4 ms·

For me the creepiest thing about 1984 wasn't the degradation of language or the censorship. What I found most concerning was Winston risking his life for a resi

For me the creepiest thing about 1984 wasn't the degradation of language or the censorship. What I found most concerning was Winston risking his life for a resistance movement that turned out to be fake. There are two well-known groups of violent protestors that the opposing side believe keeps getting away with reprehensible behavior that the authorities seemingly could stop at any time but choose not to. It didn't click with me until the doc "Social Dilemma" alluded to it with the "extreme center" protests. I think many would-be freedom fighters are falling for that trap.

mistermann 5y ago
Are you referring to QAnon perchance? I've always found the "advertised risk" of QAnon to be inconsistent with the apparent lack of investigation (and lack of curiousity about a lack of investigation) a bit curious, as compared to say the Unabomber scenario. It could be nothing of course, but then it could also be something.
- krapp 5y ago
  Lack of investigation into what? Plenty of investigation has been done conducted into QAnon, their beliefs and their claims. Everything has turned out to be spurious.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > Plenty of investigation has been done conducted into QAnon, their beliefs and their claims. Everything has turned out to be spurious. Oh, it sounds like you are referring to QAnon's ideas - I am referring to QAnon the organization, including its leadership, if any. We regularly hear (perhaps not so much lately now that the election is over) about how dangerous QAnon is, my thinking is that if this organization is so dangerous, why does no one do anything about it, and why do journalists not wonder why no one does anything about it.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      Probably because calling things dangerous is a way to rile up hate which is what journalists do.
    - krapp 5y ago
      QAnon was dangerous (I don't know how dangerous they still are) because of the support given to them the President of the United States and their shared conspiratorial beliefs potentially gaining the power of a mainstream political movement. When the leader of your country believes in a secret conspiracy of leftists undermining him at every turn and a millions-strong cult believes his political enemies are literal baby-raping demons that he's been sent by God to cleanse the country of, that has the potential to create political instability to put it lightly. In other countries, a group like QAnon would become the leader's personal secret police. But QAnon members have been investigated by the FBI and have been arrested and charged with various politically motivated crimes and attempted crimes including murder, assassination, kidnapping, bombings, disruption of ballot counting in various states and of course the White House insurrection. I don't know what else you would expect to happen.
      - mistermann 5y ago
        I would expect an investigation into what QAnon is from an organization and leadership perspective, at least. Your description is a very popular narrative, but my intuition is that it is fairly manufactured.
frozenlettuce 5y ago
it's a honeypot. my father was involved with a left wing party in the 80's in Brazil - not guerrila, just regular election-oriented stuff. He used to tell me that whenever someone showed up in gatherings with very extremist views people would be suspicious because that person was probably an agent trying to identify people with subversive behavior (by seeing who would agree with him).
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  On the book it's much more than a honeypot, the regime depended on such extremists to exist, so it created them. Of course, the regime on the 60's to 80's in Brazil didn't have that problem, because they had no shame from practicing the violence themselves and claiming it was from the other side when extremists failed to appear. It looks much more reliable to me.
  - laurent92 5y ago
    We still create extremist personas, that don’t exist in real life. I know in France this tactic is used very often to trigger a demonstration of “the good guys”. When you interview the opponents, they’re 1 for 10.000 (=insignificant). For example with feminism, when asked precise questions, you notice they are afraid of people that don’t exist (meanwhile the actual rapists are still free to roam).
    - bobthechef 5y ago
      The social changes we're seeing in the West, apart from aligning with the unfolding decadent logic of liberalism, are also supported by powerful groups, some of them government backed. > For example with feminism, when asked precise questions, you notice they are afraid of people that don’t exist Well, you will always find a couple freaks of every stripe somewhere. The job of any government looking to create fear is to give them disproportionate attention. Some may even fund the promotion of said freakishness because it either generates more panic, because it functions as a wedge for producing desired social changes that also grant more power to the government, etc. Pick your favorite subversive ideology today or mass phenomenon weakening moral norms and rights and you will find powerful backers. Control over information flow permits the impression that everyone is behind this ideology which causes people to conform for fear of sticking out. This normalizes the ideology, at least in the performative sense.
dantheman 5y ago
The "Social Dilemma" is pure propaganda and manipulation, there's very little facts or stats stated in that film that aren't heavily misleading.
- zwkrt 5y ago
  What about it is propaganda? From who and for what purpose? Certainly not any large corporation or government, all of whom benefit from a populace that is always online.
- mdoms 5y ago
  Can you provide examples?
  - dantheman 5y ago
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200928/11452045401/social-dilemma-manipulates-you-with-misinformation-as-it-tries-to-warn-you-manipulation-misinformation.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200928/11452045401/socia...
- jsterSC 5y ago
  It may have been a hackneyed attempt to point out real issues, but to call it propaganda... by who? Who is running the big 'maybe all these social networks are kinda bad, or at least we should be aware of what they are doing' scheme?

