this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
39 points (88.2% liked)
Memes
53473 readers
706 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sources:
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.
Would you prefer something from America's own fox news or New York Times?
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.
What is an example of an axtually credible spurce in your opinion?
You're not posting any sources at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
As opposed to all those unbiased sources you've provided, lol.
I’m absolutely not going to provide sources or even argue with anyone from .ml on an .ml community because it’s pointless. You all do not care about proper sourcing and think it’s even a detractor because it’s “western”. I’m pointing out the problems with the sources for all the other people that are observing that comment and being swayed, because it’s a bunch of baloney.
Disclaimer: not .ml.
Critisizing someone's sources and then refusing to provide any other ones "because it's pointless" seems a little hypocritical to me.
So we should trust your word over someone's who has at least put in the effort to provide sources?
Look, you don't need to prove anything, but if you're gonna argue or act like you're defending people from misinformation, then I'd expect to see more than just "don't listen to that guy". It's not exactly easy finding objective information about various issues in China and filtering out all the American propaganda. Personally, I'd very much appreciate any links that don't lead to obvious manipulation.
How is it hypocritical? Either the sources are biased or not. The poster not providing proof for a counterargument is irrelevant. Or do you mean they should provide proof for the original sources being biased?
There's no such thing as a source with no bias
But there is a spectrum. Or are you telling me that every source is as biased as any other?
Mate, the person literally said "Either the sources are biased or not"
Fun fact: every single time someone writes this, whatever follows is guaranteed to be an outrageous strawman that in no way it's what the other person was saying.
Sure buddy. It is still irrelevant. It is not hypocritical to ciritice a source. You don't have to prove a different point to bring forward criticism. The only question should be "is the criticism valid?" And not "do you have a better point?"
And the answer to that question is "there’s no such thing as a source with no bias"
No it is not. That's only an answer if one thinks that every sources bias is as bad as any other, which was rejected earlier as "outrages strawman". Under the assumption that sources can be more or less biased, it is worth questioning the bias and the statement "there's no such thing as a source with no bias" is a moot point.
If someone claims to solve string theory and then provides shit sources there is never an obligation to provide sources that solve string theory. Pointing out sources are shit is part of science. I don’t need to provide a counter argument because that’s not the purpose of the conversation. I don’t need to provide proof of the alternative because the only thing I’m trying to accomplish is to stop this liar from spreading misinformation.
A lie can travel around the world before the truth takes a few steps. That’s exactly what that user is trying to do. Post as many lies as possible so that refuting them takes hours if not days if not months or years.
How can you know if the sources really are bad if it's not obvious aftet reading? Do you just trust a random person's words? In this case, you're essentially arbitrarily picking one version over another.
The problem with 'stopping lies' is it requires effort, which not everyone may wish to dedicate. I'm by no means denouncing the other person for trying to stop misinformation (assuming that's the case, since I still have no idea). However, it's all in vain if they don't bother to do anything to prove their point.
Anyone can post misinformation as sources, just as anyone can post that the sources are bad. Fundamentally there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two. If you really feel the need to defend people from being misinformed, some better source or other form of proof, or at the very least a deeper explanation would go a long way.
I mean it is obvious after reading, the problem is that most people aren’t going to read the sources, they’re just reading the comment. They’re not going to click through and see that several are literally Chinese propaganda sites. They’re going to take the original comment at face value. If they then skip the sources and read my comment stating what the sources actually are then they’re less likely to be influenced.
So like
If someone claims there's totally a genocide
Then provides shit sources...
🤔
🤔 I wonder who would do that?
You're conflating "proper sourcing" with being western, that's already an error, and second of all it's the west that has been most prominently pushing the genocide theory. Of course it's going to be contested by China. The validity of sources used by posts on YouTube and Medium aren't in question because of where they are hosted, they are often hosted on these kinds of platforms because opposing western narratives gets you blacklisted.
