Police in the Xinjiang region of China rely on a master list of 50,000 multimedia files they deem “violent and terrorist” to flag Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim residents for interrogation. An investigation found that over nine months, police conducted nearly 11 million searches of a total of 1.2 million mobile phones in Urumqi, Xinjiang’s capital city of 3.5 million residents.
You'll notice I don't remember the committee's name either, and yet that didn't lead me to parrot the wildly distorted characterization that "the UN" said such-and-such like I was reading off of a Yahoo News article.
Don't worry, even if I never saw the username I would have responded the same way, because my contempt is for what you are saying now, not whatever it was that you said before.
I am saying that you are being uncritical of the reporting as though all the past bullshit reports taught you nothing. Yes, if HRW was known to be giving us the best representation of what happened, that would reflect a very serious problem. We do not know that they are.
I haven't even read the whole thing yet. What I am saying is that we shouldn't simply accept its characterizations uncritically. Is media criticism such a wild idea?
You're just assuming bias because it's more convenient for you. When something makes strong claims, you must hold it to high standards.
Even if you were right and I only exercise basic media literacy for sources critical of China, that would not make my criticisms of those sources incorrect. It would make my defense of other sources incorrect.
You are literally arguing that we shouldn't criticize something that could plainly be atrocity propaganda because maybe we don't criticize if Für Elise is replicating German chauvinism. It's a joke of an argument.
You'll notice I don't remember the committee's name either, and yet that didn't lead me to parrot the wildly distorted characterization that "the UN" said such-and-such like I was reading off of a Yahoo News article.
deleted by creator
You remember that interaction better than I do.
Don't worry, even if I never saw the username I would have responded the same way, because my contempt is for what you are saying now, not whatever it was that you said before.
deleted by creator
I am saying that you are being uncritical of the reporting as though all the past bullshit reports taught you nothing. Yes, if HRW was known to be giving us the best representation of what happened, that would reflect a very serious problem. We do not know that they are.
deleted by creator
I haven't even read the whole thing yet. What I am saying is that we shouldn't simply accept its characterizations uncritically. Is media criticism such a wild idea?
deleted by creator
You're just assuming bias because it's more convenient for you. When something makes strong claims, you must hold it to high standards.
Even if you were right and I only exercise basic media literacy for sources critical of China, that would not make my criticisms of those sources incorrect. It would make my defense of other sources incorrect.
You are literally arguing that we shouldn't criticize something that could plainly be atrocity propaganda because maybe we don't criticize if Für Elise is replicating German chauvinism. It's a joke of an argument.
deleted by creator
Again you are begging the question wrt the accuracy of the report. Furthermore, what you actually said was:
Emphasis:
You are free to disavow this argument, but it's the one you made.
deleted by creator