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

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=Reimu;41919800]Because, once the war started, that 70% of American colonists had a similar desire for local autonomy and centralized together under that goal.[/quote]

Actually that figure is closer to 40%.

[quote]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]

That wasn't a revolution at all (unless you count coups). Hitler allied with the conservatives and the opposition was divided. If he didn't act sooner he would have started to have fallen from power. And if Germany didn't go to war, the country would have booted him out in the 1940s anyways.

[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.[/quote]

Yes I know this.

[quote]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]

Because most people don't give a shit, even if the person did something important.

I could ask you similar questions to highlight your ignorance to prove a point.

Give me the name of the Chinese premier. The name of the politician who spearheaded the decriminalization of homosexuality in Britain? The name of the leader of the Suffragists?

People have specialized interests and most of them don't bother with social movements or politics because it doesn't interest them.

[quote]That doesn't mean it's fixed.[/quote]

Except it IS getting better. If we do the same things as we did before to bring about improvement, then we will continue to see improvement.

[quote]Saying, "Things are better than they were" does not mean "Things are better." Those are two very different statements.[/quote]

Uhm. Yes it does. If you are saying that the past is worse than the present, that automatically makes the present better than the past.

[quote]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.[/quote]

This sounds unfalsifiable.

[quote]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.[/quote]

What does the public do then? When does oppression end?

[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]

Maybe they just prefer that white actor? I'm not too sure how watching a film with a white actor is somehow oppressive to other people.

Does this mean that if I had a choice in a game between wiping out a bunch of Indians or leaving them alone when I set up a colony I am oppressing Indians?

[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]

Or maybe people just want to watch those movies. That is how supply and demand works. You seem to be advocating changing peoples desires, for somewhat ambiguous and unclear purposes with the intention of fighting "oppression".

[quote]Across America, people would rather tune in to FOX News or NBC than use grassroots news programs on the Internet/radio.[/quote]

Probably because they like listening to that news. They have a right to.

[quote]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).[/quote]

Maybe they are watching those programs because they want to?

[quote]I mean, I never realized I did this. That doesn't mean I'm still not perpetuating an oppressive system.[/QUOTE]

And how exactly do we get rid of this system?

[Kuro.]

[QUOTE=Jsm;41915535]Oh also, Theresa May and others are claiming that the stuff Snowden is leaking is going to help terrorists? I just find this hilarious and thought it should be mentioned.[/QUOTE]

Considering that the US and by extension the UK considers each of its citizens 'terrorists' until proven not 'terrorists', the statement is accurate. Yes, those documents would help us 'terrorists' very greatly in deciding whose ass needs kicking first.

[Reimu]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41920272]Actually that figure is closer to 40%.[/quote]
That depends on your Source. Wikipedia says 40% - 45% for pro-revolution, and 15 - 20 % for Loyalists. But that doesn't account for moderate opinions in support of the Revolution, or individuals who supported the Revolution passively. Hence why some historians suggest as much as 70% who might have favored the Revolution.

[quote]That wasn't a revolution at all (unless you count coups). Hitler allied with the conservatives and the opposition was divided. If he didn't act sooner he would have started to have fallen from power. And if Germany didn't go to war, the country would have booted him out in the 1940s anyways.[/quote]
Counting the coups and the rise of the brown shirts, definitely. Plus, let's remember how Germany rapidly grew to accept the fascist state. By the time Hitler was serving as Chancellor of Germany, the Nazi party had already received 288 seats and 44% of the vote.
It's not a revolution which mirrors the Russian Revolution, Libya, or Arab Spring, but it's a similar shift in social preferences that ended with the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. Plus, the Nazi Party tended to attract a wide breadth of different individuals (albeit mostly middle-class) :
[quote]7% belonged to the upper class, another 7% were peasants, 35% were industrial workers and 51% were what can be described as middle class. In early 1933, just before Hitler's appointment to the chancellorship, the party showed an under-representation of "workers", who made up 29.7% of the membership but 46.3% of German society. Conversely, white-collar employees (18.6% of members and 12% of Germans), the self-employed (19.8% of members and 9.6% of Germans), and civil servants (15.2% of members and 4.8% of the German population) had joined in proportions greater than their share of the general population[/quote]

Which suggests that the Nazi Party itself struck a cord across the nation, not just with a specific group of people.

