to autonomy, ignoring that polled Taiwanese think the CCP is “bad,” saying that there’s no way to invade yourself by narrowly defining oneself…

Let’s see what I said when I originally cited the Chengchi study: “Taiwan’s National Chengchi University, an explicitly anti-CPC source, in 2022, showed the following results with regards to the perspective of Taiwanese citizens on independence and reunification: (Status Quo as Autonomous Part of China and Complete Unification Compiled [part of PRC] : 63.4%) (General Support for Independence Including Status Quo Moving Towards Independence [not part of PRC]: 30.3%) (Non-Response: 6.3%).” Remember that none of this was proven incorrect by you.

The argument was recognition as a separate country (complete reunification is not the only path to being part of China, with Status Quo encompassing this) which I’m sure you know and ignored for this pathetic dunk. Taiwanese people not liking the CPC does not refute my point, and just asserting that I narrowly defined oneself is not an argument.

A link! First non-opinion/epithet piece! Let’s see what you have here. A debunking of a credible article you don’t like because “conspiracy”(boy it’s really everywhere except the Gray Zone(but wait, that website is know for disproven conspiracy theory. Hm.)).

JFC this “credible” thing is getting old. Apparently anything refuting a source which MBFC lists as “credible” is impossible? Your whole argument just appeals to authority and the genetic fallacy. And are you referring to the study refuting Amnesty International’s report? It doesn’t just call it a conspiracy and move on, I dare you to actually engage with the material. I know you won’t because you’re incapable. The Grayzone articles I linked on Zenz’s research were merely analytical. Refute them if you like, otherwise it doesn’t matter what the Grayzone is “known for”, because the genetic fallacy only works when you have to engage in trust, of which the Grayzone articles did not require.

Oh no, Zenz, that irritating loudmouth you can’t disprove! Sorry about using him again, I see now that you need all the composure you can muster to make a coherent point. Ah, it’s not just Zenz who uses the 1+ million number, it’s pretty much every credible news organization(and as you point out, Amnesty International and the United Nations). You’re just angry that Zenz is proving you wrong. Unerstandable. [typo]

If you ignore the Grayzone’s analysis because of the genetic fallacy and ignore my analysis of his 1+ million number I suppose I haven’t refuted him. I don’t care how “credible” these organizations are that use the number because I’m not interested in appeals to authority, prove your claim. The article you linked cited Zenz (and you quoted Zenz) on this “mass internment”, so I addressed it. You can’t then circularly appeal back to the article quoting him as proof of separate corroboration. I cannot believe your only argument now is this “credible” thing as if we can’t see and test the methodology of these sources. I already linked a refutation of Amnesty International’s report which you dismissed with no rebuttal. The NPR article you cited then cited AI, Zenz, and the UN; I know I’m gonna be saying “appeal to authority” a lot but it’s the only argument you’re making. I refuted all of these sources.

Then you claim that data is reliable regardless of where it comes from, which is absurd and untrue.

Outright lie, I said analysis can be sound regardless of where it comes from (and that you need to judge the analysis not the source), but your misrepresentation probably sounded better in your head.

You assume the UN has a single source for all of their data(you know “United” implies more than one, right?), which is amazing.

This might be the dumbest point I’ve seen in a while. I’m not saying that; the NPR article cited a UN claim based on a report outsourced to CHRD, which I critiqued. Saying “they have united in their name therefore they have multiple sources” is obviously childish nonsense, with the UN claim at this point (NPR article published) being directly linked to the CHRD report they commissioned. The UN has done many things since, but this isn’t what you cited, and I’m not required to refute the whole of the UN.

Apology accepted. You laugh hysterically again at how your articles are biased and least-credible, implying credibility isn’t important for sources, so let it go, bro.

Complete nonsense

PART 2

10,000 mosques destroyed is an outlandish claims, but knowing that the CCP is actively destroying mosques and working off you not using sources, I didn’t have a problem with that since at least I was reporting on the factual demolition of cultural Uyghur sites by the CCP

I did use sources… you’re just trying to justify being caught in a lie. Well we know how satellite images worked last time for proving the demolition of cultural sites (I used a source for this last time but you’ll have to grapple with your new lie to see it).

