Sorry, I phrased my question poorly. What I meant was, does the linked article also count as discouraged ideological battle (even if, on its own, it doesn't merit a ban)?
Before European colonization, the indigenous peoples of the Americas had developed customs for dealing with captives. Depending on the region, captives could either be killed, tortured, kept alive and assimilated into the tribe, or enslaved. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captives_in_American_Indian_Wa...
Many of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, such as the Haida and Tlingit, were traditionally known as fierce warriors and slave-traders, raiding as far as California. Slavery was hereditary, the slaves being prisoners of war. Their targets often included members of the Coast Salish [indigenous] groups. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_the_Indigenous_p...
A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
So no, it was not. I thought we had laid to rest the myth of the Noble Savage, that knew neither greed nor cruelty until the evil European forced them upon him. But I suppose it would be too much to expect the Smithsonian to do what a nobody with an internet connection, 5 minutes of free time, and no training in history can do.
> someone coming from a different culture, a culture that is less refined than one's own culture, and so the migrant would make everything in one's homeland worse
Why should one have to think a different culture and people are inferior, to want to preserve one's own culture and people? If it was environmentalists worried about native wolves being slowly displaced by an invasive breed of dingo, would you call them wolf-supremacists? Certainly nobody accused Kashmir of supremacy when they worried about immigration [1].
Or are human groups so unique, the first of their kind in the entire animal kingdom, that they actually benefit from a competing group moving into their territory?
Apologies. The original title contained "to be", which did not fit in the 80 character limit. In any case, UK's population is already larger than the European parts of France, which is what most people think of, so while the shortened title is not technically true, it is not misleading.
Yes, that's what a racist, white supremacist country would do: 82% non-white immigration.
> Its just now a certain segment of "got mine, scrw you" America wants to call those same people as illegal immigrants.
It's called a "country", and is not unique to the US. If anything, the US is one of the most* open - that's how they went from 85% white in 1960, to 58% in 2020 [1]. You mentioned China - in that same period, they went from 94% Han-Chinese, to 91% Han-Chinese [2], and they have virtually zero immigration - 0.07% [4], India has 0.4% [5], while the US has 14.5% [6]. And unlike the US, China and India do not grant citizenship by virtue of being born there [7], which means the US undercounts immigration, compared to China and India.
So the country that has proportionally 36x more immigration than India, and 207x more than China, and almost entirely non-white immigration at that, is the one you're accusing of racist xenophobia?
As for difficulty of obtaining citizenship, you greatly overstate the role of race. Whites have an approval rate of 93%, and blacks 90% [3].
> Today, you show up with a passport and a visa, which is easy to get if your skin color is the right shade of white
Only 18% of immigrants to the US were white in 2015 [1], and the preference towards immigration from white countries was abolished as far back as 1965 [2], so kindly go lie to somebody else.
"Illegal" refers to a person's presence in the country, not any specific action. If you would prefer to call them "trespassers", be my guest. But "undocumented" is deceptive - it implies they're allowed to stay, and they're just lacking documentation, like losing a passport. When in fact even fully documenting their presence and identity (such as during deportation procedures) doesn't mean they have permission to stay in the country.
I couldn't help notice most of the games examined focus on piracy (Monkey Island), various military acts (Mass Effect, Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls..), or exploration (most games to some degree)[1].
Before we accuse games of bias, shouldn't we compare with the proportion of real-life pirates, soldiers, or explorers, that were women?
[1] The King's Quest series doesn't fit neatly into these categories, but is distinguished by having been designed and written by Roberta Williams, a woman. Regardless, I'm sure the authors of this article wouldn't dispute that women had a marginalized role in the middle ages, where King's Quest takes place.
Perhaps not, but by instilling guilt in your victim, you can prevent them from defending themselves, if you convince them they "deserve it". Keep an eye out for this tactic - it is very common.
In contrast, censorship requests by open, freedom-loving governments are so obviously a good thing and in the best interest of their citizens, that they don't even merit mentioning.