You "think." That's fine. I "think" that -- with the exception of the KKK, for instance -- the question is at least somewhat open. Word parsing, BTW, is vitally important, or at least George Orwell thought so.
Also, it's not a matter of hurting anyone's feelings. The point I was trying to make is that if you look at the actual, on-the-ground, daily violence in the US, only a tiny fraction can be traced to groups that might or might not be white supremacist in nature. But the impression widely given in media -- and coincidentally convenient for the intel agencies and media -- is that this is unquestionably the main threat to the country.
In other words, the institutional, centrist and leftist demand for white supremacists appears to far exceed the actual supply.
You can defend language policing all you like, but I will just leave it at the gaping wound of hypocrisy does not change my mind.
And trying to make white supremacy something that "the intel agencies and the media" . .. oh, and "the left" too, as nonexistent, then you are way over your skis.
You're not reading what I'm saying. I certainly don't rule out white supremacy. It exists. It's just that it MIGHT not be as common as the constant repetition of the words based on sketchy or zero evidence suggests. It sounds like a script at this point.
It's also like the words "racist" and "racism," often paired with "systemic," that get flung about in spittle-spewing fits without any apparent factual regard or judgment.
I still disagree and see racism as a historically-determined structural issue in the US, not just some malignancy in the dark hearts of an outcast few (And I do discount anyone calling everything racist on twitter, such nonsense doesn't count).
As for a proofreader, well. I'm not writing a dissertation here. Besides, an edit feature would help.
You "think." That's fine. I "think" that -- with the exception of the KKK, for instance -- the question is at least somewhat open. Word parsing, BTW, is vitally important, or at least George Orwell thought so.
Also, it's not a matter of hurting anyone's feelings. The point I was trying to make is that if you look at the actual, on-the-ground, daily violence in the US, only a tiny fraction can be traced to groups that might or might not be white supremacist in nature. But the impression widely given in media -- and coincidentally convenient for the intel agencies and media -- is that this is unquestionably the main threat to the country.
In other words, the institutional, centrist and leftist demand for white supremacists appears to far exceed the actual supply.
You can defend language policing all you like, but I will just leave it at the gaping wound of hypocrisy does not change my mind.
And trying to make white supremacy something that "the intel agencies and the media" . .. oh, and "the left" too, as nonexistent, then you are way over your skis.
You're not reading what I'm saying. I certainly don't rule out white supremacy. It exists. It's just that it MIGHT not be as common as the constant repetition of the words based on sketchy or zero evidence suggests. It sounds like a script at this point.
It's also like the words "racist" and "racism," often paired with "systemic," that get flung about in spittle-spewing fits without any apparent factual regard or judgment.
Finally, you could use a proofreader.
I still disagree and see racism as a historically-determined structural issue in the US, not just some malignancy in the dark hearts of an outcast few (And I do discount anyone calling everything racist on twitter, such nonsense doesn't count).
As for a proofreader, well. I'm not writing a dissertation here. Besides, an edit feature would help.