I blocked the comm (as I do any that ban me) but this should be the link to it.
It started off in a completely unrelated discussion, where someone recognized my username and accused me of “supporting genocide of Uighurs,” which is false. I don’t think anyone should start genociding them or anyone else, and have never said anything like that. What I have said before is that I don’t believe claims without evidence, even if following proper due diligence in investigating claims regarding genocide cause people to baselessly scream that I “support genocide.”
So a mod responded by doing what libs do, typing it into Google and picking a handful of headlines that sounded like they support their case and posting them without reading. At that point, I simply asked the mod how many times the name Adrian Zenz was mentioned in his links and whether he considered him a reliable source or not. In lieu of responding, he banned me.
The answer was that his name was referenced 18 times. All of the sources I was provided with depended on this one witness’s testimony, and I’ve cross-examined more credible parrots.
Like, I didn’t even come to that thread to discuss it, nor did I comment on whether the claims were true or not. In response to someone who just had it out for me and was accusing me of bullshit, I defended my position saying I don’t believe claims without evidence and haven’t seen credible evidence.
Frankly, I think the mod (Jordunlund, I believe) realized they couldn’t give a rational response so they banned me instead. Tbh, it’s a ban I wear with pride. A perfect demonstration of liberal anti-intellectualism, of how they’re actively hostile to fact-checking and rationality, perhaps 10% less so than chuds are. No one who repeats the claims in question ever actually bothered to trace the sources to see whether they’re backed by anything, and immediately shut down anyone who does.
Don’t need a link. Uighur “genocide” 99% cited is Zenz, founder of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a U.S. “communism bad mkay?” think tank. Mostly propagated by BBC, fuelled by the crumbling and sore Brit empire.
Figure he inflated numbers cuz he’s super capitalist? Citations could make sense if he’s the expert, saw he lived in China, but anyway curious your idea of his angle (ideology or money)
Dude’s a feather ruffler!:
Zenz has been the target of a pro-Beijing disinformation campaign, according to U.S.-based cybersecurity firm Mandiant.
As a result of his work on Xinjiang, Zenz has become a target for coordinated disinformation attacks from pro-Beijing and Chinese state-run media as well as other state-affiliated entities.
-Wiki (he wasn’t linked on the foundation page, nor mentioned, he founded or is director or both?)
Point 2: I get ya. Had me confused. Took me a sec.
Was drawing historical parallel. Note word “unpopular” in particular.
Kinda “don’t forget Hitler had supporters”, ya? If I hadn’t clicked that paraphrase woulda left me with opposite impression, would note when paraphrasing pls
Also IDK if credible cuz read one Wiki page (JK read 15% of it)
Too bad it was on Twitter, I’d ask him for clarification, but we don’t do Twitter do we :)
PS: off topic - realize how careful I have to be when being irreverent and post stuff bitingly bitter (no /s, gets upvoted, and is hardcore sarcasm), so thank ya. Maybe I should try /s to protect my little reputation given ease, least for Palantir, of tying accounts to IRL
The way I understand it is, “Hitler had supporters because his methods (however unconscionable) reduced crime”. My problem with this statement is that it implies that he actually reduced crime. As in there was a tangible reduction in crime during Hitler’s reign that can be attributed to his Gestapo methods.
got a link to this? would love to see context
AFAIK, the mod log is public. Click the 3 vertical dots below my comment, click UltraGiGaGigantic’s mod history.
I blocked the comm (as I do any that ban me) but this should be the link to it.
It started off in a completely unrelated discussion, where someone recognized my username and accused me of “supporting genocide of Uighurs,” which is false. I don’t think anyone should start genociding them or anyone else, and have never said anything like that. What I have said before is that I don’t believe claims without evidence, even if following proper due diligence in investigating claims regarding genocide cause people to baselessly scream that I “support genocide.”
So a mod responded by doing what libs do, typing it into Google and picking a handful of headlines that sounded like they support their case and posting them without reading. At that point, I simply asked the mod how many times the name Adrian Zenz was mentioned in his links and whether he considered him a reliable source or not. In lieu of responding, he banned me.
The answer was that his name was referenced 18 times. All of the sources I was provided with depended on this one witness’s testimony, and I’ve cross-examined more credible parrots.
Like, I didn’t even come to that thread to discuss it, nor did I comment on whether the claims were true or not. In response to someone who just had it out for me and was accusing me of bullshit, I defended my position saying I don’t believe claims without evidence and haven’t seen credible evidence.
Frankly, I think the mod (Jordunlund, I believe) realized they couldn’t give a rational response so they banned me instead. Tbh, it’s a ban I wear with pride. A perfect demonstration of liberal anti-intellectualism, of how they’re actively hostile to fact-checking and rationality, perhaps 10% less so than chuds are. No one who repeats the claims in question ever actually bothered to trace the sources to see whether they’re backed by anything, and immediately shut down anyone who does.
Don’t need a link. Uighur “genocide” 99% cited is Zenz, founder of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a U.S. “communism bad mkay?” think tank. Mostly propagated by BBC, fuelled by the crumbling and sore Brit empire.
China has plenty of problems. Xin jiang ain’t it.
Figure he inflated numbers cuz he’s super capitalist? Citations could make sense if he’s the expert, saw he lived in China, but anyway curious your idea of his angle (ideology or money)
Dude’s a feather ruffler!:
-Wiki (he wasn’t linked on the foundation page, nor mentioned, he founded or is director or both?)
Adrien Zenz has never set one foot in China and doesn’t speak an iota of the language.
This guy seem credible to you? https://books.google.de/books/about/Worthy_to_Escape.html?id=lRtSQB3HHJcC&redir_esc=y
https://archive.vn/AVs6t
Fundamentalist is he?
Point 2: I get ya. Had me confused. Took me a sec.
Was drawing historical parallel. Note word “unpopular” in particular.
Kinda “don’t forget Hitler had supporters”, ya? If I hadn’t clicked that paraphrase woulda left me with opposite impression, would note when paraphrasing pls
Also IDK if credible cuz read one Wiki page (JK read 15% of it)
He literally claims that Hitler succesfully reduced crime though. As in “he had supporters because his programs had a crime reducing effect.”
Interesting read from people who hate him and say he is a piece of shit, from five years ago
Also see my initial interpretation of it
https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/jnntj5/adrian_zenz_is_a_nazi_apologist_this_is_furtherToo bad it was on Twitter, I’d ask him for clarification, but we don’t do Twitter do we :)
PS: off topic - realize how careful I have to be when being irreverent and post stuff bitingly bitter (no /s, gets upvoted, and is hardcore sarcasm), so thank ya. Maybe I should try /s to protect my little reputation given ease, least for Palantir, of tying accounts to IRL
The way I understand it is, “Hitler had supporters because his methods (however unconscionable) reduced crime”. My problem with this statement is that it implies that he actually reduced crime. As in there was a tangible reduction in crime during Hitler’s reign that can be attributed to his Gestapo methods.
Ditto