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

Posted (edited)

This is the only post that touches on the fact that there are gov agendas put out there to encourage people to self moderate not only themselves but their neighbours for all manner of things. That is the distinction in my mind of where it goes to far and more into the realms of well, aren't people just being programmed to spy on their neighbours for small incentives and monetary awards, and when that happens it is completely going against the concept of living in a community.

Where i live, you get into trouble and fined for not putting plastic in the correct coloured bin, from the household waste bin which also a has colour, or the paper bin which has a special colour too. If a hotline exists so that my neighbours feel they can look in my garbage bins to see if i am stacking my garbage correctly and call it to inform, then you know things have gone to far.

More importantly so, why do people fall for it ? because those who continuously push these things increment by increment in the theme of trust no one but your government, know that giving people the sense of power in ittle doses is highly addictive and awarding, it's sad to see, but until people themselves as a collective stop falling for the sense of power tricks, then this will be our downfall. As per usual it rests with our own faults and naiveties being used against us.

Not to go all godwin or what ever but thats how Hitler started, with the people of Germani. Spy on thy neighbor.

Edited by The Silver Thong
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only post that touches on the fact that there are gov agendas put out there to encourage people to self moderate not only themselves but their neighbours for all manner of things. That is the distinction in my mind of where it goes to far and more into the realms of well, aren't people just being programmed to spy on their neighbours for small incentives and monetary awards, and when that happens it is completely going against the concept of living in a community.

Where i live, you get into trouble and fined for not putting plastic in the correct coloured bin, from the household waste bin which also a has colour, or the paper bin which has a special colour too. If a hotline exists so that my neighbours feel they can look in my garbage bins to see if i am stacking my garbage correctly and call it to inform, then you know things have gone to far.

More importantly so, why do people fall for it ? because those who continuously push these things increment by increment in the theme of trust no one but your government, know that giving people the sense of power in ittle doses is highly addictive and awarding, it's sad to see, but until people themselves as a collective stop falling for the sense of power tricks, then this will be our downfall. As per usual it rests with our own faults and naiveties being used against us.

People fall for it because they are obssessed with power...even the little trifle power of snitching on your neighbors trash...and they think they are being 'good' citizens...and everyone wants to be a good citizen right? Well, except for YOU obviously...trash moron that you are...can't even put the blue trash in the right container...so I have to do it for you... See...right there..Power...it comes from INcreasing your own Ego potential which comes from DEcreasing someone elses definition...My definition of me is better than my definition of YOU. Power...you see. Power of Ego over Ego.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people enter the professions they enter? For most of us its pretty much by accident. I do think though that there are a few professions that tend to attract people we would be better off without. Lawyers, police and security guards, politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little Brother Is Watching You

But the same technological advances that have empowered the rise of Big Brother have created another wrinkle in the story. We might call it the emergence of Little Brother: the ordinary citizen who by chance finds himself in a position to record events of great public import, and to share the results with the rest of us. This has become immeasurably easier and more likely with the near-ubiquitous proliferation of high-quality recording devices. (As I learned after publishing this, the term had been coined earlier, and Cory Doctorow used it in 2007 for his book of the same name.)

The era of Little Brother was perhaps inaugurated in November, 1963, with the Kodachrome II 8-mm. film of John F. Kennedy’s assassination inadvertently captured by the Dallas clothing manufacturer Abraham Zapruder. George Holliday’s videotape of the March, 1991, beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, and Scott Prouty’s forty-seven-per-cent video, which arguably cost Mitt Romney the Presidency last year, fall into the same class.

There is a surprisingly rich and dynamic academic literature developing around the concept of “sousveillance,” a term coined by the University of Toronto professor and inventor Steve Mann to describe privately made recordings that can serve as a counterweight to institutional and government surveillance. Mann is famous for approaching these questions from the perspective of wearable computing, a field in which he is one of the earliest pioneers; his apparent eccentricity is belied by the gravity and lucidity of his writing, which is heavily influenced by Foucault’s views on panopticism:

One way to challenge and problematize both surveillance and acquiescence to it is to resituate these technologies of control on individuals, offering panoptic technologies to help them observe those in authority. We call this inverse panopticon “sousveillance” from the French words for “sous” (below) and “veiller” to watch.

Sousveillance is a form of “reflectionism,” a term invented by Mann (1998) for a philosophy and procedures of using technology to mirror and confront bureaucratic organizations. Reflectionism holds up the mirror and asks the question: “Do you like what you see?” If you do not, then you will know that other approaches by which we integrate society and technology must be considered.

