Doing a big Gish Gallop like this is a good tactic. It looks like you’re addressing the question, and doing it at length with overwhelming weight of evidence, but then if I cite something else from CBS News like you did, you can say “Aha! Western news, I discard!” If I start talking about Tienanmen Square then we can go back and forth a little and then you can change the subject to something else, and you can do that more or less any number of times.
It’s pretty easy to find accurate reasons why Western news sources are often biased, or wrong. If you just keep hammering that idea, and refuse under any circumstances to clarify what sources you do trust, then it’s easy to obfuscate the discussion way far away from comparing what happened in Hong Kong to what happened in the US. This kind of titanic difficulty in pinning down the facts is a hallmark of what happens when you argue with someone who doesn’t like factual discussions.
Of course, you’re not obligated to talk with me. Cheers and good luck.
Doing a big Gish Gallop like this is a good tactic. It looks like you’re addressing the question, and doing it at length with overwhelming weight of evidence, but then if I cite something else from CBS News like you did, you can say “Aha! Western news, I discard!” If I start talking about Tienanmen Square then we can go back and forth a little and then you can change the subject to something else, and you can do that more or less any number of times.
It’s pretty easy to find accurate reasons why Western news sources are often biased, or wrong. If you just keep hammering that idea, and refuse under any circumstances to clarify what sources you do trust, then it’s easy to obfuscate the discussion way far away from comparing what happened in Hong Kong to what happened in the US. This kind of titanic difficulty in pinning down the facts is a hallmark of what happens when you argue with someone who doesn’t like factual discussions.
Of course, you’re not obligated to talk with me. Cheers and good luck.