silly comments. Tails is using ublock orgin for Tor browser they ship with.

"Don't use Tails it ruins your OP sec" lol.

you're aware that dev of lemmy use the term tankie as a self description too?

Again, I'm only making those point to show how your original point has been very missleading. I'm not saying that this is a credible source or something it's just a source you used for your claim so I picked it up.

fine, so let's make it a circle.

you and your original point that links to this only source that I used within this discourse:

Even US state department denies the Uyghur genocide. Give it a rest already.

me:

You are aware that this is just about semantics? It’s not about if those crimes against humanity that some call genocide are happening, it is if those crimes against humanity should be called genocide or differently. Stop gaslighing.

[then quotes from the source that you used to suggest that genocide is non-existential]

“The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide,…”

Some more quote from the article:

“Secretary Blinken and I have made clear that genocide has been committed against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang,”

“I have determined that the People’s Republic of China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, China, targeting Uyghur Muslims and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups,”

“For example, the torture, rape and sexual violence committed against Uyghurs likely constitute genocide ‘by causing serious bodily and mental harm’—the second type of genocide recognized by the Convention,

“More than 1 million Uighurs have been detained in reeducation camps, and many have reportedly been subjected to forced labor and sterilization. China has committed numerous crimes listed in the convention as acts of genocide, including the prevention of births and infliction of bodily or mental harm on members of a group and the compulsory separation of children from their communities, according to human rights groups.”

I explained that the source for your claims is not credible

I used YOUR source that YOU used for YOUR claim. Without you using it as a source, I would have never used it as such.

I ONLY used it as a means to proof the manipulative character of your argumentation. Me not following your rhetoric lead, is just me not joining your gaslighting.

Dronie refers to the fact that anarchist positions are always aligned with US foreign policy.

hmm, ok. This wouldn't fit me. I'm opposing US foreign policy in most parts, not all I must admit. I'm for: Dismantle the US empire. It's just a phrase, but I mean it like that.

You haven’t addressed a single point that I made

I did. I addressed your original point. Then you wanted to talk about something else and I said, no, I'm not going to follow you into this rabbit hole, let's first stick to the original point. If anytime someone makes an argument that makes your argument become logical inconsistent, you start to distract with something else, no point following you into the rabbit hole. Because all you want is to win, but I don't gonna join your rules.

here just so you don't miss it out, here's how I respond to your original point: https://lemmy.ml/post/78808/comment/74761

I wouldn't understand what dronie is so that term might not well serve the purpose if used to address me. If you address me as anarkiddie, it be enough for a tiny giggle, but then I'll be remembered how that term is actually discrimination against children. It helps to reproduce adultism over and over again.

What I’m aware of is that there is no credible evidence of any sort of genocide happening in Xinjiang.

Why is it always the same rhetorical methods you (are you ML?) people use?

Telling someone they are wrong, and they just need to read a bit more into it. Then they read a bit more into it, from the source you linked and notice that your entire argument is nothing but manipulative but they anyway use the arguments from the very source you linked as a means to show you how pointless your comment was...and then, like nearly always, people like you will then argue: no, no, all false: read this very long thread.

I did read some threads on that subject from some MLs already. They all had one thing in common:

forced labor is actually something good in this case. But look this is an ideological debate. You think it's good, I think it's bad. There's no point debating that I should change my value system.

huh, why the downvotes? Because I used the term tankies, but you prefer to be called Marxist-Leninist? When contemporary anti-authoritarians use the term tankie, they usually refer to contemporary Marxist-Leninist. Hope that explanation helps. So when I say you are Marxist-Leninst, I mean you are tankie.

xD. I get the Joke @TheAnonymouseJoker. Hope you wont get to much downovtes by those not understanding the actual joke. xD Because this might not be obvious to others reading here I give a short explanation:

It's a common practice by tankies and of those who come at their defense, to make some claim/question about "shit lib" or CIA, and it doesn't matter if it fits the current argument or not. Usually some conspiracy follow after that.

The joke here is to make a pun out of that behavior, by injecting that "CIA" claim at a moment it just doesn't servers well.

And here's why: Someone tried to gaslight an political opponent by linking to an article that they claim to be about "Even US state department denies the Uyghur genocide". So all I did is to quote some parts of the text, as a means to break the gaslighting spell. And now, the source that was original used to prove that that genocide did not happen, if used by a non-tankie it is CIA propaganda shit libs believe in. And because this art of debate is so absurd, it creates some laughter for some. On the other hand it is also very anoying, because you can't have any serious logical consistent debate with anyone who argues like that.

The developers of lemmy are self-admidded tankies, what else to expect?

Tankies and the Left-Unity Scam https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-tankies-and-the-left-unity-scam

You are aware that this is just about semantics? It's not about if those crimes against humanity that some call genocide are happening, it is if those crimes against humanity should be called genocide or differently. Stop gaslighing.

"The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide,..."

Some more quote from the article:

“Secretary Blinken and I have made clear that genocide has been committed against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang,”

“I have determined that the People’s Republic of China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, China, targeting Uyghur Muslims and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups,”

“For example, the torture, rape and sexual violence committed against Uyghurs likely constitute genocide ‘by causing serious bodily and mental harm’—the second type of genocide recognized by the Convention,

"More than 1 million Uighurs have been detained in reeducation camps, and many have reportedly been subjected to forced labor and sterilization. China has committed numerous crimes listed in the convention as acts of genocide, including the prevention of births and infliction of bodily or mental harm on members of a group and the compulsory separation of children from their communities, according to human rights groups."

There is a difference between people advocating for human rights abuses and people saying that some actor does in fact not engage in human rights abuses.

The main difference is, that one practice gaslighting as a means to justify such acts.
They will claim "it was just joking", or explain how in fact the abuse is something good, hence they aren't for human right violation because they are for something that they just defined as something good.