Crimes of color
 

Are there things you just shouldn't say or do if you're of middle- eastern descent, even if it's legal for whites?Don't click here if you're middle-eastern looking. That link is safe for whites only.

Where would Mr. John Young be today if he were of middle-eastern descent, even if he were born in the U.S.A.?

This depends entirely on what he was collecting. Still the fact they point out its only useful for ISLAMIC terrorism (was it instruction on how to attach a cresent to a bomb?)seems dodgy.

This is very disturbing. My current schooling is in National Security, so I read this site all the time. Fortunately fo rme, I'm a white Anglo-Saxon male with no ties to anything remotely terrorist (ok, my views are a little left-wing, but they're not that extreme). I have a problem when people try to suppress information.

For example, I'm writing a paper (which I get to present at a conference in Vegas next month...woo hoo!) on the security of our nation's cyber-infrastructure. One of my sources is this, which I found on this exact site. While I have a purely academic intent, how do we know what his intent was?

And when you get to talking about intent, it gets to close to the whole idea of Thought Police. And that's even scarier.

What do you mean "idea?"

The concept that you can become vanished for thinking dissident thoughts, like in Orwell's 1984 (sorry, I happen to be re-reading it right now).

He may have referred to the undeniable fact that thinking (and, by extension, showing that you are thinking by sharing your thoughts) unamerican / unpatriotic / improper / disturbing / confusing / trouble-causing thoughts can get you <a href="http://www.courttv.com/trials/taped/sierra/background_ctv.html">in trouble</a> in 'today's socio-political climate.'

I never thought I'd have to type those words ever since I last thought and wrote about how people acted in the late 60s and early 70s, how it was 'be with us or against us', how it was 'love America or leave it', and how socio-politics in part of the US has come full circle.

X.

PS: There are so many more instances of 'unhelpful thinking' being persecuted lately documented on the web that I'd care to think about. The above link is merely a simple example of.. justice.

Less hyperbole. its not so much 1984 as McCarthy again. Not that that is a good thing.

There's plenty of 1984 left to go around, seeing as you're in favor of deleteing posts from people you don't like. Of course, <i>that's different</i>...they disagree with you.

Oh shut up you stupid bitch. Opps where did that come from. You want to make this a personal war don't you? do get off on that or something?

All I said in another thread on an unrelated topic which for no good reason you've brought in here . Was that in dhams board he can do what he wants. Repeat: On Dham's Board He Can Do What He Wants Not The Main Boards.

If you're feeling that catty about it, make your own board, post nasty mean little bitch sessions in there and delete any replies, I’m sure you'll feel better and might even stop jacking other threads.

I love a closely reasoned argument.
You can't really talk about 1984 and McCarthyism and claim it's "unrelated" to censorship, can you?

Your previous post demonstrated why dham deleted your posts. Your last post has demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of either my post, or freedom of speach and the concepts in not only 1984 but McCarthyism.

Actually, there is a huge link between 1984 and the McCarthyism of the 50s. McCarthyism was a witchhunt against anyone that showed any signs of dissidence. In 1984, that's completely commonplace. The frightening part is that McCarthyism, which bases itself off of fear, could easily turn into the situation in 1984. I mean, who are they fighting in that book? It's armies from South Asia, which are trying to threaten their civilization. It took one man, Big Brother, to rescue Oceana from the peril it had been facing. The catalyst into a 1984 situation will be the rise to power of someone so egomaniacal, or in a situation where they deem it warranted, that the Presidency becomes dissolved; or the Executive Branch usurps more power (note the already complete disregard for the War Powers Resolution) and the Legislature becomes meaningless. McCarthyism, and the current climate, is just a first step on that path.

I meant a link between 'censorship' on dhamsaic's board and 1984/McCarthyism/anything on this thread really. See this
thread, for some reason maggie found is nessacary to drag iit in here.

But since you want to get into 1984..
While the book is a great warning the society could never exist. For the society to exist noone inside it can understand it, if noone understands it, how did it comes into being. The only way it could have been set up is if its creator died without passing on the reins, rahter inplausiable.

Socio-dynamical mechanisms in large societies often mirror those in smaller societies, once a certain size barrier has been passed. Scientology continues to be very successful, propagating itself despite the efforts of the federal government, amongst others. Draw comparisons to the statement made by jaguar; do Cruise, Travolta, Elfman, et al understand how their cult came into being?

On a macro-level, the similarities between organized cults/religions, and modern political systems can be surprising; consider that next time somebody's frothing at the mouth regarding the evils of communism (or capitalism) compared to the evils of Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Scientology. It's all about your perception of the world, and in 1984 Orwell (a fervent anti-Communist) attempted to show how reality is merely in the eye of the beholder.

Doublethink exists - does it shape your view of the world?

X.

I used to carry part of the following Orwell quote in my sig here:

<i>"[The English language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."</i> from <b>Politics and The English Languge</b>

I think that exercising ideological control over information flows is not that different on the large scale than on the small, nor on the right wing than on the left. To pretend that it is strikes me as doublethink, glossed as <i>believing two contradictory ideas at the same time</i>.

Doublethink does have the seductive property of allowing the pot to call the kettle black. Or even "a bitch", while excoriating the kettle for negative attitude and personal attacks.