Yes, its my own rather limited special group rather than being universal.
So your special group looks down on all the other groups.
While its true that given signficant poltical will it could be changed it migth not be true that majority of the relevant countriers think its okay/neutral to do. The political process involves compromises and this can be an accepted downside. Also inhibiting dispersion of political ideas either by limiting media or removing opposing political stances means the choice is not that cognitive. In a way by doing such things the actors admit that its worthwhile to bother doing it meaning they don’t dare face the “fair fight” where the people have all the options available and are informed about all the choices. So when the process is rigged its outcome isn’t as strong an argument to show what the people want.
So what’s your position on your groups laws against “hate speech”?
However if you controlled for socioeconomical status a lto of it could be that blacks are majority in poor areas.
How is the relevant to the point?
But even then its common to hear stories where police are more active in regards to black people.
Yes, that’s because black people are more likely to commit crimes and high-black areas tend to be high crime areas.
A black person doesn’t need to be armed for a cop to start fearing for his life and discharging weapons and tasers.
The same is true for a white person. You may be biased because “cop shoots unarmed black” type stories tend to be overplayed in the media, and key details like “the unarmed black was high on marijuana/speed and was going for the cop’s gun” tend to be omitted from the stories.
Everyone believes that. Of course, since the standard definition of [murder] is “the killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse” or “unlawful killing with malice aforethought”, this is a somewhat tautological belief.