*snip*

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/mother-jones-video-rise-of-little-brother.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know to some that political correctness is a shibboleth that must not be attacked because they say it is all about being "nice" to others. But this is not so, for being "nice" and good manners are simply that, good manners. Political correctness is the "newspeak" of 1984. If people wish to be boorish and ugly in their use of words, then that is their affair, not that of the state, but political correctness (newspeak), is totalitarian in a way that I am sure Orwell would understand. This "newspeak" combined with the state survailance is as bad, if not worse, than anything conducted by the Stasi, and indicate to me that we certainly are living in 1984, and have been for a long time.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least I get nice red tomatoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least I get nice red tomatoes.

And you can throw them at the Hate Screen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know to some that political correctness is a shibboleth that must not be attacked because they say it is all about being "nice" to others. But this is not so, for being "nice" and good manners are simply that, good manners. Political correctness is the "newspeak" of 1984. If people wish to be boorish and ugly in their use of words, then that is their affair, not that of the state, but political correctness (newspeak), is totalitarian in a way that I am sure Orwell would understand. This "newspeak" combined with the state survailance is as bad, if not worse, than anything conducted by the Stasi, and indicate to me that we certainly are living in 1984, and have been for a long time.

This I agree with. I've always been of the opinion that if you limit the amount of words people can use, you limit the amount of ideas they can express. I think Newspeak and the Two Minutes Hate are the most enduring ideas in the book.

I agree with the basic premise of this thread, that we aren't living in Nineteen Eighty-Four, but it's a great novel that still has a lot of relevance in today's world. I would caution conservatives who laud it though, George Orwell was a devoted socialist. ;)

1 person likes 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

While taking any work of fiction 100% serious is misguided, saying that a work of dystopian political fiction such as 1984 and animal farm 'turned out utterly wrong' is equally misguided. Writers of political and dystopian fiction examine existing trends and realities and stretch them out to seemingly implausible extremes to demonstrate conclusions more vividly about the nature of those realities.

As many people in this thread have pointed out, there are multiple means of surveillance currently available. Even if they are not all publicly accessible in real time, we have seen through scenarios such as the Snowden NSA leaks that the government can gain access to them and through events such as the Boston Marathon Bomber, that even the private videos, email and other information can be subpeona'd in mass under the right combination of circumstances.

So the nature of the surveillance takes on different forms, but the end results do bear many striking similarities. And it does not end with the surveillance. Consider the 'newspeak' and compare that with things such as internet slang (in regards to 'dumbing down' and simplifying language) or political correctness (in terms of making certain words and the concepts they represent taboo akin to causing you to loose esteem, employment, reputation, etc.) Consider the obfuscatory language used by politicians such that we no longer have 'taxes' but they enact 'revenue enhancements'. Even down to the naming of bureaus and agencies: the Department of Defense is the government agency entrusted with carrying out acts of pre-emptive warfare, the Department of Justice is primarily involved with putting people in prison, and the so-called 'Department of Welfare' has overseen steady increases in both poverty levels and wage disparity since it's inception.

To say that the notions in Animal Farm were 'utterly wrong' is to not understand the ruling class as it exists today. We see the healthcare bill and numerous other pieces of legislation going through congress.... with exemptions for members of congress and all of their friends in the larger lobbies such as unions, etc. Some animals are more equal then others it seems!

Works of fiction are just that, works of fiction. But when written in a political-activist sense, they can be used to draw attention to specific wrongs and their potential outcomes in the real world. That doesn't mean reading them verbatim and expecting a caged rat to be strapped to your face. If anything, the three biggest mistakes Orwell made in 1984 in ascending order were: assuming government would give out cigarettes and alcohol, assuming government would prohibit sexual activity (in fact the opposite is true on those two counts) and putting what amounts to an 'expiration date' on the front cover so people can assume they are 'out of the woods' when it comes to some of the potential predictions he made.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While taking any work of fiction 100% serious is misguided, saying that a work of dystopian political fiction such as 1984 and animal farm 'turned out utterly wrong' is equally misguided. Writers of political and dystopian fiction examine existing trends and realities and stretch them out to seemingly implausible extremes to demonstrate conclusions more vividly about the nature of those realities.

As many people in this thread have pointed out, there are multiple means of surveillance currently available. Even if they are not all publicly accessible in real time, we have seen through scenarios such as the Snowden NSA leaks that the government can gain access to them and through events such as the Boston Marathon Bomber, that even the private videos, email and other information can be subpeona'd in mass under the right combination of circumstances.