[quote]Yes I know this.[/quote]
Which means that actively educating people is inherently linked towards fighting inequality.

[quote]Because most people don't give a shit, even if the person did something important.

I could ask you similar questions to highlight your ignorance to prove a point.

Give me the name of the Chinese premier. The name of the politician who spearheaded the decriminalization of homosexuality in Britain? The name of the leader of the Suffragists?

People have specialized interests and most of them don't bother with social movements or politics because it doesn't interest them.[/quote]
There's a difference between "specialized interests" and issues that pertain to everyone's rights.
Abortion is clearly an issue that affects the way women are treated on a legal and social level. Much of the pro-choice movement actively fights any solutions that give women control over their bodies - abortions, birth control, Planned Parenthood clinics, etc.

Truth be told, knowing the Chinese premier isn't going to affect a woman's legal and social rights. Preventing abortion legislature - and following the battleground for abortion - helps prepare women to tackle misogynistic groups, people, and legislature they might face in their daily life.

Keep in mind too that there is a difference between knowing something unrelated like a foreign politician, and recognizing people who fight for social justice. MLK Jr, Malcolm X, and Ghandi are all considered household names because of both media coverage and historical analysis of their significance. All three of these individuals are directly related to the cause of Civil Rights, because of how vocal they were and how they worked towards fighting inequalities. It's clear that politicians like Wendy Davis have consistently fought for their rights too, yet media organizations refuse to strongly cover her battle and talk about it on live television. I mean, stripping down dozens of abortion clinics throughout Texas is a serious issue. Yet, very few television stations were willing to actively cover her filibuster and the citizen protests. If anyone wanted to know about Davis, they had to find the livestream themselves (if they even had an Internet connection??).

How is that not oppressive? Omitting news is still silencing a story. It's one of the largest political stories of the year, too.

[quote]Except it IS getting better. If we do the same things as we did before to bring about improvement, then we will continue to see improvement.[/quote]
But we need to constantly work towards improving society for the next generation. Meeting the same powerhouse as the last society isn't necessarily a step in the right direction. For every opportunity we get to change someone's perception on gender, race, class, and sexuality, the more open and welcome of a next generation we can create.

In other news - it's getting better, but that isn't a guarantee nor a ceiling. The focus should be on outdoing ourselves, not sitting back and saying "The process will fix itself." Especially when we know that society isn't inherently progressive - we go through up's and down's of progressiveness and conservatism within politics, culture, and society.

[quote]Uhm. Yes it does. If you are saying that the past is worse than the present, that automatically makes the present better than the past.[/quote]
The systematic oppression still exists, and it's often only slightly weakened. We shouldn't pat ourselves on the back about small changes; there's more work to be done. I mean, decriminalizing sodomy and homosexuality isn't even halfway towards creating a liberated and free LGBTQ community. The Civil Rights Movement is only the start of fair representation for poc.

Many people immediately assume that both are the end-all, be-all for change and progress. That's not the case at all.

[quote]This sounds unfalsifiable.[/quote]
Psychological and sociological studies seem to prove that there are inherent biases towards certain individuals (i.e. the doll test; the test I posted above).
Even if you don't believe in the patriarchy or internalized/institutionalized white supremacy, it's clear that society naturally treats one group with more respect than other(s).

[quote]What does the public do then? When does oppression end?[/quote]
*The public educates themselves about how oppression operates.
*The public changes problematic ways of thinking, behaving, and communicating with others (i.e. stop telling rape jokes; stop buying products that objectify women).
*The public actively works with activist projects, foundations, and communities in order to better others.

Those are some of the three most basic operations that the public can do, but most people immediately decline to do any. MRAs stick their fingers in their ears instead of reading feminist literature and listening to support group stories. Racists assume that poc are just "pulling the race card" instead of realizing that there are unfair issues like racial profiling in play.
As the public does these different things, it creates are more welcome and open society which is more empathetic to social justice issues. It's no coincidence that we believe women can hold the same institutional positions that men can hold - that's the end result from a change in social beliefs, spurred by 20th century feminists and gender studies academics.

