Short version; Is the fourth amendment (Search and seizure). Becoming meaningless? Do the PF members feel the USA government (the UK has already been fairly Orwelianized IMO) is getting too aggressive and has too much ’police’ power in ‘items’ such as surveillance, search and seizure etc. of private citizens. Long version comment and expanded information etc~ As any of you know I am fairly anti-government, anti secular authority, or maybe I should say I am authority suspicious. I a pro freedom, anti homeland security…ahhh, wait, this well worn quote by B Franklin defines my feelings; (Those) “Who give up liberty for safety, deserve neither." I do a lot of simple things to protect my privacy, from listing my name as Bill Clinton on internet forms (So when I get mail that opens with; ‘HEY BILL CLINTON have we got a deal for you!’ To not buying and or boycotting any product with RFID tags. Really, I am not at risk for abuse because I know about the techniques being used. I do worry about my friends and even strangers who are getting the treatment. Those who insist on forcing their hand wringing vision of safety do not deserve freedom either, because they enforce their visions on everyone. I just read where Boston is going to allow cameras AND microphones to record private information AND be able to use it against you. It will be stored probably forever in police databases. Cams have been around for a long time but not mics and the authority to record individual conversations store and use them without a court order. This is worse than the UK where it seems there are ten cams on every corner. So my question is, in addition to the bolded in the short version ; Do you feel Big Brothers intrusions into our private lives is A-OK and want more? Ok should we stop now before big brother tells what color to poo? reva
It's an interesting subject but only one I'm interesting in discussing without all the silly Orwell/Big Brother rhetoric and speculative "stuff I read somewhere" claims.
You didnt read 1984 somewhere? Lol, I read it in school long ago it was required reading. Or maybe you mean the word Orwellian. Dude! That is an example of an eponymous adjective. Its like Freudian Darwinism etc Oh! You mean you dont want to read conspiracy theories such! Well I can do that, avoid fluff and what is generally consider tin foil hat/national enquirer material. However, and this is a biggie, my paradigm (model of reality etc) is irrevocably linked to religion meaning the Christian religion and the God of the Christian bible is what I utilize for an authority figure. By that I mean most secular individuals such as some atheists or some agnostics use either self or science as an authority figure to determine truth and construct their model of reality (Paradigm). The reason I mention all that is that I often mention God etc when in general conversation and or debate. The casual usage is not to force religion on forum members its to avoid a secular person attempting to ridicule or belittle My authority figure. Why do even that? Because insult of that level destroys productive debate. Lastly; I am happy to discuss any topic, including fluff and tin foil hat/conspiracy theories, science of all types, Philosophy, Harley Davidsons and lesser motorcycles, Fords and lesser autos, including the awful BMWs or worse Ferraris, lol ,DONT EVEN MENTION corvettes! Or auto related subjects such as internal engine combustion theory etc just any subject that I am not completely iggy of (and there are many that I am completely lost in) .Ok mercifully I will close ~ (and grab another cup of expresso)~ Reva aka JAWS VonClausee etc ...
I've read 1984 several times. It's a work of fiction though and despite including some intentional reference to the nature of governments in the 1940s and implications of the direction they could lead in, it really isn't relevant to our 21st Century reality. I was objecting to rhetoric though. You were using the term "Orwelianized" as an alternative to actually making a valid argument. You can either identify the various things you think are bad and explain why they are bad or you can just say they're Orwellian, presenting the automatic assumption that they're bad because you could make a vague link between them an a popular piece of speculative fiction. These kind of terms usually seems to indicate bad things from the person using them, that they're more interested in making a statement that discussing possibilities. If you really want a rational debate on actual government policies and actions, I suggest you're probably best off avoiding the rhetoric and focusing of facts.
I agree 1984 was, believe it or not, a form of propaganda. Propaganda against social liberalism(which is most modern day democrats), and against other propaganda. The simple fact that he was using propaganda to try and counter act propaganda, and the realities and governments of the world when the book was written, is enough for me to discredit it in our modern society.
I honestly can't figure out why people aren't rioting in the streets about the clear violations of our privacy that have been documented. We are all being data mined by computers that should scare the crap out of all of us!
