Sometimes I feel like this is George Orwell’s 1984

[Namechangeforobv]

Name change as my last thread attracted a lot of attention.
Anyway, am I the only one that feels like freedom of speech is slowly dying?!
If my opinion or views differ from the ‘woke’ then it is clearly not valid!

For example I voted to leave the EU, I chose this because leaving benefitted me more than staying. My personal circumstances, my personal choice.
Conversation starts at work about it, I was asked what I voted and immediately discussion closed because it was so “wrong” that I had voted this.

YABU for “no your wrong”
YANBU for “yes I agree”

The OP sounds a bit like a chatbot.

Re Covid, Huxley might have had it right:

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution”

Allowing people to sedate themselves with alcohol is wearing off as more young turn it down. So their are factions campaigning for cannabis as an alternative sedation method. Then there is the US hooked on opiods.

Maybe a permanent pharma solution is the real solution..........

My decision to vote leave was not fuelled by immigration in the slightest. I am pro immigration, I am also pro UK. When I say pro UK, do not misinterpret as “pro British”. I believe we need to help the people who are already here, no matter their race or background and definitely not their immigration status. I wanted to see more money pumped into the NHS and less money lost to hefty EU bills. I had faith that the UK could remain one of the most inclusive countries in the world without the need to be a member of the EU. This is just the tip of the iceberg for me but give you an idea.

@daffodills78

The OP sounds a bit like a chatbot.

What does this even mean? Have I spoken too much...in your opinion?

@Pumperthepumper

Of course, I would tell them I don’t agree with their opinion! Doesn’t mean I would tell them they can’t have their opinion.

You keep changing your mind about what you mean - who is telling you you can’t have your opinion?

Unchallenged views on the internet? The whole point of this thread is to challenge views and partake in debate. - I thought this thread was to highlight how we’re living according to Orwell’s 1984?

Maybe read back the thread.

The Brexit vote hit the gov hard as they realised that the "Silent/Silenced Majority" actually were a majority - and that was after getting every world figure incl Obama to threaten us to vote Remain.

We are inconvenient for whatever plan they have in mind for us. I wonder if this is why this Online Harms Bill is being proposed - which will ban all non gov approved media/non approved opinions or debate.

For our safety, you understand - since the gov and BBC etc have always told the whole truth and nothing but the truth - eg on covid, WMDs, Diana/Bashir, you name it.

The Bill is a really scary proposition dressed in reasonable clothing. Fight this or will lose the ability to fight or discuss anything forever

Maybe read back the thread

Which bit specifically?

I think using something illegal as a comparative is wrong. Especially something as extreme as rape. People are losing their jobs for things due to an opinion that is NOT illegal.

But it isn't illegal everywhere - 10 countries explicitly allow it and many more don't have actual laws forbidding it. In fact it was only ruled illegal in the UK in 1991, so really not that long ago.

Besides, if we all thought, as you seemingly do, that it is OK to silence someone who advocated changing the law, we'd all be back in the dark ages and women would still be property.

My example was deliberately extreme though because I think we both know you're trying to avoid answering by using semantics - you would support it for certain opinions, the only difference is how closely those opinions do or don't align with your own.

@Stitched77

The Brexit vote hit the gov hard as they realised that the "Silent/Silenced Majority" actually were a majority - and that was after getting every world figure incl Obama to threaten us to vote Remain.

We are inconvenient for whatever plan they have in mind for us. I wonder if this is why this Online Harms Bill is being proposed - which will ban all non gov approved media/non approved opinions or debate.

For our safety, you understand - since the gov and BBC etc have always told the whole truth and nothing but the truth - eg on covid, WMDs, Diana/Bashir, you name it.

The Bill is a really scary proposition dressed in reasonable clothing. Fight this or will lose the ability to fight or discuss anything forever

This is the exact opposite of the OP’s argument though.

@Stitched77 But why would they do this, for what reason and who’s orchestrating it?

@Pumperthepumper

Maybe read back the thread

Which bit specifically?

The part in which I explained to you that my thread is about opinions that are not shared with the majority being censored.

The title references 1984, and for the third time now (I think) I am just referring to the thought police element of 1984.

@Notthemessiah

I think using something illegal as a comparative is wrong. Especially something as extreme as rape. People are losing their jobs for things due to an opinion that is NOT illegal.

But it isn't illegal everywhere - 10 countries explicitly allow it and many more don't have actual laws forbidding it. In fact it was only ruled illegal in the UK in 1991, so really not that long ago.

Besides, if we all thought, as you seemingly do, that it is OK to silence someone who advocated changing the law, we'd all be back in the dark ages and women would still be property.

My example was deliberately extreme though because I think we both know you're trying to avoid answering by using semantics - you would support it for certain opinions, the only difference is how closely those opinions do or don't align with your own.

And you are most entitled to have this opinion of me. I could apply the last 4 lines to you as well, but that’s just my opinion.

So? It’s a valid contribution.

The part in which I explained to you that my thread is about opinions that are not shared with the majority being censored.

But you won’t say who’s censoring you. Who is it?

The title references 1984, and for the third time now (I think) I am just referring to the thought police element of 1984.

And you won’t say who the thought police are.

@Pumperthepumper

The part in which I explained to you that my thread is about opinions that are not shared with the majority being censored.

But you won’t say who’s censoring you. Who is it?

The title references 1984, and for the third time now (I think) I am just referring to the thought police element of 1984.

And you won’t say who the thought police are.

