White supremacists are overtly violent. If you don’t think so, you’ve been living in a cave for more than half a century.
So, you have no citation, and therefore no argument. As I thought.
The thing that you’re not “woke” to yet is the fact that most of the people standing around those statues are mostly white nationalists and in many cases, separatists. Spencer, and even David Duke, have been very clear for the last two decades or so that their objective is not violence or death, but separatism. It’s still a vile, bigoted world view — — that doesn’t change — but it’s not violent by definition, as you assume without evidence.
And it’s not all that unique. There have many individuals in the last sixty years who are “black separatists” who would like to carve out Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, or some variant on that formula, and make it a separate country.
Black separatism - Wikipedia
Black separatism is a separatist political movement that seeks separate economic and cultural development for those of…
That all said, you’ll always find some individuals in those movements who want to resort to violence to achieve their ends. The fact they exist does not prove anything, one way or another, about the official objectives of that organization. It’s not good logic.
this is a quibble over words. Denmark and Sweden (and every other modern democracy except the USA) are socialist democracies.
Social democracy — Wikipedia
Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to…
Let me give you some friendly advice. If you’re going to use a citation to refutes another debater’s post, you ought to use a citation which actually refutes it, rather than proves the other debater’s point. :-)
You used the term “SOCIALIST”, Wikipedia uses the term “SOCIAL”. They are not the same thing. A government that is socialIST takes ownership of banks, factories, stores, etc., and runs them in place of private individuals, companies, and corporations. Since people actually want to run those businesses themselves, the government uses authoritarian means to accomplish this.
In a social democracy, the society makes a democratic decision to have high tax rates to fund extensive social services that are not viable free-market businesses. Thus, the government takes over no instances of the “means of production”. The economy remains free-market capitalism, driven by supply and demand. The only thing the government has to concern itself with is taking too much in taxation (inhibiting growth in the private sector) and providing benefits which are too rich (disincenting workforce productivity).
Sweden’s been though both cycles over the last 40 years. In the early 80’s, their top marginal tax rate on the rich was 93%; it’s now down in the low 50’s, which is not too much different than what a person who owns a home in New York City is paying, maybe less. And again, about 10 years ago, some studies showed that Sweden had the highest percentage of people in the world on some sort of social welfare, including a lot of people on disability that would have been considered able-bodied anywhere else. Lots of people with minor disabilities got letters that essentially said “get off your fat ass and go back to work, we’re cutting off your dole” when Sweden moved to fix it.
Thank you for playing.
The government exists “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, etc.” except they really mean it.
There is no social justice without good paying jobs. Ever. A paycheck is always going to be worth more than a welfare check. Never forget that.