Paging Barbara Streisand: GCHQ thugs raid The Guardian and destroy hard drives because they won't ge - Polidicks

America world police hard at work protecting us from terrorists.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;41916310]America world police hard at work protecting us from terrorists.[/QUOTE] last I checked, GCHQ was a UK organization?????????????????????

[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;41916324]last I checked, GCHQ was a UK organization?????????????????????[/QUOTE] Why would the UK be interested in an american intelligence dispute?

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;41916350]Why would the UK be interested in an american intelligence dispute?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits[/url]

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;41916350]Why would the UK be interested in an american intelligence dispute?[/QUOTE] because maybe The Guardian is a UK based news organization that broke the story in the first place not that hard to figure out

Possibly because the UK is in the pocket of the USA and may as well be a state at this point? The 52 states of America doesn't have the same ring though so I can see why it's not been made official yet.

[QUOTE=Noss;41901068]Its funny how our governments are the terrorists that they tell us they're protecting us from. The future is looking bleak.[/QUOTE] The future's looking better. It was worse in the past.

[QUOTE=Reshy;41916465]Possibly because the UK is in the pocket of the USA and may as well be a state at this point? The 52 states of America doesn't have the same ring though so I can see why it's not been made official yet.[/QUOTE] Or or or it could be because as I said previously [B]they released information which made the British government look pretty bad[/B].

Journalism is publishing something someone else does not want published - everything else is just PR.

No,w now people. It could be the US has nothing to do with this and the UK is just obsequious

Well that shit could start a fucking war

I feel like the "UK is just in the pocket of the US" argument is a scapegoat. The reality of the situation is that the UK government should be held fully accountable for this. It's vandalism through and through, and anyone involved is responsible. Blaming the US (let alone without any proof, just mere speculation) is trivalizing the real issue - that the UK government is willing to send GCHQ agents in order to destroy a free press's confidential sources. Not to say that the US would not stoop to that level, either - I'm sure they have in the past, and they have committed similar crimes on a regular basis. But, even if the US gov't is in bed with Cameron, that doesn't necessarily absolve any responsibility from the UK.

Oh no doubt the UK government should be held fully accountable for this, but it's obvious that they're doing it to 'appease' the US just as much as for themselves. It's just rather sad seeing the western world whore itself out for America.

[QUOTE=Jsm;41916359][url]http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits[/url][/QUOTE] [quote] The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its [B]American sister organisation, the National Security Agency[/B][/quote] If this is true that kind of ends this argument. There's no doubt they are working together to systematically spy on fucking everyone, the question now becomes who is [i]in charge[/i] and does that really fucking matter?

This whole NSA spying ordeal really makes you wonder how many of these conspiracy theories are actually true.

Honestly I would not be surprised if the UK had some deeply incriminating data within Snowden's leaks. I highly doubt that the US alone would be radically harmed from a full disclosure; in fact, virtually every modern diplomatic agency would probably lose validity with full transparency. I mean it's true that it was done just as much to appease the US as it was for the UK's own goals, but I think it's also important to remember that the UK government feels significantly threatened by Snowden. Or, in other words, every country who has ever been remotely diplomatically connected to the US has something to lose - not just the US bearing down on them and crying, "Give us back our shit." Realistically speaking, privacy violation is an international phenomenon across the West, and even the most privacy-friendly countries have some sort of invasive government system setup. I think the NSA and GCHQ are just a symptom of a governmental belief across nations that suggest privacy is something that can be sacrificed.

[QUOTE=Kuro.;41901676]I don't think I am going to refer to the US government as 'the US government' or 'our government' anymore. It's clearly gone rogue, and no longer serves the public's best interests. I'm going to start referring to them as 'the occupying regime' or 'the regime'. After all, that's what we refer to despotic leadership in places like Iraq and Libya, so might as well call a spade a spade.[/QUOTE] because our government is as bad as Iraq or Libya's lol

[QUOTE=Kuro.;41901676]I don't think I am going to refer to the US government as 'the US government' or 'our government' anymore. It's clearly gone rogue, and no longer serves the public's best interests. I'm going to start referring to them as 'the occupying regime' or 'the regime'. After all, that's what we refer to despotic leadership in places like Iraq and Libya, so might as well call a spade a spade.[/QUOTE] I'd prefer to live in the USA than Iraq. I'd prefer to live in China than North Korea. I'd prefer to live in a country that was better off than another.

