4 ms·
Thing is, "Psychologist and writer Colin Goldner[78] alleges that although human rights abuses carried out by the People's Liberation Army, especially during th
by trasz 6y ago
Thing is, "Psychologist and writer Colin Goldner[78] alleges that although human rights abuses carried out by the People's Liberation Army, especially during the Cultural Revolution, cannot be justified, the pronouncements of Tibetan exiles cannot be trusted, because "These are, if not totally invented out of thin air, as a rule hopelessly exaggerated and/or refer to no longer actual happenings." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Tibet#Verifiabilty_of_exile_pronouncements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Tibet#Verifiab...).
- aspenmayer 6y agoWe could know more with the cooperation of China in the TAR, but they won’t let foreign observers in. Later in the same Wikipedia article: > American sinologist Allen Carlson is of the opinion that it is nearly impossible, without substantial field research in Tibet, to verify the numerous allegations of violations advanced by China critics. He does, however, state, "my analysis of Beijing’s policies and practices has left me with the impression that the Chinese leadership has no reservations about using whatever means necessary to secure Chinese rule over Tibet." > According to Amnesty International "The Chinese authorities have turned down as “inconvenient” requests for visits to the TAR by several UN human rights experts."
- trasz 6y agoThat's very true. But this means we shouldn't blindly trust either of the sides.
- josinalvo 6y agoDoes it? Only one side is forbidding people to look at things for themselves. It seems better epistemological practice to suspect this side more
- trasz 6y agoIndeed. But we still shouldn't blindly trust the other.
- aspenmayer 6y agoWe’re believing the victims of forced relocation and genocide at the hands of China. I’m open to your sources, since you’re so convinced of your side being the one deserving of trust.
- luckylion 6y ago> 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 6y agoBoth 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 6y ago> 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.
- dang 6y agoPlease 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. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html