You're just projecting your insecurity about the fact that you do nothing but sit in a dark room performing activism through edgy forum posting.
And here I again wonder where your from to have such a mindset
Why does it matter?
These people aren't politicians...
That does not make them a purely objective and neutral third party, particularly when they are funded/employed by a state.
You've not seen Dutch news. They don't talk about hate speech as an equally valid option to our constitution the way that you'd expect with the current voting patterns and government composition if your statement were true.
I presented two different examples of how they can be biased; you have ruled out the latter and not the former. I don't even need to have seen Dutch news because you have actually expressed their percieved bias yourself, though you don't realize it. Supporting the validity of the constitution of their state government is a bias, regardless of whether or not you believe that to be a good thing. This is the status quo bias I mentioned.
I think you perceive the word bias to have a negative connotation, but it is actually a neutral term. A bias in favor of human rights, for example, is IMO a good thing.
If you consume news that carry a bias (either way) then it is time to find other news sources.
There is no such thing as unbiased news sources, and any news orgs that claim to be are some of the least credible sources. The most credible news sources are honest and upfront about their biases.
Legal ≠ moral. Both instances of mobilizing the national guard against the wishes of the states' governors were illegal, but one was moral and the other is not. One could argue that by breaking the law the first time a precedent was set that allowed it to be done again for a less noble cause, but I disagree. The fact that it was possible for Eisenhower to federalize the national guard without the state governor's approval in the first place means that nothing would stop it from happening in the future regardless of whether or not a precedent was set.
The drug that has the most negative impact on empathy is money, and that is his primary addiction.
I was raised in a deeply conservative fanatically religious culture and I put out a sarcastic and "too cool for school" energy a lot of the time. What do you think counterculture is? I remember in the movie she's got a whole social circle of people who are on the same page as her.
Personally I think Zendaya plays Chani pretty well, and her character doesn't feel out of place to me.
Isn't Chani a non-believer in the movie, at least at first?
So we're just going to hash this out every single day for the next 2 years, huh?
Edit: I do find it interesting how many replies to this comment are vague enough that you can't determine which side of this argument they're on, but I guess I did start it myself.