[QUOTE=Kuro.;41901676]I don't think I am going to refer to the US government as 'the US government' or 'our government' anymore. It's clearly gone rogue, and no longer serves the public's best interests. I'm going to start referring to them as 'the occupying regime' or 'the regime'. After all, that's what we refer to despotic leadership in places like Iraq and Libya, so might as well call a spade a spade.[/QUOTE] If, today, we formed a revolution and threw away all Western governments, the new government instituted would eventually rest on the same gross misuses of privacy and violation that we see today. Not because of the whole "revolutions are a cycle" bullshit that conservatives love to spout. No, it's because our society isn't capable of respecting all the gross forms of oppression that are going on today. Honestly, the privacy invasion is just one of many issues that Americans are completely blind to - including gender, race, class, LGBTQ oppression, mental illness stigma, autistic bigotry (Just look at the autism thread on here, and see how many eugenics are floating around), political apathy, hedonistic culture, and a whole slew of other social elements that confine individuals into a set normative role. The privacy invasion issues, and the massive violations that corporations are capable of creating, are just a symptom of major social flaws which have rested in Western society for centuries. The Western public - let alone the American and British public - simply aren't capable of understanding how oppressive normativity is. That's why we still have so many Americans who view Snowden as a traitor, or thousands of conservative men and women who believe that the Bush years were the golden years of the American presidency. They fail to see the strings that allow the government's abuses to operate, and the starting point for those strings are often the oppressive systems which operate within the society. The Western public is massively ignorant; sometimes out of choice, sometimes out of environmental factors. Our modern government is just a symptom of how our society allows these governments to appear, because our public inherently is too ignorant to prevent them. BP would have died after the Gulf if every Westerner actively stopped buying their gas. NSA privacy measures would stop if every American was a pro-privacy activist. We're looking at a system which begins - and is continuously propagated - by the social conditions surrounding us.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41917781]I'd prefer to live in the USA than Iraq. I'd prefer to live in China than North Korea. I'd prefer to live in a country that was better off than another.[/QUOTE] I'd prefer to live in a country with a lower population of fedora wearing hipsters than a country with a high population of fedora wearing hipsters.

[QUOTE=Reimu;41917808]If, today, we formed a revolution and threw away all Western governments, the new government instituted would eventually rest on the same gross misuses of privacy and violation that we see today. Not because of the whole "revolutions are a cycle" bullshit that conservatives love to spout. No, it's because our society isn't capable of respecting all the gross forms of oppression that are going on today. Honestly, the privacy invasion is just one of many issues that Americans are completely blind to - including gender, race, class, LGBTQ oppression, mental illness stigma, autistic bigotry (Just look at the autism thread on here, and see how many eugenics are floating around), political apathy, hedonistic culture, and a whole slew of other social elements that confine individuals into a set normative role. The privacy invasion issues, and the massive violations that corporations are capable of creating, are just a symptom of major social flaws which have rested in Western society for centuries. The Western public - let alone the American and British public - simply aren't capable of understanding how oppressive normativity is. That's why we still have so many Americans who view Snowden as a traitor, or thousands of conservative men and women who believe that the Bush years were the golden years of the American presidency. They fail to see the strings that allow the government's abuses to operate, and the starting point for those strings are often the oppressive systems which operate within the society. The Western public is massively ignorant; sometimes out of choice, sometimes out of environmental factors. Our modern government is just a symptom of how our society allows these governments to appear, because our public inherently is too ignorant to prevent them. BP would have died after the Gulf if every Westerner actively stopped buying their gas. NSA privacy measures would stop if every American was a pro-privacy activist. We're looking at a system which begins - and is continuously propagated - by the social conditions surrounding us.[/QUOTE] Most of us are too busy working to care, and that's a fact.

[QUOTE=Reimu;41917808]If, today, we formed a revolution and threw away all Western governments, the new government instituted would eventually rest on the same gross misuses of privacy and violation that we see today. Not because of the whole "revolutions are a cycle" bullshit that conservatives love to spout.[/QUOTE] Not quite. Most revolutionaries who try to overthrow governments are simply slotting themselves into the existing power structure so as to profit by it. The ruler at the top is dependent on the support of a special group of people who without, he would rapidly lose power. He gives his supporters special benefits in return for loyalty. In dictatorships, this takes the form of money. In democracies, public policies aimed at benefiting many. In both cases, if he fails to give what his supporters want, the ruler falls. [quote]The Western public is massively ignorant; sometimes out of choice, sometimes out of environmental factors. Our modern government is just a symptom of how our society allows these governments to appear, because our public inherently is too ignorant to prevent them.[/quote] People are more well educated than you take them for. The governments and peoples of today are in a world much better than that of two centuries ago. [editline]21st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;41917838]I'd prefer to live in a country with a lower population of fedora wearing hipsters than a country with a high population of fedora wearing hipsters.[/QUOTE] This doesn't make any sense. Are you just opening and closing your mouth?

