Double down that your comments are propaganda, love it.
Pretend I admitted to a lie even though the 10,000 mosques comment hasn’t been debunked, you just don’t like it.
Then, you say you hate fact-checking, which cheeeecks out.
And you pretend that you refuted all of my sources when all you’ve done is agree with me that 10,000 is an outlandish claim that I’ve already agreed with. Not disproven, of course, just uncertain as to the extent of the number of mosques destroyed by virtue of the quality of satellite images provided.
Ignoring the destroyed burial grounds again, natch.
Change what you asked to a new question - no, the US government does not officially recognize Taiwan as a country, the government only treats Taiwan and behaves toward Taiwan as if it were a country. You hate opinion polls, even when you ask for them, sure.
Chengchi data disagrees with your claim about Chengchi data, don’t know why you’re proud of this(do you have a source for your special Chengchi data yet?).
You reiterate that you hate credible sources(we know). Call names, invite me to pick through your mud(nah, I’m good) that goes against all corroborating evidence, and then zap back to the Gray Zone, complain about me not paying more attention three replies ago to sources that you, yourself say are “bad”.
Then, you wiffle waffle to finally agree that Zenz hasn’t been disproven, which is appreciated, but must burn. Proud of you, though.
I thought your refutation of the Amnesty International was just your paper about satellites maybe not verifying the extent of reported. destruction That? As soon as we found out your do pretend to like credible sources, I admitted to finding the 10,000 round number outlandish, though not disproven. Are you referring to something else or are you just taken by all the zeroes?
Sorry you had to admit you were wrong about Zenz, but he talks a lot, so I’m sure you’ll find something of his to actually refute(you know this means you actually have to prove something wrong, right? You might be thinking of the word “argue” when you keep using the word “refute” without proof) sooner or later.
You keep pretending I say things I don’t. I guess since you can’t directly refute my claims, you just pretend I made different claims and argue against them? But you don’t even win those arguments, like that AP article that blew up in your face.
But this is funny, so keep it up.
You say that the United Nations(more than one country, and even one country has multiple sources, which may shock you) using multiple data routes is “childish nonsense”? That is wild.
You, ironically, admit that Wilkerson admitted to nothing and was proposing a hypothetical scenario.
Appreciate it.
Even though the satellite images haven’t been disproven, you insist that I’m a liar. Cool.
You maintain that credible sources are not credible because you say so.
That AP article you shared is very clearly using subtext to reflect the double-talk the CCP is using to discount “genocide” even though they won’t let Uyghurs practice their culture. Did you actually miss the point of that article or did you not read past the headline(no wait, even the headline evidences the oppression of Uyghurs)? The AP outright states that permanent mass detention is being carried out and repression against the Uyghurs and their culture is ongoing in China and the Chinese officials are lying about it. To their face.
Haha, your argument against the AP article that you are using as evidence(that whoops, supports the accusations of cultural genocide) is that they don’t agree with your fanciful thinking, but they do agree with every credible, evidenced and documented news source? The fiends.
If the Gray Zone happens to occasionally use a non-erroneous statistical data set among their other manipulated or outright false data, bully for them. Sifting through a provably poor-quality news source for less-false information that will still be editorially manipulated doesn’t make any sense when there are plenty of legitimate, corroborated news sources to use as references. No point digging through mud if you don’t have to.
You truly believe that Uyghurs in Xinjiang speaking Mandarin as their first language is normal even though it never happened before the concentration camps and all of those now-Mandarin speakers are coincidentally in front of a news group invited to one neighborhood of “reformed extremists” surrounded by CCP officials? No wonder you have trouble distinguishing credible sources.
Yes, your screenshot of screenshots of undated Tweets, might as well cling to that as evidence. It’s as strong as anything else you’ve got.
The fact that you think a piece of paper in a purposefully designed show concentration camp disproves the reports from China of spoken language repression is an impressively wide leap, and then your assumption that a specifically curated concentration camp meant to be displayed is indicative of the abuses going on in the other, non-public concentration camps is ludicrous. But cling, right? Cling to that scrap of parchment.
Then you malign credibility itself as a way to attack unassailable evidence because your indefensible sources haven’t stood up to scrutiny. Rad.
And then you finally agree that your tweet is outdated, but, why? It is so difficult for me to care about tweets. Confirming your mistake about a tweet is like gilding irrelevance.
Well, this was fun, but since you haven’t refuted the points I’ve made(and you’ve supplied in support of the Uyghurs, thanks AP) about the mass detainment and cultural genocide the CCP is perpetrating against the Uyghurs, and the points you’ve tried to make in previous comments have all fallen apart(two replies ago, why rehash them?), do you want to try a new piece of “evidence” or maybe a new topic? Since you’ve included none here and just keep crying foul because you’ve been proved wrong?
Maybe try to focus on just one article, maybe the big picture supported by multiple(more than one, remember) credible sources that create a provable cohesive thesis just isn’t your forte. Just try not to pick a stance or issue that I’m already advocating, because(like AP and your satellite pictures and Zenz is not a liar but is irritating(preach)), then you aren’t arguing against anything, you’re just supporting my positions.
Really outdid yourself here. And not a source in sight! Probably wise, but still.
