this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
0 points (50.0% liked)

Memes

52792 readers
909 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

the OHCHR assessment (Aug 31, 2022) does not indicate genocide

Great, done, stop typing. Everything else is just blatant Motte and Baillie

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com -3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

This is incorrect I'm afraid. The OHCHR assessment should have indicated genocide. I suspect that admitting you're wrong is difficult for you, but in this case it's patently clear for the reasons I stated above. This difference in terminology is pedantic; what's important is the suffering and persecution that's going on in China, and you've failed to address any of it. I wish you the best of luck in your journey, but I have no more time to donate to you. Have a day.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 hours ago

The OHCHR assessment should have indicated genocide.

Uhuh, so It's not incorrect, you just disagree

I suspect that admitting you’re wrong is difficult for you

Go back to reddit you fucking loser.

This difference in terminology is pedantic

Are, you're into the "Words don't mean things!" phase of argument.

This difference in terminology is pedantic; what’s important is the suffering and persecution that’s going on in China, and you’ve failed to address any of it.

Uhuh, so like I said, just blatant Motte and Baillie

I wish you the best of luck in your journey, but I have no more time to donate to you. Have a day.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one -3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

So your argument is "they are just dehumanizing and trying to exterminate a group of people, and I'm chill with that"? A bold position.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

That is not something anyone here has said, dumbass

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one -1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Seems that way. Person 2 above said "it's not x but it is y", person above said "you can stop at it's not x" implying to me they are fine with "but it is y". What's wrong with that inference?

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one -2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Valuable addition. I ask "why is that inference wrong" and you say "no".

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

What's wrong with it is it's factually inaccurate, fucking duh. You can stop at "it's not genocide" because that by itself is an entirely accurate statement, everything you said after that is bullshit, and the comment you're referring to was not ambiguous about that at all so you have absolutely no excuse for pretending otherwise.

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one -2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

No, he said everything else is some type of castle. I looked this castle up and it aligns well with the idea that he's trying to shut down the other claims without considering them.

From the wiki:

where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey")

So he's technically saying that the rest of the post is modest claims which are easy to defend, ie he agrees with Y. (I'm assuming the bailey is genocide and the motte is the claims of ethnic cleansing w/out genocide)

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Another solid argument that gets right to the real point of all this.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago

Arguments are for disagreements in good faith with people who are honest, you're a lying sack of shit so you do not warrant an argument, cry about it

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

No, that's very obviously not "my argument", but I wouldn't expect you to be above lying and putting words in my mouth.

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one -2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Well then why did you say the rest of the post of the person you're responding to doesn't matter? You did say that, didn't you? You told them to stop and that their argument is faulty, but didn't deny the actual claims. That implies to me you don't care. If you do care, you did an extremely poor job of showing it by telling them to stop talking.

So if the above is so completely off base, why don't you continue your argument with the poster above?