Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

I mean seriously We marveled when the Fonz jumped one shark!

Thank you for your 'intelligent' and 'informed' addition to the debate.

After years of basically calling anything with the tappings of 1984 Orwellian whether the undercarriage worked or not, he finally comes face to face with a truly Orwellian system and declares it isn't Orwellian. Then posts a sycophantic rant, and expects someone to take that turd and respond intelligently. When someone is so far out the ballpark even I'm not interested in giving it a little effort, it takes real balls and fabulous hair to write that on a bill board! It was a feat thought impossible, but it's happened! He's jumped two sharks. It's so unprecedented there are no images on the internet to link.

Truly we live in wondrous times!

First find out what Orwellian means.
Then come back.

I use the word Orwellian carefully, rather than a throw in phrase. I the circumstances where I use it (limited to political correct dogma) there as logic to do so and I can show the parallels between that and 1984 step by step.
Sesame society however is not Orwellian, that doesn't mean it isn't a method of top down social control, or isnt insidious, but it doesn't use Orwellian methodology. The Cultural Revolution was Orwellian, but China doesnt want to revisit that, and has painful memories of same. Hence using a non-Orwellian control method this time.

Also how was my posts sycophantic? You seem to have no grasp on the fundamental principle of logic that articulating an understanding of a concept is separate to agreeing with it. I am sure you can articulate some of the Talibans goals without being a supporter, and probably wouldn't try your cheap shot of claiming anyone who understands their mindset must be an Islamic fanatic. Give your brain a chance. I think this is the same two dimensional thinking that others have in their troll replies.
It is unfortunate because it means you are just being deliberately offensive, or you cant understand the difference between understanding a concept and agreeing with it, which normally only occurs in people with very low IQ brackets.

It is pretty off that you call a post sycophantic or turd while completely failing to understand it or deliberately misreading it just to stick the boot in when you think you can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This reads as rather hypocritical to me, and lacking in coherency enough that I'm finding it hard to fault LordofHats' post.

How is it hypocritical?
How is it 'lacking in coherency'? Note that 'incoherent' does equate to 'not agreed with', Articulate.

Besides Lord of Hats was just trolling, not contributing


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:




You almost got me.

Mod-trolling is back again.
Go on, explain yourself, if you can.

Are you willing to change your mind?

Wow, I bet May is creaming her pants in anticipation of rolling this out i the UK...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Are you willing to change your mind?

Need more info to reply to this. On what specifically?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Wow, I bet May is creaming her pants in anticipation of rolling this out i the UK...

I wouldn't single out May, Labour are even more centralised control freaky than the Tories.

The UK and US are particularly wired countries hough, they cant do anything like what China is doing, but can likely keep 'score' by other means, our laws are already set up to do so,and the agencies concerned well funded.
It doesn't actively effect daily life though, and no UK government could hope to get away with enforcing/reinforcing nationalism, and many governments will not want to for doctrinal reasons.

 Orlanth wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Are you willing to change your mind?

Need more info to reply to this. On what specifically?

Are you willing to admit your original position was wrong if presented with sufficiently good arguments against it?

 Orlanth wrote:

First find out what Orwellian means.
Then come back.

I'm telling you. Four Sharks. It can't be done. Just take three and-

It is unfortunate because it means you are just being deliberately offensive, or you cant understand the difference between understanding a concept and agreeing with it, which normally only occurs in people with very low IQ brackets.

He's a mad man! A mad man!

BTW, if you're really incapable of realizing why you're not getting serious responses after this, well that's why you're not getting serious responses. EDIT: That, and the whole sharks reference is becoming cliche, so its not even fun to poke out the silliness being presented anymore...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Are you willing to change your mind?

Need more info to reply to this. On what specifically?

Are you willing to admit your original position was wrong if presented with sufficiently good arguments against it?

Why not, but define wrong. Morally wrong? I already believe it is. Factually wrong? I believe the system is workable means of social control, the Chinese know what they are doing, and the methodologies displayed here are very clever.

If you wish to 'school' me in how I have this wrong then you need to clarify your point like I asked. Its why I asked you to do so after all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

First find out what Orwellian means.
Then come back.

