Civil unrest around the world

[xoxoxoBruce]

Isn't bigotry acting on prejudice?

[glatt]

Yeah. I think bigotry is the action, prejudice is the attitude. Is racism both the attitude and the action?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by glatt

Yeah. I think bigotry is the action, prejudice is the attitude. Is racism both the attitude and the action?

I've though of prejudice and discrimination as thoughts or actions of an individual while racism is more society. If so, the lines are very blurred.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Racism is about race. The term you are seeking is "prejudice".

Prejudice is only one subset of the actual problem - racism. Racism was never about race. Because people of the same race were 'racist' towards each other. While not exercising racism against others of the same color but more racially different. Bigotry and prejudice are examples of a bigger problem called racism - judging people on first impressions - also called emotion.

Meanwhile arguing of a tiny point averts what is relevant. Democracy requires separation of church and state. What is your opinion? Yes or No? Please stick to what is relevant.

Democracy fails especially when one religion is superior to another in government. Democracy is about representing all without the type of prejudice more commonly known as racism. Judging others only on emotional biases (racism) violates what makes democracies work.

Democracy requires adults who do not act like children. Who think rather than blindly believe the first thing they are told. That cannot happen when religion is embedded into a democracy. Unfortunately the US government does not openly discuss that important fact when encouraging others to be democratic.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Racism was never about race.

Have you ever admitted you were wrong tw? You are really going way out on that limb right now. Just say that you misspoke. It won't kill you. It will actually make you stronger.

Of course racism was about race.

[BigV]

well. On paper, we have a representative democracy

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[1]

from wikipedia. depending on the scale of government, it works pretty well, local, regional, state, etc. At the national level, things are much more distorted. The representation that actually happens at the federal level does not seem very uniformly connected to the "will of the people". At that distance, the relative strengths of the influence of individual voter's will and the influence of "political/PAC/interest group/lobbying" will is usually unbalanced strongly in favor of political/PAC/lobbyist groups, for the simple reason that money buys access. A given representative can't really pay attention to the voices of 50,000 people, the kind of population that a US House of Representatives representative (catchy name, eh?) represents. They just can't. So, they pay attention to the loudest voices, and money is a megaphone for that. The situation is even more dramatically illustrated in the Senate. Really? One senator can hear and understand the unified voice of x million people in a given state? or, half the population in the state? Really? I don't think so. The same problem exists for the Executive Branch. Just look around, lots of people say President ______ doesn't represent me. It's sad.

Still, that's the system we have, even though the actions, indeed, even the elections of these people is distorted/warped/deformed by the undue influence of money (something businesses and other interest groups can generate far, far more easily than individual citizens can).

The result is a form of government that looks like a representative democracy but functions like an oligarchy/plutocracy at the federal level.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In a democracy majority rules. In our republic, the minority have rights to protect them from the majority.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

In a democracy majority rules. In our republic, the minority have rights to protect them from the majority.

Religion does not believe in rights. Religion is historically a dictatorship where a worshipped book or supreme cleric commands everyone what to think. Where minority viewpoints are considered heretics. That is contrary to principles of a democracy where the minority must have rights to be protected from the majority ... or a supreme religious leader.

In a democracy, the group (the little people) can change laws. In a religion, the faithful must obey the dictates of supreme clerics and laws that must not change because they existed long ago. If laws change, only a supreme being (human or god) can change them.

In a democracy, rules are routinely changed to meet changing conditions and the advancement of mankind. A democracy is pragmatic and tolerant. Religion is idealistic; historically resistant to change. Religion is intolerant. Will even castigate, decapitate, isolate, or 'Spanish Inquisition' anyone who contracts rules that must never adapt or change. Religion integrated into a democracy subverts many principles necessary for a democracy to operate.

Religion will even sponsor and incite wars against another religion. Democracies historically do not attack other democracies. The differences between a democracy and a religion are too vast and contradictory to share a common government.