Good for you! I could never get through an complete reading, It was boring, and I nodded off like an old geezer each time I attempted to read it. However I have read the bible I would reckon ten or eleven times...at least! Fair enough. However, I feel you make a faulty assessment for several reasons. For example; The word 'Orwellianized' etc in the modern lexicon analogically refers to totalitarian items. Typically the ‘items’ include governments overbearing control freaks, lol, societies or groups etc. In my opinion I correctly employ ‘Orwellian’ and its variations to describe ‘objects‘ (not just government*~ etc). There are no rigid rules for its use. If I was making an argument it was that our government has too much power, and its eroding our god given rights*. Hard statistics on safety and security and liberty are difficult to come by, one of those items being highly subjective. So I made a valid argument or as you may have meant a valid statement. Was it a statement of fact? That could be debated, however as I said there are no precise parameters that would define the question, at least accurate enough to satisfy everyone. Hmm’ with all due respect, did you read Orwell with the same enthusiastic analyticity that you did my thread? Did you not see the example I presented that described what I considered a violation of our rights and what I considered the apex of the (casual) slippery slope** slide into Orwellianism’? Huh? Did ya? (lol). Now, that said, I will confess that I did take a bit of artistic license with the term and the thread was not as detailed (and long) as it could have been. However, my the use of the term was well within literary ethical standards. I did not cover every detail or reference many sources and examples for several reasons the primary one was brevity. My threads and replies are unusually long to weed out the usual suspects and trolls and at the other end of the member and technical grammar spectrum to cross all T’s and dot all I’s. If you had criticized my rambling ‘too detailed (read as long) style ’ I would have heartily agreed that I have much work to do in that area. Instead, you chose to critique use of a term and idea it represents etc. In any case I hope that the above clears up the issue. By the way, I do give my readers normal credit to have the ability to discern analogical examples and comparisons as not being a mirror image to real life. However next time I will define questionable words. Eh? Ha ha really? Bad things huh? I feel you are in a learning process my friend. That was not an insult, lol. If you are not in school perhaps you are well learned but simply static. (ie finished with school, none of us are finished learning I hope!) In either case I feel my ‘debate’ tactics are better and more successful than your suggestions and style. Of course that is a subjective evaluation, subjectivity and vagueness seems to be the primary bane to most people that employ your type of logical thinking etc. The truth is ; I am interested in debate. What is the goal of debate? (Maybe I shouldn’t have given up teaching, lol) The goal is to change minds or at least get an opinion, MY opinion, out 'there'. There are many methods to change minds. While I prefer cold hard facts most of the time a general audience is best won over by not formulas math and graphs, rather they enjoy and prefer other means. Depending on the subject and the audience I use what is best in my estimation. I said best, not that I am a master of communication, in fact the oppsite is the truth, but I am working on it. ~*...The fictional Oceania in G. Orwell’s novel for example. *…...God given rights = natural rights, with positive rights taking a far less position of importance in this discussion. **… Slippery slopes are not always fallacious. Casual (Non Causa Pro Causa) SS’s are less often a fallacy than the Semantic Version IMO. In fact neither are inevitably fallacious ..but that is material for another discussion. Thanks for your reply, reva
I don't know if it was propaganda, although Orwell did work for a time as a propagandist for the British government during the Second World War. I think it was rather an extension of his view of the possibility (not probability) of totalitarian government after seeing what was happening under Stalin in the USSR. Orwell was maligned by the British Communist Party and other fellow leftists for revealing the truth about Stalin when it was unfashionable on the British left to do so. The title of the book, an inverse 1948, is a bit of a clue. Orwell wouldn't put the Democratic Party in with the left, he would rightly see it as slightly less right wing than the GOP. I also doubt if Orwell was attacking the British government of the time, it was a socialist government introducing policies which I think Orwell would have supported. It's useful to read a lot of his writing to put it all in context.
never trust people you know will lie to your face.............and those that will are often power hungry. socialism never jumps on board, but rather takes the back door, much like what is going on in the US today. what was your lesson, building windmills, are we?
I don't like it. But I think the reason that it's tolerated is that people literally have no idea how much personal information a person can find on the internet. They just don't understand how Amazon recomends books (they keep a database on everything you look at), or how much information in general is attached to their name. Your whole life is online somewhere. It's just a question of somebody being determined enough to find it.
