• Armand1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Reading your source, it sure sounds like genocide.

    That said, it seems like a summary rather than a detailed report and I can’t find the source in the page.

    The other people responding to you are saying “did you read the statement by the perpetrators of the genocide denying it?” Sounds like a rather silly statement.

    Can’t really weigh in on this but on the face of it it does feel like tankie behaviour.

    EDIT: I’ve now skimmed the UN Human Rights report and it’s definitely genocide. The only possible claim against this is that all of their information is false, which seems unlikely.

    I’ll also add that the first response above linking to the UN source I’ve seen copy pasted elsewhere. That doesn’t necessarily mean much but, yeah.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Are countries not allowed to offer evidence to clear their name of allegations against them? Are independent groups not allowed to create detailed compilations of resources that go more in-depth than the UN report or China’s response? I don’t think it’s a bad thing that leftists offer counter-evidence to western allegations. China isn’t just saying “no lol” in their response, they provided data and evidence backing up their case.

      In a legal battle, do you only listen to evidence from the side accusing the defendant? Only skimming only the accusation seems like you genuinely aren’t interested in the truth of the matter and only want an excuse to agree with the accusation.

      As for copying and pasting, yes, I reuse the same comment for the same low-effort claims, because it’s still useful. I’m not going to bespoke craft a new response with the same evidence and support for essentially the same claims.