I don’t like Wikipedia as a source, but it’s generally accepted as the standard for liberal academia. If a source criticizing communism or communist figures is disputed even among Wikipedia, then it isn’t a good source, most likely.
As for the bit on Tibet, I’m fully capable of admitting when I do not know something, unlike the person I replied to. However, I said the exact opposite of calling Tibetans “savages and pedophiles.” I called the feudal slavers as such, just like I would be comfortable calling the plantation owners of the south pedophiles and torturers. Dr. Michael Parenti painted the Tibetan serfs not as pedophiles and savages, but as people with their own agency in actively opposing their own torture:
The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation — including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation — were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs.
As for the site I linked, it’s not the source. You can read the source on Duke University’s website, I just linked the site I did because I prefer to link text over PDFs. Dr. Michael Parenti isn’t some random person, but was a university professor and academic.
I have no idea why you attacked me with homophobia at the end, certainly you’re capable of insulting me without resorting to bigotry. Same with immediately dehumanizing me as cancer.
The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation — including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation
That sounds a lot like what Amnesty International is saying that China is doing to the Uighurs today:
I don’t like Wikipedia as a source, but it’s generally accepted as the standard for liberal academia. If a source criticizing communism or communist figures is disputed even among Wikipedia, then it isn’t a good source, most likely.
As for the bit on Tibet, I’m fully capable of admitting when I do not know something, unlike the person I replied to. However, I said the exact opposite of calling Tibetans “savages and pedophiles.” I called the feudal slavers as such, just like I would be comfortable calling the plantation owners of the south pedophiles and torturers. Dr. Michael Parenti painted the Tibetan serfs not as pedophiles and savages, but as people with their own agency in actively opposing their own torture:
As for the site I linked, it’s not the source. You can read the source on Duke University’s website, I just linked the site I did because I prefer to link text over PDFs. Dr. Michael Parenti isn’t some random person, but was a university professor and academic.
I have no idea why you attacked me with homophobia at the end, certainly you’re capable of insulting me without resorting to bigotry. Same with immediately dehumanizing me as cancer.
That sounds a lot like what Amnesty International is saying that China is doing to the Uighurs today:
https://www.amnesty.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Amnesty-International_China-Report_FINAL.pdf
It doesn’t, actually. Have you read the report yourself? I recommend reading what Uyghur people actually have to say, as well as researching the validity/invalidity of the allegations. There’s absolutely no evidence of anything even close to approaching the kind of torture the Tibetan serfs and slaves dealt with.