[QUOTE=frozensoda;41917855]Most of us are too busy working to care, and that's a fact.[/QUOTE] People who really, honestly care make time for it. All interests and hobbies work the same way; politics is one of them. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;41917877]Not quite. Most revolutionaries who try to overthrow governments are simply slotting themselves into the existing power structure so as to profit by it.[/quote] This isn't inherently true of all revolutions, though. Revolutions where the means justify the ends - i.e., the social situation is fully in-sync with the political desires - are never power grabs. The American Revolution is a good example, because the Revolution's social changes had been going on for centuries. The desire for egalitarian self-rule was a popular notion by 1776. The Civil Rights Movement works on the same token too - virtually every poc agreed that the KKK's hold on the South had to come to an end during the 50s and the 60s. [quote]People are more well educated than you take them for. The governments and peoples of today are in a world much better than that of two centuries ago.[/quote] Better educated =/= properly educated. If this was the case, we would have a society which is much less xenophobic, dogmatic, homophobic, politically ignorant, and racist. Most people don't even agree on basic sociological concepts that are commonly held in esteem within higher education. Most Westerners feel like they need to have a discussion on whether rape jokes are "good or bad," which is fucking ridiculous. Even if you don't agree that systematic oppression exists, it's very clear that there are many flat out consciously misogynistic and racist individuals in the West.

[QUOTE=Reimu;41917933]This isn't inherently true of all revolutions, though. Revolutions where the means justify the ends - i.e., the social situation is fully in-sync with the political desires - are never power grabs. The American Revolution is a good example, because the Revolution's social changes had been going on for centuries. The desire for egalitarian self-rule was a popular notion by 1776.[/quote] No it wasn't. About 20% of the population of the colonies were Loyalists. Most lived in rural or semi-rural settings during the late 18th century. The ruling elite of the colonies were white large scale landowners who wanted to create and did create a government where power lay in the hands of white male landowners (exactly the case as it was in Britain at the same time). [quote]Better educated =/= properly educated. If this was the case, we would have a society which is much less xenophobic, dogmatic, homophobic, politically ignorant, and racist.[/quote] Slavery is outlawed. Significant attempts have been made to crush such illegal organizations dealing with humans. Nationalism is in terminal decline. There is freedom of speech. Homosexuality was decriminalized and gay marriage laws are coming into existence. Mental illnesses are being reclassified and people aren't thrown into asylums anymore. Is this not a better world? [quote]Most people don't even agree on basic sociological concepts that are commonly held in esteem within higher education. Most Westerners feel like they need to have a discussion on whether rape jokes are "good or bad," which is fucking ridiculous. Even if you don't agree that systematic oppression exists, it's very clear that there are many flat out consciously misogynistic and racist individuals in the West.[/QUOTE] What's wrong with discussing rape jokes? People have been discussing worse things.

