I seek to understand the objective standard that allows one type of discrimination while condemning another, perhaps you can provide clarity there?
I don't understand the down votes here, I am merely asking for an explanation of the logic used. I'm autistic so I sometimes have trouble understanding things that are obvious to people who are not. Without more data I will have to assume this is exclusively a emotional justification and thus subjective.
White nationalists tend to have a similar view of how they have been treated. I disagree personally but I don't allow my personal assumptions cloud my judgement when discussing these topics. Can you formulate an objective standard that allows an individual to determine what types of discrimination are moral or immoral?
I have discovered white nationalist groups who believe that other races are not inferior but merely different and thus they wish for a society where they are excluded. Does that foster hate?
You'd think someone so opposed to "fake news" as it's called would also be a fan of centralization. The mainstream news coverage of the 2016 election was objectively in favor of Clinton with perhaps the exception of Fox News and a few other small outlets, if you were to presuppose that her election was the "correct" outcome for democracy wouldn't that be exactly the direction you would follow?
Not true for insurance companies, they are exempt from antitrust law under the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran–Ferguson_Act