Protests in Egypt

I've been watching aljazeera for over an hour now, its very moving. Congratulations to the people of Egypt.

^Wow. Sad but true.

I like most people knew nothing or cared about this until it became news. But unlike so many others I still don't care. How many people even knew who Mubarak was before this, he sure as hell wasn't a household name before this. I'm not saying this isn't important to Egypt but there is far more going on locally for me to even pretend to follow this story. I'm sure some of you will think this makes me some kind of ugly American, but it's not even that, I don't care about Arizona/Mexico boarders or Snooki. Basically if it's not going on near where I live it's pretty much fictional.

I totally understand not caring. What I'm having a harder time understanding is posting in a thread about a subject and declaring your indifference for said subject.

Because I'm entitled to voice my opinion?

Sure, no one's disputing that. I just thought it odd.

And I find it odd that people are so quick to jump on the bandwagon for people they only found out about a little while go. So I decided to voice my opinion by pointing that out and maybe someone might explain to me their thought process in doing such. Does that make sense Josh?

Janson wrote:I like most people knew nothing or cared about this until it became news. But unlike so many others I still don't care. How many people even knew who Mubarak was before this, he sure as hell wasn't a household name before this. I'm not saying this isn't important to Egypt but there is far more going on locally for me to even pretend to follow this story. I'm sure some of you will think this makes me some kind of ugly American, but it's not even that, I don't care about Arizona/Mexico boarders or Snooki. Basically if it's not going on near where I live it's pretty much fictional.

I'm one of those people.

Ric Magnum wrote:Look guys, I know this sounds like a great story: The People Taking Back Their Country-and all but I just see this thing ending in heart break for these people. Nobody has stepped forward and taken control of the main body of protesters. So when Mubarek leaves (make no mistake, he will. On his feet or in a box), everyone is going to be looking around saying, "Ok he left. What now?" I believe that void will be more than likely filled with a radical islamist and the people will be no better off then when Mubarek was in. Just how I see it. Don't see a good outcome for this. But kudos to them for actually having the balls to stand up for their beliefs.

It was unacceptable to the protesters for Mubarak to remain in office even another day. That was the principle reason why the promise of future elections was ignored. With Mubarak gone, things can move forward.

Obviously, there is an interim military government, because the military is the only institution in Egypt able to run the country at the moment. The equivalent would be no government at all.

I don't understand your cynicism. Things have, so far, gone as well as they possibly could.

Paroxysm wrote:

Janson wrote:I like most people knew nothing or cared about this until it became news. But unlike so many others I still don't care. How many people even knew who Mubarak was before this, he sure as hell wasn't a household name before this. I'm not saying this isn't important to Egypt but there is far more going on locally for me to even pretend to follow this story. I'm sure some of you will think this makes me some kind of ugly American, but it's not even that, I don't care about Arizona/Mexico boarders or Snooki. Basically if it's not going on near where I live it's pretty much fictional.

I'm one of those people.

Care to explain why? Why is it so damn important to drop attention from things close by when when something else happens far away? It just doesn't make sense to me. What's ugly about being neutral?

I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

Janson wrote:

Paroxysm wrote:

Janson wrote:I like most people knew nothing or cared about this until it became news. But unlike so many others I still don't care. How many people even knew who Mubarak was before this, he sure as hell wasn't a household name before this. I'm not saying this isn't important to Egypt but there is far more going on locally for me to even pretend to follow this story. I'm sure some of you will think this makes me some kind of ugly American, but it's not even that, I don't care about Arizona/Mexico boarders or Snooki. Basically if it's not going on near where I live it's pretty much fictional.

I'm one of those people.

Care to explain why? Why is it so damn important to drop attention from things close by when when something else happens far away? It just doesn't make sense to me. What's ugly about being neutral?

No ones "dropping" their attention. Some of us can pay attention to more than one thing at a time. People don't like what they don't understand and you seem to not understand the world outside of the box that you live in.

So good luck with that, how it works out for you.

Janson wrote:And I find it odd that people are so quick to jump on the bandwagon for people they only found out about a little while go. So I decided to voice my opinion by pointing that out and maybe someone might explain to me their thought process in doing such. Does that make sense Josh?

Well I'm one of the people that knew about Mubarak, Egyptian unrest, etc. before shit hit the fan over there recently. So it's not "bandwagon jumping" for a lot of us. Plus this is the major upheaval of a major country in the world, possibly an entire region, so it's certainly a big deal. And generally, I like to know about history and world affairs so I can hopefully contribute something to society that makes things better.

I understand your "if it doesn't affect me I don't care" attitude since it's kind of human nature but this kind of stuff absolutely does affect you, even if indirectly. The US has propped up Mubarak as dictator in Egypt for over 30 years, sending him billions of dollars in the process. If you're a US taxpayer, which I assume you are, then that's your money that the US government is spending to support dictators or wage wars that you may or may not agree with. If nothing else, you should care a little about that.

Not unless you count sales tax.

Well as an American citizen you will pay your fair share in taxes throughout your lifetime trust me lol.

Basically, if you don't care about this that's fine do your thing. But why do you care that we care?

Because it makes no sense to me why you would want to follow politics. It's boring for one thing and caring about it leads to two ends some group being in charge and some other group complaining about the ones in charge. If more people become apolitical the politicians would loose their power. The elite are that way because you make them so.

