The website is a collection of sources with links gathered by a hexbear user because we got sick of having to do this song and dance every time. You can literally go interact with each link and each source individually - they all state where each claim comes from
Hmm, looks like the response to the un report is some guy on Twitter. And he seems to mostly handwave a ton of eyewitness testimony and investigations because they're from western governments.
You mean the dude pointing out how there's no first hand sources, the report is making use of unofficial translations and the report is in part based on observations made by the us army? Seems like a bit more than just "handwaving" eyewitness testimony to me.
What do you mean no first hand sources? I thought those were the the eyewitness that he dismissed because some of them hadn't talked to people about their traumatic experiences before talking to the UN.
I'm not bothered by the translations. An office translation would need to be by China, right? So they'd have a motive to mistranslate to downplay what they're doing. As long as the original documents as well as the translations are available, it should be easy enough to check the translation accuracy.
First hand sources like official government papers, I've already explained this to you.
I am bothered by the translations, as is anyone serious, since the unofficial translations make problems line moving a decimal on the number of IUDs shipped to Xinjiang so suddenly 80%of IUDs are going there, when the reality is an order of magnitude lower (8.7 %). If you do not see such a thing as an issue, then it is because you're not interested in the truth.
As for the "eyewitness" accounts: The whole claim is based on an interview with 6 Uyghurs from 6 different villages. They were asked how many people they believed had disappeared from their villages, and how many people they believed lives in their villages. This was then used to calculate a % of Uyghurs gone missing, which was extraæilated to a population of millions to "find" how many Uyghurs had gone missing. If you see no issues with this methodology, then I don't know what to tell you.
You know these things, you're being obtuse on purpose, you're the dickhead from that thread yesterday. Saying you're "too busy" is a lie. It's pretty clear you're not arguing in good faith. Fuck you.
The website is a collection of sources with links gathered by a hexbear user because we got sick of having to do this song and dance every time. You can literally go interact with each link and each source individually - they all state where each claim comes from
Hmm, looks like the response to the un report is some guy on Twitter. And he seems to mostly handwave a ton of eyewitness testimony and investigations because they're from western governments.
You mean the dude pointing out how there's no first hand sources, the report is making use of unofficial translations and the report is in part based on observations made by the us army? Seems like a bit more than just "handwaving" eyewitness testimony to me.
What do you mean no first hand sources? I thought those were the the eyewitness that he dismissed because some of them hadn't talked to people about their traumatic experiences before talking to the UN.
I'm not bothered by the translations. An office translation would need to be by China, right? So they'd have a motive to mistranslate to downplay what they're doing. As long as the original documents as well as the translations are available, it should be easy enough to check the translation accuracy.
First hand sources like official government papers, I've already explained this to you.
I am bothered by the translations, as is anyone serious, since the unofficial translations make problems line moving a decimal on the number of IUDs shipped to Xinjiang so suddenly 80%of IUDs are going there, when the reality is an order of magnitude lower (8.7 %). If you do not see such a thing as an issue, then it is because you're not interested in the truth.
As for the "eyewitness" accounts: The whole claim is based on an interview with 6 Uyghurs from 6 different villages. They were asked how many people they believed had disappeared from their villages, and how many people they believed lives in their villages. This was then used to calculate a % of Uyghurs gone missing, which was extraæilated to a population of millions to "find" how many Uyghurs had gone missing. If you see no issues with this methodology, then I don't know what to tell you.
You know these things, you're being obtuse on purpose, you're the dickhead from that thread yesterday. Saying you're "too busy" is a lie. It's pretty clear you're not arguing in good faith. Fuck you.