I'm telling you. Four Sharks. It can't be done. Just take three and-

Sharks? I even looked that four sharks analogy up in case it meant something in a lowbrow pop culture reference, then cross reference that with 1984. Zip.

 LordofHats wrote:

BTW, if you're really incapable of realizing why you're not getting serious responses after this, well that's why you're not getting serious responses. .

Its because you are a troll, easy to work out really.

 LordofHats wrote:

EDIT: That, and the whole sharks reference is becoming cliche, so its not even fun to poke out the silliness being presented anymore...

Which comes from where?

Okay it just became funny again

Clearly you lack any form of respect despite my attempts to bring this back to the issues. I have no choice but to let the mods sort this out.

Everyone, remember rule 1 when posting on dakka. Don't call other users trolls, it is rude, and don't otherwise be impolite. Thanks.

Additionally, please make sure your posts are adding to the discussion. If someone is, by your standards, posting utter guff, then either don't respond or make sure you are responding in a constructive manner. Thanks again.

 Orlanth wrote:
Clearly you lack any form of respect despite my attempts to bring this back to the issues. I have no choice but to let the mods sort this out.

The mods may do as they will.

Some things are so ludicrous no one should be expected to respect them, let alone take them seriously.

Leaving behind the previous question because its off-topic.

 Orlanth wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This reads as rather hypocritical to me, and lacking in coherency enough that I'm finding it hard to fault LordofHats' post.

How is it hypocritical?
How is it 'lacking in coherency'? Note that 'incoherent' does equate to 'not agreed with', Articulate.

Besides Lord of Hats was just trolling, not contributing

Let's start with lacking coherency. The main portion I found incoherent was this:

an Orwellian state is a specific type of dystopia, it relies upon a value system providing the opposite to what it purportedly offers, and it clearly doesn't offer benefit for all, even from the point of view of the state's agents.
China isnt looking to generate internal enemies, but deals with the ones it has, and the internal shaping of society is to create 'harmony' not division.
Also the Orwellian state doesn't allow for private enterprise of any kind, only the Party can hold wealth. China allows its citizens to make wealth for themselves, albeit upon the backs of an underpaid mas labour market, which places a hard limit on the number of achievers in this fashion.
China also doesn't remove self expression, it instead penalises self expression that is considered detrimental to the state. This is very different from an Orwellian system where the state is the sole permissible font of inspiration, and ultimately though no historical state got this far - the sole avenue for expression.

To start, the definition you provide is far more restrictive than the relatively flexible meaning of 'Orwellian', further it isn't a specific type of dystopia but rather an adjective to describe a general inclusion of certain attributes in a government. Then we have a number of run-on sentences and unusual formatting that makes it difficult to read. The organisation of sentences with different subjects makes things further difficult. There is an initial sentence describing an Orwellian state, then a jump to China managing internal enemies which turns into creating harmony in society verses division which refers to a much different concept. The next sentence jumps back to describing the Orwellian state (which should be an Orwellian state) contrasting to China. This contrast goes into the status of self-expression and inspiration which is not actually included in what defines and Orwellian state. All of these little flaws made your post difficult to understand simply from reading it through, and with it dragging things off to the specifics of how 'Orwellian' applies to China struck me as reinforcing the original jumped shark.



Now, on to hypocrisy.

 Orlanth wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
You've had some crazy opinions in the past, but wow...

Thank you for your 'intelligent' and 'informed' addition to the debate.

This one sums things up rather nicely. LordofHats responded to your post saying that your opinon was crazy enough to be termed as jumping the shark. You immediately accused him of making an unintelligent and uninformed addition to the discussion, which is of itself unintelligent and uninformed since you did not even bother to understand the meaning of the image/phrase he posted. It means that you were taking the discussion to a radical level; specifically that you have turned the discussion of China's rating system into one about how the West is "living in a false golden age that wont last" which he (and I) perceived as not only overblown for the topic at hand but also a ridiculous concept to begin with.

This is followed by you stating treslibras' definition of 'Orwellian' was incorrect then providing a definition that was itself incorrect. This furthered my general perception that your opinions have not been well-thought out, which makes the following hypocritical in my eyes:

I dont rant. I think and post. Know the difference.

