Please do not use HN for nationalistic flamewar. This comment is a noticeable step into the flamewar style, which is exactly the wrong direction take here, regardless of how right you are or feel on an important topic.
Stepping into snark is also a very bad sign. If you find yourself typing things like "since you're so convinced" into comment boxes, please step away from HN until it subsides.
I would ask you to read my partner’s comments again. They are self-replying and mixing up comment replies between different comment chains. Their comments are not germane to the discussion. It feels like the entire thread is being trolled. I don’t feel bad for trying to debate in good faith.
> I’m open to your sources, since you’re so convinced of your side being the one deserving of trust.
This is cheap. To say "we shouldn't blindly trust this side" doesn't mean "we should blindly trust that side" at all. It just means we shouldn't blindly trust this side. It may well be that we shouldn't trust either side, because both have reasons to lie.
Both sides could also be right. I do not have a stance, I am just saying what the Tibetan stance is. Why shouldn’t we believe that narrative? There could be good reasons either way, but I haven’t really seen any good sources in this thread. Perhaps you have some to share? I admit this is not my area of study.
When both sides claim opposing things, that's pretty unlikely. My point is that to jump from "don't just blindly trust A" to claiming the person meant to say "blindly trust B" is a cheap shot. It's "so you're saying [insert something they absolutely didn't say]" and it's a meme mocking the person that does it for a reason.
Already linked the source few comments above; if you read it there are quite a few more links.
The problem with victim's accounts is twofold. First, there are many accounts, and what gets quoted are folks telling the stories of terror, not the ones who fled for eg religious reasons.
Second, when it comes to China, there's a metric ton of fake news everywhere you look. You look into a story about communist government destroying a church, and later it turns out the church was actually a church-owned commercial building raised without a permit. You read about concentration camps, and only after going through few hundreds pages you realize they are more like western juvenile detention centers. And so on, and so on.
Thus, we shouldn't blindly trust either of sides; there's way too much politically-motivated misreporting involved.
I’m not blindly trusting; I don’t trust you at all because you are not arguing in good faith. You still never provided sources. One or two Wikipedia articles exist about every wrongheaded belief; why should I believe them if you don’t have anything more convincing, even if it’s just more convincing to you?
Regarding the sources you did provide, the articles you cited themselves are ambiguous about the factual, provable nature of your claims. More sources are required to make any kind of argument. Please pick a couple more sources, even ones from the Wikipedia article, or I’ll continue seeing your comments as not in good faith. If you can’t point at sources, I can’t just take your word for it. Neither one of us likely was present for these events, and anecdotes don’t get us anywhere we haven’t already been in this discussion.
I have provided sources, you hadn't. I do give a benefit of the doubt to both parties, you don't. I don't blindly trust any of the sides, while you do. That's pretty evident when you read through the comments above.
You are the one making affirmative claims. I am asking for evidence of your claims. You provided one Wikipedia page. I looked at it closely, and found it inconclusive. It did not reach a definitive conclusion as to your claims. I humbly ask that you link to sources either in the Wikipedia article, or another article, or ideally first and second party sources specifically which you find convincing. Simply saying an argument was made poorly or was made well by someone else somewhere else does nothing for our discussion here on HN.
I’m not advocating for either side. I’m presenting the Tibetan side as one groups’ position. I’m not a member of that group, nor do I argue on their behalf.
You are the interlocutor making claims that need proof; namely you take a stance and then demand others justify their own stance if it differs from your own.
I’ve asked repeatedly for you to link just one primary source for your claims. We’re all still waiting?
In any case - cool, if you are not advocating one side’s position as absolute and unquestionable truth, then the sources I’ve provided give the plural you pretty good idea how it looks like from the other side, as well as views in between. All is well then.