I mean, the gap between “Claims of genocide should be subject to the same scrutiny as other claims” and “The Uighur genocide isn’t real” is like 10 minutes of actual fact-checking.
Also worth noting that I didn’t even bring it up in that thread. It was about some completely different topic, I was playing nice, and then somebody recognized me and accused me of “supporting the Uighur genocide” and I got banned for defending myself, like I didn’t even say “it’s not happening,” I said, “I’ve yet to see evidence for it and I don’t believe claims without evidence.”
Then a mod did what libs do which is type it in google and copy-paste links they haven’t read, and I said, “before I examine those in detail, can you tell me how many times your sources cite Adrian Zenz and whether you think he should be considered a reliable source?” That’s when he banned me. I went through the sources afterward (more than he had done) and counted his name mentioned 18 times over 4 sources.
Like, you gotta know what you’re doing at that point. That one redsails article about how “brainwashing” is really just willfully accepting propaganda feels relevant.
It was a radicalizing moment for me realizing that a lot of people WANT to be ignorant to preserve their shaky worldviews. Like they’re scared of changing their minds from the safe liberal concensus and somehow this us just how most burger bros operate.
The lib I know, and perhaps this info may be of some use, was willing to reconsider his views only after speaking with another lib he trusts intimately; the crazy thing is that apparently he knew what I was saying made sense but didn’t want to budge on his position until basically other libs he did trust were willing to confirm it
The 10 minutes of research part is true; before I got radicalised I wanted to prove someone else that the genocide was “real” and couldn’t find a fucking source that didn’t cite zenz, zenz this, zenz that, fuck, how would a so called genocide have a single fucking journalist?
Yes, that is absolutely true. Not only does the original post refer to white genocide in quotation marks, which often is used in a satirical way in internet comments, but this sentiment is confirmed by the fact that white genocide is defined as “Other claims of genocide which lack that kind of evidence.” This is despite the fact that there is considerable evidence behind claims of white genocide in South Africa, from mass graves to stories from victims… The original poster is deeply misguided by their unwillingness to recognise that the evidence of the holocaust does not always translate to other genocides.
The cognitive dissonance in these people must be intense, which genocide did that comment deny?
I mean, the gap between “Claims of genocide should be subject to the same scrutiny as other claims” and “The Uighur genocide isn’t real” is like 10 minutes of actual fact-checking.
Also worth noting that I didn’t even bring it up in that thread. It was about some completely different topic, I was playing nice, and then somebody recognized me and accused me of “supporting the Uighur genocide” and I got banned for defending myself, like I didn’t even say “it’s not happening,” I said, “I’ve yet to see evidence for it and I don’t believe claims without evidence.”
Then a mod did what libs do which is type it in google and copy-paste links they haven’t read, and I said, “before I examine those in detail, can you tell me how many times your sources cite Adrian Zenz and whether you think he should be considered a reliable source?” That’s when he banned me. I went through the sources afterward (more than he had done) and counted his name mentioned 18 times over 4 sources.
Like, you gotta know what you’re doing at that point. That one redsails article about how “brainwashing” is really just willfully accepting propaganda feels relevant.
It was a radicalizing moment for me realizing that a lot of people WANT to be ignorant to preserve their shaky worldviews. Like they’re scared of changing their minds from the safe liberal concensus and somehow this us just how most burger bros operate.
The lib I know, and perhaps this info may be of some use, was willing to reconsider his views only after speaking with another lib he trusts intimately; the crazy thing is that apparently he knew what I was saying made sense but didn’t want to budge on his position until basically other libs he did trust were willing to confirm it
Basically he’s treating it like a team sport
The 10 minutes of research part is true; before I got radicalised I wanted to prove someone else that the genocide was “real” and couldn’t find a fucking source that didn’t cite zenz, zenz this, zenz that, fuck, how would a so called genocide have a single fucking journalist?
The white genocide as @groKKK@hexbear.net can attest
Yes, that is absolutely true. Not only does the original post refer to white genocide in quotation marks, which often is used in a satirical way in internet comments, but this sentiment is confirmed by the fact that white genocide is defined as “Other claims of genocide which lack that kind of evidence.” This is despite the fact that there is considerable evidence behind claims of white genocide in South Africa, from mass graves to stories from victims… The original poster is deeply misguided by their unwillingness to recognise that the evidence of the holocaust does not always translate to other genocides.