As a final note, I find your statement of "Note that 'incoherent' does equate to 'not agreed with'' hypocritical as well not only for the passive-aggressive jab within a statement asking for intellectual discussion, but because the same statement can be applied to you; you seem to be confronting many contrary opinions to your own as simply calling them trolling.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

]Let's start with lacking coherency. The main portion I found incoherent was this:

You didnt provide an explanation until now. Just flatly claimed hypocrisy and incohenrence without giving any rationale that could be defended against. Which is inflammatory and dishonest.

Not to mention incoherent and thereso also hypocritical, but I will let that slide as you eventually manned up and provided explanation.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

To start, the definition you provide is far more restrictive than the relatively flexible meaning of 'Orwellian'

Actually your flexible definition of Orwellian is not accurate, in fact the video on your link warns against it as did Orwell. Orwellian society uses certain signatures that are absent from the current policy, but prevalent in previous failed policies of the Chinese state that are internally discredited and painful memories.
Most notably an Orwellian ideology is backed up by direct negative reinforcements, Sesame society is backed up by positive reinforcments which have in an indirect negativity. For example the credit system is currently optional, encouraged rather than mandatory, it uses peer pressure for enforcing cohesion rather than exposing and eliminating underisables, with the incentive being the allocation of privilege. An Orwellian 'merit' system is never voluntary and rtghere are no incentives for citizens to encourage early assessment of themselves.
In an Orwellian society having insufficient credit points doesn't mean a lack for travel opportunity, it means mandatory enrollment at a re-education camp or similar fate.

Even Orwellian society recognises this difference, the Soviet Union for example, and prior communist regimens in China would have separate adjustments to determine whether someone was enabled for foreign travel or other privilege which was entirely seperate to assessments as to whether someone was a socially undesirable. Social undesirables dont get vetted for foreign travel at all, with sole exception of those the state wishes to exile, which is a separate category altogether.

Furthermore the vetting for privilege is not limited to red China. Its commonplace globally even in nation states which are not generally considered Orwellian. Want a government position in most countries and you will expect to be vetted, even some commercial concerns have the power to vet people and summarily exclude people from positions dependent on criteria not dissimilar to what the Chinese government is doing. We don't even consider this particularly odd or even underhand on some circumstances, we expect thorough vetting of people in sensitive occupations, from child care to manning nuclear submarines. Want a good job in a bank, you get socially vetted, want a career in a foreign ministry or intelligence agency and one can expect to be thoroughly vetted along similar criteria to those shown in the OP including in depth looks at a persons social background and habits.
The only real differences are that China are doing this on a mass scale, and are also doing so openly, to the point that citizens will encourage each other to improve their scores for mutual benefit.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

further it isn't a specific type of dystopia but rather an adjective to describe a general inclusion of certain attributes in a government.

And those attributes might well be visible in China, but are not directly connected to this policy. For a start there is little obfuscation, the credit system is open, an Orwellian society scores its citizens loyalty covertly and also consequently doesn't allow a citizen to improve their score by eliminating bad habits. Orwellian approaches don't offer redemption of second chances, Sesame society is all about a revolving second chance. Have a low score - improve it by either disassociating with dissidents, buying 'patriotic' products, or vocalising topics the government likes.

Again we have those pressures in other societies not considered Orwellian. In many countries buying a foreign car is considered unpatriotic for example, and inducements to buy domestic produce is commonplace.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Then we have a number of run-on sentences and unusual formatting that makes it difficult to read......
The organisation of sentences with different subjects makes things further difficult.

What a pity.

At least it was all typed up for you to read and the sentences did forward my position clearly enough.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

There is an initial sentence describing an Orwellian state, then a jump to China managing internal enemies which turns into creating harmony in society verses division which refers to a much different concept. The next sentence jumps back to describing the Orwellian state (which should be an Orwellian state) contrasting to China.

The points follow a logical chain,

First I describe accurately what an Orwellian state is.

