A primary source is a source with first hand information (e.g. a witness) or a source that does not cite other sources as their source. Disregarding the credability of NBC, how does the article I linked not fit that description?
NBC is pretty shit that almost every hyperlink is to another nbc news but one of those hyperlinks go to Safeguard Defenders and other go to Amnesty International and both direct to a report made by OHCHR which just cite Adrian Zenz and his propaganda made by Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.
Holy shit is just impossible to find a source that doesn’t have bullshit propaganda. For any lib reading this, if a news source is citing a propaganda piece they are not writing news, they are writing propaganda.
I just took one at random and read the first few lines to make sure it was actually on topic. I have no clue about NBC News credability, I only wanted to illustrate that there were a lot of resources linked in the Wikipedia article, since BrainInABox asked for them.
Also, talking about burden of proof here makes not sense. You provided a source, one can either trust it or not. And the question was if you belived it to be true or not (which I assume you do since you linked it. I haven’t read it).
The burden of proof is on you since you claim: “There is a genocide happening in Xinjiang”. I can’t prove a negative. The proof your type (western propagandized libs) usually provides are western sources, which have been debunked by providing context (in the link I provided)
I’m not Tabooki2, I’m only here for the intresting dicussions and different view points and arguments. What stuck with me was the Tabooki2 asked if you believed what was stated in your link to which you responded with “the burden of proof is on you”.
When a claim is stated, the burden of proof is on that person. My argument here was that you claimed a source, and if proof has to be provided the claimer should have that burden. But that is a strange take since a a source is a proof and one can chose to trust it (or not).
So in the end, I was confused about your comment and tought you asked Tabooki2 to verify your source for you, not the original claim about “the treatment of wighurs”. I appologise for the confusion on my part.
This is still happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China
So let’s play a game. The USA is bad, and China is bad. Your turn.
Yeah? Got any primary sources that aren’t a decade old?
I have not stake in this, but here you go: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-uyghur-uighur-turkey-oppression-rcna97238. I took one at random that was semi-recent and look somewhat relevant.
Just look at the date of the references on Wikipedia and you will find plenty.
Fucking hell, I swear you people can’t read
Why is my link not a primary source?
Are you fucking serious right now?
Please educate me.
A primary source is a source with first hand information (e.g. a witness) or a source that does not cite other sources as their source. Disregarding the credability of NBC, how does the article I linked not fit that description?
I really hope you’re trolling. The NBC article literally cites other sources.
this article explains it: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/world/asia/north-korea-waitresses-defector.html?referringSource=articleShare
tldr: they’re paid and/or coerced to it by recruiters to make up shit.
This shit is so tiring.
NBC is pretty shit that almost every hyperlink is to another nbc news but one of those hyperlinks go to Safeguard Defenders and other go to Amnesty International and both direct to a report made by OHCHR which just cite Adrian Zenz and his propaganda made by Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.
Holy shit is just impossible to find a source that doesn’t have bullshit propaganda. For any lib reading this, if a news source is citing a propaganda piece they are not writing news, they are writing propaganda.
I just took one at random and read the first few lines to make sure it was actually on topic. I have no clue about NBC News credability, I only wanted to illustrate that there were a lot of resources linked in the Wikipedia article, since BrainInABox asked for them.
Yeah and all of them go back to Adrian Zenz.
You talking about a fucking genocide “reading a few lines” is insulting.
Just so we are on the same page here, which genocide are you referring to?
Uyghur? The Wikipedia page calls it persecution or genocide
I asked for a fucking primary source and you instead give me an NBC article you “skimmed the first few lines” of.
My fucking God, you people are beyond parody.
Please see my other comment.
Your assessment of China is based on state department propaganda
And yours is based on???
Are you saying you don’t believe in the treatment of wighurs
Are you saying you don’t believe in the white genocide going on in south africa right now?
Are you saying you don’t believe that Hamas beheaded 40 babies?
It’s spelled “Uyghurs”, by the way
Nice non answer
“Your argument doesn’t count because I have no response to it!”
It’s only a non-answer if you have a sub-canine ability to process patterns
Do you deny that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction and had to be toppled?
https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang
And you believe this is the truth.
You believe in a genocide with literally no single proof
The burden of proof is on you. I can only provide context for the claims that have been raised. If you look at the sources they’re all western
Technically the white papers linked come from China, typically, but these are presented alongside western sources as the dominant viewpoint.
The burden of proof should be on you since you claimed https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang as a source?
Also, talking about burden of proof here makes not sense. You provided a source, one can either trust it or not. And the question was if you belived it to be true or not (which I assume you do since you linked it. I haven’t read it).
The burden of proof is on you since you claim: “There is a genocide happening in Xinjiang”. I can’t prove a negative. The proof your type (western propagandized libs) usually provides are western sources, which have been debunked by providing context (in the link I provided)
I’m not Tabooki2, I’m only here for the intresting dicussions and different view points and arguments. What stuck with me was the Tabooki2 asked if you believed what was stated in your link to which you responded with “the burden of proof is on you”.
When a claim is stated, the burden of proof is on that person. My argument here was that you claimed a source, and if proof has to be provided the claimer should have that burden. But that is a strange take since a a source is a proof and one can chose to trust it (or not).
So in the end, I was confused about your comment and tought you asked Tabooki2 to verify your source for you, not the original claim about “the treatment of wighurs”. I appologise for the confusion on my part.
Just read the evidence, it won’t bite
I did, and they had to call an ambulance. I don’t think I will be able to walk again. /s
I won’t read the whole thing, I don’t have that time. I read the ingress and (a summary to get a basic understand of the message meant to be convyed).
Now what? I never disputed nor did I affirm anything.
If the US is bad, why do you believe what they say about others?
Because I don’t live in a solipsism that concludes nothing is real?