Next you cite two sources for being forced to speak Mandarin; the first is an article which just cites RFA reports relying on their independent verification of testimony (impossible since RFA is a CIA-founded and U.S. government funded source); the next is just an RFA report on documents they “retrieved.” Color me unimpressed, certainly considering that you admitted these same bodies foment unrest in Xinjiang.

Let’s see, my sources for the Uyghur genocide are all credited as least biased and credible, while your one cherry picked report is subtitled “It is not in the interests of British workers to accept the lies being propagated by our rulers.” Why does this seem biased…oh, because most of the words are loaded and vague, I get it!

It could not matter less what Media Bias Fact Check calls “least biased and credible.” I want you to let this sink in. The pinnacle of “non-bias” requires no “anti-corporation bias” as cited for Grayzone being biased (I wonder why). And the subtitle is explained further in the article, I can’t help if you can’t get past the beginning.

Okay you still haven’t addressed the AP news article or anything else (and then lied saying that my only sources were Grayzone and Twitter). I used Twitter for analysis, not as a citation of itself, but it’s almost like you’re aiming to convince some phantom third party of your claims with this level of dishonesty.

Uyghur re-education camps - even though the CCP is banning Uyghur language, you are convinced they are not forcing Uyghurs to speak Mandarin in cultural re-education camps on the basis of a wall-hanging in a specific concentration camp the CCP has put on display, scheduled a dance and cultural exhibition for and has prepared to be broadcast globally.

Just using your source (sorry). Anyways we know the CPC hasn’t banned the Uyghur language (this is what the wall-hanging was about), the AP News article where they visit Xinjiang also showed Uyghur language books for sale. Mandarin is one of the skills practiced for employment, but you aren’t forbidden from speaking Uyghur.

Looks like after this, you just reiterate that you don’t like that video(there are others), and there are multiple articles in this comment that prove the existence of Uyghur-language bans by the government, so the rest of your 4th point crumbles. Let’s move on!

By multiple you mean two; great response to my points on the BBC video by the way /s.

Last part, this is where you genuinely go crazy, like so nonsensical that I’m worried for you

Oh my gosh, still on Zenz? I get it. You don’t like him. Whatever, the point of your paragraph here is that you agree with me that the human transmissibility of covid-19 was announced by China in January 2020. Cool. Don’t know how you took two paragraphs to agree again, but thanks anyway.

Firstly you said January 2019, but we’ll let that slide again. The covid transmissibility was a point I brought up to show that Zenz has been dishonest and that his prejudices seep into his analysis of China as well (would be great if you read the Grayzone articles, but I’m okay with whatever dishonest sophism you need to justify not doing this). You corrected this point by saying that my “day earlier” note was incorrect because there was a “five month gap.” I explained how this was incorrect, and now you’re acting like there was just an argument on when China confirmed transmissibility? Just admit that your “is that 5 month gap what you mean by “the day after”?” point was nonsense; it’s that simple. There is nothing else to discuss, and you’re speaking gibberish.

Embarrassing for you, but fun for me! If you are actually trying to make convincing arguments, you/re going to have to use better sources than obscure, biased cherrypicked headlines and a link to a screenshot of screenshotted, undated tweets. Try what I did! Direct links and crushing, undeniable evidence from multiple, least-biased sources.

Good job practicing self-love, but you made a pathetic reply that refuted nothing I said. I never cited headlines, you just couldn’t read past them; everything I cited was analysis, thus making obscurity irrelevant, but that’s definitely a fun emotional argument for you; the link to a tweet with screenshots, not a “screenshot of screenshot[s” (although this sounds better), and furthermore only one tweet was screenshotted, the other was an article of which we could verify the dates. Even if you’re right and the author fabricated his tweet for some reason, your “five months” dunk is still complete nonsense (try admitting this).

PART 1 [Edit: PART 2 is not loading on my view, see my user page for the comment if you can’t access it]

Feels good knocking down your propaganda.

Not gonna feel good in a second, your reply is seriously bad.