today's technology and our dependence on it allows for unprecedented surveillance but also for lightning fast propagation of all ideas without similar possibility of control as with traditional medias which are more centralised (and thus more easily controlled) and dependent on big businesses for their income, not serving information to the viewer but instead serving the viewer to advertisers.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41918085]No it wasn't. About 20% of the population of the colonies were Loyalists. Most lived in rural or semi-rural settings during the late 18th century. The ruling elite of the colonies were white large scale landowners who wanted to create and did create a government where power lay in the hands of white male landowners (exactly the case as it was in Britain at the same time).[/quote] There's always a counter group in a revolution. But 20% is a huge minority compared to the 70% of Americans who were pro-revolution. Most of the architects of the actual revolution were white landowners, but to claim that the revolution itself was solely supported by this group is erroneous. Plus, it's pretty clear that the social goals of the time were to end British rule and put the ruling colonial elite into power - I'm not trying to suggest that the Revolution was a revolution for every single American of all creeds. Notoriously, black men served in Minutemen militias and fought against Native Americans before 1776. The same happened at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. And while there were certainly Black loyalists, too, many black men and women supported the revolution because they saw the social goals of the event - "liberty" and "freedom" from an "oppressor" - as a key goal which could be later earned for enslaved individuals. That doesn't mean that the Revolution was encompassing their desires; simply that everyone in the Revolution had the same centralized notion of what they were fighting for. [quote]Slavery is outlawed. Significant attempts have been made to crush such illegal organizations dealing with humans. Nationalism is in terminal decline. There is freedom of speech. Homosexuality was decriminalized and gay marriage laws are coming into existence. Mental illnesses are being reclassified and people aren't thrown into asylums anymore. Is this not a better world?[/quote] It's not as good as it could be, and we need to understand that there is still a lot more work to be done to fight the inequalities, legal oppression, and systematic control that still exists within society. Sitting on our haunches and saying "Wow, this is pretty good" does nothing, and it allows oppressors to continually oppress. If the LGBTQ movement suddenly stopped after homosexuality was decriminalized, then we would see a resurgence in homophobic national legislature. Plus, we need to understand that many of the reforms you listed are legal implementations that are not 1:1 with their social counterparts. Slavery is outlawed, but many people of color still rest at the lower end of socio-economic prosperity and face race-discriminating legislature (the 2012 US voter scandal?). Freedom of speech is real, but we also have situations where our speech is massively violated in new and unprecedented ways - i.e. the NSA, the LoL kid who was detained for a Facebook joke, etc. Homosexuality is decriminalized in the West, but homophobia still runs rampant across the nation, and many areas - such as Russia - still actively support homophobic legislature. Mental illnesses are being reclassified, but families across the West still treat anxious, depressed, anorexic, and disabled individuals as if they are sub-human or simply need to "grow up" out of their problems. There are advances, but there are also issues that need to be addressed. Social change is a constant process against a constant system of oppression. One of the consistent phenomenons we see in history is people saying, "What we did today is good enough and will end oppression," and that's almost NEVER the case. The 14th Amendment didn't end racism. World War II didn't stop antisemitism and fascism. The issues we face today are only the starting point for the next generation and the generation after that, and we need to realize that the public isn't always aware of that. Again, mostly because the public isn't aware that an oppressive system exists in the first place. [quote]What's wrong with discussing rape jokes? People have been discussing worse things.[/QUOTE] It's ridiculous that we even need to discuss the fact that rape jokes propagate rape culture. Many pro-rape joke individuals suggest that rape culture is a myth; if we can't even agree that our culture is apathetic (or, in some cases, supportive) of rape, then there's very little room for a discussion. It's like an atheist and a Christian arguing about God's existence - the two sides will NEVER see eye-to-eye. Plus, it should be a given that trivializing rape desensitizes the subject matter. Granted, discussion is important and I'd rather have a discussion than still propagating the same misogynistic crap in society. But it's a real shame that we still live in an age where people think a subject as serious as rape is okay to make light of, when most of society has no respect for how it brutally devastates an individual. It's one of the most torturous things that can happen to someone else, and very few Westerners actually understand that. Honestly, if you ask someone, "What do you think the psychological effects of rape are?" they probably will struggle to give an accurate answer without having to do some Internet research. [editline]21st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Falchion;41918331]today's technology and our dependence on it allows for unprecedented surveillance but also for lightning fast propagation of all ideas without similar possibility of control as with traditional medias which are more centralised (and thus more easily controlled) and dependent on big businesses for their income, not serving information to the viewer but instead serving the viewer to advertisers.[/QUOTE] Still, most individuals rely on the traditional media over alternative news outlets.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;41900377]What's the 51st?[/QUOTE] puerto rico