Trying again? It’s fun for me, at least.
Double down that your comments are propaganda, love it.
Pretend I admitted to a lie even though the 10,000 mosques comment hasn’t been debunked, you just don’t like it.
Then, you say you hate fact-checking, which cheeeecks out.
And you pretend that you refuted all of my sources when all you’ve done is agree with me that 10,000 is an outlandish claim that I’ve already agreed with. Not disproven, of course, just uncertain as to the extent of the number of mosques destroyed by virtue of the quality of satellite images provided.
Ignoring the destroyed burial grounds again, natch.
Change what you asked to a new question - no, the US government does not officially recognize Taiwan as a country, the government only treats Taiwan and behaves toward Taiwan as if it were a country. You hate opinion polls, even when you ask for them, sure.
Chengchi data disagrees with your claim about Chengchi data, don’t know why you’re proud of this(do you have a source for your special Chengchi data yet?).
You reiterate that you hate credible sources(we know). Call names, invite me to pick through your mud(nah, I’m good) that goes against all corroborating evidence, and then zap back to the Gray Zone, complain about me not paying more attention three replies ago to sources that you, yourself say are “bad”.
Then, you wiffle waffle to finally agree that Zenz hasn’t been disproven, which is appreciated, but must burn. Proud of you, though.
I thought your refutation of the Amnesty International was just your paper about satellites maybe not verifying the extent of reported. destruction That? As soon as we found out your do pretend to like credible sources, I admitted to finding the 10,000 round number outlandish, though not disproven. Are you referring to something else or are you just taken by all the zeroes?
Sorry you had to admit you were wrong about Zenz, but he talks a lot, so I’m sure you’ll find something of his to actually refute(you know this means you actually have to prove something wrong, right? You might be thinking of the word “argue” when you keep using the word “refute” without proof) sooner or later.
You keep pretending I say things I don’t. I guess since you can’t directly refute my claims, you just pretend I made different claims and argue against them? But you don’t even win those arguments, like that AP article that blew up in your face.
But this is funny, so keep it up.
You say that the United Nations(more than one country, and even one country has multiple sources, which may shock you) using multiple data routes is “childish nonsense”? That is wild.
You, ironically, admit that Wilkerson admitted to nothing and was proposing a hypothetical scenario.
Appreciate it.
Even though the satellite images haven’t been disproven, you insist that I’m a liar. Cool.
You maintain that credible sources are not credible because you say so.
That AP article you shared is very clearly using subtext to reflect the double-talk the CCP is using to discount “genocide” even though they won’t let Uyghurs practice their culture. Did you actually miss the point of that article or did you not read past the headline(no wait, even the headline evidences the oppression of Uyghurs)? The AP outright states that permanent mass detention is being carried out and repression against the Uyghurs and their culture is ongoing in China and the Chinese officials are lying about it. To their face.
Haha, your argument against the AP article that you are using as evidence(that whoops, supports the accusations of cultural genocide) is that they don’t agree with your fanciful thinking, but they do agree with every credible, evidenced and documented news source? The fiends.
If the Gray Zone happens to occasionally use a non-erroneous statistical data set among their other manipulated or outright false data, bully for them. Sifting through a provably poor-quality news source for less-false information that will still be editorially manipulated doesn’t make any sense when there are plenty of legitimate, corroborated news sources to use as references. No point digging through mud if you don’t have to.
You truly believe that Uyghurs in Xinjiang speaking Mandarin as their first language is normal even though it never happened before the concentration camps and all of those now-Mandarin speakers are coincidentally in front of a news group invited to one neighborhood of “reformed extremists” surrounded by CCP officials? No wonder you have trouble distinguishing credible sources.
Yes, your screenshot of screenshots of undated Tweets, might as well cling to that as evidence. It’s as strong as anything else you’ve got.
The fact that you think a piece of paper in a purposefully designed show concentration camp disproves the reports from China of spoken language repression is an impressively wide leap, and then your assumption that a specifically curated concentration camp meant to be displayed is indicative of the abuses going on in the other, non-public concentration camps is ludicrous. But cling, right? Cling to that scrap of parchment.
Then you malign credibility itself as a way to attack unassailable evidence because your indefensible sources haven’t stood up to scrutiny. Rad.
And then you finally agree that your tweet is outdated, but, why? It is so difficult for me to care about tweets. Confirming your mistake about a tweet is like gilding irrelevance.
Well, this was fun, but since you haven’t refuted the points I’ve made(and you’ve supplied in support of the Uyghurs, thanks AP) about the mass detainment and cultural genocide the CCP is perpetrating against the Uyghurs, and the points you’ve tried to make in previous comments have all fallen apart(two replies ago, why rehash them?), do you want to try a new piece of “evidence” or maybe a new topic? Since you’ve included none here and just keep crying foul because you’ve been proved wrong?
Maybe try to focus on just one article, maybe the big picture supported by multiple(more than one, remember) credible sources that create a provable cohesive thesis just isn’t your forte. Just try not to pick a stance or issue that I’m already advocating, because(like AP and your satellite pictures and Zenz is not a liar but is irritating(preach)), then you aren’t arguing against anything, you’re just supporting my positions.
Really outdid yourself here. And not a source in sight! Probably wise, but still.