[quote]Maybe they just prefer that white actor? I'm not too sure how watching a film with a white actor is somehow oppressive to other people.

Does this mean that if I had a choice in a game between wiping out a bunch of Indians or leaving them alone when I set up a colony I am oppressing Indians?[/quote]
The study clearly proves that it's on a deeper level than "I like that white actor," because whites will constantly choose generic movies w/ white protags over generic movies w/ black protags.

Also it depends. Theoretically, you're contributing back to a culture which suggests eliminating the indigenous population is important to make room for your own civilization. Even if you don't agree with that critique, it's important to understand that it's a valid one - when the West has a history of doing the exact same thing over and over again.

You aren't directly oppressing anyone, but you're also contributing to a culture which suggests doing that is justifiable. So, by purchasing that game and playing it, you're condoning its content.

[quote]Or maybe people just want to watch those movies. That is how supply and demand works. You seem to be advocating changing peoples desires, for somewhat ambiguous and unclear purposes with the intention of fighting "oppression".[/quote]
No, this isn't necessarily true. Because of the nature of internalized racism, white viewers will have to consciously choose to view films with a cast of poc. And the studies suggest (especially the outlier study) that, if blockbuster movies start casting more poc into primary roles, whites WILL choose to see it. They just feel intimidated by movies that have a predominantly poc cast. "Django Unchained" is a good example - most of the primary characters are actually people of color, yet there are several white characters and the story itself focuses (albeit, minorly) on the race relationships between whites and blacks. White audiences went out to see it, and they loved it.
The study isn't calling for white films to go away. It's simply calling for a further saturization of poc in Hollywood. What's wrong with that? Poc compose a large amount of populations across the globe; they have stories to tell, whether in sci-fi, history, fantasy, or modern settings. And we know that "whitewashing" is something that regularly happens in Hollywood. "Argo" and "Star Trek II" are two great examples, where a Latino man was turned into a white guy, and an Indian dictator suddenly became pale and British.

Realistically speaking, if we really live in a post-race society, our race shouldn't mean anything in narratives. But it's clear that race separates peoples' experiences. But to claim that marketing would take a significant hit if more poc were in films - ? There's no evidence that that's true.

[quote]Probably because they like listening to that news. They have a right to.[/quote]
The problem isn't with listening to these news programs. The problem is when you use these sources as your [i]only[/i] source of information.
Good news comes from multiple sources. A good journalist doesn't compose a story from one source; a good news watcher should receive information from multiple outlets. Plus, every work has bias. From grassroots programs, to NPR, to Glenn Beck, to MSNBC. Some have more bias than others, but it's important to diversify your news sources if you want to see a more accurate reflection of the picture.

[quote]And how exactly do we get rid of this system?[/QUOTE]
Besides the three bullet points I stated above,
*Educating yourself on how internalized oppression affects others.
*Changing your internalized perception of others.
*Choosing to surround yourself with non-oppressive art, literature, and works (i.e. stop watching movies that objectify women; stop playing games that objectify women; stop reading comic books with racist depictions of others; etc.)
*Having discussions with others who are working to end their own internalized oppression.

On a personal level, you'll find that everyone in the world deals with internalized oppression. Gender studies majors deal with internalized misogyny. People of color deal with internalized racism (Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" goes through it very nicely; most oppression happens on a subconscious level). But, over time, that internalized oppression starts to fade when we educate ourselves and actively work to end our subconscious oppressive thoughts.

That's why social justice people think and communicate differently from non-social justice people. That's why they treat oppressed people differently from those with internalized misogyny/racism/homophobia/etc. They've consciously chosen to change how they react towards others. Over time, it creates a social phenomenom where oppressive ideals are disregarded as more and more groups realize their problematic content (i.e. people think women can serve in politics, because they realize women have the same intellectual capabilities as men. that's one example of deprogramming internalized misogyny).

