Please don’t put any hate comments against the developers of lemmy or against the person who posted this.
I am also unhappy about what the main lemmy instance is doing.
What are your thoughts?
Please don’t put any hate comments against the developers of lemmy or against the person who posted this.
I am also unhappy about what the main lemmy instance is doing.
What are your thoughts?
To deny something means to say something is false. Here the subject in question is ‘the Uyghur genocide’.
In your link, the people you claim ‘deny’ it, say there is insufficient evidence to prove it - but they do believe there is sufficient evidence to prove crimes against humanity are occurring.
To say there is ‘insufficient evidence to prove’ a claim, is not the same as to deny it. Therefore your statement is a lie.
I take it that English is not your first language, but even so, this is textbook gaslighting. You are linking something with a false summary of its contents. And I have to say this is not the first time I have noticed people linking things with summaries contrary to their contents on this site.
Wondering how someone making a semantic mistake is textbook gaslighting lol.
Do you think Zenz is also gaslighting people btw?
yogthos: "I was using language symmetric to the parent comment as a rhetorical tool. "
I don’t believe the above admission constitutes a semantic mistake.
I’m not familiar enough with the Zenz material to have an informed opinion.
You’re just playing word games here. Insufficient evidence means there is no ground to claim that there is a genocide happening. This is coming from the lawyers of a country that’s actively pushing the genocide narrative. If you bothered looking at my follow up comment, I provide a lot more evidence to support what I’m saying.
No, that’s not a word game. Words have meanings. Redefining words to have non standard meanings is in fact a word game. Now you are trying to use ‘no ground’ as equal to ‘insufficient’. They didn’t say there was ‘no’ evidence, they said there was ‘insufficient’ evidence.
There’s no point in talking to people who lie and change words to have weird meanings to support nonsense arguments. Again gaslighting is a word that springs to mind. You can’t prove ‘deny’ is equal to saying there was ‘insufficient evidence’ just like you can’t prove ‘insufficient’ is equal to ‘no ground’.
It’s quite obvious that the more you write, the more errors you make, so I’m done here.
Nobody is changing any meanings here or gaslighting you. Insufficient evidence literally means that they do not have evidence. You’re the one changing definitions here while accusing others of lying. There has to be a positive proof of something happening, otherwise you’re just asking to prove a negative. It’s quite obvious that you do in fact want to play word games here.
So your denials and continued accusations of word games, and insistence on weird definitions for ‘insufficient’ have forced me to respond.
Insufficient means not enough, the evidence they have of crimes against humanity is not enough evidence to prove genocide. They are not denying genocide is taking place, they are saying that have insufficient evidence to prove it. They are not saying they have no evidence, they are saying the evidence they do have is not enough.
This is false. Your statement here is mistaken. I don’t really give you the benefit of the doubt, I think this is a malicious misinterpretation.
Look up the definitions of the words.
Here’s a large section from the article, it shows how your summary that they denied genocide is taking place is a lie:
The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang but reflects the difficulties of proving genocide, which involves the destruction “in whole or in part” of a group of people based on their national, religious, racial, or ethnic identity, in a court of law. It also points to a disconnect between public perception of the crime of genocide and the legal definition in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which has long been interpreted by State Department lawyers to require intent to bring about the physical and biological destruction of a group.
“Genocide is difficult to prove in court,” said Richard Dicker, an expert on international justice at Human Rights Watch.
You just keep repeating the same thing over and over here. You’re also conveniently ignoring my follow up comment that provides a lot more context and sources other than US such as the recent report from Italy stating that the narrative is politically motivated.
I am very sorry, but your follow up comments have nothing to do with your false claim in your summary that the state department lawyers denied genocide is or has taken place. There is nothing convenient about it.
The follow up comment clearly shows that the claims of genocide are not credible. Meanwhile, US state department is hardly a neutral actor here. My only point in the original comment was that even they, despite their clear desire to call it a genocide, are not able to do so. You’re working overtime to not understand this.
No, your only point in your original comment was that they denied that it was genocide. Now you are saying that you claimed ‘they are not able to claim it is genocide’. This also a lie, because you did not say that. You lied, saying they denied it was genocide. You can go back and read your comment again if you like.
They say they are unable to prove it is genocide, not that they are unable to claim it is genocide.
It’s not too hard to understand any of this.