Let us look at a specific example. A claim like “There’s cultural genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang” is simply unreal to most Westerners, close to pure gibberish. The words really refer to existing entities and geographies, but Westerners aren’t familiar with them. The actual content of the utterance as it spills out is no more complex or nuanced than “China Bad,” and the elementary mistakes people make when they write out statements of “solidarity” make that much clear. This is not a complaint that these people have not studied China enough — there’s no reason to expect them to study China, and retrospectively I think to some extent it was a mistake to personally have spent so much time trying to teach them. It’s instead an acknowledgment that they are eagerly wielding the accusation like a club, that they are in reality unconcerned with its truth-content, because it serves a social purpose.
It references evergreen trees, the ones that don't lose their leaves in the winter and are green year-round, in this case it says the essay is applicable to many scenarios and not just a few, like how normal trees are only green for parts of the year
The thing about it is that it's not about the matter of Xinjiang or any of those questions of particular fields of atrocity propaganda. It is written as an analysis of why people would make bullshit assertions, not an assessment of if they are bullshit.