Woo, you really just jump into the name-calling and mud-slinging when you get called out.

Didn’t call you a name once lmao

Why didn’t I include more sources for you in the last reply? You used The Gray Zone(notoriously biased and factually incorrect extremist hub.

Media bias fact check isn’t a source (no failed fact checks either). Let’s go over this link though, since it’s pretty fun. I like how it cited Radio Free Asia, the CIA-founded site that receives funding from U.S. Congress (ooh Media Bias fact check ranks it high, despite its repeated absurd propaganda surrounding the DPRK and China); the site doesn’t actually link the RFA report. Remember that I pointed out that the BBC was biased against China, then showed how that bias melted into the story you cited. You attempted to do only the first half, which is a solid case of the genetic fallacy, since the Grayzone isn’t doing word of mouth on the ground reporting but analysis which can be independently verified (thus requiring more than a proof of bias). It doesn’t matter if Grayzone is bad (they have published some anti-vaccine nonsense for example) if their specific articles here are correct (they are, and are extensively cited), but this is all done away with by Media Bias Fact check, how grim.

BTW, check out my linked sources, they are near center or officially “least biased”, meaning they have minimal bias, use few loaded words, factual reporting and often sourced

What a source registers on MBFC means literally nothing, as we’ve just caught them citing the CIA to prove “CCP affiliation” and then not linking that citation. Again and again you will appeal to authority with this source, and act like it proves a specific claim.

You answered your own question about the countries that recognize Taiwan as its own country, did not include a link to your opinion poll that disagrees with, and since you mentioned America, I’ll add that 64% of Americans recognize Taiwan’s independence

The vast majority of countries do not recognize Taiwan as a country (so that general comment was misleading, this is all I meant to comment). In regards to U.S. citizens’ opinions of the independence of Taiwan, I’m sure you know this means less than nothing.

It is funny that you referenced a study from Chengchi that apparently points to the exact opposite of their findings in 2022 but didn’t include a link(this is what links look like):

“This is what a link looks like” lmao. Every figure I noted was accurate (apparently this Newsweek report with a lot of “loaded words” tricked you again). Note that overall support for independence at any date is lower than support for continuing as a part of China with separate autonomy under One Country, Two Systems. This is exactly what I said, so you didn’t disprove anything.

The title of that 2022 article about an opinion poll from Taiwan on Chinese reunification is “Taiwan’s Desire for Unification with China Near Record Low as Tensions Rise.”

The headline of a Newsweek article, which is just reposting the results of a non-affiliated poll, has no bearing on anything. Such a weak point, as if Newsweek has no agenda.

China is invading Hong Kong. It is weird that you don’t think you can invade yourself, I’m not sure what you are referring to. Are you entirely unaware of the concept of a civil war? Or abscesses in the human body invading other body parts? Besides Hong Kong being autonomous from China and not being invaded “by itself” anyway, of course something can invade or occupy itself, especially if the “itself” is actually separate from “itself”, as HK or Taiwan is from China.

I’m aware of the concept of a civil war, of which Hong Kong and China have not been engaged, and which conceptually would require some claim of independence or separatism to allow an “invasion of oneself”, essentially the negation of the whole self and a reiteration of my point. In regards to the body, are you referring to infections which are introduced from without (cuts/openings introducing foreign bacteria) then spreading from one part of the body to another? How does this refute my point? Hong Kong is autonomous (largely governs itself, is capitalist whereas mainland China is socialist), but it is still a part of China, and the comparison to Taiwan (of which I can assume you’re referring to separation of land between bodies of water) is incorrect because it implies some conflict of territory rather than entrance by a universal power of China.

There are 12+ million Uyghurs, there are around 1.5 million concentration camp detainees according to the UN(here, you can see that reference in NPRs article that is talking about “the largest incarceration of an ethnoreligious minority since the Holocaust.”