[QUOTE=Reimu;41918486]There's always a counter group in a revolution. But 20% is a huge minority compared to the 70% of Americans who were pro-revolution. Most of the architects of the actual revolution were white landowners, but to claim that the revolution itself was solely supported by this group is erroneous. Plus, it's pretty clear that the social goals of the time were to end British rule and put the ruling colonial elite into power - I'm not trying to suggest that the Revolution was a revolution for every single American of all creeds.[/quote] Most people saw themselves as British subjects within the Empire and were pressuring for more local autonomy. Very few people wanted a war. A minority along with incompetent handling of the situation led to it escalating. How could it be for centralized social goals if many peoples reasons didn't align and they would end up fighting each other once the war was over? (Which they did and it nearly destroyed the country in the process). [quote]Notoriously, black men served in Minutemen militias and fought against Native Americans before 1776.[/quote] I don't really get what's so special about African people fighting Indians. People had been allying and fighting each other since before the Europeans, Africans, and Asians arrived. [quote]The same happened at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. And while there were certainly Black loyalists, too, many black men and women supported the revolution because they saw the social goals of the event - "liberty" and "freedom" from an "oppressor" - as a key goal which could be later earned for enslaved individuals. That doesn't mean that the Revolution was encompassing their desires; simply that everyone in the Revolution had the same centralized notion of what they were fighting for.[/quote] I'm not sure how that was working because people had different goals in the revolution. The landowners wanted more power, the merchants wanted favourable trade treaties, the French wanted the British Empire hit down a notch, the Protestants wanted the Catholics gone, the Indians wanted land or protection from a neighboring state, and the slaves wanted to go back home. The rest of the population (farmers) wanted to farm their land in peace. [quote]It's not as good as it could be, and we need to understand that there is still a lot more work to be done to fight the inequalities, legal oppression, and systematic control that still exists within society.[/quote] This has been happening for years. It's slowly getting better. Feminism didn't end with women gaining the vote and the gay movement didn't end when sodomy was decriminalized. [quote]Plus, we need to understand that many of the reforms you listed are legal implementations that are not 1:1 with their social counterparts. Slavery is outlawed, but many people of color still rest at the lower end of socio-economic prosperity and face race-discriminating legislature (the 2012 US voter scandal?).[/quote] Except it's better. [quote]Freedom of speech is real, but we also have situations where our speech is massively violated in new and unprecedented ways - i.e. the NSA, the LoL kid who was detained for a Facebook joke, etc.[/quote] Yet I can freely criticize the government without being locked up. [quote]There are advances, but there are also issues that need to be addressed. Social change is a constant process against a constant system of oppression.[/quote] Social change is the result of changing economic, technological and political conditions. Feminism started in the industrial revolution. Homosexuality was decriminalized after the arrival of modern psychology. What is this exact "system of oppression" and why can't we just introduce reforms to improve on the existing system? [quote]Again, mostly because the public isn't aware that an oppressive system exists in the first place.[/quote] It was under my impression that the oppressors had to be aware of a system in order to benefit by it. [quote]Still, most individuals rely on the traditional media over alternative news outlets.[/QUOTE] Alternative? Define what you mean by that.

