[glenstein]

Oh, I'm very aware of these JV debate team talking points about Amnesty International. I would just dismiss those as not relevant and point you toward some courses on remedial critical thinking skills to better understand what kinds of evidence are relevant to what kinds of claims, specifically how the signal diminishes as you increase the degrees of separation from your evidence and the content you are trying to apply it to.

This is several degrees of abstraction away from the point about Uighurs, so unless you are claiming Luis Kutner's actions in the 60s have a specific, direct evidentiary connection to the 400 instances of Uighur testimony about disappearances and torture across the world from the past few years, the only thing I can do for you is try to help explain how to critically think about evidence and its connection to different kinds of claims, and how to understand when it does and doesn't weigh on particular claims.

Did you have anything specific to the issue of Uighur testimony you would like to share that's not from 60 years ago? Is there a particular line in the wiki article or mintpressnews that you linked that directly and specifically debunks all 400 pieces of testimony?

[SenoraRaton]

Sure, here is an example of these "testimonies", and how their stories changed:

After: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7599941/Whistleblow...

Before: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-everyone-was-s...

If you looked at the second link I provided about Nayirah and Desert Storm, you would realize that my concerns about Amnesty and testimonies are inextricably linked. They "corroborated" her testimony. Bear in mind this was in the early 90's, not 1960.

Watch the testimony, and then read the video description. Its all public record.

https://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y

The facts of the matter are that there HAVE been radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Xinjiang. The Chinese are dealing with the nature of this problem. The extent to which "atrocities" are occurring is constantly stated, yet somehow the numbers are always inflated, stories are changing, none of it adds up.

More sources and references:

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ehrd6y/cmv_th...

If you want a REAL deep dive:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d0lynghlCnR6Hs57pypEEhlh...

Here is a video from April of this year in Xinjiang, one of the terrorist attacks is included in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oKvulTU8oU&bpctr=1597232967

[glenstein]

This all over the place.

You asked for evidence supporting 'the accusations in Xinjiang.' I posted some. Since then, most of your reply has had nothing to do with that. None of the material you linked previously was directly related to Uighurs. And now you've come back with a second trove of links, and instead of explaining them you're inviting me to wade through a huge trove links that apparently imply somethingorother that you just can't get around to stating in plain language.

The most relevant appears to be a pair of articles that support a half-baked argument that someone's testimony has changed, although you aren't clearly stating how it changed, and it's not clear that your interpretation of that is one that I would share. And to the extent that there's an argument here at all that relates to Uighurs, it appears to depend on using a single account to disprove an entire trove of 400 interviews, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how different kinds of evidence balance against each other.

That's in addition to the comprehension issue regarding how evidence diminishes in weight the further it is removed from the subject - the connection between stuff from 60 years ago on a different subject doesn't balance against Amnesty's work in the present the way you seem to think it does.

And again, I'm very familiar with the copy+pasted talking points from /r/Sino. For the most part, you still haven't directly addressed the veracity of the interviews, you've just attempted to turn the whole conversation into a pandora's box of digressions with unclear connections to the specific question you were originally asking about. This is more an exercise in Qanon-style free association than an expression of a coherent thought that logically addresses specific arguments.