Anyone still repeating the “Uighur genocide” conspiracy theory in this day and age - long after the western media has backed away from it, independent bodies have found no evidence, Isreal demonstrating that you can’t ‘secretly’ genocide a population without evidence getting out, and all the original proponents of the conspiracy now one hundred percent on board for the genocide of Palestinians - is either knowingly lying or terminally propagandized.
Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.
Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.
Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.
Listen man, even in the very good college that I went to, everyone starts at Wikipedia and then uses it’s sources since if they’re good sources then they’ll be a helpful jumping off point.
Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.
Peer reviewed journal articles are not the lowest effort citation that the CIA could manipulate. Again, the wiki article has numerous sources (which I’ve read through), do you have any sources to contradict the information that they contain?
You do realize that… The peer review process is not, inherently, robust, right?
There’s a reason different publication venues have different levels of prestige. Nature and Science? Very prestigious. The Lancet? Very prestigious. NeurIPS? Very prestigious. The Journal of Genocide Research? Not so prestigious.
You realise that Wikipedia is not one iota more credible than a lemmy comment right? You won’t believe people here, but funnyguy1234 (actual name of one that articles writers) is a font of academic rigor? Also lol at well sourced - you never bothered to check them, if you did you wouldn’t say that. Here’s a challenge; what were the pieces of primary evidence that convinced you?
Once when I compared the Uyghur genocide conspiracy to WMDs in Iraq, I had a Lemmy Worlder unironically reply “They’re completely different! WMDs in Iraq was just a claim from the Bush admin, but we have satellite pictures of the Uyghur genocide!”.
They are completely different and this is a dumbass comment.
Just because a massive organization made up of millions of people lied once doesn’t mean everything else they ever say is a lie. That’s dumbass child level reasoning. Present sourced evidence that contradicts the sourced infromation in the wikipedia article or don’t bother commenting.
Perhaps you’re unaware of many of the US’s atrocities, because many are hidden or distorted through the above methods. Nobody lies like the imperial core propaganda machine.
a few of the journal articles, though many of the reports from human rights groups, and the sheer volume of independent reports from different new outlets (big and small) is also rather compelling (as well as bellingcat’s reporting):
Is there any reason to think “prolewiki” is more reliable than wikipedia?
ProleWiki is a collaborative Marxist-Leninist project aiming to build an anti-imperialist communist encyclopedia with information on current events, communist parties worldwide, countries, as well as hosting a library of texts important to the international communist movement.
Seems like it’s openly biased. And while I can appreciate the honesty, I’m not sure how it can be viewed as reliable.
Wikipedia is extremely unreliable and biased, and not even on political topics, even linguistical and scientific articles are prone to huge issues. (see: Scottish Gaelic) If you wish to call prolewiki as biased, I must tell you that wikipedia is even worse, it just has a more liberal bias. Follow their sources and you will see. ProleWiki discloses the bias up front, and has an squad of source patrollers who make sure when a claim is made, it is grounded in reality that can be sourced. Sure, there aren’t that many articles on it yet, but we strive to set a high standard because the slightest weak link in the project will be used by people like yourself to discredit us.
Because it’s the wiki of the people instead of the wiki of bourgeoisie interests, why the fuck else
Communistic propaganda
lol, and you think the slop you’ve seen your entire life has been absolutely unbiased?
We do analyze matters though the lens of marxism-lenninism, we make sure our sources and research is decent, and if that’s “communist propaganda” to you well, your loss lmao.
But I have a hard time to take criticism from people who believe Adrian Zenz on anything
But I have a hard time to take criticism from people who believe Adrian Zenz on anything
That wasn’t me though, I just barged into this conversation to talk about our perceptions and definitions of truth in these online encyclopedias more so than about Uyghurs.
Personally, I’m not quite sold on the Uyghur narrative on either side but I also haven’t looked into it a lot.
lol, and you think the slop you’ve seen your entire life has been absolutely unbiased?
Yeah, nothing is (which includes Marxist-Leninism), but I unfortunately don’t have the time and resources to not trust something.