Second I remark that the purpose of an Orwellian control system's assessment of citizens is different from the motives of Sesame society. In an Orwellian society assessment of citizens doesnt have a positive outcome, either citizens are accepted by the state (which can change) or they are listed as dissidents/traitors/troublemakers etc. Also inherent in an Orwellian security system is the looking for traitors, whether disciples of Goldstein, or McCarthy's communists or bourgeoisie, or Jews or whoever is unwanted. The purpose of mass public security is to generate enemies. Look for reds under the bed, Jewish plotters, capitalist traitors, supporters of Molotov etc. The enemies are generated to create an atmosphere of finger pointing. Sesame society is not doing that, someone with an exceptionally low credit rating may be ostracised, but the zeitgeist is about generating a positive rating with the government. An Orwellian society has no positive rating, you just survive the current round of purges or you don't, There is no security by which a citizen can say their credit with the state is good, at any time they could be the next person edited from the group photo.

Third is fairly obvious, and shouldn't be confusing or disjointed to you despite protestations. To repeat

"Also the Orwellian state doesn't allow for private enterprise of any kind, only the Party can hold wealth. China allows its citizens to make wealth for themselves,"

I dont need to clarify the above.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

This contrast goes into the status of self-expression and inspiration which is not actually included in what defines and Orwellian state.

You kidding right? Ever read 1984, or actually looked at what Orwellian means? An Orwellian society goes beyond a mere authoritarian society precisely because it eliminates self-expression. Lenin understood that in order to perpetuate the revolution the lessons of the Paris Commune had to be learned, notably there had to be one policy and one voice. The Paris Commune was an experiment in socialism that did not eliminate self expression which is the principle reason why it failed, as it couldn't agree on anything and thus allowed the French government which was at their mercy to recover surround Paris and squash the movement. Marx himself saw this danger and Lenin wrote in his own copy of Marx's commentary on the Paris commune his solution which was plainly as soon as the revolution took root eliminate all others of the co-leadership to ensure one person took direct control. It was messy but it worked.
This policy cemented Soviet and this Marxist-Leninist thinking. Part of the early policy in the 20's revolved around the dialectic of the Soviet state which Orwell recognised as the actual strength behind it and wrote is book based on what he learned.
From the early days of the October revolution the pattern of control used in the 20th century communist and fascist movements followed this parallel, the elimination of competition in leadership through elimination of individual rival threats amongst the elite and the channeling of the masses into a rigid ideology by the elimination of self expression.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

All of these little flaws made your post difficult to understand simply from reading it through, and with it dragging things off to the specifics of how 'Orwellian' applies to China struck me as reinforcing the original jumped shark..

Well you misunderstand Orwellian system and how it operates, I hope I have clarified things for you a little there.

As for 'jumped shark', no shark was jumped. At an absolute minimum my comments should have been recognised for the language they used and the material presented. Tpical remarks on the nature of the thread.
At that point anyone not agreeing with said points should take the trouble to articulate why they disageee rather than make ridicule without explanation, which can only be described as trolling, no matter what Motyak says.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Now, on to hypocrisy.
<snip> ]This one sums things up rather nicely. LordofHats responded to your post saying that your opinon was crazy enough to be termed as jumping the shark..

Were I to take your current post and instead of reply to it, simply write you off as mentally ill, it would be offensive, and a troll reply.
Throughout I have responded intelligently to the topic presented, the best you can say is that you disagree with my position. However many of you flatly refuse to do so, but instead attack my mental health. Not only is this an ad hominem fallacy, it is also a personal attack on another forum member.
As we can see such attacks are justified by some intellectually dishonest mods if the target is myself

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

You immediately accused him of making an unintelligent and uninformed addition to the discussion, which is of itself unintelligent and uninformed since you did not even bother to understand the meaning of the image/phrase he posted.

No. When an on topic explanation is replied to be a flat insult, without explanation, and an unrelated image intended to offend then it is acceptable to consider the reply as meritless.

Can you point out a relationship between the image used and the topic. No you cant. Its suppose is entirely to denegrate and to do so without providing any intellectual or moral justification in doing so.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

It means that you were taking the discussion to a radical level; specifically that you have turned the discussion of China's rating system into one about how the West is "living in a false golden age that wont last" which he (and I) perceived as not only overblown for the topic at hand but also a ridiculous concept to begin with.

Then perhaps you should show the integrity by challenging the comment intelligently. It would be perfectly acceptable for you to say.

"Orlanth, I didnt believe what you are saying about the west living in a false golden age or see the relevance to the topic anyway, can you explain."