If that were true then non western sources would have plenty of news articles, yet all ml users post are things directly from Russia or China or “alternative” “sources” like medium (which isn’t a source). There are plenty of regimes that do not align with anything America has to say, yet no news articles from them.
Not really true. We post sources from all over, especially groups like Al Mayadeen that post in English. If we post something in spanish from Granma, for example, people can't read that.
Wow, I wonder why there aren’t any Western corporate media sources with a Media Bias/Fact Check seal of approval…
Previously:
It's OK to distrust more than one Government, but how anyone can believe the Chineses Government in this matter is beyond me.
Did you not see the insanely violent crack down on Hong Kong Democracy Movement with you own eyes? Do you not remember Tianamen Square? Great Fire-Wall?
Theres liyteraly over 10GB or evidence of the persecution of Uyghurs by the Chinese Government:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_Police_Files
I can understand not wanting to believe/trust the US and EU Govs, but trusting the Chinese Government is (IMO) insane.
It’s OK to distrust more than one Government, but how anyone can believe the the west in this matter is beyond me.
The west has repeatedly coup'd, invaded, destroyed, killed, bombed, sanctioned everyone that dares look at them wrong. But sure, daddy west is completely right when it comes to China.
Democracy is when you have west funded protests trying to do a color revolution. Sure.
Oh, one of the biggest propaganda lies the west ever made about China? Have you actually watched the tank man video? How about the evidence of the contrary to the so called "massacre on Tiananmen square".
Oh no, China doesn't allow the west to propagandize to it's citizens, while simultaneously propping it's own national platforms, the horror!!!11!!1!
Also, let's just ignore how the Arab League literally investigated the so called "Xinjiang genocide", and found nothing.
But sure, Adrian Zenz is right, lmao.
Yeah... not suspicious at all.
"How anyone can believe the foreigners is beyond me" Let me guess you don't consider foreigners human
"All foreigners are 'insane' btw" calm down hitler
Previously:
Previously:
The firewall isn’t there to keep Chinese people from The Truth. It’s there to keep imperial core meddling out, and to help China develop its own domestic internet services. In contrast, the rest of the world is dependent on / addicted to US internet services from Google/Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook/Meta, Microsoft, etc., which many countries are beginning to regret.
I already covered Xinjang elsewhere in this post, and if you had read it you would know that Adrian Zenz is a crackpot.
Then you should try it, you hypocritical dipshit. You believe everything that comes out of the western propaganda machine without question, and then assume anyone who doesn't believe them are "believing the Chinese government"
If it were 2002 you would be accusing anyone who didn't believe Iraq of having WMDs of "believing Saddam!"
So do you do this in the opposite direction? When people doubt a claim made by China, do you start randomly bringing up unrelated events from forty years ago. What exactly was the chain of reasoning that made you thought this was relevant? Oh right, there wasn't one: you've just been trained like a literal dog to compulsively blurt out "Tinyman Square!" every time you hear the word "China".
That's the reddit mindset: being as rude, condescending, and smug as humanly possible is fine, but a naughty word is just uncivil.
Nobody said anything about MBFC. Good luck, like I said in another comment I’m not going to argue with anyone from .ml. I was pointing out the faults in your sources because they’re not proper sources no matter what region of the world you’re from.
"Waaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaah! I'm a little baby incapable of citing sources, I'm not gonna talk to you .ml demons."
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 countries as well as the discriminatory policies in their own countries.
You're arguing with a guy that doesn't want to change their mind. He literally sent me a video whose sources contradicted him and guess what happened when I pointed that to him? Never bothered to reply and he still uses that video as proof that he's right.
As opposed to you people, who are totally open and eager to change your minds
Seeing as how I actually watched his video and looked at their sources and other sources and only after that did I reply? Yes. And even to this day I still leave room for doubt. I still think the truth is actually somewhere in the middle. Not you, tho. You're convinced that what you believe is correct.