Well, You absolutely can, since it actually saves you time. Otherwise you’d go and listen to Fox News slop as well
Uyghur narrative
There really isn’t much information even provided by the proponents of the genocide theory, for example their supposed police database leak that was going to be irrefutable evidence… it was fake. It had AI pictures and pictures of public figures. They did some political circus for a while, and then it just kind of died down, we don’t even have much to debunk because their claims were political circus aimed at the western people. If they can provide proper evidence, then I’ll take time to investigate properly.
Meanwhile there is an actual genocide of Muslims currently underway and so far so good western media seems to be on-board, so I have a hard time to believe them
Note, I am actually Iranian myself. If there is a Muslim genocide underway I’m inclined to go figure it out
Even two and a half years ago, AP news - one of the leading proponents of the genocide theory - was already walking back their claims from genocides to just nebulous oppression (and even saying that was over, so don’t ask for current evidence).
Can you find many examples of mainstream media from the last 6 months still claiming an ongoing genocide?
asks for evidence that mainstream media has backed away from genocide claims.
Gets given an example of one of the most gung-ho on the genocide theory outlets already backing away from the claim years ago, instead falling back to nebulous claims of conveniently hard to demonstrate oppression.
“Well that just proves there is a genocide!”
Least bad faith sinophobe. How about you provide recent sources like I asked.
IMHO, if there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Big believer in the white genocide in South Africa then? Found those WMDs in Iraq?
Subjugation like… By applying the same standard to ethnic minorities that they do to the Han majority? People don’t realize how far affirmative action in China used to go. There were protests against it. Weibo kept exploding complaining about it.
A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink.
“I have to admit, I’m always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up,” the CIA agent says.
“Thank you,” the KGB says. “We do our best but truly, it’s nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them.”
The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. “Thank you friend, but you must be confused… There’s no propaganda in America.”
I hate how it’s always done like this too. When a genocide has been lied about it should be just as televised as when the lying was happening. Mostly because now instead of getting apologies from all of my friends for calling me a genocide denier they’ll just still think it was a genocide and I’ll just never talk to them about it again or else I’ll have to come across as smug.
And resisting urges like that is the only reason I still have any friends in the first place.
My comments still get deleted on lemmy.world. Most Lemmy instances are all-in for Five Eyes propaganda. You’d think they’d be better than corporate social media platforms, but not so much.
The standards are part of RAND’s ongoing project on “truth decay”: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as “the diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.”
The funny thing about it is that news is no more or less truthful than it’s always been, it’s just more upfront about it. People are tribal, and they’ve been told that their tribe is flawless while the other tribe is flawed.
If you think about this for a second and apply some basic game theory, you’d realize what the natural steady state is.
I know that’s true in the US, specifically. The FCC abandoned the Fairness doctrine, and Citizens United v. FEC removed even the semblance of a barrier between the capitalist class and the political machine. Now most corporate media outlets pretty nakedly align themselves with one of the two political parties. But since both parties always ultimately answer to the capitalist class, these changes are largely cosmetic. It’s still a bunch of kayfabe in a rigged game.
Anyone still repeating the “Uighur genocide” conspiracy theory in this day and age - long after the western media has backed away from it, independent bodies have found no evidence, Isreal demonstrating that you can’t ‘secretly’ genocide a population without evidence getting out, and all the original proponents of the conspiracy now one hundred percent on board for the genocide of Palestinians - is either knowingly lying or terminally propagandized.
Who do I believe, a random smug lemmier, or a well sourced wikipedia article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
Listen man, even in the shitty college I went to we weren’t allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because it’s often laced with misinformation and has no standards for its citations.
Also when you’re trying to argue against a genocide being CIA propaganda, you cannot site literally the lowest effort citation that the CIA could ever hope for if they wanted to spread propaganda for any given thing.
Listen man, even in the very good college that I went to, everyone starts at Wikipedia and then uses it’s sources since if they’re good sources then they’ll be a helpful jumping off point.
Peer reviewed journal articles are not the lowest effort citation that the CIA could manipulate. Again, the wiki article has numerous sources (which I’ve read through), do you have any sources to contradict the information that they contain?
You do realize that… The peer review process is not, inherently, robust, right?
