What specifically about this BBC report do you feel is not substantiated enough? You did not get downvoted for calling for moderation, but for making unsupporte

What specifically about this BBC report do you feel is not substantiated enough? You did not get downvoted for calling for moderation, but for making unsupported assertions that contradict the available evidence. You complained about the quoting of Zenz. Perhaps you are one of those who feel that his Christian faith disqualifies him, or perhaps it's something else. In any case, the BBC does not consider him disqualified, but they also performed many investigations of their own and have corroborated the reports of many people who are not named Zenz. The BBC has provided abundant evidence. They are widely considered to be a reliable source. If you think the BBC is lying, then say so. Otherwise, it seems like you are just throwing stones. The only way I can see your position making sense and seeming moderate to you is if you take the CCP's official propaganda as of equal weight with the BBC's reports. This seems absurd to me, but I will grant that you can choose to take this view and I do think that you make your arguments in good faith. Edit: It appears that you got downvoted for calling the ongoing genocide "soft cultural erasure". It would have been okay if you've said "cultural erasure", but the "soft" part is just wrong. There's nothing soft about concentration camps and rape.