Edit: just to be clear some of your other points are fair although I find the “Indian reservations” a bit dated - they are treated as local sovereigns (e.g. casinos, being allowed to violate state level hunting regulations) and are even now being allowed to expand their territory in some places .
I'm fairly sure that the US is lagging due to historical reasons. Without a war like Germany experienced, there is too much resistance towards a "clean cut" elimination of racism, so you get an exponentially slow decay instead.
The main point, however, is that Europe has shown over a span of several decades that restricting hate speech a) does not lead to any slippery slope where other forms of speech are restricted and b) that restrictions of hate speech are effective at reducing racism in society.
Another example of this is how many governments we overthrew during the Cold War, and how many dictators we installed in their place.
I wouldn't call that "free speech".
> The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark (tied in 6th place), Ireland and the United Kingdom (tied in 8th place), and Finland, Norway, and Taiwan (tied in 10th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Germany (13), the United States and Sweden (17), Republic of Korea (27), Japan (31), ...
So, yes, I would call what they have free speech, in any meaningful use of the word.
Virtually everyone outside of the hate groups wishes they didn't exist, but it's precisely the commitment to freedom that makes it hard to shut them down.
Is this a human rights issue? Again, we agree that we don't want these groups to exist, but I don't think there's ever been a "right to not have people hate you". I don't see a direct line from human rights to lack of hate groups.
Looking at the history of the KKK, for instance, I find this assertion frankly laughable. The KKK flourished then withered as a pretty direct measure of its government support, not because of some worthy indifference to the organisation. And if you stand up against them, as the Panthers did, well even the NRA will suddenly support gun control.
Which level of government are you talking about? The KKK flourished when local and state government turned a blind eye. In both cases the Feds eventually stepped in.
> And if you stand up against them, as the Panthers did, well even the NRA will suddenly support gun control.
The NRA of the 1960s is not the NRA of today. You may as well compare the 1890 democratic party with the 1950 democratic party.
The KKK flourished when it was a major power in directing local, state and federal (including Presidential nomination) politics of one major party and generally had a blind eye turned to it by the other, at any level where that party had any influence. There wasn't just s “blind eye” from government as a whole, it was a major active player.
Local and state governments weren't turning a blind eye back then, they were turning a hooded one.
>The NRA of the 1960s is not the NRA of today.
I'd agree with you there, while they were just as politically insidious, it seems that back then they had some kind of remaining tether to reality.
.. lets not pretend that the Panthers were some mild group either. A group of people advocating along race lines for the end of capitalist exploitation of their race and releasing of all incarcerated people of their race walking around with fully automatic weapons 'for defense' is not exactly 'moderate'
which is not to say that i do not understand the rationale behind the group given the zeitgeist (and really, why do i need to put a parenthetical here)
I wasn't. Gun control isn't usually brought in against mild groups.
>walking around with fully automatic weapons 'for defense'
To be fair, the opposition had previously bombed them from the air. Having automatic weapons is usually overdoing it for defense, but if your opponent can manage a ramshackle air force, then it may be warranted.
Be careful what you're seeking to compare; with 11M Uyghurs and 1M of them in re-education camps, China has far more of a percentage of the underclass imprisoned (9%) than in the U.S. (with 1.35% of the black population imprisoned). This isn't to defend the prison practices of the U.S., which are still generally indefensible, but some heart can be taken in that the number of U.S. imprisoned (of all races, but especially black prisoners) has fallen year-over-year for more than a decade, whereas China's re-education camps are still growing.
Interesting. My first thought was that your number was too low, but searching a little it seems you are right, with a couple caveats. The first caveat is that the number for black males is about twice that of the black population as a whole (ie, black females are rarely imprisoned).
The second caveat, which is not one I've seen widely reported, is that the percentage of black males currently imprisoned has dropped sharply over recent years, from 3.5% in 2000 to 2.6% now. This article (with the charts from which I got the numbers) goes into possible reasons: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/12/15/a-mass-incarce...
Here’s the deal: it doesn’t matter if the US started killing every dissident outright. US behavior is not an excuse for unethical behavior in China. The government and citizens of China are not dumb children that can’t behave ethically if there are other unethical things going on in the world.
>happens maybe ONCE A MONTH
Not to be a dick but...
Cite. A. Source.
A shooting with 12+ people getting shot is the kind of event that makes the national news even if nobody of dies. That's not the kind of thing that happens about monthly. I am very skeptical you will be able to back up your assertion assuming any reasonable definition of "shoot" and "dozen".
Edit: My skepticism has survived one citation and counting.
