1984 ?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by bungrider, Aug 5, 2002.

  1. Is it just me, or is the US becoming more and more like Orwell's 1984 every single day?

    If you don't recall or haven't read it, the nations of 1984 are constantly at war with each other, and the only reason for it (and there's no way of knowing if the other nations actually exist in the book) is because it keeps the people focused on what their leaders want them to focus on.

    Here we have wars against poor countries that we have no way of winning, since those countries don't really have any "targets" worth attacking. So these "wars" go on and on and on with no progress, while we, as a nation, band together and support our leaders and ignore any questioning into the basis for that war.

    We also have a push for ID cards from those same leaders. In 1984, the citizens are tracked relentlessly and watched closely by their leaders. How far off will GPS-embedded ID cards be???

    I'd also make a comment about how in 1984, the leaders are constantly reducing the breadth of language, removing words that aren't absolutely necessary (i.e. excellent was removed and replaced with "double-plus good"), but aside from W's vocabulary being at about the 12th grade level, I haven't seen any evidence for this just yet...

    Comments are welcome...the political discussions here have been really good lately.
  2. I'm not saying whether that's true or not, but there is some smoke there.

    And you know what you usually find when you see smoke.
  3. how about those cameras they're putting up that scan faces for criminals? although you may not be a criminal, cameras are starting to pop up all over the places.....gas stations, atms..etc.
  4. For those that have not read it, do so. If I could I'd make 1984 required reading in every school.

    As for the reduction in language, remember the reasoning behind it was to reduce the available means of communication - by limiting speech the range of expression is limited, and eventually thought.

    Although we haven't seen state-sponsored dictionaries, if you want a methodical, directed limitation on thought and purposeful dumbing-down of impressionable teenagers, just turn on MTV -- 24 hrs. a day of essentially softcore porn and "gansta rappas" shooting each other, interrupted only by cosmetics and condom advertisements -- and in all using a vocabulary I'd guess is somewhere south of an eighth-grade level. And other networks are nearly as bad, but MTV currently holds the lead in corrupting of minds.

    Not the same government action as 1984, but given the enormity of the reach of a handful of media companies and their control over all forms of entertainment, news, history, politics, etc. - not exactly different either.
  5. Political correctness is still alive and kicking, and this amounts to the same thing as "dumbing-down" the population. What's the purpose behind it? To "protect" people from the views espoused by particular persuavive, non-status quo speakers. The assumption is that people are stupid and can't think for themselves and make their own minds up. An overly simplistic assumption, and, long term, a dangerous one.
  6. Bryan Roberts

    Bryan Roberts Guest

    well just an observation of late...child kidnapping has dominated the newscast. now this has been going on a long time so why all of a sudden does the media highlight a new case almost every other day? gosh...let me see....maybe a good way to introduce imbedded chips. i can hear clinton already,"let's do it for the CHILDREN." Lo-Jack for kids!! hey, where's my tin foil hat?!!!!!
  7. Not sure what you're trying to say here. Last time I checked, MTV wasn't a government sponspored initiative.
    Is the implication is that the content of the "handful of media companies" is directed by the government?

    We live in an age where more information is available to more people than in any time in history. It's out there - he who wants to know will look. The content of popular media has a right to be aired, just as the receiver of it has a right to ignore it. I cannot stand it when government or "concerned parents" or other groups try and determine what's "appropriate".
  8. Josh_B


  9. there already is a company that specializes in tracking chips for children.

    soon, all cellular phones will have the ability to relay physical location for the purposes of 911 calls.

    There are digital face recognition cameras in areas of my town.

    most phone conversations pass over a digital network, and can be tapped through computers without any actual physical wiretap or court order. Do a search for "carnivore" to learn more.
  10. No, you are correct. MTV is not a government sponsored initiative. Astute.

    My point is that, despite a large "quantity" of information available, nearly all of it is controlled by a select group of companies - AOL or Disney for example: they own movie studios, video games, broadcast networks, cable channels, cable providers, magazines, music publishing, theme parks, and 30 million internet accounts. Furthermore, they not only control the content, but they control the news and the advertising on their networks. This amount of control might spur a thinking person to imagine how this much power might be abused. Every piece of news is filtered through their lenses. And it would imply at least some political power by these empires, for the politician who opposes the controllers of the news and ads opposes the controllers of public opinion.

    Do they have a right to broadcast and publish? Sure. Do we have a right to ignore them? Sure, ideally. But in reality, one would need to join become a hermit to avoid the influences of the big 4 or 5 media companies, in some form, whether film, print, or music. and the average American spends hours every day receiving their content.

    Does this imply that they are nefarious? Of course not. But the topic was 1984 and its themes - one of which is the centralization of media, information, and news into the hands of a few to control the many. Although, as you so incisively pointed out, they are not governmental initiatives, the skeptical might be inspired to label them "pseudo-governmental," due at least in part to their pervasive influence and authority.

    ps: I am not a "concerned parent" or a member of an "other group."
    #10     Aug 5, 2002