There’s a reason different publication venues have different levels of prestige. Nature and Science? Very prestigious. The Lancet? Very prestigious. NeurIPS? Very prestigious. The Journal of Genocide Research? Not so prestigious.
Bro it too late to get your money back from that college?
Imagine citing Wikipedia lmao
You’d get laughed out of any academic context in a heartbeat
Removed by mod
You realise that Wikipedia is not one iota more credible than a lemmy comment right? You won’t believe people here, but funnyguy1234 (actual name of one that articles writers) is a font of academic rigor? Also lol at well sourced - you never bothered to check them, if you did you wouldn’t say that. Here’s a challenge; what were the pieces of primary evidence that convinced you?
I was convinced by this Bell¿ncat satellite image of a concentration camp interning over a million people: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=31.416944&lon=34.365234&z=11&m=w
Once when I compared the Uyghur genocide conspiracy to WMDs in Iraq, I had a Lemmy Worlder unironically reply “They’re completely different! WMDs in Iraq was just a claim from the Bush admin, but we have satellite pictures of the Uyghur genocide!”.
They are completely different and this is a dumbass comment.
Just because a massive organization made up of millions of people lied once doesn’t mean everything else they ever say is a lie. That’s dumbass child level reasoning. Present sourced evidence that contradicts the sourced infromation in the wikipedia article or don’t bother commenting.
It seems you are unaware that these kinds of lies are rampant and have been documented for decades, to the point where reliable patterns have emerged:
A five minute primer: Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
.
Perhaps you’re unaware of many of the US’s atrocities, because many are hidden or distorted through the above methods. Nobody lies like the imperial core propaganda machine.
Uh yeah it is, it sources it’s information
Yeah, and those sources are often dog shit.
They’re better than yours, the ones in that article link to journal articles, you’ve provided absolutely nothing.
Which journal articles did you find compelling?
a few of the journal articles, though many of the reports from human rights groups, and the sheer volume of independent reports from different new outlets (big and small) is also rather compelling (as well as bellingcat’s reporting):
Ctrl+F Zenz
22 matches
Lol, this one is straight up written by Zenz
Behind a paywall
You spelled NATOpedia wrong.
Removed by mod
Is there any reason to think “prolewiki” is more reliable than wikipedia?
Seems like it’s openly biased. And while I can appreciate the honesty, I’m not sure how it can be viewed as reliable.
Wikipedia is extremely unreliable and biased, and not even on political topics, even linguistical and scientific articles are prone to huge issues. (see: Scottish Gaelic) If you wish to call prolewiki as biased, I must tell you that wikipedia is even worse, it just has a more liberal bias. Follow their sources and you will see. ProleWiki discloses the bias up front, and has an squad of source patrollers who make sure when a claim is made, it is grounded in reality that can be sourced. Sure, there aren’t that many articles on it yet, but we strive to set a high standard because the slightest weak link in the project will be used by people like yourself to discredit us.
Disclaimer: I am a ProleWiki contributor.
So you’re aiming at truth, not communistic propaganda? I’m wondering why you/they choose to call it ProleWiki.
Was what I quoted up there a weak link? It’s on the footer of every page.
Because it’s the wiki of the people instead of the wiki of bourgeoisie interests, why the fuck else
lol, and you think the slop you’ve seen your entire life has been absolutely unbiased? We do analyze matters though the lens of marxism-lenninism, we make sure our sources and research is decent, and if that’s “communist propaganda” to you well, your loss lmao. But I have a hard time to take criticism from people who believe Adrian Zenz on anything
That wasn’t me though, I just barged into this conversation to talk about our perceptions and definitions of truth in these online encyclopedias more so than about Uyghurs.
Personally, I’m not quite sold on the Uyghur narrative on either side but I also haven’t looked into it a lot.
Yeah, nothing is (which includes Marxist-Leninism), but I unfortunately don’t have the time and resources to not trust something.
Well, You absolutely can, since it actually saves you time. Otherwise you’d go and listen to Fox News slop as well
There really isn’t much information even provided by the proponents of the genocide theory, for example their supposed police database leak that was going to be irrefutable evidence… it was fake. It had AI pictures and pictures of public figures. They did some political circus for a while, and then it just kind of died down, we don’t even have much to debunk because their claims were political circus aimed at the western people. If they can provide proper evidence, then I’ll take time to investigate properly.
