Bran_son

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)?

Is the article itself also disallowed, or only my factual rebuttal?

> the shock of the event they quickly labeled a “massacre.”

implies they did consider it morally wrong. Or do you mean only the society perpetrating the war crime should be the one to judge?

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?

[1] Kashmir’s new status could bring demographic change, drawing comparisons to the West Bank - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/08/kashmirs-new...

Annual. Which is 80% over 80 years, a single lifetime. Unless there's a plague or the Mongols invade, such shifts rarely happen.

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.

Maybe "We may have been fighting the wrong enemy all along." - https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36062/did-gen-p...

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].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China

[3] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/23/us/black-immigrants-citiz...

[4] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/immigration-...

[5] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/immigration-...

[6] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/immi...

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

I thought allowing dissent was what made the Free West different from authoritarian countries.

> 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.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/09/28/modern-immig...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...

"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.

If he wasn't so biased, he would have seen that merger benefits both consumers and market competition! /s

> bias

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.

So you're not disputing any factual claims he made, got it.

> Good luck finding that article today.

Do you happen to have a link?

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.

> a climate-change-denying right-winger

Oh, I was not aware before posting, sorry! All I knew was that he is a professor of law at Queen’s University. So are his claims in this article false?

Edit: I looked into it, and according to the testimony of the father in that case [1], and supported by the tribunal decision he directly links [2], the article is accurate.

Perhaps we should ask why only "right-wingers" are reporting on this case. One would naively think such a clear case of systemic racial discrimination would draw the interest of big names, like the New York Times or Washington Post. Or at least the CBC.

[1] https://c2cjournal.ca/2023/05/one-flew-over-the-kangaroo-cou...

[2] https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2022/2022hrto1345/202...

> As far as I can tell, there really isn’t anyway for a chicken to have a “happy death”

"Freerange" refers to how they lived, not died.

You forgot "but what about white-collar crime?"

I propose that even if the government (indirectly) owns the utility pole, using them for espionage by a different government agency is still an infringement of rights.

The government also owns schools, libraries, and hospitals, yet (I would hope) we don't want that to mean the police can get your school transcripts, library or medical records, or compel hospital staff to restrain you until the police arrive, without a warrant.

In sum, the government owns far too much to be allowed to use all they own for whatever purpose they please.

Did you somehow miss the vast protests and grassroots campaigns for even stricter copyright laws and enforcement? /s

Sorry I thought we were talking about deliberate and illegal anticompetitive business practices, not how well MS treats compliant consumers that spend money on it and help further its network effects by using Windows.

> It's not fair or reasonable to get mad at them about this stuff. It's more that we should be clear about where they're coming from.

You're describing a wild animal: "It's not fair to get mad at the wolf for biting you - that is its nature"

Perhaps then we should also treat them as the wild, hostile animal they are.

Not serving on the US Department of State's Foreign Affairs Policy Board would be a good start. To be fair, Katherine Maher took that role after her time as Wikimedia CEO. But landing such a role implies one is well connected, and she interned at the CFR [1] before her time at Wikimedia. In other words, she seems far too well connected to the US government to be called "neutral".

In the words of the New York Times, "Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality" - https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journali...

[1] The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international relations. [..] Its membership has included senior politicians, numerous secretaries of state, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, corporate directors and CEOs, and senior media figures. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

Page 7: How easy or difficult is it for the following people to use their free speech rights without consequence in America today? [0: very difficult, 10: very easy]

According to Democrats, it's very easy for white supremacists (5.6), but much harder for LGBTQ people (3.9) and BLM activists (3.1).

How many open white supremacists are in high positions of government? Or received donations and statements of support to their cause by multinational corporations? Are there official months honoring white supremacy?

> "major AI product used to do* <bad thing>"

*say

It would be interesting to see a list of all the people known to (or "said to") have met with Epstein, and compare it to the list of people the NYT or other outlets have reported (in titles) to have met with Epstein.

> It just gives a huge attack surface for lobbyists and rent-seekers to complain and whine and get their way.

Lobbyists and rent-seekers are the ones writing trade deals.