Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Sorry, We're Not Living in Orwell's "1984"


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#31    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 09 July 2013 - 10:28 PM

View Postszentgyorgy, on 09 July 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

Sorry I can't produce a citation or link, but I heard on NPR (USA public radio) 2-3 months ago that the newest televisions do have built-in cameras which, of course, can be enabled remotely.

I heard the same thing.....
http://www.dailymail...k-concerns.html


#32    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,537 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "If you can't say something nice, be creative."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 09 July 2013 - 10:29 PM

View PostGravitorbox, on 09 July 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Actually, what a lot of people don't realize is the inspiration for a lot of 1984 wasn't Stalinism or even Fascism, but the neurotic behavior of revolutionary leftists, specifically what Orwell experienced during the Spanish civil war. The Republicans would accuse each other of being Fascists, reactionary, and such, because leftism by nature isn't based on reality - the words "Fascist", "reactionary", etc. are defined by them and are not tied to reality.

Orwell's doublespeak is basically the language leftists use, redefining words and such.

A major reason for Orwell's abandonment of the Spanish Republican cause (see his memoir Homage to Catalonia) was because of the dominance of Stalin's Soviet agents and  military advisors. He was a dedicated democratic socialist, but lived through the Stalinist corruption of the Spanish left and recognized that revolution, as exported by the USSR, would end up, as you say, in doublespeak and tragedy.

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#33    DeWitz

DeWitz

    DeWitz

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,537 posts
  • Joined:11 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Niagara Frontier

  • "If you can't say something nice, be creative."
    Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

Posted 09 July 2013 - 10:30 PM

View PostKowalski, on 09 July 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

I heard the same thing.....
http://www.dailymail...k-concerns.html

Ruht--roh!

[previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

"Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

#34    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • Such an ugly feeling that won't leave.

Posted 09 July 2013 - 10:58 PM

View Postszentgyorgy, on 09 July 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:



Sorry I can't produce a citation or link, but I heard on NPR (USA public radio) 2-3 months ago that the newest televisions do have built-in cameras which, of course, can be enabled remotely.

That show was about Rep. Mike Capuano's "We Are Watching You Act" allowing consumers to opt out or forcing a signal to show an electronic device is recording.

It is a preemptive act of legislation based on patents and not existing technology. As the show explained electronics such as a television or DVR would record heat signatures and if someone stays and watches commercials they could be rewarded with coupons. If a couple is arguing it was hypothesized that a commercial would appear for counseling or depression pharmaceuticals.

Such devices would help companies with advertising but Capuano's theory was that eventually the government would use unless we had legislation in place and a conversation with informed consumers before the advent of such technological capabilities.

As stated his legislation would include an opt out and for those who did not a signal informing anyone a device is recording just in case a neighbor was to visit who themselves had not the chance to opt out at that particular location.

Some will spin conspiracy theories but there is no doubt such technology is coming. A conversation is warranted and preferably one free of paranoia. Some of us actually support and consent to communication being monitored as we are doing now but at the same time we might have reservations regarding electronic devices tracking our real time heat signatures and would like the chance to opt out.

Others actually work in these intelligence industries that support the operations involved in data gathering and if only one (Snowden) out of thousands upon thousands came out against it then that also reveals something which is not sinister but more about belief in the mission. Of course a society that can discuss this in a sensible fashion is not 1984.

Edited by The world needs you, 09 July 2013 - 11:00 PM.


#35    tapirmusic

tapirmusic

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 643 posts
  • Joined:24 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:06 PM

Shouldn't the title of this thread be :

Hooray!  We're not living in Orwell's 1984.

???


#36    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • Such an ugly feeling that won't leave.

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:15 PM

View Posttapirmusic, on 09 July 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

Shouldn't the title of this thread be :

Hooray!  We're not living in Orwell's 1984.

???

Perhaps, as a stand alone statement.

The title of the article was instead part of a conversation and a rational response to those who paranoidly claim that we are living in 1984. We are not. The fact one can even order, discuss the book, and make wild claims proves that.

A minor antidote is required to the conspiracy theories.


#37    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,150 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:25 AM

View Postszentgyorgy, on 09 July 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

Sorry I can't produce a citation or link, but I heard on NPR (USA public radio) 2-3 months ago that the newest televisions do have built-in cameras which, of course, can be enabled remotely.
Cameras are so tiny anymore they can be put in just about anything with not much expense.  Look how many TV's are internet ready now.


#38    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:52 AM

Animal Farm and 1984 were well-written distopic novels of the [then] future.  They were fiction and as it turned out were utterly wrong.   Don't let great writing cause confusion between fiction and truth


#39    tapirmusic

tapirmusic

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 643 posts
  • Joined:24 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:47 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 10 July 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Animal Farm and 1984 were well-written distopic novels of the [then] future.  They were fiction and as it turned out were utterly wrong.   Don't let great writing cause confusion between fiction and truth

Fine.  But don't be such a skeptic that you fail to heed Orwell's messages.  There's a balance somewhere here.