So the nature of the surveillance takes on different forms, but the end results do bear many striking similarities. And it does not end with the surveillance. Consider the 'newspeak' and compare that with things such as internet slang (in regards to 'dumbing down' and simplifying language) or political correctness (in terms of making certain words and the concepts they represent taboo akin to causing you to loose esteem, employment, reputation, etc.) Consider the obfuscatory language used by politicians such that we no longer have 'taxes' but they enact 'revenue enhancements'. Even down to the naming of bureaus and agencies: the Department of Defense is the government agency entrusted with carrying out acts of pre-emptive warfare, the Department of Justice is primarily involved with putting people in prison, and the so-called 'Department of Welfare' has overseen steady increases in both poverty levels and wage disparity since it's inception.

To say that the notions in Animal Farm were 'utterly wrong' is to not understand the ruling class as it exists today. We see the healthcare bill and numerous other pieces of legislation going through congress.... with exemptions for members of congress and all of their friends in the larger lobbies such as unions, etc. Some animals are more equal then others it seems!

Works of fiction are just that, works of fiction. But when written in a political-activist sense, they can be used to draw attention to specific wrongs and their potential outcomes in the real world. That doesn't mean reading them verbatim and expecting a caged rat to be strapped to your face. If anything, the three biggest mistakes Orwell made in 1984 in ascending order were: assuming government would give out cigarettes and alcohol, assuming government would prohibit sexual activity (in fact the opposite is true on those two counts) and putting what amounts to an 'expiration date' on the front cover so people can assume they are 'out of the woods' when it comes to some of the potential predictions he made.

I don't really see 1984 as 'predictions' of any sort. Why do you think the Government is so against cigarettes? Because the government doesn't own the cigarette companies like Cuba does. The point anyway was not that the Government was doling out ciggys, but that, the ciggys, being so bad, the Prollies had to hold them tilted upright to keep the tobacco from falling out while thinking they were the best ciggys ever made....the point thusly made was that the Prollies put their whole Faith and Trust in whatever Big Brother gave them, said to them, offered them...that Big Brother was the bestest of the best and why would anyone not love BB? The point: The people trusted Government more than they trusted anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While taking any work of fiction 100% serious is misguided, saying that a work of dystopian political fiction such as 1984 and animal farm 'turned out utterly wrong' is equally misguided. Writers of political and dystopian fiction examine existing trends and realities and stretch them out to seemingly implausible extremes to demonstrate conclusions more vividly about the nature of those realities.

As many people in this thread have pointed out, there are multiple means of surveillance currently available. Even if they are not all publicly accessible in real time, we have seen through scenarios such as the Snowden NSA leaks that the government can gain access to them and through events such as the Boston Marathon Bomber, that even the private videos, email and other information can be subpeona'd in mass under the right combination of circumstances.

So the nature of the surveillance takes on different forms, but the end results do bear many striking similarities. And it does not end with the surveillance. Consider the 'newspeak' and compare that with things such as internet slang (in regards to 'dumbing down' and simplifying language) or political correctness (in terms of making certain words and the concepts they represent taboo akin to causing you to loose esteem, employment, reputation, etc.) Consider the obfuscatory language used by politicians such that we no longer have 'taxes' but they enact 'revenue enhancements'. Even down to the naming of bureaus and agencies: the Department of Defense is the government agency entrusted with carrying out acts of pre-emptive warfare, the Department of Justice is primarily involved with putting people in prison, and the so-called 'Department of Welfare' has overseen steady increases in both poverty levels and wage disparity since it's inception.

To say that the notions in Animal Farm were 'utterly wrong' is to not understand the ruling class as it exists today. We see the healthcare bill and numerous other pieces of legislation going through congress.... with exemptions for members of congress and all of their friends in the larger lobbies such as unions, etc. Some animals are more equal then others it seems!

Works of fiction are just that, works of fiction. But when written in a political-activist sense, they can be used to draw attention to specific wrongs and their potential outcomes in the real world. That doesn't mean reading them verbatim and expecting a caged rat to be strapped to your face. If anything, the three biggest mistakes Orwell made in 1984 in ascending order were: assuming government would give out cigarettes and alcohol, assuming government would prohibit sexual activity (in fact the opposite is true on those two counts) and putting what amounts to an 'expiration date' on the front cover so people can assume they are 'out of the woods' when it comes to some of the potential predictions he made.

Welcome to the boards treii. Great first post. Looking forward to reading your opinions on other subjects.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come back, Treii!; Treii, come back (said like the famous scene from "Shane")! Seriously, I hope that you'll drop a few more great posts when you get a chance. I don't disagree with a thing in your post. Both Orwell and Huxley sound like prophets (spirit opposed to letter), even though their books aren't always identical to current events.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think the Government is so against cigarettes?

:blink:

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.