I'm wondering why many people accepts living in a dictatorship and why they accepts discrimination. Many countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. are dictatorships or/and country that have laws that may be unfair. There are many countries where you hasn't freedom to say what you think and where there happening much discrimination. Some countries has discrimination laws that go against LGBT-people, women, political activists etc. In Iran and Saudi Arabia woman have to wear hijab. In Saudi they aren't allowed to drive cars and aren't allowed to go outside without a male relative. They can't say anything against their leader, because it's a dictatorship. 80 countries are against LGBT-people. I have no idea how many countries it's in the world, but 80 is many.

So why do people accept their freedom be stolen away and the discrimination? I would be angry if somebody took away my human rights and civil rights. I've heard in dictatorships they can get a punishment for protesting. But isn't it worth it? In the suffragette time and in the french revolution people protested to get their rights. Nothing are happening by its self. So if they are doing something, they can change the world.

First, I would say you can't truly pass judgement as an outsider. Democracy isn't as valued in certain cultures as it is in the west, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad to live there. I personally don't know, so I can't say.

I would imagine they allow it because it is the only life they know. Anti-government protests are emotional, often violent, and usually disruptive. For people whose lives are not affected directly by government policies, or who have no issues with the policies as they are, there is no benefit to anti-government action. That's why people organize around specific causes - it's much easier to get a group of people to agree to work to have a specific law changed or created than to alter an entire system.

You have to examine each culture separately to come up with a meaningful answer.  Culture itself is the sum of a people's history and  religion.  So while all people are equal as human beings they do not all share the same values.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sometimes people value the comfort and certainty/security of a system like that.  Sometimes they'll put up with anything which promises a better life for their children.  Sometimes they do it because their god wants them to.  Sometimes they do it because it's that or a horrible death.  Sometimes they find other reasons. 

Some reasons are better than others. 

*

The government we know may be better than the government we do not yet know.

I resided at Greece (1971 - 1973) during the late years of their military dictatorship and the early stages of their current democracy.

At first (1971), I witnessed a certain level of resignation among the Greek citizens - they accepted their military rule because there was little alternative.  They had some Western freedoms mixed with dictatorial oppression.  I must concede it was not fair for me to assess their perspective since I had my freedom to come and go as an American citizen.

Toward the end (1973), I saw their hope and anticipation as their military rule began crumbling and their renewed Democracy approached.

Tyrannies use dictatorships to divide and conquer.  As long as your opposition lacks the wherewithal to work together, then the rule persists.

Organised opposition is a double-edged sword.  Democracy is not always the alternative waiting in the wings.  Look at what is happening at many Middle East / Arab / Moslem nations.  Rather than Democracy being the opposition, they have a far worse, insidious religious fanaticism fighting their nation's status quo and ready to take charge. 

Yes, others may live in their quiet acquiescence because they can't take that personal risk to oppose the rule.

Some make their own choices forgoing their Western freedom.  I recently met and befriended a woman who is a French citizen teaching at a French school at Saudi Arabia.  She dislikes the environment because she hates being forced to wear that garb and is denied her human civil rights she enjoys at home; she told me that she rarely goes anywhere in public except to visit other French women at their homes.  She took the job because she likes being a teacher and chooses to remain there despite those hardships.

*

Dear Sebby Michelango, What is democracy ? What`s that is different in each country.
Reasons why you live there, because you are born there,forced to move,no money to move, your government give you no papers to move or the country you want to go give you no entree.
More cynical,in (almost) every country residents are (considered) property.

Quote from: BlonT on January 15, 2016, 02:51:30 AM
Dear Sebby Michelango, What is democracy ? What`s that is different in each country.
Reasons why you live there, because you are born there,forced to move,no money to move, your government give you no papers to move or the country you want to go give you no entree.
More cynical,in (almost) every country residents are (considered) property.

According to the Norwegian perception democracy is when the president are choose by voting by the people. That candidate who has most votes wins and become president in the democracy. The president comes with ideas and enough people in his team including other political teams have to be agree, or the president's idea wouldn't be done. The people has freedom to say what they think about politic and much more without being arrested or risking other punishment. Everybody are allowed to share their thoughts, make political groups and the news paper have freedom to express the both sides from a topic. There aren't any censoring in the news papers. In Norway cyberbullying aren't allowed. The news aren't allowed to be racist or do discrimination, because they shall be neutral. But the people who gets interviewed can say whatever they want to.

