[luckylion]

> 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.

[aspenmayer]

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.

[luckylion]

> Both sides could also be right.

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.