[PaxMayne]

[quote]Greenwald stated, "I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents. I am going to publish things on England too. I have many documents on England's spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did."[/quote]

[Jimpyy]

They must have something really fucking cool to hide.

[Kuro.]

[QUOTE=Jimpy;41924252]They must have something really fucking cool to hide.[/QUOTE]
For a government to barge into a private business and commit the most blatant act of criminal vandalism and destruction of property to attempt to intimidate and silence dissent, whatever they have is likely incriminating enough to potentially cause massive public outrage and possibly (hopefully, I might add) kickstart nationwide rioting and revolt.

Either way, no matter what the White House regime and their collaborators do, it will not end well for them. If they further attempt to silence journalists through intimidation or just dropping all pretenses and murdering them, the public will be outraged. If The Guardian is pushed far enough to air all of the regime's dirty laundry, again, the public will be outraged.

The regime is being outplayed at every turn and their desperation is showing.

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=Reimu;41921108]But that doesn't account for moderate opinions in support of the Revolution, or individuals who supported the Revolution passively.[/quote]

Likewise your estimate does not account for moderates in favour of home rule.

[quote]It's not a revolution which mirrors the Russian Revolution, Libya, or Arab Spring, but it's a similar shift in social preferences that ended with the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.[/quote]

It wasn't a shift in social preferences because views on subjects like eugenics were already widespread at the time. Hitler just so happened to profit on the already existing anti-antisemitism and shit books like "decline of the west" because such views had been already popular for years.

[quote]Which means that actively educating people is inherently linked towards fighting inequality.[/quote]

Except all of these gains have been made without "oppression theory". Why do we need it to repeat the same successes?

[quote]Truth be told, knowing the Chinese premier isn't going to affect a woman's legal and social rights. Preventing abortion legislature - and following the battleground for abortion - helps prepare women to tackle misogynistic groups, people, and legislature they might face in their daily life.[/quote]

So not knowing who the suffragists even were is not necessary?

[quote]yet media organizations refuse to strongly cover her battle and talk about it on live television.[/quote]

Because people don't want to listen to it. Companies profit on selling news that people want to consume. It's why we have different news channels.

[quote]How is that not oppressive? Omitting news is still silencing a story. It's one of the largest political stories of the year, too.[quote]

Because it's a private company. They can choose to report what they wish. If the state was trying to suppress the story then that would be a problem.

[quote]But we need to constantly work towards improving society for the next generation.[/quote]

Which I what I keep saying. I haven't once said "let's sit on our arses now we passed X reform".

[quote]The systematic oppression still exists, and it's often only slightly weakened.[/quote]

What exactly all ties into systematic oppression anyways? Do people with more wealth oppress others by inherently holding wealth? Is land ownership oppressive? The law? The state?

[quote]Psychological and sociological studies seem to prove that there are inherent biases towards certain individuals (i.e. the doll test; the test I posted above).[/quote]

How does this support oppression theory though?

[quote]Those are some of the three most basic operations that the public can do, but most people immediately decline to do any. MRAs stick their fingers in their ears instead of reading feminist literature and listening to support group stories. Racists assume that poc are just "pulling the race card" instead of realizing that there are unfair issues like racial profiling in play.[/quote]

Why should we care what MRAs think? As long as he isn't harming anybody and breaking the law then leave him in his kiddie pools klub.

[quote]The study clearly proves that it's on a deeper level than "I like that white actor," because whites will constantly choose generic movies w/ white protags over generic movies w/ black protags.[/quote]

I didn't say that. I was literally suggesting if they liked white people more than black people.

[quote]Also it depends. Theoretically, you're contributing back to a culture which suggests eliminating the indigenous population is important to make room for your own civilization. Even if you don't agree with that critique, it's important to understand that it's a valid one - when the West has a history of doing the exact same thing over and over again.[/quote]

Well I should be able to do as a damn well please in my games. If the Indians in Ohio are a nuisance to my empire, remove them.

[quote]You aren't directly oppressing anyone, but you're also contributing to a culture which suggests doing that is justifiable. So, by purchasing that game and playing it, you're condoning its content.[/quote]

How does that follow? If I went about shooting Indians because they run an empire in Mexico I don't think that is somehow going to make people think "We should do this in real life because I can't tell the difference between this and a video game".

