And how did they deduce that? Maybe with the additional help of official Chinese government documents?:

The source for this is just reading what Zenz and co posted themselves. The Grayzone is just highlighting clear problems with how Zenz gathers data.
And I’m highlighting how they’re wrong.
As for sources on the Arab League visiting Xinjiang and finding no evidence of genocide, here’s Middle East Monitor reporting on it. I already linked this to you before, but this is an additional source just for fun. It’s really easy to find this online.

As for pretty much all major allegations of genocide leading back to Zenz, here’s an example from BBC, which merely reports what Zenz says with little commentary.
“This one article about Uighurs links back to Zenz so all articles link back to Zenz” do you even hear yourself?
Wierd bit of homophobia on your part at the end, but I can’t say I’m surprised by that behavior from you…
Sorry, where was I homophobic?
…but I can’t say I’m surprised by that behavior from you, given your defense of the far-right.
Where did I defend the far-right you fucking moron? Are you fantasizing arguing with an alter ego of mine?
You haven’t even looked at the reports, so there’s nothing here to argue yet…
This is the third time I’m saying this. You’ve not made a single point about anything in the reports YOU shared. What the fuck would me reading them change. Make an argument, cite it, then I’ll check. I’m not going to read 180 pages to debunk literally no argument.
…all we have found is that you believe far-right christofascist propagandist Adrian Zenz is infallible…
Where did I say that dipshit? Show me, where did I say that?
…and right-liberal RationalWiki…
Lol. Lmao even. “Everything I don’t like is liberal” to the nth degree. Well, they’re not though:

…is a reliable way to avoid engaging with a group that simply highlights Zenz’ background, methodology, and mistakes.
I’m directly engaging with the shit you keep spewing. I don’t want to type out paragraphs against worn-out arguments myself, that’s why I just send already existing rebuttals. You don’t want to engage with the rebuttals I send though, so you just keep moving the goalposts. Great job!









How?
Do you not know how to read? I literally gave an answer for this at the very start of my previous response.

I am though. Is “nuh uh” the best you’ve got?
How? Expand on these baseless statements maybe? It’s also really funny how you’ve essentially turned this into a RationalWiki vs Grayzone argument.
I thought I was a post-left anarchist. But if you say so I guess.
Hmm I wonder why. Maybe because he is a researcher in this topic?
You must be trolling at this point. Do you want me to repeat myself for the 4th time?
Yes, the left wing group of… China…
No, it doesn’t.
Have you ever heard of jokes?
It’s a wiki, go and discuss changing it if you have evidence against these claims.
Damn. This RationalWiki conspiracy goes deep huh? Why are you so mad at this singular source I cited?
Damn.
Except for the ones you did. Instead of engaging with my rebuttal against the claim that Zenz lied about IUD rates, you immediately switched to how Arab League countries found no wrongdoing. Then when I gave a rebuttal to that you immediately switched to how “Zenz claimed to have interviewed 8 Uyghur people and deduced that millions must be incarcerated”. And then when I gave my rebuttal to that you very obviously didn’t read it and switched to how I’m homophobic and far right, how RationalWiki is liberal, and how Zenz is a douchebag.
Are you okay? Hallucinating? I never defended or dodged those things. I gave rebuttals. I acknowledged that he’s biased, but also acknowledged that that singular reason doesn’t make his research untrustworthy. I debunked your claims about him lying and manipulating. And I really couldn’t give two shits about how evangelical he is. It is also weird how you’re so focused on this one researcher.
Did he now? Where’s the source?
Okay.
I never complained about creationists, nor did I ever say they have nothing worthy to say. I just referenced how creationists tend to omit parts of texts that hurt their feelings.
Okay. Like you continuing to poison the well doesn’t prove his research or data wrong.
No they don’t. RationalWiki addressed criticisms made against Zenz’s methodology, and accurately identified how using what kind of person Zenz is against his research is an ad hominem. And not ad hominem in the insult sense.
Oh yes, the Fallacy of Stopping the Reader from Seriously Considering the Validity of the Information Presented. Look, they even have a page for it 🤡.

They indeed point out how his beliefs call for significant scrutiny to his research:
And it’s really weird how you’re still so focused on this singular source I cited.
You still haven’t proven any of this. But keep repeating. Maybe it’ll become reality.
Yeah, the anti-imperialist reporting from… the pro-kremlin, antivax, anti-renewable Grayzone.
At this point I’m fully convinced that you’re a troll. If anybody isn’t, I feel sorry for them. Disengage.