[trasz]

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.

[aspenmayer]

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.

[trasz]

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.

[aspenmayer]

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.

In short, sources or why bother?

[trasz]

You might want to read your own comments then. What I'm saying is we shouldn't blindly trust either of two sides. You disagree.

[aspenmayer]

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?

[trasz]

Plural you? :-D

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.

[trasz]

Because you wouldn't read them anyway. If you were interested in sources, they were one click away. The fact that you didn't even try proves your intentions.

[aspenmayer]

You never provided any sources. Wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia; it is not a primary source of any kind. Each article on Wikipedia cites its sources at the bottom of the article. Why don't you select a proper primary source, possibly even one cited from Wikipedia, and argue for it. Otherwise, you're only convincing yourself. You are arguing with positions I never made, using sources you never cited. I'm okay leaving things here if you are.