[quote]No, this isn't necessarily true. Because of the nature of internalized racism, white viewers will have to consciously choose to view films with a cast of poc. And the studies suggest (especially the outlier study) that, if blockbuster movies start casting more poc into primary roles, whites WILL choose to see it.[/quote]

Ok? How would you intend to enforce this?

[quote]But to claim that marketing would take a significant hit if more poc were in films - ? There's no evidence that that's true.[/quote]

I'm saying that companies are interested in money first. They take risks if they think there is money to be made.

[quote]Some have more bias than others, but it's important to diversify your news sources if you want to see a more accurate reflection of the picture.[/quote]

As long as its not coming from infowars or russiatoday or some other shite it's ok.

[quote]*Educating yourself on how internalized oppression affects others.[/quote]

Let us imagine by myself on my own I booted a bunch of Indians off some land because I need it for something else in my game. How does this translate into real life?

[quote]*Changing your internalized perception of others.[/quote]

It's called not being an asshole.

[quote]*Choosing to surround yourself with non-oppressive art, literature, and works (i.e. stop watching movies that objectify women; stop playing games that objectify women; stop reading comic books with racist depictions of others; etc.)[/quote]

Oh come on, I like media and I'm not giving up my porn, games, books and movies because you disagree with how people in it are portrayed.

How are you going to get everybody to stop consuming media you don't approve of?

[quote]that internalized oppression starts to fade when we educate ourselves and actively work to end our subconscious oppressive thoughts.[/quote]

How did oppression begin?

[Helari]

can't you dudes pm eachother or something? no one is going to read all of that, you could go on forever and you're not even talking about this news anymore.

[QUOTE=Kuro.;41925305]For a government to barge into a private business and commit the most blatant act of criminal vandalism and destruction of property to attempt to intimidate and silence dissent, whatever they have is likely incriminating enough to potentially cause massive public outrage and possibly (hopefully, I might add) kickstart nationwide rioting and revolt.

Either way, no matter what the White House regime and their collaborators do, it will not end well for them. If they further attempt to silence journalists through intimidation or just dropping all pretenses and murdering them, the public will be outraged. If The Guardian is pushed far enough to air all of the regime's dirty laundry, again, the public will be outraged.

The regime is being outplayed at every turn and their desperation is showing.[/QUOTE]

lmao if you think you should hand something so important to the media and the media hides it it's not actually that important.

edit: it's probably something embarrasing or disadvantaging but when you're a journalist and you get some good shit you'd better atleast release the best of it. (and a journalist will trust me)

[Reimu]

Yeah - no offense Sobotnik, but we obviously don't see eye-to-eye on this and we're discussing something that has nothing to do with the GCHQ anymore.

It's clear to me that systematic oppression is a gradually instituted social process that has historical roots in how we live our lives and the choices we make inside of them. And research constantly seems to suggest that our behavior contributes back to certain notions that one social group is more preferential than the other. The way we interact with others, the media we choose to participate in, the news we choose to listen to all participate in how our society actively views others.

But, realistically speaking, you have to understand that if one of us can't see it, we're never going to be able to have a civil conversation about how it exists.

I don't mind talking about this stuff but I realistically don't have the time to keep replying, and this news story really isn't about systematic oppression at the end of the day. If you want to start a discussion in Mass Debate about it, that's different, but right now we're just constantly necroing a dying thread.

[Zero-Point]

[QUOTE=Kuro.;41901460]Guys, what's the difference between the US government and the mafia?

[sp]One is an organized group of thugs that abuses its wealth and influence to further its self interests, often using brutal force and unethical tactics to intimidate or destroy any who oppose them.[/sp]

[sp]The other is a group that wears nice suits.[/sp][/QUOTE]

No. [sp]The difference is the Mafia can turn a profit.[/sp]

[ScottyWired]

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;41901943]government officials wear nice suits[/QUOTE]

Ours don't

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/308XZdh.jpg[/IMG]