We’ll forget that NPR is funded by the U.S. government and instead look at the article itself. First, we have the Amnesty International report (we’ll ignore Amnesty International’s ties to the U.S. government; this report has been refuted in-depth. I wonder where this “the largest incarceration of an ethnoreligious minority since the Holocaust” quote is from… ah Adrian Zenz. Speaking to the VCMF, founded by the U.S. government. We’ll let this slide for a third time. In his initial report for the ~1m estimate [https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2018.1507997], RFA (U.S. government propaganda outlet) is cited four times, and the estimate is only mentioned on (pp. 21-2). Zenz finds this number by roughly extrapolating a “leaked” report by Newsweek Japan (affiliated with Newsweek Inc.). This report comes from “Istekral TV”, which frequently platforms the terrorist organization ETIM. The report was never confirmed. Judging by an RFA report (RFA 2017; p. 22), Zenz states, “while there is no certainty, it is reasonable to speculate that the total number of detainees is between several hundred thousand and just over one million.” This is all that is said regarding this topic.

Zenz says in the interview you quoted through NPR, “I also uncovered that there’s tools to implement intrauterine contraceptive devices and other intrusive surgical birth prevention mechanisms in at least 80% of the targeted women.” But we know this is incorrect and misleading, as shown here 1] [2]. Now I know you’re gonna get confused and say “that’s not a reliable source” but remember it’s analysis and thus can come from anywhere. You’ll have to get out of your appeals to authority and actually refute it.

The most important part of this article is of course that the “The United Nations has said that up to 1.5 million Uyghurs are in internment camps in China.” Now this article was released before the UN’s official report in 2022, so what is it talking about? The article doesn’t have a link for this claim, so I can only think of the 2018 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination report authored by the NGO (Network of) Chinese Human Rights Defenders [which has received NED (U.S. government) funding. The report (which concludes 1.3-2 million detainees) was based on interviews with only 8 Uyghur individuals, then extrapolated to form percent estimates on the population of detainees in the XUAR. This is what is obscured by your “low bias” “no loaded words” sources.

You are so aghast at the idea of evidence concerning the hui afraid they’re next for the camps - here you go. - Oh wait, the hui are already in the concentration camps alongside the Uyghurs

Now your New Europe link is an article with exactly zero sources and no specific references to evidence, so we will dismiss this. The Foreign Policy article has a hard paywall (down to source), so it can’t be bypassed (leading me to believe you didn’t read this article at all, but instead just looked at the headline and then cited it).

I’m sure it’s annoying that it’s so easy for me to debunk your nonsense, but if you want me to focus specifically on a person or paragraph, you’re going to have to make that specific request, I’m not going to sift through your cluttered extremist blogs looking for your references.

I’m sorry my articles aren’t approved by Media Bias Fact Check (lol, lmao even), but you’re being incredibly lazy. This is a fun thing to repeat back: “I’m sure it’s annoying that it’s so easy for me to debunk your nonsense”

You claimed Wilkerson admitted to something he didn’t and that Edmonds was concerned about Xinjiang being an energy artery, so I proved you wrong or simply behind the times on both counts.

Now don’t flatter yourself, you did not prove I lied about Wilkerson admitting something. I said, “[he] admitted that a strategic reason for continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan is for the use of the Uyghur population in that nation as a bulwark against China.” Wilson specifically said that they were there partly for the opportunity to use Uygurs against China (although the U.S. wouldn’t admit if they were already doing this, and his “you didn’t hear that from me” comments are obviously suspect, but not needed to prove my claim).

Edmonds was concerned, and you never “proved” this was “behind the times.”

It looks in this next section you’re trying to pretend that I don’t believe the CIA foments unrest in Xinjiang(or globally). As per us, you are incorrect.

Then your point about Xinjiang being uniquely vulnerable and an important region for China in fact proves my point.

Tarry forth!

I tip le hat to you le redditor of sorts (k-ll me)

PART 2

3: Evidence]

As for no cultural genocide going on, not being allowed to speak your language, forced to pledge allegiance to the CCP, not allowed to wear your own clothing, and the cultural buildings(at least 10,000 mosques so far) that have been destroyed speak louder than the lack of evidence you’re providing.

