It is not possible to prove something absolutely. It is possible to disprove things. This is also how science works. There is a ton of evidence supporting the existence of these camps, but others have made fair claims that this evidence is all suspect. I would like to see official evidence to the contrary of these claims, rather than counter-claims which contradict one another on the existence of these camps.
the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies
Also not with this claim? It’s impossible to disprove this. You can always say something for how it can be done. Science uses falsifiability but you’re doing it wrong.
The original claim was the meme, I said that internment camps are not at the same level as extermination camps or a campaign of elimination (the full text of what I said is on the mod-log, don’t want to break the rule I broke again by saying more), people asked me to prove that there were internment camps and I offered the well-known Xianjiang camps as an example. Since that exchange the primary argument I’ve had is that I fell for western propaganda, which I admit is possible. So far evidence to the contrary of the existence of the camps in Xianjiang have been claims by Chinese government officials I found myself which contradict one another. No hard evidence disproving any of the mountain of evidence (which could be compromised, I admit) has been offered. I am biased that I tend not to believe massive institutions which are advantaged by presenting specific narratives generally, which is why I don’t just believe what the english-language sources say nor do I believe what the Chinese authorities say without supporting evidence. I find that if there is a mountain of evidence that these camps exist, and if none of the evidence has been contradicted or disproven thus far, then it’s more likely that these camps exist than don’t exist.
Check those sources. Adrian Zenz, HRW, Pentagon press, ASPCI, and various other US government employees / US and UK state media. Wikipedia is not neutral, its run by US government agents like Katherine Maher, and acts as a spokesman for pro-US / imperialist talking points, and their admins silence anyone who goes against that narrative.
I’m aware that this information wouldn’t be so interesting to the present apparatus of Western hegemony if it wasn’t to their advantage to spread it. There are plenty of atrocities the US supports directly which tend not to get as much news coverage. I chose Wikipedia because it’s a general amalgam of hundreds of different compromised sources rather than link any individual news source or government office. I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts what these highly biased sources say, only that I should believe a different biased source offering no evidence at all because the US is more evil (It is more evil, I agree).
It is not possible to prove something absolutely. It is possible to disprove things. This is also how science works. There is a ton of evidence supporting the existence of these camps, but others have made fair claims that this evidence is all suspect. I would like to see official evidence to the contrary of these claims, rather than counter-claims which contradict one another on the existence of these camps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies
Also not with this claim? It’s impossible to disprove this. You can always say something for how it can be done. Science uses falsifiability but you’re doing it wrong.
The original claim was the meme, I said that internment camps are not at the same level as extermination camps or a campaign of elimination (the full text of what I said is on the mod-log, don’t want to break the rule I broke again by saying more), people asked me to prove that there were internment camps and I offered the well-known Xianjiang camps as an example. Since that exchange the primary argument I’ve had is that I fell for western propaganda, which I admit is possible. So far evidence to the contrary of the existence of the camps in Xianjiang have been claims by Chinese government officials I found myself which contradict one another. No hard evidence disproving any of the mountain of evidence (which could be compromised, I admit) has been offered. I am biased that I tend not to believe massive institutions which are advantaged by presenting specific narratives generally, which is why I don’t just believe what the english-language sources say nor do I believe what the Chinese authorities say without supporting evidence. I find that if there is a mountain of evidence that these camps exist, and if none of the evidence has been contradicted or disproven thus far, then it’s more likely that these camps exist than don’t exist.
Share all these tons of evidence here, please!
Hundreds of links
“Quantity of links” is not a metric for actual evidence, because most of those links are just duplicating the same dubious claims
Check those sources. Adrian Zenz, HRW, Pentagon press, ASPCI, and various other US government employees / US and UK state media. Wikipedia is not neutral, its run by US government agents like Katherine Maher, and acts as a spokesman for pro-US / imperialist talking points, and their admins silence anyone who goes against that narrative.
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia
I’m aware that this information wouldn’t be so interesting to the present apparatus of Western hegemony if it wasn’t to their advantage to spread it. There are plenty of atrocities the US supports directly which tend not to get as much news coverage. I chose Wikipedia because it’s a general amalgam of hundreds of different compromised sources rather than link any individual news source or government office. I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts what these highly biased sources say, only that I should believe a different biased source offering no evidence at all because the US is more evil (It is more evil, I agree).
How about trusting most majority muslim countries themselves, which reject the genocide claim?
More on this here.