Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Avatar Samantha Ai

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

113 posts in this topic

Having not read Orwell is what makes you extrapolate. If you had reads it you would know that it hardly was about technology, but about propaganda people swallow set into a forbidden love drama.

During the whole piece he is poking fun at Stalinist propaganda, not at technology, and technology hardly plays a role in the whole plot.

Propaganda is not new... it is as old as the world cares to remember... therefore: we are not living 1984... we have always lived it.

To some extent certainly. But as the days go by its looking more and more like a full replica. There is a little ways to go, and it wont be exactly the same in every way. But its definityl comparable.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No...it was not only about technology...but it was there...not arguing...it's been over 30 years since I read it.

Ah yes...lovely propaganda...

ministerofpropoganda_zps551d809e.jpg

propaganda.jpg

We would never do anything like that in this country.

guncontrolpropaganda_zps9c86cc18.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good videos to watch....

This one is only two minutes, but excellent:

George Orwells Final Warning: http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=JXm5hklbBsA&feature=related

Aldous Huxley: A Warning to America: http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=docW1cnaM30&feature=related

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well unless they put a small camera somewhere in your TV out front. I guess it would depend on the TV exactly where they would put it.

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.

Edited by szentgyorgy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2117493/Samsungs-latest-TV-sets-built-cameras-spark-concerns.html

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the title of this thread be :

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

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop Taking Orwell's Name in Vain

Here are more examples of the overuse of Orwellian.

  • Forbes attacked Obamacare as Orwellian in 2012.
  • Common Dreams placed Happy Meals in the sphere of, "McDonald's Orwellian manipulations."
  • The beverage industry characterized Bloomberg's soda ban in terms of Orwellian grave rolling.

George Orwell himself would have been against that.

Orwell would likely disapprove of the use--the overuse--of his name.

That's because Orwell crusaded against clichés like few public figures have before or since. As he said in his widely cited 1946 writing treatise Politics and the English Language: "Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print."

*snip*

Does it matter that "Orwellian" has become a conveniently meaningless cliché? Orwell's literature says yes. The destructive power of squishy political language was at the heart of Animal Farm, as the sinister shift of the slogan "Four legs good; two legs bad" to "Four legs good; two legs better" over the course of the novel shows.

Then again, that a public intellectual's name would come to represent a hazy collection of things he opposed might not surprise Orwell. Over and over again in his career, he pointed out how writers and orators exploited terms that seemed erudite, using their veneer of credibility to prop up otherwise unpalatable ideas. It's a practice that people today might call... well, never mind.

The author loathed cliches and conveniently murky political buzzwords—like "Orwellian."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it make anyone feel better if it's closer to the Demolition Man, The Fifth Element or even Eureka? The original Star Trek had technologies and visions that have come to fruition many years later.

There are voice recognition smart homes with security systems, which people can activate remotely and it can be hacked very easily. Personally, I value my privacy too much to have it in my house. It's not that I have anything to hide, it's just some things are personal...like having sex with my husband.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I'm afraid the balance is way too optimistic for Orwell to have been able to imagine it, and probably not of any great literary value -- kinda like Star Trek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The world looks nothing like Orwell envisioned it.

majxp3.png

Please keep in mind the world is more than just America/Canada and the UK.

So many societies today, most in fact, are no where near 1984 and perhaps have other problems as to not even have the luxury of making such comparisons.

On the other hand they just might not have less problems and just disagree with comparing reality to fiction.


The world of 1984 also had only one political party. Those who keep complaining about are two-party system yet claim we are 1984 are so far from the truth...

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it make anyone feel better if it's closer to the Demolition Man, The Fifth Element or even Eureka? The original Star Trek had technologies and visions that have come to fruition many years later.

There are voice recognition smart homes with security systems, which people can activate remotely and it can be hacked very easily. Personally, I value my privacy too much to have it in my house. It's not that I have anything to hide, it's just some things are personal...like having sex with my husband.

I don't think Orwell's fear was of technology but of the uses it might be put to. Some human beings seem to have a partly sexual sadistic desire for power, which to them means the ability to control and thereby humiliate and destroy others. That a group of such people should get power and have such technology is truly terrifying.

That such technologies have been invented by other authors or even in real life and have found other, more enlightened, uses, is to be expected. The Orwellian view is an unreal distortion of human nature.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.