For the second time (I think) I am not here to make accusations or aim anything specifically at anyone. This is a general discussion.

I have already offered you an example of “the thought police” being people that encourage cancel culture.

@Youllsmashit

I have a (made up) conspiracy theory if you want it?

• Every day, some unsatisfied vocal group is complaining to the gov about their lot and demanding they do something about it. Even for petty things.
• The gov might assess that (in total) all these unhappy people add up to a majority/enough to swing a vote
• So if the gov wants to win - people must be happy.
• How achieve that?
• Won't happen by giving them what they want. They will come back for more. i mean, people already have the best standard of living ever so the things many are moaning about are very petty

= Medicate them to make them think they are happy/so that they are happy

I mean, the world only needs a small % of "free" people - the elite creators. Most jobs could be done by someone who is somewhat sedated/thinks they are happy - just a more advanced version of people who (more in olden times) lived in a permanent fug of cigarette smoke, people who spend half their week tipsy or hungover or the modern drugs being pushed of opiods and cannabis.

Maybe most people could be sedated, go about their lives and be "happy"

Like I say, just a made up idea, but you kindof asked!

I have already offered you an example of “the thought police” being people that encourage cancel culture.

They’re not censoring you though. You can write whatever you like, you can think whatever you like - you just can’t do it with no consequence. Which has always been the case.

[quote Stitched77]@Youllsmashit

I have a (made up) conspiracy theory if you want it?

• Every day, some unsatisfied vocal group is complaining to the gov about their lot and demanding they do something about it. Even for petty things.
• The gov might assess that (in total) all these unhappy people add up to a majority/enough to swing a vote
• So if the gov wants to win - people must be happy.
• How achieve that?
• Won't happen by giving them what they want. They will come back for more. i mean, people already have the best standard of living ever so the things many are moaning about are very petty

= Medicate them to make them think they are happy/so that they are happy

I mean, the world only needs a small % of "free" people - the elite creators. Most jobs could be done by someone who is somewhat sedated/thinks they are happy - just a more advanced version of people who (more in olden times) lived in a permanent fug of cigarette smoke, people who spend half their week tipsy or hungover or the modern drugs being pushed of opiods and cannabis.

Maybe most people could be sedated, go about their lives and be "happy"

Like I say, just a made up idea, but you kindof asked![/quote]
It’s quite a big jump to ‘medicate them’ though, how would they do that?

@Pumperthepumper

I have already offered you an example of “the thought police” being people that encourage cancel culture.

They’re not censoring you though. You can write whatever you like, you can think whatever you like - you just can’t do it with no consequence. Which has always been the case.

But the consequence should not vary in severity based on the opinion you hold being the minority.

I could apply the last 4 lines to you as well, but that’s just my opinion

No it's not, it's a fact as I'd already said exactly that in an earlier post. The difference between us seems to be that I'm honest enough to admit it and you (and almost everyone else complaining about 'cancel culture') appear not to be.

Hang on, so you wanted to continue the conversation about your view that brexit benefited you but you also don't want to share any information about why because that's private. So what, were you expecting people to listen to you go on about how brexit is good actually but for secret reasons you aren't telling them and agree with that? No wonder they weren't interested.

You have freedom of speech OP, but other people aren't obliged to give you an audience if.

OP, as long as you are staying within the law and not inciting hatred etc, you have every right to say what you think, to vote as you choose and to hold whatever views make sense to you personally. I absolutely and wholeheartedly support your right to express those views freely. That is the fundamental nature of our democracy.

However, I do not promise that I will respect your views, if I think they are misguided or stupid. I respect your right to hold those views, but I might not respect you very much after you have expressed them. I would be polite to you, of course, but I might decide that I don't like you much, or that I don't value your opinions very much. I might make judgements about your character or your intelligence on the basis of what you've said.

The right to free speech means just that - you can speak freely. It doesn't mean that people can't judge what you say.

I wonder if this is why this Online Harms Bill is being proposed - which will ban all non gov approved media/non approved opinions or debate.

See I think we need an online harms bill, we need some way of bringing the internet back in to customary regulated lawful ways of behaviour. Far too much has been allowed to remain ‘untouchable’ because it is online. The role of technology in society isn’t really being questioned effectively yet. But it should focus on problems of actual harm, such as the proliferation of ever-more-extreme forms of porn, and already that appears to be slipping through the net. We really need to look at the flags that ‘freedom’ is rallying to - extreme porn and violence against women and children as a liberty to defend?? Really? Everything is a negotiation.

@nosyupnorth

Hang on, so you wanted to continue the conversation about your view that brexit benefited you but you also don't want to share any information about why because that's private. So what, were you expecting people to listen to you go on about how brexit is good actually but for secret reasons you aren't telling them and agree with that? No wonder they weren't interested.

You have freedom of speech OP, but other people aren't obliged to give you an audience if.

If you had read the whole thread you would of read that I was willing to discuss (with said work colleagues) how voting leave was beneficially to my personal circumstances, unfortunately I was never given the opportunity to.

I am not, however, willing to discuss this on mums net as I don’t feel I have to explain why I voted leave.

I do think people deserve to have their careers ruined depending on the views they express. Presumably if someone came out in support of, say, rape being ok within a marriage, that you wouldn't argue for them keeping their job?

My god the gaslighting on here is shocking.
This thread: no one is being censored for having different opinions
Also this thread: I think people who have opinions I don't like should lose their job.

An opinion on rape in marriage, no matter how disgusting, is not the same as committing the crime of rape.