> I think that you should rethink this whole lone voice crying out in the wilderness/I unilaterally accept your concession thing. It’s true though, isn’t it? Y

> I think that you should rethink this whole lone voice crying out in the wilderness/I unilaterally accept your concession thing. It’s true though, isn’t it? You’ve accused me of Gish Galloping when I’ve done no such thing. If you feel overwhelmed and cannot respond to my very cogent arguments, then you are free to disengage. > Here's an example of what I mean by Gish Galloping. Pay close attention to the "without regard for accuracy of the arguments" part of the definition. >You throw out a 3 claims in 2 sentences, and give citations that seem like they support those assertions. Yet when you go to link #2 the first sentence is "In 2005, Amnesty International claimed that the United States was a human rights offender." You can google any one of those assertions. Those are three easily verifiable and widely known facts. Just three. Just because you have no knowledge of those facts does not make my point “Gish Galloping”. >Sure there are allegations of bias, so you didn't technically lie, but there are more allegations of bias against the US than towards it. Again. “You didn’t technically lie”. So what are you accusing me of doing then, lying in some other manner? I’ve simply stated that there is precedence of bias. Some of those biases include bias in favour of the US. These are my exact words: “There has been precedence of bias in both organizations”. >No one could read that article as supporting your stance that Amnesty International is biased towards the US, but you didn't care about whether the source actually supports your argument. Again with the arguing against straw-men. Show me the part where I say Amnesty International is biased towards the US. I simply state that there is precedence of bias, and my source [2] clearly demonstrates this. The purpose of that reference was that these are not organizations which are 100%, indisputably neutral and without bias. It's unproductive to put words in my mouth only to argue against them. > You're trying to fill your post with so many partially true assertions that I don't have the time or inclination to fact check all of them. I’ve systematically went through each and every one of your points and refuted them, with citations. You’ve appealed to emotion and recycled your headline assertions which I then had to further refute. You’ve provided no count-evidence and no citations. You can’t be bothered to check citations which you find dubious -why are you still engaged in this conversation? >Then you make a very vague claim that "many of their sources are affiliated with Radio Free Asia". This is a meaningless statement that can't be disproved because it's too nebulous. Fact: Both Amnesty International and HRW quote information from Radio Free Asia Fact: Radio Free Asia which is directly funded by the US government and has roots with the CIA It’s literally a 2 second google away. You’ll find RFA referenced everywhere in their articles concerning Xinjiang. I’ve provided references; laziness to verify my references does not make my statement “nebulous”. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/uighur-journalists-unbreakable-resolve-to-help-detained-family/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/uighur-journa... https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take-action/china-xinjiang-uyghur-muslims/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take-action/china-xi... https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/09/eradicating-ideological-viruses/chinas-campaign-repression-against-xinjiangs https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/09/eradicating-ideologica... https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/23/china-allow-independent-investigations-xinjiang-violence https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/23/china-allow-independent-... and many, many more. Clearly not a meaningless statement and clearly cannot be disproved, because it's true. Why do you make unsubstantiated statements such as this? >That's not at all what systemic injustice means. You're just throwing out assertions that kind of sound like they might be right. No. That is my definition and the common interpretation in literature, and that's how it's commonly understood. There is no official definition, but there are several sources online which support my definition: [1] “Systemic Racism includes the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions, which result in the exclusion or promotion of designated groups. It differs from overt discrimination in that no individual intent is necessary. “ http://www.aclrc.com/forms-of-racism http://www.aclrc.com/forms-of-racism [2] “Systemic bias, also called institutional bias, is the inherent tendency of a process to support particular outcomes. The term generally refers to human systems such as institutions” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_bias [3] “In finance, systemic risk is the risk of collapse of an entire financial system or entire market, as opposed to risk associated with any one individual entity, group or component of a system” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk “Systemic risk refers to the risk of a breakdown of an entire system rather than simply the failure of individual parts.” https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/advocacy/issues/systemic-risk https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/advocacy/issues/systemic-ris... [4] “Systemic discrimination refers to patterns of behavior, policies or practices that are part of the structures of an organization, and which create or perpetuate disadvantage for racialized persons. “ https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/systemic-discrimination/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/systemic-discrimination/ [5] “Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions.“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism There is a pattern here: Systemic racism is institutional racism Systemic bias is institutional bias Systemic risk is institutional risk Systemic discrimination is institutional discrimination Systemic injustice is _____________? > There isn't really much point in you continuing to use debate tactics like this, we're deep enough in the weeds that it's just you and me. No reason to deny farting in an elevator with only 2 passengers. I’m not the one throwing out thinly veiled accusations of lying and Gish Galloping. As I’ve said before, you are free to end the conversation at any time if you feel overwhelmed by my well-researched arguments and facts. If you question the facts that I’ve provided citations for, but are unwilling to verify them, then it’s not clear why you’re still here having this conversation unless it’s “to win”. As you’ve said, it’s just me and you here. It’s ok to concede that you’ve lost the debate. Either way, I’m perfectly happy to proceed.