this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026
218 points (70.8% liked)
Memes
55744 readers
470 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The burden of proof is on you. I can only provide context for the claims that have been raised. If you look at the sources they're all western
Technically the white papers linked come from China, typically, but these are presented alongside western sources as the dominant viewpoint.
The burden of proof should be on you since you claimed https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang as a source?
Also, talking about burden of proof here makes not sense. You provided a source, one can either trust it or not. And the question was if you belived it to be true or not (which I assume you do since you linked it. I haven't read it).
Just read the evidence, it won't bite
I did, and they had to call an ambulance. I don't think I will be able to walk again. /s
I won't read the whole thing, I don't have that time. I read the ingress and (a summary to get a basic understand of the message meant to be convyed).
Now what? I never disputed nor did I affirm anything.
The burden of proof is on you since you claim: "There is a genocide happening in Xinjiang". I can't prove a negative. The proof your type (western propagandized libs) usually provides are western sources, which have been debunked by providing context (in the link I provided)
I'm not Tabooki2, I'm only here for the intresting dicussions and different view points and arguments. What stuck with me was the Tabooki2 asked if you believed what was stated in your link to which you responded with "the burden of proof is on you".
When a claim is stated, the burden of proof is on that person. My argument here was that you claimed a source, and if proof has to be provided the claimer should have that burden. But that is a strange take since a a source is a proof and one can chose to trust it (or not).
So in the end, I was confused about your comment and tought you asked Tabooki2 to verify your source for you, not the original claim about "the treatment of wighurs". I appologise for the confusion on my part.