Do chineese people wanting a homeland in their own country make them chinese supremacists? No. But you believe it does when white people do, and the contradiction makes your head spin. Thats called cognative dissonance.
No, thats actually the entire point. White nationalists just want to be left alone in their own countries. White supremacists want to take over the world.
Conflating the two is a racist attack on white people. Just apply the standard to any other group and that becomes obvious.
Good point there most certainly is. And Facebook recognizes that:
>Going forward, while people will still be able to demonstrate pride in their ethnic heritage, we will not tolerate praise or support for white nationalism and separatism.
However, Facebook even now is ok with white people advocating for seperation. They claim there is a connection of white seperatism to white supremacy that made them ban it, while not banning other groups like the Basque from wanting independence.
>We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to expressions of white nationalism and separatism because we were thinking about broader concepts of nationalism and separatism — things like American pride and Basque separatism, which are an important part of people’s identity.
>But over the past three months our conversations with members of civil society and academics who are experts in race relations around the world have confirmed that white nationalism and separatism cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organized hate groups.
So chinese people who are proud of their heritage and promote it can be discriminated against because being proud of your race is just a view one can hold?
This is an excellent point ablut collusion. The Alex Jones debacles proves conclusively the media giants act in concert to censor political dissonants.
The British government, via its public broadcaster, is trying to reduce xenophobic sentiment and boost support for African immigration by combating commonly held beliefs about Africa being poor and backwards long before colonization.
Debunked depictions of early Britons as dark skinned, and Swedish tapestries aledgedly containing Islamic writing are two more examples of this pro-migration effort being undertaken by Western governments.
>Everyone has something to provide, on many different levels.you are failing to see that, and that is your problem.
Totally false. Some prople are really bad at their jobs and gang up with other unproductive people to rag on those who are carrying the team. If you cant see that, you are probably insecure and rationalizing your hostility to people who are better and make you look bad in comparison.
A poor person's car takes up the same number of parking spaces as a rich person's car, and a rich person has already paid a huge amount of their income to the poor person in the form of income taxes and welfare.
People are risk averse. The maximum sentences exist to scare people into irrationally pleading guilty when they are innocent. Federal maximum sentences are out of line with state sentencing because the federal government is less local and less accountable. Many federal crimes exist solely to trump up this maximum possible sentence. Politically connected people use this system to protect themselves against whistleblowers and political activists like Swartz and Snowden. I dont think you have addressed any of these points.
In principle I agree with you. In practice however, the FBI just uses this to harrass people. Look at what happened to Marth Stewart. She was totally innocent, did not say anything factually incorrect, but the feds thought she exagerated in some of her answers. That level of subjectivity shouldn't be involved in determining a criminal offense.
This is totally incorrect. The high conviction rate is a result of extremely high maximum sentences. People who are 100% innocent often plead guilty after being threatened with a 30-year prison sentence that would be only 1 or 2 years under local law.
Many federal crimes are unconstitutional and deliberately vague, like "lying (not volunteering incriminating evidence) to an investigator" and "mail fraud" which is just a way to charge you in federal court where the odds are stacked against you.
The US federal judicialry is a kangaroo court. 99% of federal crimes should be repealed and maximum sentences reduced to be in line with state laws.
Federal jury selection is also suspect, especially in cases involving "national security".
I suspect your response will be something about white people owning slaves 200 years ago.