I hope I don’t sound rude but it really sounds like you only consider WaPo trustworthy when it’s convenient for you. Besides, the media in China are heavily controlled by the government. I don’t think a news outlet would survive if they dared to report such things.
Literally the second paragraph…
Sorry, I don’t understand how that makes this any less trustworthy?
I hope I don’t sound rude but it really sounds like you only consider WaPo trustworthy when it’s convenient for you.
Is it really that hard to consider context?
Thoughtexperiment: You have a neo-nazi outlet having two reports. One is citing high ranking fascists talking about problems in their organization spilling insider knowledge that no other outlet wrote about. A second report is on ethnic and sexual minorities. Would you consider these two reports to be of the same value or would you “consider one of them when convenient for you”? (Don’t actually read Nazi outlets obv)
Besides, the media in China are heavily controlled by the government. I don’t think a news outlet would survive if they dared to report such things.
I said for the source to be equivalent. Ofc you can cite a western source, but I’ll read it like its a neo-nazi rag writing about ethnic minorities aka it being heavily biased
Also just an fyi there are Chinese outlets reporting on Xinjiang…
Sorry, I don’t understand how that makes this any less trustworthy
Please read up on Adrian Zenz, read about the methodology and the report on Xinjiang itself and think if it’s not suspensious that every western outlet cites him (or military funded think Tanks like ASPI) and his very thin findings
I hope I don’t sound rude but it really sounds like you only consider WaPo trustworthy when it’s convenient for you.
That’s not quite what they’re saying. They’re saying WaPo is also subject to censorship and coercion, so their word holds more weight when it’s a topic where they might be penalised for publishing. If you don’t think there are any Chinese sources that can publish things critical of China, then you can still follow carl_marks_1312’s methodology in part by finding articles from sources with a free press but geopolitically aligned with China.
Sorry, I don’t understand how that makes this any less trustworthy?
To us, Adrian Zenz automatically means you can dismiss the evidence. The person you’re talking to went in with that assumption, and then was lambasting you for not noticing such an obvious and glaring problem with the article. So that’s where the disconnect comes from. Of course without that assumption the comment doesn’t make sense.
Zenz is a garbage person, but more importantly he’s not reliable. He’s verifiably been caught lying several times. The tweet you commented on is out of context. I don’t know what the context is, it probably doesn’t change what’s being said, but without reading the context I can’t know if it’s a justifiable thing to say. Perhaps it was. Perhaps he was explaining Nazi mentality without trying to justify it. It doesn’t matter. Zenz is a bad source because he’s a liar primarily. He uses bad science and statistics, he makes wild inferences, he pretends not to notice mistakes that he must’ve noticed, etc. He only ever cites circular sources. That is to say media reports of his own publishings.
I hope I don’t sound rude but it really sounds like you only consider WaPo trustworthy when it’s convenient for you. Besides, the media in China are heavily controlled by the government. I don’t think a news outlet would survive if they dared to report such things.
Sorry, I don’t understand how that makes this any less trustworthy?
Is it really that hard to consider context?
Thoughtexperiment: You have a neo-nazi outlet having two reports. One is citing high ranking fascists talking about problems in their organization spilling insider knowledge that no other outlet wrote about. A second report is on ethnic and sexual minorities. Would you consider these two reports to be of the same value or would you “consider one of them when convenient for you”? (Don’t actually read Nazi outlets obv)
I said for the source to be equivalent. Ofc you can cite a western source, but I’ll read it like its a neo-nazi rag writing about ethnic minorities aka it being heavily biased
Also just an fyi there are Chinese outlets reporting on Xinjiang…
Please read up on Adrian Zenz, read about the methodology and the report on Xinjiang itself and think if it’s not suspensious that every western outlet cites him (or military funded think Tanks like ASPI) and his very thin findings
Also here’s an QA with Zenz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwy7KE7WoNo (The non cringy edit is hard to find, I wonder why that is)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Dwy7KE7WoNo
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
That’s not quite what they’re saying. They’re saying WaPo is also subject to censorship and coercion, so their word holds more weight when it’s a topic where they might be penalised for publishing. If you don’t think there are any Chinese sources that can publish things critical of China, then you can still follow carl_marks_1312’s methodology in part by finding articles from sources with a free press but geopolitically aligned with China.
To us, Adrian Zenz automatically means you can dismiss the evidence. The person you’re talking to went in with that assumption, and then was lambasting you for not noticing such an obvious and glaring problem with the article. So that’s where the disconnect comes from. Of course without that assumption the comment doesn’t make sense.
Zenz is a garbage person, but more importantly he’s not reliable. He’s verifiably been caught lying several times. The tweet you commented on is out of context. I don’t know what the context is, it probably doesn’t change what’s being said, but without reading the context I can’t know if it’s a justifiable thing to say. Perhaps it was. Perhaps he was explaining Nazi mentality without trying to justify it. It doesn’t matter. Zenz is a bad source because he’s a liar primarily. He uses bad science and statistics, he makes wild inferences, he pretends not to notice mistakes that he must’ve noticed, etc. He only ever cites circular sources. That is to say media reports of his own publishings.