Talking about “lack of evidence” in a paragraph like this that should be loaded with links is strange. Please cite your source for the demolition of 10,000 mosques (reminding us of claims which swept Western media in 2019 only to be proven false, “wear your own clothing” (of which the only reference I can find was one of the signs of extremism being: “wearing, or compelling others to wear, burqas with face coverings” (XUAR de-extremification regulations), which is not traditional Uyghur clothing), and not being allowed to speak one’s one language (maybe a reference to the the teaching of Mandarin as a skill in VCs so that business can be done between regions and prefectures, although there is no law forbidding one from speaking Uyghur).

Why is there no mention whatsoever of the AP News article and the notes by The New Atlas I linked? Here’s another article with a lot of sources.

4: British Broadcasting Corp.]

Seems like whoever wrote that article you linked to just really hates that one BBC presenter and does nothing to discredit the actual content of the video.

The presenter is the one providing context. And sure you can watch the video on mute but I don’t think you’ll get the same picture (and you won’t get the lies about graffiti which really give the video its signature edge). The commentary is the video. You should note the Uyghur language script and instruction in the facility (with Mandarin being taught), of which you wouldn’t be aware otherwise, which calls into question your claim that Uyghurs are not allowed to speak their own language.

In your original comment linking the documentary, you said:

Above, I’ve linked proof provided by the CCP showing uyghurs not allowed to speak their language, practice their religion, and the Chinese officials in charge of that camp saying that they detained innocent uyghurs before they commit crime because they might commit a crime late… how, with video and journalistic evidence of the concentration camps(where cultural genocide is occurring), do you still not believe in that evidence of cultural genocide.

Now we’re aware that your claim that the video showed proof of not being allowed to speak one’s language was false (instead teaching Mandarin for employment opportunities with Uyghur still present). It wasn’t the “video proof”, but the commentary that convinced you of this. And where is the evidence that Uyghurs can’t practice their religion? And which concentration camps do you know of where “inmates” leave on weekends (we see this in the video)? The video shows no evidence of any of your claims. I can only assume that, contrary to your claims, you in fact didn’t read the article, as you didn’t backtrack on any of this, much less the words on prevention of crime by an official which you cited as undeniable proof of wrongdoing and cultural genocide despite the article addressing this and showing how it was misrepresented by the BBC commentator. The article I linked isn’t an additional source of information, it’s a demonstration of dishonesty by analysis that I could have repeated again in my comment, but I figured this wasn’t necessary since it had already been done. I guess if you don’t explain something twice it doesn’t get through.

Note: Why would China allow foreign press entrance into a facility in which they were supposedly performing genocide?

5: Adrian Zenz]

As for zenz, your argument is that the cultural genocide against Uyghurs zenz claims hasn’t been disproven because his studies have been accepted. Which doesn’t address the fact that his studies have not been disproven.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I was addressing your assumption that his studies were not disproven (which was based on the fact of their acceptance by the mainstream in the West); his research had been disproven, as shown for instance in the two articles linked in my original comment. I would assume that this mistake is because you didn’t see my second reply (also indicated by the continued use of ‘CCP’ as opposed to ‘CPC’), but I only addressed Zenz in that comment, so this can’t be the case.

Your ‘side note’ is really just another mistake (also the correct date is Jan. 2020, not Jan. 2019; and I said “a day earlier”, not “the day after”). The tweet I linked is from a third party comparing Zenz’s tweet (Jan. 21, 2020) to a NYT headline (Jan. 20, 2020). The third party tweet is from May, but the “day earlier” comment refers to the actual content: Zenz’s tweet vs. the NYT article, of which the latter appeared a day before the former. So no, this is not the “five month gap” I meant by “a day earlier.”

*CPC (Communist Party of China is the official term)

Read my other reply first; this is part two. You claim that Zenz’s studies on Uyghurs haven’t been disproven, but this is incorrect, they are accepted because they fit a narrative. For one, Zenz has deliberately lied about China in the past, like claiming that the Chinese government was trying to suppress the fact that COVID-19 was transmissible between humans, despite China confirming this fact a day earlier. For refutations of his research, see [1] and [2]. It genuinely seems like you’re just ignorant, but maybe I’m wrong. Hope to see a reply.