Fedi.Tips (@feditips@mstdn.social)
mstdn.social
Content warning: Please don't use Lemmy :( Human rights, oppression

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?

  • onyx@lemmy.ml
    1·
    3 years ago

    FediTips and the commenters in that thread make some good points. The fact that this Lemmy instance federates with Lemmygrad (which, if you look at the front page, is full of denialism about the Uyghur genocide) is an atrocity.

    And yes, https://lemmy.ml/modlog does indeed have some questionable entries, such as:

    • Removed Community conservatives reason: No conservative communities
    • Removed Community Libertarian, in the pursuit of a free society reason: No conservative communities allowed
    • Removed Community Conservatism reason: No conservative subs allowed

    I created the Conservatism community, not knowing that Lemmy (lemmy.ml) became a leftist instance. (Lemmy was not explicitly leftist when I made my account in July 2020. Look at this archive of the front page from November 2020, which does not include the word leftist in the sidebar.) Fine, whatever. But, removing the Libertarian community with the rationale “No conservative communities allowed”? I don’t understand that. That’s not even politically accurate.

    • CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml
      1·
      3 years ago

      Wikipedia is not a source bruh. In the introductory paragraph on the uyghur genocide article they say that thousands of mosques have been destroyed… But don’t mention they have been rebuilt to accommodate more people or because they weren’t up to code. There are more mosques in Xinjiang alone in 2021 than there are in all of Europe lol.

      Wikipedia has a clear agenda and this is clear from looking at their board of directors and demographics. They are not a source and neither are their sources - - they are carefully curated to offer a specific analysis.

      • nikifa@lemmy.ml
        0·
        3 years ago

        You are aware that this is just about semantics? It’s not about if those crimes against humanity that some call genocide are happening, it is if those crimes against humanity should be called genocide or differently. Stop gaslighing.

        “The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide,…”

        Some more quote from the article:

        “Secretary Blinken and I have made clear that genocide has been committed against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang,”

        “I have determined that the People’s Republic of China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, China, targeting Uyghur Muslims and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups,”

        “For example, the torture, rape and sexual violence committed against Uyghurs likely constitute genocide ‘by causing serious bodily and mental harm’—the second type of genocide recognized by the Convention,

        “More than 1 million Uighurs have been detained in reeducation camps, and many have reportedly been subjected to forced labor and sterilization. China has committed numerous crimes listed in the convention as acts of genocide, including the prevention of births and infliction of bodily or mental harm on members of a group and the compulsory separation of children from their communities, according to human rights groups.”

          • nikifa@lemmy.ml
            0·
            3 years ago

            xD. I get the Joke @TheAnonymouseJoker. Hope you wont get to much downovtes by those not understanding the actual joke. xD Because this might not be obvious to others reading here I give a short explanation:

            It’s a common practice by tankies and of those who come at their defense, to make some claim/question about “shit lib” or CIA, and it doesn’t matter if it fits the current argument or not. Usually some conspiracy follow after that.

            The joke here is to make a pun out of that behavior, by injecting that “CIA” claim at a moment it just doesn’t servers well.

            And here’s why: Someone tried to gaslight an political opponent by linking to an article that they claim to be about “Even US state department denies the Uyghur genocide”. So all I did is to quote some parts of the text, as a means to break the gaslighting spell. And now, the source that was original used to prove that that genocide did not happen, if used by a non-tankie it is CIA propaganda shit libs believe in. And because this art of debate is so absurd, it creates some laughter for some. On the other hand it is also very anoying, because you can’t have any serious logical consistent debate with anyone who argues like that.