Janson wrote:Because it makes no sense to me why you would want to follow politics. It's boring for one thing and caring about it leads to two ends some group being in charge and some other group complaining about the ones in charge. If more people become apolitical the politicians would loose their power. The elite are that way because you make them so.

Well now you're talking about something totally different. This is a story about a people standing up against their corrupt government and forcing change. It's more of a human rights/freedom movement than a purely political thing.

In terms of caring or not caring about politics...well that's a different conversation. But I don't think your scenario would work. If more people became apolitical then the politicians, special interest groups, and corporations would just run rough shot with no checks and balances. I'm sorry but I don't think your theory would work.

Janson wrote:Because it makes no sense to me why you would want to follow politics. It's boring for one thing and caring about it leads to two ends some group being in charge and some other group complaining about the ones in charge. If more people become apolitical the politicians would loose their power. The elite are that way because you make them so.

You do realize that the less people pay attention, the more power the politicians get, right? If there's nobody to stop them how can their power be kept in check. It's not really a case of if we don't look at them, they'll go away.

That makes no sense. They may have a stronger hold on those that are still following them, but nobody else will be listening to them. They might make up new rules, but if nobody follows them to they really have power? No, they don't. Like say 300 people choose not to threat politicians with the respect they want, but they do have 175 people that do. Which group has more power? If you said the 176 people you'd be wrong.

Tunisia has been pushing hard since Egypt has.

Now Yemen and Algeria are having protests. Revolution = Contagious.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/8320464/Protests-in-Algeria-and-Yemen.html

Janson wrote:That makes no sense. They may have a stronger hold on those that are still following them, but nobody else will be listening to them. They might make up new rules, but if nobody follows them to they really have power? No, they don't. Like say 300 people choose not to threat politicians with the respect they want, but they do have 175 people that do. Which group has more power? If you said the 176 people you'd be wrong.

The 176 have more power. If people stops paying attention, who's making the decisions? The people with power. As long as they are making laws and upholding the current ones they have power over everybody that lives in the country. There will never be a day where this country could work without a government. I really don't think that you have any idea as to how the government works.

comicgeekelly wrote:

Janson wrote:That makes no sense. They may have a stronger hold on those that are still following them, but nobody else will be listening to them. They might make up new rules, but if nobody follows them to they really have power? No, they don't. Like say 300 people choose not to threat politicians with the respect they want, but they do have 175 people that do. Which group has more power? If you said the 176 people you'd be wrong.

The 176 have more power. If people stops paying attention, who's making the decisions? The people with power. As long as they are making laws and upholding the current ones they have power over everybody that lives in the country. There will never be a day where this country could work without a government. I really don't think that you have any idea as to how the government works.

Yes they might make the laws, but if no ones gives a shit about them except a minority they won't be enforced well enough to work or at all. Which is sort of what happened in Egypt, there were more people acting against the rules of those in "power" so really they were the ones with the power, the only problem is they want to replace the former power with a new one. I don't remove a rotting mess under a drip only to put something else there and hope it won't rot as well. No I don't put anything there until the leak that was dripping has been fixed. The US was backing Egypt's leaders, the people of Egypt didn't like this so they rose up against it, then the US jumps on the bandwagon with other countries that that are just as much to blame as Egypt and supports the revolt/coup d'tat. I know that's the extreme cliff's notes version but that's basically what happened. So I see to core causes to this problem 1. If there is a ruling class some one will always get the short stick and fight for power. 2. If people who lived far away would mind their own damn business things would be far better for everyone. Also these political ideals are hundreds and even thousands of years old and very much outdated and were designed for localized situations. Now don't get me wrong I'm not promoting anarchy, there needs to be rules, but this can be done with a collective rather than a ruling class.

Janson wrote:

comicgeekelly wrote:

Janson wrote:That makes no sense. They may have a stronger hold on those that are still following them, but nobody else will be listening to them. They might make up new rules, but if nobody follows them to they really have power? No, they don't. Like say 300 people choose not to threat politicians with the respect they want, but they do have 175 people that do. Which group has more power? If you said the 176 people you'd be wrong.

The 176 have more power. If people stops paying attention, who's making the decisions? The people with power. As long as they are making laws and upholding the current ones they have power over everybody that lives in the country. There will never be a day where this country could work without a government. I really don't think that you have any idea as to how the government works.

Yes they might make the laws, but if no ones gives a shit about them except a minority they won't be enforced well enough to work or at all. Which is sort of what happened in Egypt, there were more people acting against the rules of those in "power" so really they were the ones with the power, the only problem is they want to replace the former power with a new one. I don't remove a rotting mess under a drip only to put something else there and hope it won't rot as well. No I don't put anything there until the leak that was dripping has been fixed. The US was backing Egypt's leaders, the people of Egypt didn't like this so they rose up against it, then the US jumps on the bandwagon with other countries that that are just as much to blame as Egypt and supports the revolt/coup d'tat. I know that's the extreme cliff's notes version but that's basically what happened. So I see to core causes to this problem 1. If there is a ruling class some one will always get the short stick and fight for power. 2. If people who lived far away would mind their own damn business things would be far better for everyone. Also these political ideals are hundreds and even thousands of years old and very much outdated and were designed for localized situations. Now don't get me wrong I'm not promoting anarchy, there needs to be rules, but this can be done with a collective rather than a ruling class.

For someone who doesn't like to pay attention to what goes on overseas you seem to know a little about what's going on

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.