this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
184 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15681 readers
225 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this.

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

They’re from Portland, Oregon you can’t make this shit up lol.

The Chinese text in the title translates as “brainwashed.” Top kek.

https://www.reddit.com/r/China/s/9SIkZmnr2U

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Proving extraordinary claims is good actually its just that "Uighers are being genocided" IS the extraordinary claim.

Sorry like I just got in an argument with a chud acquittance of mine who claimed that NGOs funded by rich people are funding mass immigration to the US, and when I asked for sources and a paper trail he said "1+1=2" and I pointed out how mathematicians would say you actually do have to prove 1+1=2 and he did a "LOL EXPERTS" thing.

So I don't think we should move into post-truthism.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

Yes proving things is good actually. The bad is only demanding proof from 1 channel, in this case a scholarly source or it doesn't exist.