mistermann 5y ago

Are you referring to QAnon perchance? I've always found the "advertised risk" of QAnon to be inconsistent with the apparent lack of investigation (and lack of curiousity about a lack of investigation) a bit curious, as compared to say the Unabomber scenario. It could be nothing of course, but then it could also be something.

krapp 5y ago
Lack of investigation into what? Plenty of investigation has been done conducted into QAnon, their beliefs and their claims. Everything has turned out to be spurious.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > Plenty of investigation has been done conducted into QAnon, their beliefs and their claims. Everything has turned out to be spurious. Oh, it sounds like you are referring to QAnon's ideas - I am referring to QAnon the organization, including its leadership, if any. We regularly hear (perhaps not so much lately now that the election is over) about how dangerous QAnon is, my thinking is that if this organization is so dangerous, why does no one do anything about it, and why do journalists not wonder why no one does anything about it.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Probably because calling things dangerous is a way to rile up hate which is what journalists do.
  - krapp 5y ago
    QAnon was dangerous (I don't know how dangerous they still are) because of the support given to them the President of the United States and their shared conspiratorial beliefs potentially gaining the power of a mainstream political movement. When the leader of your country believes in a secret conspiracy of leftists undermining him at every turn and a millions-strong cult believes his political enemies are literal baby-raping demons that he's been sent by God to cleanse the country of, that has the potential to create political instability to put it lightly. In other countries, a group like QAnon would become the leader's personal secret police. But QAnon members have been investigated by the FBI and have been arrested and charged with various politically motivated crimes and attempted crimes including murder, assassination, kidnapping, bombings, disruption of ballot counting in various states and of course the White House insurrection. I don't know what else you would expect to happen.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      I would expect an investigation into what QAnon is from an organization and leadership perspective, at least. Your description is a very popular narrative, but my intuition is that it is fairly manufactured.

frozenlettuce 5y ago

it's a honeypot. my father was involved with a left wing party in the 80's in Brazil - not guerrila, just regular election-oriented stuff. He used to tell me that whenever someone showed up in gatherings with very extremist views people would be suspicious because that person was probably an agent trying to identify people with subversive behavior (by seeing who would agree with him).

marcosdumay 5y ago
On the book it's much more than a honeypot, the regime depended on such extremists to exist, so it created them. Of course, the regime on the 60's to 80's in Brazil didn't have that problem, because they had no shame from practicing the violence themselves and claiming it was from the other side when extremists failed to appear. It looks much more reliable to me.
- laurent92 5y ago
  We still create extremist personas, that don’t exist in real life. I know in France this tactic is used very often to trigger a demonstration of “the good guys”. When you interview the opponents, they’re 1 for 10.000 (=insignificant). For example with feminism, when asked precise questions, you notice they are afraid of people that don’t exist (meanwhile the actual rapists are still free to roam).
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    The social changes we're seeing in the West, apart from aligning with the unfolding decadent logic of liberalism, are also supported by powerful groups, some of them government backed. > For example with feminism, when asked precise questions, you notice they are afraid of people that don’t exist Well, you will always find a couple freaks of every stripe somewhere. The job of any government looking to create fear is to give them disproportionate attention. Some may even fund the promotion of said freakishness because it either generates more panic, because it functions as a wedge for producing desired social changes that also grant more power to the government, etc. Pick your favorite subversive ideology today or mass phenomenon weakening moral norms and rights and you will find powerful backers. Control over information flow permits the impression that everyone is behind this ideology which causes people to conform for fear of sticking out. This normalizes the ideology, at least in the performative sense.

dantheman 5y ago

The "Social Dilemma" is pure propaganda and manipulation, there's very little facts or stats stated in that film that aren't heavily misleading.

zwkrt 5y ago
What about it is propaganda? From who and for what purpose? Certainly not any large corporation or government, all of whom benefit from a populace that is always online.
mdoms 5y ago
Can you provide examples?
- dantheman 5y ago
  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200928/11452045401/social-dilemma-manipulates-you-with-misinformation-as-it-tries-to-warn-you-manipulation-misinformation.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200928/11452045401/socia...
jsterSC 5y ago
It may have been a hackneyed attempt to point out real issues, but to call it propaganda... by who? Who is running the big 'maybe all these social networks are kinda bad, or at least we should be aware of what they are doing' scheme?