In my experience, it's just a class difference again. A quick arts degree isn't especially difficult for people who have good previous education and it's a way for people from a rich background to easily get a leg up, while poor people have to either not go to college or deal with loans.

People still see factory jobs as being for "stupid" people and they are generally looked down on, while even terrible office work is considered acceptable. This shouldn't be.

The two are one and the same. By not pointing out the widespread "private" CCTV and only focusing on government CCTV, slashdot is heavily biasing the poll.

Also, seriously, it's implying that stopping radicalism is a good thing (which it is, from the perspective of elites who want to maintain power, I suppose).

It depends on what you consider a cause. The US government doesn't care about human rights abuses; that much is clear from its long, long foreign policy record. What the US government cares about is whether the Saudis will "play nice" and do what they want them to. The minute the Saudis don't, the Saudis become official enemies the same way Saddam Hussein did when he stopped "playing nice".

Because the Saudi regime hasn't given the US any cause to invade -- it already sells oil cheaply. Remember that the only oil-producing countries the US is unfriendly with are ones that hint that they won't follow every whim of US foreign policy (like Venezuela supplying oil to Cuba).

No existing state is a democracy.

It's simpler than that. People just want to use the word "revolution" to refer to something, regardless of its influence on society (which is what actually constitutes a revolution: a radical change in society).

The same could be applied to the United States and its own blocking provisions. The only difference is that the USA rules the rest of the world through fear and imperialist aggression, so I suppose you might understandably mistake it for the rest of the world entirely.

The United States is not a democracy.

But not to do anything beyond criticism, in which case, what is the point of criticism?

I disagree. Dealing with facts would probably be an impediment to his job.

Ignoring that the "Republic of China" and "Republic of Korea" were both military dictatorships at various times.

Fixed for you (with bonus spelling errors fixed as well!)

Why do you think the laws exist, if not because of publishers wanting them?

I agree. Part of the problem is this myth that all of bigotry is contained in a few interpersonal interactions, such as calling people names. If this was so, it would be much less of a problem -- it would be easier to deal with because it would be so open, and it occurs much more rarely than pervasive systemic discrimination anyway. The chief problem is systemic discrimination, where the system of society (government, jobs and employment, and simply what people are permitted or not permitted to do) bars some people from certain activities based on a class, gender, or racial position, while others are fully allowed.

Generally these things aren't as clear-cut as sending black people to the back of the bus -- they are examples more like not adequately trying to prevent rape in certain places of a city, making those places more dangerous and effectively preventing many people from visiting those places for fear of attack. This might be downvoted by some people who tend to be inclined to rape apologia purely because they view rape as something that is strictly between two individuals, rather than a part of a societal whole, as those two individuals are. These things are more about complex social stances -- certain forms of rape being tolerated (as many of these individuals do, perpetuating the problem they are so against finding solutions for), or certain forms of abuse or discrimination being tolerated, are among them.

Ultimately, if you view these issues in the limited context of individual interpersonal interaction you will only just barely scrape the surface of the wider societal context of identity and permitted action. This can be reasoned through quite readily -- why are some things we view negatively more common than others? Why is, say, rape more common than murder? Because it's a question of what is permitted by society, and who can do what to whom. It is much easier for someone to rape the average woman and to rely on her (understandable) issues with discussing it with anyone and with a policing system that generally has more in common with the rapist than the raped, than it is to murder someone (especially a man, especially a white man, especially a rich white man) and get away with it. What individuals do is a result of the society that produced them; change society and you change individuals.