But again, the US government will not recommend that separation of church and state when encouraging another nation to become democratic. Not defining those principles up front has gotten US diplomacy boxed into a no-win situation in Egypt. Imposing shiria laws onto government has gotten Egypt into their mess.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

... But again, the US government will not recommend that separation of church and state when encouraging another nation to become democratic. Not defining those principles up front has gotten US diplomacy boxed into a no-win situation in Egypt. ...

Americans think of lasting change as happening in 4 to 8 year iterations in consonance with our Presidential election cycle and term limitation. For others, lasting change may happen only over generations. Trying to segregate religion from their governments on our timetable may shock their core belief systems resulting in our ideology being summarily rejected. Change to that extent has to come from within; unless, we subjugate them for generations. They're not stupid, they already understand the underlying principles of our system. They also know that our system is only a 237 y.o. work in progress that still leaves a lot to be desired. Recognizing this is the situation, we choose to give them a taste of democracy by advocating free elections without making our support contingent upon the separation of church and state. Even if the resulting governments fail, the general population is learning more about the value of the right to self determination with each attempt. They'll get to a viable structure of government in their own time, despite setbacks, and maybe even come up with something better than ours! Unless of course you think we should just conquer them now.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Americans think of lasting change as happening in 4 to 8 year iterations in consonance with our Presidential election cycle and term limitation. For others, lasting change may happen only over generations. Trying to segregate religion from their governments on our timetable may shock their core belief systems resulting in our ideology being summarily rejected. Change to that extent has to come from within; unless, we subjugate them for generations. They're not stupid, they already understand the underlying principles of our system. They also know that our system is only a 237 y.o. work in progress that still leaves a lot to be desired. Recognizing this is the situation, we choose to give them a taste of democracy by advocating free elections without making our support contingent upon the separation of church and state. Even if the resulting governments fail, the general population is learning more about the value of the right to self determination with each attempt. They'll get to a viable structure of government in their own time, despite setbacks, and maybe even come up with something better than ours! Unless of course you think we should just conquer them now.

this is not quite HoF material, but it is absolutely right on target on the facts.

Going from where they were, Mubarak, to where they had their eyes on, Obama, was just too far, too fast. It was an impossible leap. It's a great instinct, and a thousand miles/single step, yada yada, sure, sure. It has to start somehow. This is a start. But just because they didn't achieve political nirvana on this, the first try, doesn't mean they're doomed.

It reminds me of when I was first married, my wife's parents were very kind to us, enjoyed having us around. We spent time with them, and much of that time was on their dime, dinners out, etc. I enjoyed all of it, but I felt a need to reciprocate. Even worse, I felt as though I should live my life, no, our life as my in-laws did. But it was impossible to eat out like they did, or enjoy leisure activities like they did, or consume and decorate and accessorize our life like they did. NOT that we didn't try! We were following the model we had in front of us, our (her) parents. THAT effort, at that time, *was* doomed. We didn't have anything like the economic resources to live like that.

But we tried. And it bankrupted us. We spend so far beyond our means that the economic damage (and social/relational damage) lasted for years. It was a contributing factor in our divorce. I paid on credit card debt for years and years after the expense of the original consumption. We wanted to live like that, we tried, but we couldn't, not then, not under our own steam.

I can live like that NOW, but only after lots of other things happened, chiefly among them, the passage of time. And hard work during that time, making mistakes, more, new mistakes, repeating some of the mistakes having not learned the lesson from them the first time, more hard work, etc.

What's happening in Egypt strikes me as a similar situation, they want shiny, representative democracy, but they don't have anything like the prerequisites. Well, they have some. They have the most important one, the desire to change and action toward that change. That's necessary but not sufficient. They have a model (lots of models) but none that match the historical context comparing America's revolution to Egypt's revolution. Their world's a lot different. And other crucial aspects of their starting point are different. I don't even know what kind of democracy they want, I've kind of thought about them moving toward a system like our own, but that's just my own cultural bias talking.

sexobon correctly points out that this is change that proceeds at generational pace. Stay tuned. It took a generation for me to achieve my goals, Egypt's trying something much bigger and harder and it can't happen faster.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Racism is about race. The term you are seeking is "prejudice".

