First thing I see when I scroll down to the "DENIALISM" Section is talking about how Adrian Zenz's views on China are a stopped clock moment lol
Plenty of dunkable material throughout as well
also even some of their own members disagree with parts of it lol
Zenz's far-right, anti-semitic and fundamentalist views do not invalidate his research as they are not relevant to the topic. Even a far-right person can be occasionally right.
oh, ok then! occasionally right is all i needed
Just because he thinks it's his holy mission to destroy china doesn't mean his research is biased or flawed. If you want to continue this arguement I formally invite you to my youtube channel for a debate.
I've already decided China bad I'm just trying to explain why China bad, don't you see?
you see credibility is a binary and you can't flip it unless I say so
This is a variant of the media was wrong before fallacy.
The phrase "media was wrong before fallacy" is a thought-terminating cliche designed to prevent you from thinking about how saturated you are with propaganda.
If the media is wrong a fuckload of times all on the same subject (any foreign policy line the State Department doesn't like), and it's been clearly documented since the late 80s how and why this pervasive line of mistakes exists, at some point it ceases to be a fallacy.
This reminds me of something I say to libs a lot: the CIA has been involved in so many coups that it is completely rational to assume that they are involved in any other coup that happens, thus the onus is on them to prove that they aren't.
saying engels was a boring writer
I take personal offense to this, leave my boy Freddy alone
The world "rational" has slowly shifted to mean "prejudiced with a thin veneer of intellectual superiority"
A Chinese scholar refuted it!
Adrian Zenz has written a well-sourced rebuttal to it.
Cool FAQ point. Really summarizes a lot of info.
well-sourced
"don't believe anything you read on wikipedia" comes full circle
What does this "increase your Bayesian prediction" stuff mean?
That guy seems to think Bayesian is a buzzword for rational or something.
lol cant wait for these chucklefucks to cite my sorry butt as proof hexbear is "pissed at us"
Why is this article longer than the one on New Age? Don't these people know what I use their website for? I can't use any of this in my D&D campaign.
The denialism section is pure speculation. It’s just maybe they bribed them or maybe this