Yes that's what most have. Problem is with the candidate, the person placed there by decision of a party.If none of that candidates is good,you cant vote, i wish all people do that,maybe we get better candidates. Looking at the false flag operations that are proven, i doubt there is much free press,because papers can,t pay the independent journalists, so the buy news from big agencies.As we see how the involvement of "refugees" in rapes or brawls is hold out of the news.Its good you can say what you want/feel,but no doubt you know the words "calling in the dessert".i just think of why governments are so itchy on the F or M thing,its DRAFT the all have laws for it and most for M only 

Cowardice

A couple of concrete examples do spring to mind:

Tsarist Russia was where the Russian peasant built his reputation for superhuman ability to tolerate suffering.  The industrial revolution created many of the same stresses and uncertainty as the rest of the world, and then World War I simply overwhelmed their ability to cope with life's necessities.  After the initial revolution, and the inherent problems with attempting to simply "end" a war, people were very disappointed with the Mensheviks and began to listen to the Bolsheviks.  Then Stalin consolidated power within the party and the state, began a new and innovative propaganda campaign offering hope and change for the future, while controlling information like whether he or "saboteurs" were responsible for atrocities like the Ukrainian famine, and paired this with a brutally repressive regime  It worked.  It even worked well.  For a while. 

Imperial Germany had some good decisions and some bad decisions, correlating very well with whether or not Bismarck was calling shots rather than the Emperor.  Still, an autocratic Imperial Germany had assembled itself and thrived in the industrial revolution.  Thanks to Germany's natural resources, position astride Europe, and technical expertise, the half-century leading up to World War I had been a time of unprecedented improvement in standard of living.  Then came the Great War, the privations from blockade, the attrition of manpower, eventual mutiny and defeat, followed by the humiliation of Versailles.  The Weimar Republic looked weak and feckless because it had no choice but to actually be weak and feckless.  Dismembered and impotent, it barely had control over its own airspace, while managing a budget was impossible without the ability to even control a currency.  Heck, its army was required to be too small to stand up to the Freikorps wreaking havoc.  When Germans looked around at the ruins of their once-proud civilization and heard a strongman offering to return them to their glory days, they made a mistake.  They eventually grasped exactly how big a mistake and they're determined to never repeat it, but for a while there things went really well. 

China was a mess a hundred years ago.  Foreign imperialism, local warlords, and a thriving opium trade are not a recipe for success.  After the worst of the direct foreign imperialism was gone, the indirect foreign imperialism coalesced around a local warlord on the left and a local warlord on the right.  The guy on the left won, basically ended the opium trade and eventually declared himself strong enough to stand apart from his foreign masters.  There's no question it's been working well for quite a while now, and they have a basis for national pride they haven't had in centuries.  There are some cracks as they navigate challenges, and they're trying to make it work, but only time will tell how long it works.   

Have you ever heard of the Milgram Experiment, The Stanford Prison Experiment, the Asch conformity experiments, and the bystander effect? All of those offer a lot of insight into the reason dictators survive and thrive, and it has very little to do with culture or the history of any particular peoples, it has to do with the innate tendencies of human behavior. I suggest reading about all of them, because they're good examples of what's up with the human mind

We respect and adhere to authority, we are overwhelmed by the power of roles and situations, we have an undeniable desire to conform with those around us, and we have a hard time recognizing and responding to danger. All of these, independently or combined, can make great tools for setting up a cult or a dictatorship. A uniform can make us obey, a role to play can make us disassociate what we're doing from our own morals, conformity can weld our jaws shut when we see evil taking place, and the bystander effect can bar our path to doing anything about it even if we can recognize the evil.

Quote from: Sebby Michelango on January 14, 2016, 02:17:59 PM
So why do people accept their freedom be stolen away and the discrimination? I would be angry if somebody took away my human rights and civil rights. I've heard in dictatorships they can get a punishment for protesting. But isn't it worth it? In the suffragette time and in the french revolution people protested to get their rights. Nothing are happening by its self. So if they are doing something, they can change the world.

I would think because most ordinary people are busy trying to get by, are shackled to jobs in order to pay their bills and buy their food or support their families. If you suddenly decide you're going to toe to toe with the dictator of your country, you'll need to

a) find the time the do so, which means giving up other commitments

b) if it's a real hardcore dictatorship they probably are going to tear gas/dissipate or even shoot at a peaceful demonstration, so be prepared to be hurt, made a political prisoner or even killed

Considering most people I know of my age are starting families, I can't see them doing that over wanting their kids to grow up with parents.

Basically life has to become almost worse than death before most people are motivated to engage in violent revolution. During the French revolution those that revolted were motivated by a lack of food and what they saw as poor government, while at the same time they could see the upper classes were unaffected by this so the upper classes became the target. The Suffragette movement was rather a domino-effect situation where NZ and Aus first allowed their women to vote and other countries looked on at this and then asked why couldn't their women also have the vote. These are different scenarios than the idea of a dictator with an iron fist suppressing people who were formerly less suppressed.

Ask yourself if you lived in a brutal dictatorship would you go out tomorrow and risk your life or your freedom without any guarantee you would achieve anything? If you had children or elderly dependents would you do the same thing if you were their only provider, knowing if you were imprisoned or killed they would be helpless? Is it always a wise thing to do?