Its a bit better than just flatly assuming the post was written by a mentally ill guy who cant strong an coherent opinion together. You should know by now that I dont back away from a challenge to explain, and always take the time to explain my thoughts in detail when asked.
Please remember that a free thinker need not agree with you, and disagreement with you doesn't mean an absence of rational thought.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

As a final note, I find your statement of "Note that 'incoherent' does equate to 'not agreed with'' hypocritical as well not only for the passive-aggressive jab within a statement asking for intellectual discussion, but because the same statement can be applied to you; you seem to be confronting many contrary opinions to your own as simply calling them trolling.

First there is no hypocrisy, at least on my part. Sure my point could be described passive aggressive if you wish, first that isn't against any rules, and is a muted reply to outright active-aggressive comments directed at me, without even the semblance of referring to the topic.

I referred to trolling comments as trolling for good reason. I have not trolled the thread. At every stage I have either posted a comment on the topic at hand from the OP or invited someone who doesn't agree with those comments, but for reasons best known to themselves refuse to articulate any response beyond a personal attack. That is frankly trolling. I have been trolled by several people so far on this thread including a mod, whose only reply was to repeat my own input then reply with a laughing smiley. No explanation, no justification, just an open comment echoing LordofHats baseless conclusion that a comment clearly relevant to the topic at hand with a personal attack.
They even lacked the shred of integrity to say why my comments on this thread should be taken with complete disdain, which is a fallacy in and of itself, as it offers no opportunity to defence.
Ketara and LordofHats were both invited to explain, only one of them has done so, and has not commented on my reply at the top of this page except by making further blanket calls for ridicule.

Part of the reason I managed to glean from LordofHats was his assumption that my comment on the Sesame society policy was sycophantic, implying that I was in agreement with it, an thus completely misjudging the moral tone of the reply. I am not really known on this forum for being a communist, and in any case proved that he had done little more than to jump to assumptions as to what was being posted based on a false and baseless assumption on the author not the actual content of the thread.

This ultimately is the real problem. My comments have been repeatedly judged not on their merit or lack thereof, though you have made some attempt to make relevant comment this time, but based on who posted them, and discrminatory character presumptions, which persist even if even blatantly incorrect and disproved.

It isn't on.

Nevertheless am happy to address the topic here to all who come, even those who have hitherto used this forum purely as a tool for baseless personal attack. Which unsurprisingly to me includes forum moderators who ought to know better.

 Orlanth wrote:

Mod-trolling is back again.
Go on, explain yourself, if you can.

Trolling? I found your joke funny and communicated my appreciation for the chuckle.

Not to mention that I only wear my mod hat in the Swapshop (it's why I'm just a Swapmod instead of a Mod).

 Ketara wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Mod-trolling is back again.
Go on, explain yourself, if you can.

Trolling? I found your joke funny and communicated my appreciation for the chuckle.

Not to mention that I only wear my mod hat in the Swapshop (it's why I'm just a Swapmod instead of a Mod).

Ok. Point accepted about being purely swap shop mod.
However my post wasn't in jest, but topical and you should well know that from context. If you think my input/ or quality of reply was 'a joke', as others have used as a method to get very unpleasant, then you really ought to say why so I can articulate a fair defence to critique leveled, if only to place a distinction in ethics.

 Orlanth wrote:

However my post wasn't in jest, and you may well know that If you think my input/ or quality of reply was 'a joke', as others have done, then you really ought to say why so I can articulate a fair defence to critique leveled.

Wait....so you were serious?

...Damn son.

In that case, I honestly don't think I have the time for the thirty page back and forth (as any discussion I've ever seen with you inevitably goes). Business to run, article to write, housework to do, etcetc. You know the drill. I'm sure one of the other gentlemen will give you the pleasure of engaging with you though.

 Ketara wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

However my post wasn't in jest, and you may well know that If you think my input/ or quality of reply was 'a joke', as others have done, then you really ought to say why so I can articulate a fair defence to critique leveled.

Wait....so you were serious?

What is so strange about that?

The Chinese government is not pissing about, they are very serious about what they do and how they achieve their goals, why cant a commentary on what is going on also be as serious.

