Here's the archived article, there's supposed to be vids but the archive doesn't include it: https://archive.is/dHpB8
The tweet: https://twitter.com/i/events/1407693978057777154
Just like how %50 of the :juche-WPK: population are actors to appease the two digits of westerners that are in the country at any given time.
saw this absolutely credulous slop in my proPublica feed last night and could not believe it. what the hell kind of standards of evidence do you need to have for this shit to point to genocide.
at Worst, this is a mandatory scripted video to be posted online upon completion of reeducation?
they even point out that Xinjiang is "closer to Kabul than Beijing," which reeks of warfooting. shame we're removing all those troops from afghanistan, just as they're so desperately needed just a few miles east in the free republic of occupied east turkistan...
Problem is BBC did exactly that. Certainly didn't stop them from inserting their own narrative above even the footage they got.
Damn, it's like the videos are scripted or something, imagine that. Maybe that's because regular people don't know what to say when they're put on the spot in front of a camera? No, Xi must be personally holding all of the Uyghurs at gunpoint.
Witness testimonies in the west are infamously never rehearsed or prepared beforehand.
Something something babies in incubators, something something WMDs, something something Gulf of Tonkin
Surprisingly, many people under the tweet were calling them out.
All bots. All part of Chinese propaganda. All an elaborate hoax. Don't trust any of it.
You can see this same pattern on reddit whenever some "China bad" article is posted. There does seem to be a significant, growing number of people who are skeptical of this narrative.
The problem is they are all Chinese though. There still seems to approximately zero awareness of the narrative surrounding China among any other group in the US.
Maybe, but it's a marked improvement over being scared into silence. The short term goal here is to get loud enough to break the illusion of the US narrative as a truism.
Despite all evidence saying otherwise, you have to listen to us on this because its all a giant conspiracy, the fact that theres no evidence is itself proof!
It's the stealthiest. It's so stealthy that they don't even murder or mistreat anyone, and the culture and people are being supported and brought out of poverty so that the region can be integrated in with the rest of China in a peaceful way. Super stealthy.
6000 years from now, the Pan-Galactic Uyghur Confederacy are surveying for new planets to add to their territory when they come across a small outpost marked NYT-005030. An automated radio signal is detected, and after decoding the ancient language known as English, it turns out to be an opinion piece titled: "The PGUC grew by only five trillion citizens last year. Here's what this means for China's human rights abuses in Xinjiang."
"We've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence"
https://twitter.com/subaruofrussia/status/1407870214985764865?s=19
Excellent reporting. Side note: I no longer purchase anything made in China.
https://twitter.com/un_burro/status/1407789370745266189?s=19
Excellent reporting. Side note: I no longer purchase anything made in China.
Well this seems normal and completely organic.
Anyway, everyone criticizing this article and calling it propaganda is a Chinese bot.
lmao owned vuvuzuela no iphone style 😎 https://twitter.com/RuiJin17/status/1408103323161485314
Uyghur sad
China bad
Uyghur happy
China bad
Uyghur jobless
China bad
Uyghur with job
China bad
Uyghur exists
Believe it or not, China bad
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
:parenti-hands:
I read it to the rhythm of the chorus from "bringing sexy back"
Mr. Pompeo had routinely accused China of committing human rights abuses in the Xinjiang region, and these four people made videos to express their outrage. They did so in oddly similar ways.
“We are very free,” the retiree said.
“We are very free now,” the store owner said.
“We are very, very free here,” the taxi driver said.
“Our lives are very happy and very free now,” the textile company worker said.
Talk to a few dozen Americans on the street. Tell them "hey, France says America ain't free!" What are the odds you get a handful of responses like this?
And this is setting aside the fact that people telling you similar stories is also evidence that they're telling the truth.
Naw dawg, it actually takes state coercion to get that many Chinese people to want to call Mike Pompeo a liar and an asshole.
What are the odds you get a handful of responses like this?
No you'll get "Well time to bomb France" from half of them
I cant stand dumbass communists saying poverty is an issue. Can't they see that even the most talentless, hopeless people in our society can become NYT journalists?
I said it elsewhere, but this seems eerily similar to the prelude for the US invading Iraq
"Where are the WMDs? You're not showing them to us, or proving that you have them (but we know you have them because we said so), so we're gonna have to bomb you"
It's scary how laughably bad their evidence is* compared to how strong of a bite they're getting from uncritical people.
*essentially, a bunch of accounts posted similar shit, about similar topics, with similar talking points and sometimes even similar phrasing, many seemed scripted, and therefore these videos represent fake or coerced viewpoints that don't actually represent the situation.
You could literally say the same thing about US media's coverage of China, about western social media commenter's accounts on places like reddit whenever the topic of China comes up. You could say the same thing about the similarities between what we hear about China and what we heard about, say, WMDs before we invaded Iraq and littered the earth with depleted uranium munitions without finding anything, or what we heard about human rights abuses in Libya before we turned it into a den of slavery and misery.
you could really say that about media coverage on anything, see Sinclair script
Have you ever seen those silly internet campaigns where someone is like "Write your senator, I even have an example letter for you!" and then you see replies like "Thanks, it's hard to word this on my own"? Couldn't it just as easily be something like that? They saw someone talking about it online, and just decided to use that wording because they aren't good at writing things on their own?
Why can't it be something like that NYT? Why is it immediately government behind it without any proof? Same with like, Tiktok video trends where people do the same dance or say the same words as a joke, maybe it's like that?
And of course, how do you even know that the fake ones weren't trolls or spam bots that copy trending posts and topics to look real?
