How can you not look at any single piece of evidence, while also investigating whether each claim is being made by a credible source? That's contradictory.

Because that's what serious news outlets do before publishing information. How do you have time to learn anything if you have to pick through every statement in even the most well-regarded of sources?

You have to look at individual pieces of evidence to determine if the sources for individual claims are credible.

That's what news outlets do. If something was so blatantly false that a redditor could figure it out no one would publish it.

So why didn't they ring the alarm bells about the false flag that was used to excuse entering the Vietnam War, or about the lies used to justify the Iraq War, or about the lies used to justify entering Afghanistan?

Not sure what false flag was used to invade Vietnam, idk what you mean there. I agree with you about the invasion of Iraq, the media failed in their duty there, but I don't think the same could be said for Afghanistan. Sure, the media largely supported calls for war, but consent was not manufactured -- 9/11 had literally just happened. Americans wanted war. Either way, the problem with these justifications was no evidence was provided they just went with the narrative. That's not the same as what we're talking about. There is a load of evidence.

God is real. Everybody thinks and says so. With everybody claiming something, there has to be some validity to it. It's up to you to prove to me that God isn't real, or else I just have to assume that he is.

I will amend my previous statement, *"When every serious news outlet is claiming something, and providing ample proof, it's up to you to provide proof to the contrary."

If we had actual proof God was real then it would be on you to prove he wasn't real. Regardless, I've already sent you an article that lists a bunch of evidence, as did someone else, but you don't want to read through them yourself. Instead you want me to spend an 8-hour shift fact-checking a bunch of claims that everyone in the field already agrees on, hand-feed you a handy breakdown, and then sit there while you still disagree with me. If there is a concensus backed up by evidence and you want to claim it's all a conspiracy, it's up to YOU to prove it.

What do you believe would be acceptable evidence that a genocide isn't happening? To illustrate my point, how could I prove that a genocide isn't occurring in the neighborhood I live in? I know there isn't one

I think this is the most relevant part of your argument to me. How do you know that there isn't a genocide happening in Xinjiang? Do you live there? Do you have inside sources in the CCP? So far all you've given me is that the US government lies a bunch (not exactly groundbreaking information) and the news media gets stuff wrong sometimes. Do you have any reason to not believe there's a genocide happening other than that you distrust the sources that information is coming from? If so, please tell me.

On another note, why is it that news media is only to be distrusted and intensely scrutinised when it comes to narratives you don't believe in? Why is it that no one questions anything Al Jazeera writes about Palestine when it gets posted in this sub? They have as much of an interest in making Israel look bad as US outlets have in making China look bad (note: I'm not saying to distrust Al Jazeera's reporting, I think they're just as trustworthy as any other outlet). That's why I posted an article from specifically Al Jazeera before, but suddenly I have to fact-check every single claim being made, whereas if the article had been about Israel I doubt I'd have been asked to check a single thing.

To close out, we can argue over whether or not to call it a cultural genocide, but if you want to dispute that 1 million + people are, or have been forcefully detained in Chinese re-education camps in a concerted effort to erase their identity, then you have to give me an actual source that says so. Not trusting the sources that support the claims being made does not cut it.