Besides your reply below the smiley was highly sarcastic.

 Ketara wrote:

In that case, I honestly don't think I have the time for the thirty page back and forth (as any discussion I've ever seen with you inevitably goes). Business to run, article to write, housework to do, etcetc. You know the drill. I'm sure one of the other gentlemen will give you the pleasure of engaging with you though.

Sounds like a cop out. Really if you were not prepared to ever explain a critique when challenged, don't post it, its not honst to do so.
Besides we can have a forum equivalent of 'binding arbitration' settlements, one post each.

 Orlanth wrote:

What is so strange about that?

The Chinese government is not pissing about, they are very serious about what they do and how they achieve their goals, why cant a commentary on what is going on also be as serious.

Besides your reply below the smiley was highly sarcastic.

I assumed it was a joke because of things like the comment about 'golden ages' (the sort of thing which I rarely see outside of either bombastic nineteenth century histories and tongue in cheek modern commentary).

Sounds like a cop out. Really if you were not prepared to ever explain a critique when challenged, don't post it, its not honst to do so.

If you want me to be completely honest, I was skimming and half-reading the thread initially (foster children can be very distracting) and not really paying attention as to who was saying what. Now that I've clocked precisely who wants to engage in debate with me, and seen it's the bloke who genuinely believes he has the gift of tongues bestowed upon him, I'm disinclined to go to the effort. I'd rather not waste both our time.

See Orlanth, your excessively long and insult-ridden response illustrated exactly why people aren't bothering to explain. You didn't listen to what I had to say, ignored valid criticisms, and overly focused on certain portions in a ramble over why you are right. Against my better judgement I tried explaining but you responded exactly as I suspected initially, confirming that I wasted my time. This is why you get responses like LordofHats' instead of serious ones.

 Ketara wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

What is so strange about that?

The Chinese government is not pissing about, they are very serious about what they do and how they achieve their goals, why cant a commentary on what is going on also be as serious.

Besides your reply below the smiley was highly sarcastic.

I assumed it was a joke because of things like the comment about 'golden ages' (the sort of thing which I rarely see outside of either bombastic nineteenth century histories and tongue in cheek modern commentary).

The analogy makes sense, when you take a look at where we are. We are living on borrowed time, using the planets non renewable resources at a ridiculously fast rate, and with no thought to long term consequence. The concern goes beyond environmental to economic. The ideology of the false golden age is due to the way our economy is structured, rampant consumerism, inflatory economies based on unrealistic share values etc. A backlash against the current economic status is what elevated Trump and Brexit, and is the beginning of our woes.
A large number of people believe that our way of live is unsustainable, our policies too short term, life if good - hence the allusion to a Golden Age, and indeed this is how it will likely be seen in retrospect, especially as our way of life is enshrined in our media.

Now China is aware as are our own governments that the bubble will burst, however China has an infrastructure designed to deal with a world where the average human, and there may well be nine billion of us by then, will have to settle for less. We frankly don't have that resolve, our leaders certainly do not. Hence the short term gain policies so prevalent in our economic planning.

 Ketara wrote:
Now that I've clocked precisely who wants to engage in debate with me, and seen it's the bloke who genuinely believes he has the gift of tongues bestowed upon him, I'm disinclined to go to the effort. I'd rather not waste both our time.

This thread has naught to do with religion, and if the fact that I have religious beliefs that you don't share disallows me in your opinion from hold in logical ground on unrelated topics then you condemn only yourself not I.
For the purpose of this thread I have quite forgotten who stands on what with religious grounds. I do know that some of the outspoken Christians here vehemently disagree with me on other topics and I can hold common ground with atheists who would want to take a piece of me on other topics.

In fact the very fact you believe that a believer of an opposed faith ideology is therefore incapable of holding a worthwhile opinion on unrelated subjects, is a far worse condemnation on your theology than anything I could think of or write. Frankly I am disappointed you would stoop this low, and it was in fact unexpected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
See Orlanth, your excessively long and insult-ridden response illustrated exactly why people aren't bothering to explain.

You aren't people. Besides all I have done is express an ontopic opinion and expected people to reply the same. My posts aren't insult-ridden, they are exhortations for you and some others not to reply exclusively with insults.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

You didn't listen to what I had to say, ignored valid criticisms, and overly focused on certain portions in a ramble over why you are right.