It's easy to say people are cowards, but think about it. Would you throw your own life or that of your kids away for a concept or a right beyond the right to exist? Sure, I can say I might become a revolutionary in that situation but I have nobody who needs me alive.

In addition to the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment teaching us wonderful things about human nature, there's also that bystander effect, and its associated problem - diminished responsibility. The more people in a given situation together, the less personal responsibility they feel to act or make the first move. Unless there is a leader or leaders to motivate and direct them. Which of course leads all the way back to dictatorship.

I worked in China for a Chinese company for three years. It was an interesting experience to say the least. I would echo what others have said here, that democracy and personal freedom are not nearly as valued in some places as they are in the western world. In China it seems to be that social order and conformity are the most important values. Anything that falls outside of the accepted social order is ignored or discarded. This is a big part of the reason children with developmental or physical disabilities are often abandoned and left to die. A child that is not "normal" is considered a large embarrassment for the family because the child, and thus the family, does not conform to the 'normal' social order.

Quote from: Sebby Michelango on January 14, 2016, 02:17:59 PM
I'm wondering why many people accepts living in a dictatorship and why they accepts discrimination. Many countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. are dictatorships or/and country that have laws that may be unfair. There are many countries where you hasn't freedom to say what you think and where there happening much discrimination. Some countries has discrimination laws that go against LGBT-people, women, political activists etc. In Iran and Saudi Arabia woman have to wear hijab. In Saudi they aren't allowed to drive cars and aren't allowed to go outside without a male relative. They can't say anything against their leader, because it's a dictatorship. 80 countries are against LGBT-people. I have no idea how many countries it's in the world, but 80 is many.

So why do people accept their freedom be stolen away and the discrimination? I would be angry if somebody took away my human rights and civil rights. I've heard in dictatorships they can get a punishment for protesting. But isn't it worth it? In the suffragette time and in the french revolution people protested to get their rights. Nothing are happening by its self. So if they are doing something, they can change the world.

This is a very powerful question, Sebby. I like to question this myself, internally. I'm not sure if there is an official answer to this, but in my opinion, I believe it has to do with culture and tradition that many countries are very stubborn to change so everyone has rights. People don't fight back or protest, because again, this is my opinion, they figure that things have always been that way, is that way and will stay that way for future generations to come.

I don't think it's ok, I just think there is no will, no motivation to take on such a force as dictatorship in these countries. It's very heartbreaking that humans in so many parts of the world, I don't care what race they are, have to survive in such miserable conditions while others enjoy freedoms that should belong to everyone. It's just not fair....Still, I believe things can be done to change this, I just don't know for certain what needs to happen exactly, ya know? It's all part of that human condition.

In the United States when our constitution was written, the second Amendment was added to it. The reason was our founding father understood that any government given time would run amuck and attempt to control the people. The second Amendment gives the people the right to own guns not for hunting or sports but to remove a government that has exceeded the restrictions placed on it. In most dictatorships gun ownership is restricted to the ruling class and in history one of the first things Hitler did after assuming power was to reduce the number of guns in the population. An unarmed population can only overthrow a government by paying a very dear price as a dictator will not allow free elections.

In 1788 the government allowed the people to be armed with the same weaponry as the Army.  Given their recent experience, it was reasonable to believe that this might prevent a despot from taking control.

That really isn't the case anymore.  Even if the government removed all restrictions it would be impossible for any group of citizens to arm themselves well enough to fight a modern first world military.

Also, the military takes an oath to God to support and defend the constitution.  This includes obeying the legal orders of the president.  Unless a president as gone completely rogue and done something like declare himself dictator for life, the military will continue to obey his orders.  If some group of citizens were to start a rebellion and the president ordered the Army to stop the rebellion, there is no question that they would obey that order regardless of their personal opinions of the president's character.

One of the current presidential candidates has told his people that if he loses then the election is rigged and invalid.  One of the people at my work believes that and has told me it is inconceivable that his candidate could lose unless the election is stolen by the other side.  He believes that if his candidate loses then a rebellion is justified.

Some people believe that the Army would not fight against its own people.  They are wrong.  In our own history it did just that during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, the Civil War from 1861 to 1865, and the Bonus March in 1932.

As long as the Government is still acting within the framework of the constitution there is no possibility of a successful rebellion.

Quote from: Dena on August 06, 2016, 02:19:56 AM
In the United States when our constitution was written, the second Amendment was added to it. The reason was our founding father understood that any government given time would run amuck and attempt to control the people. The second Amendment gives the people the right to own guns not for hunting or sports but to remove a government that has exceeded the restrictions placed on it. In most dictatorships gun ownership is restricted to the ruling class and in history one of the first things Hitler did after assuming power was to reduce the number of guns in the population. An unarmed population can only overthrow a government by paying a very dear price as a dictator will not allow free elections.

I agree with Dena, without the 2nd Amendment the other Amendments would be a thing of the past. All governments that control their people first control the weapons.

Heather