It will not serve you to expand the definition of racism for your own personal purposes.

Historically speaking, tw is correct. English is; however, a living (i.e. evolving) language. Tw's disposition towards lagging behind the times by not recognizing contemporary vocabulary use, which relies on the first sense of the word "race" in this context (sense 1 below) as do other words based on that root, is certainly distracting if not actually detrimental to his writings. His loss; but, sometimes it's true that you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Related vocabulary has been discussed in the Cellar before. It may be useful to expand on it here. You can get tw's rationale by following the bold type:

race(2) 1. any of the different varieties of mankind, distinguished by form of hair, color of skin and eyes, stature, bodily proportions, etc. ... 2. a population that differs from others in the relative frequency of some gene or genes ... 3. any geographical, tribal, or ethnic grouping 4. ... 5. ... 6. ... 7. ... 8. ...

racial 1. of or characteristic of a race; or, ethnic group 2. Of or between the races

ethnic 1. [Now Rare] of nations or groups neither Christian no Jewish; heathen 2. designating or of any of the basic groups or divisions of mankind or of a heterogeneous population, as distinguished by customs, characteristics, language, common history, etc.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I've though of prejudice and discrimination as thoughts or actions of an individual while racism is more society. If so, the lines are very blurred.

racialism 1. A doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that claims to find differences in character, intelligence, etc. that asserts the superiority of one race over another or others, and that seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races 2. [i]same as RACISM (sense 2)

racism 1. same as RACIALISM (sense 1) 2. Any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, persecution, and domination based on racialism

The word "racialism" meant doctrine or teaching which is more the purview of society; but, that word fell by the wayside in colloquial use in favor of the word "racism" which took on its meaning. The word "racism" originally meant program or practice without specifying institutional or individual practice; so, it was used for both. There was a movement to eliminate the second sense of the word(s) entirely and elevate the social status of the label/issue to an exclusively societal one (non-individual) in order to make it even more of a government responsibility. Advocates say it helps bring appropriate recognition to the issue. Opponents say it's a step toward focusing liability on the government and other large groups with an eye towards reparations. In any case, it's no longer PC to say that what some individual is doing is racism: only social groups can do that. The question is: If only social groups can do racism, does that mean that no individual can be a racist and therefore can't be solely held liable for such actions?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

He might have remarked that the work in progress abundantly provides for expressing that which is yet to be desired -- very helpful. At present though, the Democratic Party, top to middle (not so sure about their flock of sheep at the bottom) is trying to circumscribe the expression -- you can find this in political correctness and the "liberal" fascism now coming into leaf. Criticise the Progressivism and its partisans come after you with the torches and pruning shears. No wonder we need to go TEA Partying.

It's all enough to make you vote Libertarian in hopes of achieving an adulthood presently being denied or at least hobbled by TPTB. As if that were any solution -- to anything.

So, tw doesn't want religion and will rationalize his irreligiousness forever and a day. Under the impression that makes a telling argument. It tells, all right -- on tw.

Not that the Eternal cares overmuch about tw's blatherings. Omniscient, He knows tw's a fucking crank, a wise fool and a broken tool.

[infinite monkey]

irregardless, i think your irregard for tw's irreligiousness, irrespective of the origin of this statement, is irrational, irrelevant, and irregular.

no, i don't really care. i just find practicing my 'irr' words to be irresistable. but, then again, i'm irresponsible and irreverent. and that's on my good days.

[sexobon]

If you could say that in a Scooby-Doo voice and post it as a sound clip, it would probably go viral.

[Sundae]

Speaking as Scooby you mean?

I used to do a voice for one of my cats that was similar to Scooby-speak.
It made my ex and his friends literally (using the old-fashioned sense of the word) cry with laughter.
Okay we were all drunk and/ or stoned except my ex, who would plead with me to do it just for shits and giggles (metaphorically)

I'd accept even more overtime to hit up the tip jar if'n Infi would say that as Scooby Doo.