That is not remotely an equivalent argument. The definition of systemic injustice is injustice which arises from from a system or structure of power such as a government or nation state. It implies that the institutions of society are the genesis of the injustice. There is no proof of systemic injustice at the scale of three million Uighers being detained and put into concentration camps due to their ethnicity. There might be proof of individuals within the system abusing their powers of authority.
>It's either an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory which of course requires no response, or enough evidence for the world to demand answers. It can't be both.
Conspiracy theory was your word -I would have chosen something more like “propaganda campaign of exaggerated facts”. Nonetheless, I disagree with the premise of your statement that it can’t be both. Conspiracy theories or propaganda campaigns do not preclude the asking of further questions.
>For that to be true, the Trump administration, The government of Turkey, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and dozens of mainstream media outlets from dozens of countries would need to be working together.
As I’ve said before, the Trump administration has no credibility whatsoever either in domestic or foreign policy. Nonetheless, the US still recognizes the East Turkestan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization. Turkey is currently undergoing social unrest due to hyperinflation and a failing economy. Of course it would be in their interest to placate their people whichever way they can. Here is Turkey designating Eastern Turkestan’s (aka Xinjiang’s) Islamic movement as terrorists as recently as 2017 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDhxU4gwfzs. (Also, considering how Turkey is treating Kurdish minorities within its own borders, they are hardly a moral authority.)
As for Amnesty International and HRW, many of their sources are affiliated with Radio Free Asia which is directly funded by the US government and has roots with the CIA. There has been precedence of bias in both organizations as found here [1] and here [2]. This following paragraph provides a good summary of the criticism:
>In May 2014 an open letter was published criticising Human Rights Watch for what were described as its close ties to the government of the United States. The letter was signed by Nobel Peace Laureates Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Corrigan, former UN Assistant Secretary-General Hans von Sponeck, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Richard A. Falk, and over 100 scholars and cultural figures. The letter highlighted a number of Human Rights Watch officials who had been involved in foreign policy roles in the US government, including Washington advocacy director Tom Malinowski, formerly a speechwriter for Madeleine Albright and a special adviser to Bill Clinton, and subsequently Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to John Kerry, and HRW Americas advisory committee members Myles Frechette (a former United States Ambassador to Colombia) and Michael Shifter (former Latin America director for the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy). The letter contrasted HRW's criticism of Venezuela's candidacy for the United Nations Human Rights Council in a letter to Hugo Chávez to the lack of censure regarding the United States' tenure as a member of the Council, despite the US government's use of a "kill list" for designated enemies, ongoing usage of extraordinary renditions and the continued detention of combatants at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. The signatories called on Human Rights Watch to ban those involved in formulating or carrying out US foreign policy from serving as members of the organisation's staff, advisers or board members, or as a "bare minimum", instituting lengthy cooling-off periods between spells working for HRW and in the service of US foreign policy
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watc...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_Internati...
> Also are you familiar with the term Gish gallop, because that's what you're doing with this thread.
I'm not familiar with the term.
> The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.
I am arguing in good faith and now you are accusing me of "Gish Galloping". You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it shouldn't be presented as universal truth.
I'm sorry that you feel overwhelmed by my arguments, but I have yet to see any evidence refuting the accuracy of what I am saying, just appeals to emotion and the parroting of mainstream media headlines -yet I have still bothered to address each of those comments point by point.
You are of course free to disengage at any time. I will interpret the fact that you are accusing me of Gish Galloping and disengaging as a sign of both the accuracy and strength of my arguments.