I have answered your criticisms.
Defending my on topic claims is quite normal, you could try so too. To handwave them off as a ramble, especially without even making the slightest attempt to address them intellectually is frankly dishonest.
I took the time to explain Orwellian doctrine, its origin and ts differences from Sesame society. If you disagree fine, but at least have the common decency to do so ON THE TOPIC rather than via ad hominem.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Against my better judgement I tried explaining but you responded exactly as I suspected initially,

Get off the false moral high ground. What little you posted about on topic was replied to on topic.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

confirming that I wasted my time. This is why you get responses like LordofHats' instead of serious ones.

There is no licence to troll. If you cant post serious replies to serious topics DONT REPLY at all.

 Orlanth wrote:


..if the fact that I have religious beliefs that you don't share disallows me in your opinion from hold in logical ground on unrelated topics then you condemn only yourself not I....In fact the very fact you believe that a believer of an opposed faith ideology is therefore incapable of holding a worthwhile opinion on unrelated subjects, is a far worse condemnation on your theology than anything I could think of or write.

Dear Lord, you don't half have fun inventing things other people haven't said in order to get outraged, do you? This is the other reason I'm not inclined to debate with you. To wit; if I'm going to spend time and energy hammering out a laboriously long back and forth with someone, I like to imagine I have a chance of getting somewhere.


Your posting style to date in my memory is to start off with a concept that's quite sensible, then mix in half a dozen generalistic statements spiced with a few assumptions, quickly followed by about a paragraph or two of disjointed rambling in which you usually seem to manage to say something either offensive or absurd.

Then when people write back and tear whatever it is you've said to pieces, you begin picking over semantics, refuse to ever take a step back on anything, and exhibit some form of persecution complex. After that, you then insist on dragging it out long past the point where anyone cares, writing five paragraph responses to every sentence, which have a tendency to be comprised of more and more disjointed pseudo-philosophical ramblings as the thread goes on.

I have no quarrel with you personally, but that's how most debates I've seen you take an active part in go down. You bemoan the fact nobody seems to take you seriously, but nothing you say or do engenders other people taking you seriously. You write everybody else off as being too left wing, too anti-religious, or whatever the flavour of the month is, to comprehend your wisdom or 'logic' without ever actually seeming to sit down and work out why it is the majority of people appear to cock an eyebrow and go 'lol, wut?' when you post it.

Note that the above is not a personal attack but an opinion upon your posting style. I have no interest in verbally assaulting people over the internet, and I'm not the least bit concerned with trying to antagonise or offend you for fun. Christ knows that I'm an arrogant git online with enough of my own flaws that I should probably avoid throwing rocks. But speaking as an impartial third party observer, that has been the impression of you I have gathered from years of scrolling through your posts. That is how you have presented yourself to me, both in general and specifically in this thread alone.



And for that reason, I have no interest in debating politics, religion or morality with you. I'm happy to chip in appreciatively when I thought you made a joke I found funny (like earlier), or when it's a short sweet banal topic (army lists or something), but for the extended stuff? I'll pass. Because it genuinely is a waste of both our time.

That'll be my last comment on the subject, because this is far OT now. But as you appear to genuinely feel the need for some sort of exchange with me and not take a graceful bowing out for an answer, I thought I'd give you my undiluted and truthful reason for not wanting to do so.

I am inventing nothing.

So far I have had a plethora of labels thrown at me, and several posters including yourself didn't even attempt to engage the topic but cut straight to he insults.

I was actually surprised how quickly it turned bad , as analysing a new Chinese policy is not something that Dakka would normally get their backs up over. It isn't like Dakka is manned by the 50 cent party or some such.

Besides I see no reason to cut out what you said, and you have no excuse for condemning me for doing so. You wouldn't engage with me on a non religious topic because of my religious beliefs.
Saying you cant get over your discriminatory attitudes to post is not a graceful bowing out.
You didnt even have to go there.

Point remains I came here to discuss the new policy in China. If you cant do so without getting hung up over who you are discussing with, go elsewhere, or answer someone else's comments on the topic.