I don't think the UK is doing this to appease the US, although that certainly is a bonus. They probably have programs similar to PRISM that they are trying to keep out of the public eye.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41919086]Most people saw themselves as British subjects within the Empire and were pressuring for more local autonomy. Very few people wanted a war. A minority along with incompetent handling of the situation led to it escalating. How could it be for centralized social goals if many peoples reasons didn't align and they would end up fighting each other once the war was over? (Which they did and it nearly destroyed the country in the process).[/quote] Because, once the war started, that 70% of American colonists had a similar desire for local autonomy and centralized together under that goal. The desire for local autonomy was something that sprang up a long time ago; it's not an example of equality against systematic oppression, but it IS an example of how successful revolutions appear through a change in social stances over time. The social desire appeared, the situation escalated, and the American public was able to unify under a common goal (or, at the very least, 70% were able to). Also, it's true that the Articles of Confederation was a poor temporary government, but the American public was still unified under a basic idea for autonomy, social stability, and an effective government. Some simply viewed that end as a smaller government (hence the Jeffersonians), others saws that as a larger government (the Federalists). But, it wasn't like there was a sociopathic power grab happening between both parties. Both the Federalists and Jeffersonians held the same social goal of a fully-functioning America; this was held across the country, which was why the US didn't immediately disintegrate. [quote]I'm not sure how that was working because people had different goals in the revolution. The landowners wanted more power, the merchants wanted favourable trade treaties, the French wanted the British Empire hit down a notch, the Protestants wanted the Catholics gone, the Indians wanted land or protection from a neighboring state, and the slaves wanted to go back home. The rest of the population (farmers) wanted to farm their land in peace.[/quote] All of those parties, however, could see their goals encompassed through unifying under the Revolution. There's a reason why each of the States eventually ratified the Constitution - the proposed federal government was seen as an ends to a mean for continuing the Revolution's cries for autonomy and freedom. This contrasts from other Revolutions, where a fully functioning federal government wasn't seen as a viable solution. A good government takes time, sacrifice, and dedication - some revolutions simply care about thrusting a social goal on a public which isn't prepared to handle that social goal. Most Americans wanted little social upheaval after the Revolution, and the Constitution was essentially the manifestation of American autonomy (even though there was a large amount of disagreement at first). The rise of fascism in Nazi Germany is another great example of a proper revolution. Gradual social acceptance of Nazism mixed with a rise to power within the capital. Granted, I think we can all agree that the American Revolution is a much more respectable revolution than the rise of Nazism. [quote]This has been happening for years. It's slowly getting better. Feminism didn't end with women gaining the vote and the gay movement didn't end when sodomy was decriminalized.[/quote] Educating the public on how groups are oppressed often leads to lessening oppression. The Civil Rights Movement purposefully focused on earning television views in the 60s - they wanted to convince white viewers that the South (or, in particular, the KKK) was barbarically oppressing people of color and attacking peaceful protestors. Plus, many Americans are absolutely ignorant on modern social issues. Do you think "Wendy Davis" is a nationally recognized political name? She should be; along with Van de Putte, she literally stood up to one of the most oppressive anti-abortion legislatures in recent history. [quote]Except it's better.[/quote] That doesn't mean it's fixed. [quote]Yet I can freely criticize the government without being locked up.[/quote] That doesn't mean the government still isn't overly restrictive or that your press isn't oppressed (re: GCHQ smashing a journalistic headquarters in order to prevent them from publishing further information on whistleblowers). Saying, "Things are better than they were" does not mean "Things are better." Those are two very different statements. Oppression happens in different and subtle ways, and just because oppressive beliefs are less visible does not mean that they still don't operate. [quote]Social change is the result of changing economic, technological and political conditions. Feminism started in the industrial revolution. Homosexuality was decriminalized after the arrival of modern psychology. What is this exact "system of oppression" and why can't we just introduce reforms to improve on the existing system?[/quote] The social change itself does not appear until after a system of oppression is understood and identified, though. Identifying oppression and facing oppression are two distinct things. Patriarchal beliefs have existed for thousands of years, and patriarchal systems have essentially been handed down generation-after-generation. In other words, social change comes from a society's ability to recognize that oppression is happening. But, social change itself is rooted in activist projects and educational ventures. Even if a society is willing to change, it won't unless people are actively working towards it. Feminism would not have happened if women weren't actively protesting misogynistic social, cultural, and legal policies. The Civil Rights Movement never would have succeeded if poc did not actively push for equal treatment. The problem with systems of oppression is that they are internalized, institutionalized, and function on a level which extends beyond governments. In other words, you can't make "reforms" to fight the patriarchy - it's a transhistorical phenomenon found in every culture, from American history to Buddhist religions. You can't regulate the way people think about race - white supremacist beliefs are ingrained into people, from a society which actively tells others that whites are superior to people of color (i.e. the baby doll experiment, where whites and people of color constantly prefer white dolls over black dolls). To the same extent, gender roles and heteronormative thinking are also ingrained in our society - it's no coincidence that the LGBTQ block had to unify over the years, because gays, lesbians, transgender, genderqueer, bisexual, and other individuals have [i]constantly[/i] met hostility for their identities that contrast from the normative. There's other forms of oppression too, that are pretty much ignored by liberals. There's the ableist mentality, which suggests that those who