this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
539 points (88.7% liked)

Memes

53323 readers
2165 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
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 29 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That still doesn’t change the fact that China is persecuting Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province.

Previously:

The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.

The only countries pushing this narrative are the “always the same mapimperial core countries, which just so happen to be largely the same ones supporting Israel’s genocide.

Almost no predominantly-Muslim country buys the Uyghur genocide narrative, because they know it’s bullshit, because they talked to the Uyghurs themselves.
https://twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578003299827171330 #HRC51 | Draft resolution A/HRC/51/L.6 on holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of #China, was REJECTED.

[–] TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 28 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.

Much like how after China foiled their color revolution attempt in 1989, the CIA had to pivot to the "Tinyman Square Massacre" narrative.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 21 points 3 days ago

Very much like that, and they’re still getting mileage out of it with no effort, because Lemmitors get an endorphin rush every time they do the CIA’s work for free, the brave defenders of freedom & democracy that they are 🤦‍♂️

[–] tyler@programming.dev -3 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Sources:

  • china news propaganda site
  • medium article from rando
  • project syndicate link which is an op-ed site (not news)
  • a wiki page from an incredibly biased group
  • a youtube link...
  • a site calling itself a news site, yet no actual credentials, but seems to be associated with China (Ajit Singh has written Chinese propaganda books)
  • a substack link

This has to be the least compelling list of evidence one could provide, and yet you get upvotes because it looks like you've provided proof of something. All you've done is provide a lot of incredibly, seriously biased opinions with no actual facts at all.

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Would you prefer something from America's own fox news or New York Times?

[–] tyler@programming.dev -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No, neither. You’re making up a position and pretending like I believe that to make my argument look weak. I’m not the one posting shit sources.

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

What is an example of an axtually credible spurce in your opinion?

[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

You're not posting any sources at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

I trust OIC and Muslim countries more than I trust any Western source. It is borderline farcical for Western governments and media to pretend to care about the welfare of Muslims in China while directly or indirectly enabling the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine and invasions and war crimes in many other.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As opposed to all those unbiased sources you've provided, lol.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Wow, I wonder why there aren’t any Western corporate media sources with a Media Bias/Fact Check seal of approval…

Previously:

The first step is to understand the media, which Media Bias/Fact Check and the Ad Fontes Media* are never going to teach you. The only people who are taught it are those who get degrees in marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism; and even then only some of them.

The new post-Trump/“post-truth” media literacy curricula won’t teach it to you either, because it was paid for and crafted by the US military-industrial complex: New Media Literacy Standards Aim to Combat ‘Truth Decay’.

This week, the RAND Corporation released a new set of media literacy standards designed to support schools in this task.

The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”

None of it is a secret, though, and it can be learned.


* I’ve criticized MBFC & Ad Fontes before: