this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
39 points (88.2% liked)

Memes

53473 readers
757 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
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
39
VERY concerned LMBO (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 weeks ago by jankforlife@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (43 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 map” imperial 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.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 0 points 2 weeks ago (41 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.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (11 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:

[–] tyler@programming.dev -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] KrasMazov@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago

"Waaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaah! I'm a little baby incapable of citing sources, I'm not gonna talk to you .ml demons."

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)
load more comments (39 replies)