do not fit a defined normative form of functioning - i.e. autistic, amputee, stuttering - are inferior individuals. There's the body-negative system of oppression, which actively polices both ends of the weight spectrum of individuals' bodies so that they fit the norm. There's sex-negative systems of oppression, which institute that certain forms of sexuality are acceptable (usually missionary position), and certain forms are not (BDSM, sodomy, kink, hypersexual, etc). You see, you can't simply reform these different systems of oppression. They're ingrained in how we think about the world, the people around us, and ourselves. You can't make a law stating, "All consensual sex among adults is permissible," then expect everyone to become sex-positive and pro-LGBTQ rights. There's lingering social beliefs which remain in society. And its activists' duty to actively pinpoint how that oppression operates, and reveal it to the public. When the society itself changes - and when the society itself is more informed about how the other half lives - that's when social change itself starts to operate. Good economic, technological, and political conditions are pointless if the actual activist drive is bad. We saw that in the Prohibition era - women were able to close saloons temporarily when they protested, but they lacked the centralized political skills necessary in order to push forward legislation in America. It wasn't until the Anti-Saloon League and WCTU organized that major reforms happened (and even then, on a social level, very few individuals actually agreed with the non-moderate stance of the federal government). [quote]It was under my impression that the oppressors had to be aware of a system in order to benefit by it.[/quote] No; you still benefit from a system without meaning to participate in it. For example - let's say there's two films out. A film where a white man is the protagonist, and a film where a black woman is the protagonist. They're both made by the same director, they're both aimed for the same demographics, and they're both equally good films. Statistically speaking, audiences are much more likely to view the film with a white protagonist than a black protagonist. They're contributing back to an oppressive system which favors whites over blacks: [quote]After looking over the pages, which featured small photos of the principal cast members, participants were asked a series of questions about their movie-going habits, racial attitudes and desire to see each movie, either in a theater or at home. “The higher the percentage of black actors in the movie, the less interested white participants were in seeing the movie,” Weaver reports. “Importantly, this effect occurred regardless of participants’ racial attitudes or actors’ relative celebrity.” A separate study that used the same technique to assess non-romantic films produced different results. For the participants, 79 white undergraduates, the race of the actors did not influence their desire to see the film. But a follow-up study by Weaver, which has yet to be published, suggests that result may be an outlier. In it, he used the same technique, but his participants were drawn from a more diverse group in terms of age and education. Specifically, he analyzed the responses of 150 white people between the ages of 18 and 69. “White participants were more interested in seeing films with white actors than films with black actors,” he found. “This main effect was quite robust, occurring regardless of gender, age, previous movie viewing or the genre of the movie. “Moreover, this effect was significant despite the very subtle race manipulation. The movie synopses, which were front and center on the page, were unaltered. The only manipulation was in the thumbnail pictures attached to the actors’ names.”[/quote] [url]http://www.psmag.com/culture-society/why-whites-avoid-movies-with-black-actors-30890/[/url] And the solution? [quote]The perception that “this movie is not for me” could be changed “if more mainstream movies cast minorities,” he writes. If multiracial casts became the norm and movies were marketed to all demographics, the stigma could fade away. Thus, racial statistics in this area could shift. This won’t happen anytime soon: Hollywood is famously risk-averse. Then again, the enormous success of Fast Five, which made more than $83 million domestically in its first weekend of release, may inspire other producers to take a risk on multiracial casts — perhaps even for films in which the real stars aren’t the cars.[/quote] That's an example of systematic inequality. An aversion towards non-white cast members, mixed with an aversion towards creating non-white casts, leads to an industry where people of color are significantly underrepresented. I'm sure most of these moviegoers and filmmakers don't mean to exclude poc. But they do it anyway, and they're continuously creating/viewing movies that have an overabundance in their own representation. Or, in other words - they're verifying Hollywood's belief that white people only want to see white people, and white people don't realize that they might have a good experience with a non-white cast. [quote]Alternative? Define what you mean by that.[/QUOTE] Across America, people would rather tune in to FOX News or NBC than use grassroots news programs on the Internet/radio. Which means they're much more likely to receive a bias from an organization backed by corporations, and they're much more likely to receive their news from an organization that has more to gain in quantity of viewers over quality of news casting (not to say that NBC/FOX are awful). [editline]21st August 2013[/editline] Here's another example of how deep internalized oppression runs: [quote] “Previous research shows people are less likely to feel connected to people outside their own ethnic groups, and we wanted to know why,” says Gutsell. “What we found is that there is a basic difference in the way peoples’ brains react to those from other ethnic backgrounds. Observing someone of a different race produced significantly less motor-cortex activity than observing a person of one’s own race. In other words, people were less likely to mentally simulate the actions of other-race than same-race people” The trend was even more pronounced for participants who scored high on a test measuring subtle racism, says Gutsell. “The so-called mirror-neuron-system is thought to be an important building block for empathy by allowing people to ‘mirror’ other people’s actions and emotions; our research indicates that this basic building block is less reactive to people who belong to a different race than you,” says Inzlicht. However, the team says cognitive perspective taking exercises, for example, can increase empathy and understanding, thereby offering hope to reduce prejudice. Gutsell and Inzlicht are now investigating if this form of perspective-taking can have measurable effects in the brain.[/quote] [url]http://ose.utsc.utoronto.ca/ose/story.php?id=2135[/url] I mean, I never realized I did this. That doesn't mean I'm still not perpetuating an oppressive system.