this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
102 points (95.5% liked)

Slop.

611 readers
531 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/76d7f98d-738f-45b5-b8f6-78689be74ac1.jpeg?format=webp

They’ve gotten very strange in the past year or so. I’ve seen multiple dbzer0 users, including two admins, do complete 180s on tankie bullshit, and it’s rather bizarre.

My best guess is that tankies offer them a sense of community, which is how many terminally online folk get drawn into it. People who have a deep desire for community will overlook moral issues if invited to be a part of that community, and even adopt, consciously or unconsciously, those positions in order to better ‘fit in’ with the community.

In a time when the real world is more recognizably hostile than ever, or at least for as long as most of us here have been alive (insofar as we are both aware of it and noting that it is backsliding rather than improving), online communities probably seem quite tempting to hew closer to.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LeonTreatsky@hexbear.net 39 points 4 days ago (13 children)

It's tiring to go over the evidence again and again, but if someone could post the master post for any lurkers that might be curious?

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 43 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Does anyone have working links or other sources for rebuttals to the forced sterilization claims, specifically in the UN report?

The archive links in that post are not working for me.

[–] Chana@hexbear.net 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The UN report, by which I assume you mean the OHCHR report, is essentially a credulous repackaging of Zenz and the propaganda network surrounding him. Their discussion of sterilization goes no deeper than, "we interviewed a small number of women who say they were forced to have abortions or IUDs". Given their credulousness on Zenz claims and satellite imagery analyzed in bad faith by teenagers, it is highly likely that they are referring to claims already made publicly by a small number of people paid to run NED-funded groups to push propaganda regarding China and Uyghurs. People that end up living in Washington, DC for some reason. The report simply claims to find these stories credible but do not provide evidence or rationale for this.

Though even if we assume the opposite, that these are other people and their accounts are credible, it is a couple people out of millions in Xinjiang. The allegations are that this is mass internment of an ethnic group on the basis of religion and the OHCHR cites Zenz-incompetently-interpreted government reports to say how massive the campaign is. Yet their direct evidence remains virtually nothing. They instead rely on implications from dry statistics about birth rates from only 2 points in time that have multiple reasonable interpretations even when not using Zenz's incorrect editorializations.

[–] NPa@hexbear.net 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

From what I can remember they also 'misplaced' a comma in the data so the forced abortion rate looked 10 times higher

[–] Chana@hexbear.net 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well they don't publish a forced abortion rate, just an IUD insertion rate. But yes they fucked the math in a basic error to make it appear that something like 80% of all IUD insertions in China during that period were in Xinjiang.

[–] NPa@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago

yea thats the one

[–] TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Thanks it’s been a while since I read the report and couldn’t remember if that section was another one where they used Zenz or what the source of the claims was.

[–] Chana@hexbear.net 7 points 4 days ago

It's basically all Zenz and ASPI but they do the thing that high schoolers do when they want to just repeat what Wikipedia says but aren't allowed to cite it directly: cite the sources on Wikipedia.

load more comments (11 replies)