Meanwhile there is an actual genocide of Muslims currently underway and so far so good western media seems to be on-board, so I have a hard time to believe them
Note, I am actually Iranian myself. If there is a Muslim genocide underway I’m inclined to go figure it out
Is there any reason to think wikipedia is reliable?
Well of course it is, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
/s, slightly
Can you provide a source for your claim that “western media has backed away from the claim of Uighur genocide”?
Even two and a half years ago, AP news - one of the leading proponents of the genocide theory - was already walking back their claims from genocides to just nebulous oppression (and even saying that was over, so don’t ask for current evidence).
Can you find many examples of mainstream media from the last 6 months still claiming an ongoing genocide?
This article seems to say that China has shifted to subtler methods of subjugation, possibly due to Western sanctions. Not that it was fabricated.
I’m not here to argue about the definition of genocide. IMHO, if there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Least bad faith sinophobe. How about you provide recent sources like I asked.
Big believer in the white genocide in South Africa then? Found those WMDs in Iraq?
Subjugation like… By applying the same standard to ethnic minorities that they do to the Han majority? People don’t realize how far affirmative action in China used to go. There were protests against it. Weibo kept exploding complaining about it.
Sadly, I think most of the time it is the second case.
A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink.
“I have to admit, I’m always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up,” the CIA agent says.
“Thank you,” the KGB says. “We do our best but truly, it’s nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them.”
The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. “Thank you friend, but you must be confused… There’s no propaganda in America.”
I hate how it’s always done like this too. When a genocide has been lied about it should be just as televised as when the lying was happening. Mostly because now instead of getting apologies from all of my friends for calling me a genocide denier they’ll just still think it was a genocide and I’ll just never talk to them about it again or else I’ll have to come across as smug.
And resisting urges like that is the only reason I still have any friends in the first place.
My comments still get deleted on lemmy.world. Most Lemmy instances are all-in for Five Eyes propaganda. You’d think they’d be better than corporate social media platforms, but not so much.
https://lemmy.world/c/modabuse
I think it’s a systemic issue that can’t be addressed in terms of individual mods.
Most instances are admined by Anglosphere labor aristocrats of the imperial core, who have little to no class consciousness.
They also have an underdeveloped media literacy while believing they have exemplary media literacy. Search for “media bias” and you’ll find tons of bullshit media horseshoe theory charts like the one below, which conflate enlightened centrism with factualness. Look at !world@lemmy.world which uses Media Bias/Fact Check as their North star,
which is run by a member of the Council on Foreign Relations[not the same person after all].They subscribe to the new post-Trump, “post-truth” media literacy curriculum, a curriculum that was paid for and crafted by the US military-industrial complex: New Media Literacy Standards Aim to Combat ‘Truth Decay’
Few of these people have read Inventing Reality or Manufacturing Consent. They tend to stay within the Global North corporate Overton window, not recognizing the bubble they’re in.
Not sure if post-edit CCs work, so upthread ⬆️ @brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml @zephyreks@lemmy.ml @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml @PanArab@lemmy.ml @yogthos@lemmy.ml @nekandro@lemmy.ml @carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml
The funny thing about it is that news is no more or less truthful than it’s always been, it’s just more upfront about it. People are tribal, and they’ve been told that their tribe is flawless while the other tribe is flawed.
If you think about this for a second and apply some basic game theory, you’d realize what the natural steady state is.
I know that’s true in the US, specifically. The FCC abandoned the Fairness doctrine, and Citizens United v. FEC removed even the semblance of a barrier between the capitalist class and the political machine. Now most corporate media outlets pretty nakedly align themselves with one of the two political parties. But since both parties always ultimately answer to the capitalist class, these changes are largely cosmetic. It’s still a bunch of kayfabe in a rigged game.
we can name-and-shame. i don’ think there is a systemic fix.
Hi there! Your text contains links to other Lemmy communities, here are correct links for Lemmy users: !modabuse@lemmy.world
Removed by mod
We really are genocide deniers. We deny the CIA’s fake genocide narrative.