Several of the ones I've clicked through to the source on seem to be counting people injured in things other than the shooting (e.g. brawl injures X, dude draws gun, shoots one person = 1 dead, X injuries).
The fact that they call the page "Mass Shootings in 2019" when even they say in their about-us that they attempt to catalog each and every shooting seems to indicate a bias (to put it mildly). Edit: actually I'm wrong, I was only looking at the "Mass shootings" portion of their data. Their definition of "mass" seems to be "4+ people injured and/or killed including people not injured/killed" which seems slimy considering how they seem to be counting injuries. That said, they seem to be a pretty damn good source for raw information and generally unbiased with their numbers.
Edit: got through all the 2019 results (couldn't get CSV export to work with my browser) and found exactly two results for a dozen.
One event has 6 dead, 6 injured but the source doesn't mention any of the people injured other than the 5 victims and one gunman who died, maybe an error in the data?
The other event is the Virginia Beach shooting.
In any case I think it's safe to conclude that events where a dozen people get shot happen less than monthly.
So obviously I was wrong that people were killing DOZENS every month. It is more like mass shootings involving 9 or more people are happening ONCE PER MONTH on average.
Thank god things are better than I thought!
Better to admit that was wrong if you’re interested in having a discussion, and maybe even influencing some people’s opinions.
Gun violence is a absolutely a big problem in the US. The interesting twist is it’s a Constitutional right to bear arms in the US, so this is a case of a limitation of government power leading to an adverse outcome. It’s a difficult and widely debated issue in American politics, and in fact the American people will ultimately decide how the rules around gun ownership will evolve over time in the hopes of reducing that number in pursuit of a safe and free society.
I would still maintain my point that personal safety-wise, China is pretty good by today's standard.
I think I'm playing for par but happy to hear something more engaging than "the us isn't the poster child blablabla" get the real stuff out if you're going to make such a large claim with no meat/fauxmeat to it..
Other, more benign aspects of this policy are things like calling the various languages in china "dialects", even if they are mutually incomprehensible. Even "autonomous ethnic regions" are part of this policy... giving time for some minorities to slowly adapt chinese culture. You have to understand that recent western ideals of cultural pluralism is not widespread in there. Those in power in China view it as good and moral to move uyghur culture into something more closely resembling the broader chinese culture.
I get that most westerners would view this ethos as reprehensible, but if you have goals beyond simply being shocked and angry, then an understanding of their perspective is important.
Yes, they do.
> Their current policy towards the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is a variation of a long-standing policy of sino-fication
Yes, an attitude of compulsory conformity to common tribal identity and the norms, rituals, and behaviors associated therewith is a particularly common thing in human societies, and it's exactly the main reason Muslims are targeted in the West, as well as in China.
> I get that most westerners would view this ethos as reprehensible
A sizable and politically powerful subset of westerners actively support the same kind of ethos and keeping pushing it into government in much of the West, and object to sinofication not because of a drive against such conformity but only because not doing so for any other culture undermines the propaganda supporting their own cultural conformity efforts.
> Yes, they do.
I'd like to read more about this - what reason would they have to hate Muslims?
My understanding is that the CCP's current goal, however ill conceived, is to revert elements of Salafi/Wahhabi Islam imported from Saudi Arabia to Turkey, and subsequently to Xinjiang (by mostly ethnic Uyghurs) post-1985, back to the pre-1985 Sufi Islam. The primary goal is to contain the spread of jihadist doctrine  to prevent incidents such as the 2009 Urumqi riots  (where hundreds of ethnic Han and Sufi muslims were slaughtered in the streets) as well as other extremist-Islam inspired terrorist incidents . By contrast, the Hui Muslims living in the region are extremely well integrated both economically and socially  and the Kazak, Dongxiang, Khalka, Sala, Tajik, Uzbeks, Bao’an and Tatar Muslims seem to be doing just fine.
> Yes, an attitude of compulsory conformity to common tribal identity and the norms, rituals, and behaviors associated therewith is a particularly common thing in human societies, and it's exactly the main reason Muslims are targeted in the West, as well as in China.
During the pre-1985 Sufi-majority period, ethnic Uyghurs were allowed to express their traditional culture just like any of the other dozens of ethnic minorities in China do in the present day (for example by wearing brightly coloured clothing, traditional dresses, performing traditional music and dance, eating traditional food). That was the mostly peaceful, secular version of Islam that has been tolerated by the CCP. My understanding is that constructs of the more extreme Wahhabi/Salafi Islam such as burkas, suppression of women's rights, (non-Islamic) education, music, consumption of alcohol, pork, etc., are the kinds of things the CCP is trying to eradicate owing to their belief that these practices lead to extremism which undermines their holy grail of societal stability.