• raven [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    It's very easy to say this, because it means you can just reject any evidence to the contrary as "not good" or "biased".

    Accusations of genocide aren't a fucking game. It's either happening or it isn't. Either the evidence is good or the evidence is bad (and all evidence is biased) So give us some good evidence.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      ·
      1 year ago

      What evidence would you accept? Because you act as though you've already convinced yourself it's not real and wouldn't accept any evidence to the contrary. What, precisely, would convince you that you're wrong, if firsthand accounts aren't good enough?

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How about firsthand testimony that can be corroborated. If you've ever been in court for anything, it's standard to not simply take whatever story you hear at face value.

        So point to a story you're saying is true, then show how it can be corroborated (by video? by documentation?). Show how there is no realiatic alternate explanation. Explain how your corroborated story amounts to genocide, and isn't just a story about someone being arrested, for instance.

      • raven [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        https://www.npr.org/2021/06/10/1005263835/new-report-details-firsthand-accounts-of-torture-from-uyghur-muslims-in-china This is the first result when I typed in "uyghur firsthand account"
        I'll read it when I get home in a few hours unless you have another source(s) you'd prefer.