i'm not saying that people are morons. i'm saying that you can't complain about other people swallowing propaganda when you've done the exact same.
please get your terms right.
And I'm saying this is nothing more than a paranoid accusation. You've still provided no evidence that I've been "swallowing propaganda" when my views contradict almost everything we watch and read in the media.
the newspapers are not socialist. socialism is an entirely different economic system to capitalism. things like the nhs, extensive benefits, an income-based tax system....these are not in existence to do away with capitalism, they are in existence to make capitalism "fairer" (whether you agree with them or not). this is called social democracy, and by definition, social democracy is a capitalist ideal. not pure capitalist, not extreme capitalist, but capitalist rather than socialist. no mainstream media outlets are in favour of pulling down the economic system and replacing it with socialism. many are in favour of the welfare state and advocate social democracy, but that IS capitalism.
and what does "liberal" mean? the extreme right and extreme left can both claim that term and everything in between always claims that term. calling the media "liberal to socialist" is not only meaningless, but it avoids the issue that i was raising. left-leaning or not, the media is capitalist.
That IS where you are wrong. A welfare state that only interferes with 50% of the economy is a liberal system. It consists of both capitalist and socialist aspects. I stopped reading and watching British media after calls for nationalizing banks, capping private sector pay and returning to a 1970s labour model where trade unions hold the nation to ransom. This leans far more towards socialism than capitalism.
erm, ok. the vast majority of protest is peaceful and certainly has nothing to do with anarchy. and as has already been said, you criticise me for implying that people are moronic and followers (when i never said any such thing), before yourself saying that people have no free will and only protest as they are following their basic animal instinct. organised, peaceful protest is about as far removed from anarchy as you can get, by the way.
condoning demonstrations againt wars, pay cuts, etc is different from condoning illegal actions simply because one is legal and the other is not. indeed, sometimes legal demonstrations take place to voice anger at illegal actions, such as the war in iraq.
Like I said (I'm repeating myself over and over again), in a truly democratic society, I will always condemn protesting when people have official peaceful means to resolve issues. Not once have I ever seen a protest in a western nation with rational demands. No matter what the government does, there will always be a minority finding an excuse to complain about something. Peaceful protesting shouldn't be made illegal, but in a proven democratic society I will never respect it.
if people worked harder and complained less, we'd still have 19th century sweatshops, we'd still have people living on a pittance, we'd still have high rates of death by curable illnesses in the "1st world", we'd still have only a handful of people able to vote, women would still be second class citizens, blacks would still be slaves.....i could go on forever. yet you think it is better that people shut up, work unquestioningly (again, an argument which proves you are the one who thinks that people are moronic), and get on with things, even where things are clearly wrong and unfair?
Because those were NOT proven democratic societies. A system in which certain minorities have no say is not democratic. I would completely condone protesting in Cuba, North Korea, Iran or any society in which totalitarian regime was enforced on the people. Comparing 21st century protests on bankers pay to 19th century fights for black rights is nonsensical.