this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
524 points (88.1% liked)

Memes

54694 readers
1316 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
[–] jankforlife@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

And so does China

The only "evidence" of this comes from the empire and is demonstrably false

[–] JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz -1 points 2 months ago

Eh, most people probably don't brag about doing war crimes.

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Idk man, this page has over 401 citations from various sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China?wprov=sfla1

Edit: This also has a lot of citations ns from various sources too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_in_China?wprov=sfla1

[–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The 400 citations in question:

[1] Victims of Communism Memorial Association

[2] Burger Eagle Freedom Institute

[3] China Freedom NGO (Washington DC)

[4-399] Western State Television Station (retrieved in 2020)

[400] Literally the CIA

The article editors in question:

u/USA_STEM_Edgelord_USA_1990

u/TotallyNotAFed69

u/WhiteCisManInHis30s

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

Good job outing yourself as someone who can only read up to 3 lines before they have to vomit bullshit onto the internet.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And you've read zero of them.

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Someone once put together a book titled, "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein." Einstein dismissed the book with the quip, "Why one hundred? If I were really wrong, they'd only need one."

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like a colossal reach at best, and pathetic cope at worst.

You understand the colossal differences between multiple independent journalists researching and reporting on the same topic, and a large organized group of pseudointellectuals trying to disprove a single person based on vibes alone, right?

You seem to be very desperately, and pathetically holding onto a form of fallacy of composition:

https://practicalpie.com/fallacy-of-composition/

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

No, I'm simply calling out a lazy gish gallop. It's the same in both cases.

How many sources are listed on the Wikipedia page for Christianity? If I accept your logic as valid, it seems I'll have to convert.

[–] jankforlife@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes. Libopedia the pinnicle of (western) truth!

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of public information, most especially do to the international collaboration efforts on it.

You can't just dismiss a source on the basis that you don't like it. You need to provide actual evidence that the source is untrustworthy

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of public information

Yeah if you're looking up wood joints and math theorems. Not if you're trying to learn anything about politics or history that ties into the interests of the systems and institutions that filter the media allowed as valid citations.

You need to provide actual evidence that the source is untrustworthy

Do they ban the New York Times because they lied the country into every war it's been in since McKinley?