#40    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,869 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:40 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 10 July 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Animal Farm and 1984 were well-written distopic novels of the [then] future.  They were fiction and as it turned out were utterly wrong.   Don't let great writing cause confusion between fiction and truth

Are you from 1984? I'm referring to the calendar year, not the book. ;)

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#41    Glorfindel

Glorfindel

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The answer to 1984, is uhhh... 1812?

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:00 AM

View PostThe world needs you, on 09 July 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

That show was about Rep. Mike Capuano's "We Are Watching You Act" allowing consumers to opt out or forcing a signal to show an electronic device is recording.

It is a preemptive act of legislation based on patents and not existing technology. As the show explained electronics such as a television or DVR would record heat signatures and if someone stays and watches commercials they could be rewarded with coupons. If a couple is arguing it was hypothesized that a commercial would appear for counseling or depression pharmaceuticals.

Such devices would help companies with advertising but Capuano's theory was that eventually the government would use unless we had legislation in place and a conversation with informed consumers before the advent of such technological capabilities.

As stated his legislation would include an opt out and for those who did not a signal informing anyone a device is recording just in case a neighbor was to visit who themselves had not the chance to opt out at that particular location.

Some will spin conspiracy theories but there is no doubt such technology is coming. A conversation is warranted and preferably one free of paranoia. Some of us actually support and consent to communication being monitored as we are doing now but at the same time we might have reservations regarding electronic devices tracking our real time heat signatures and would like the chance to opt out.

Others actually work in these intelligence industries that support the operations involved in data gathering and if only one (Snowden) out of thousands upon thousands came out against it then that also reveals something which is not sinister but more about belief in the mission. Of course a society that can discuss this in a sensible fashion is not 1984.

Some of you consent, some of you believe in the mission. Im not sure in what way, shape or form this changes the law in your mind. If you don't want your rights, fine, but some of us do. The debate ends there, we want our rights which are legally and ethically guaranteed. Stop trying to take them. Stop supporting the criminals. The government has no right to continue imposing on us.


#42    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • Such an ugly feeling that won't leave.

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:28 AM

View PostGlorfindel, on 10 July 2013 - 03:00 AM, said:

Some of you consent, some of you believe in the mission. Im not sure in what way, shape or form this changes the law in your mind. If you don't want your rights, fine, but some of us do. The debate ends there, we want our rights which are legally and ethically guaranteed. Stop trying to take them. Stop supporting the criminals. The government has no right to continue imposing on us.

The debate does not end. Regarding the level of security we require that debate is ongoing.

We are all involved in that nationally and those wishing to drop out of the debate are free to do so.

Unsure what role non-Americans have in the debate specifically over the role of the NSA but if anything it is a minor one.

The separate issue of legality and constitutionality will be decided by our courts, our American courts. Non-Americans have no say in that, at all, but they do have their own societies and systems of government to decide for themselves and how much if they will at all cooperate with us.

Edited by The world needs you, 10 July 2013 - 03:55 AM.


#43    SolarPlexus

SolarPlexus

    Warrior of Light

  • Member
  • 3,428 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Serbia

  • .....This moment contains all moments.....

    ...You dont have a Soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.....

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:46 AM

Sorry, We're Not Living in Orwell's "1984"... yet.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei
Posted Image
"Who never walks save where he sees men's tracks makes no discoveries."J.G. Holland

#44    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 3,984 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:48 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 09 July 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:



That device is not called TV, it is called iPad or laptop... or whatever else has a camera built in it.

I'm safe. I don't watch TV, own an iPad or laptop, nor a cellphone.

I'm the invisible man!


#45    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • Such an ugly feeling that won't leave.

Posted 10 July 2013 - 04:16 AM

The following article when read in full contains a nuanced perspective as indicated by the underlined portion in the last paragraph but for the sake of brevity only select parts are quoted. Read in full to understand the possible dangers as envisioned by Stan Beer of iTWire.

Quote

In the year 2013 AD, we are still a fair way short of Orwell’s 1984 and one of the key reasons is technological. In fact, it has everything to do with networks, communications technology and the Internet, the very same network that the alleged surveillance state is accused of using to spy on us.

As brilliant a visionary as he was, Orwell’s surveillance network was fundamentally different to the one that exists today. Communications were certainly two-way and massive databases would certainly have had to be in place in such a surveillance state. However, all the data was in the hands of the state on centralised servers. The concept of peer to peer networking and communications was absent from that world.

Thus, there was no free communications between the tortured inhabitants of Airstrip One. The only communications were between the controllers and the controlled.

*snip*

We still have the freedom to criticise our governments. We still have a considerable proportion of humanity that can think for itself. However, the torch of social justice in the free world, where freedom is steadily diminishing, is flickering and there seem to be ever fewer sparks to reignite it. The Internet, though some use it in questionable ways, is still our best hope to stave off an Orwellian future.

Has 1984 finally arrived?

Edited by The world needs you, 10 July 2013 - 04:16 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users