Why the skepticism anywho?

You can think what you want, and I’d respect that. I would not impose out of mere disagreement. But I am who I am.

They don’t have less corruption though. They’re literally dismantling their own democratic processes. New Zealand at least has its declared values in mind. And perhaps this is all not helped by their desire for American defense or by talks that Canada might join the EU. The rest of what I said were just pointers.

I am a transracially mixed race asexual woman from Vermont; you are shooting the messenger with overvigilance if you think I’m saying anything inspired by a random menagerie of bigotry.

You don’t think the EU or its member states have any corruption? The streets of cities like Rome and Paris are filled with scammers whom they just let roam around to do their thing. Spain in particular has a massive burglary problem. UK police don’t even necessarily trust themselves during public events. I know that in the very least, Auckland isn’t lazy.

You say that like mentioning happiness and democratic stability in comparison to EU countries is irrelevant to the assertion that EU countries are somehow doing better than it.

New Zealand has ranked higher than the EU in terms of both democracy and happiness.

It depends on what you mean. NZ is better than the majority, if not all of, the world’s nations.

As opposed to what? A friend?

Its predisposition towards cliques.

Existing.

Maybe French. I already know enough French to understand what people are saying, though not enough to respond back with confidence.

Kind of. It begs the question “what were they before”. They certainly weren’t straight.

I guess Spain, if we’re going by their willingness to do things like siestas.

I didn’t know there was a time limit.

With all due respect, it doesn’t mean they’re insulting every aspect of them though.

So much for the growing.

The context behind the last part is that certain marginalized friends wanted someone on the inside to act as a buffer in case they come up in conversations, and it led to a whole debate about whether the intentions of the founders of a community, the intentions of the majority of a community, and the intentions of each individual in a community can be separated. I am an individual and don’t endorse the values the group is associated with. I previously used the analogy of an alternate timeline where nobody likes Uncle Iroh because he joined the fire nation military even though he never actually did any of the fighting. It’s an oversimplification to say I’m “defending kiwifarms”.

I’m going by dictionary definitions, not what a certain biased organization says. I wouldn’t deny both of the organizations you mention there are biased. But the dictionary isn’t.

Suppose you are right and the ADL is biased and controlled “by Zionism” (which sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory). What does that make the Snopes organization? What does that make the literal 50% of America who doesn’t disagree with the ADL? What does that make the people who call it a double standard that so many people are willing to support murder of one kind but not another, or that intentions matter sometimes but not all the time?

It’s a war crime. Not all war crimes are a genocide. Certain criteria have to be fulfilled for that. Similar to how not all mass shootings are acts of terrorism. Are you really dedicating a whole confrontation just to debate semantics?

How is that genocide denial?