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

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).

You're not knocking down propaganda, you're just being selectively gullible and letting absurd weirdos control your beliefs without investigating them. Adrian Zenz, breathless and inconsistent BBC videos, "medua bias fact check" that's a ridiculous politically one-dimensional "centrism is facts" website with no consistent methodology by people you should have no reason to trust.

Personally, I try to not unquestioningly accept state department propaganda directed at a perceived enemy state from 3 years ago, and then when challenged hastily google until my biases are confirmed, but you do you.