As for a 'genuine need' to converse, it is not so much that but the fact that I get trolled, without any excuse, merit or cause or reason, simply because I turned up and had an opinion. You cant reflect that on me, I have stuck to the issues, this thread has been a pile on.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think my statement is being taken a little out of context here; my very next sentence stated how this system isn't actually doing that. Basically, the principle of holding people accountable for their actions is all well and good but the idea of a vast government system to do so is not. I don't feel it's petty to hold a person accountable for cheating the faire, but I don't feel that the government should be the one who does that.

Okay, I didn't mean to take you out of context, and I'm not sure I did. I think your post was maybe a little unclear, or at least I didn't quite get what you meant. Anyhow, with this follow up post I think I understand your point quite well and think it is perfectly reasonable.

To clarify my own position, I don't think it is petty to hold someone accountable for a minor breach. Parking fines and tickets for trying to skimp on a train fare are necessary. The pettiness comes from trying to collect all that information and keep it permanently as a record of each person's minor failings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
No. an Orwellian state is a specific type of dystopia, it relies upon a value system providing the opposite to what it purportedly offers, and it clearly doesn't offer benefit for all, even from the point of view of the state's agents.
China isnt looking to generate internal enemies, but deals with the ones it has, and the internal shaping of society is to create 'harmony' not division.
Also the Orwellian state doesn't allow for private enterprise of any kind, only the Party can hold wealth. China allows its citizens to make wealth for themselves, albeit upon the backs of an underpaid mas labour market, which places a hard limit on the number of achievers in this fashion.
China also doesn't remove self expression, it instead penalises self expression that is considered detrimental to the state. This is very different from an Orwellian system where the state is the sole permissible font of inspiration, and ultimately though no historical state got this far - the sole avenue for expression.

I think you've confused a narrative convention with an actual element of the political system described in the book. Orwell didn't have O'Brien describe the evil of the system because he thought that in the future tyrants will be self-aware of the dystopias they created around themselves, he did it because the book needed a big dump of exposition. It's no different to Scaramanga describing his plot to a tied up James Bond.

So, uh, no, self aware tyrant is not a key element of 'Orwellian', and it's kind of strange that you'd think it would be.

China also doesn't remove self expression, it instead penalises self expression that is considered detrimental to the state.

This is a thing someone actually typed.

 sebster wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think my statement is being taken a little out of context here; my very next sentence stated how this system isn't actually doing that. Basically, the principle of holding people accountable for their actions is all well and good but the idea of a vast government system to do so is not. I don't feel it's petty to hold a person accountable for cheating the faire, but I don't feel that the government should be the one who does that.

Okay, I didn't mean to take you out of context, and I'm not sure I did. I think your post was maybe a little unclear, or at least I didn't quite get what you meant. Anyhow, with this follow up post I think I understand your point quite well and think it is perfectly reasonable.

To clarify my own position, I don't think it is petty to hold someone accountable for a minor breach. Parking fines and tickets for trying to skimp on a train fare are necessary. The pettiness comes from trying to collect all that information and keep it permanently as a record of each person's minor failings.

I don't think anyone on this thread doesn't believe Sesame society is insidious and controlling.
It is better described as a means of centralised control that by its mechanics can be effective without resorting to the crass brutality of prior methods.
China is a country that brought the Great Leap Forwards and the Cultural Revolution to its own people, both brutal bloody purges resulting in the deaths of millions. The Chinese communist party isnt going to share power anytime soon, and has no notable external enemies capable of bringing down the system with anything other than a mutual annihilatory war.
China has evidently been looking at softer methods of maintaining the one party state, they are still authoritarian communists, albeit capitalism embracing ones.

China making softer, but still firm, internal control policies is no different from China embracing a free market economy while still being communist. When the latter happened people laughed because free market = democracy. People need to think beyond that. China thinks outside the box on a lot of issues, internal security especially. The Chinese government has no problems getting blood on its hands, but why slaughter or impoverish your citizens when you can steer them.

 sebster wrote:

I think you've confused a narrative convention with an actual element of the political system described in the book. Orwell didn't have O'Brien describe the evil of the system because he thought that in the future tyrants will be self-aware of the dystopias they created around themselves, he did it because the book needed a big dump of exposition. It's no different to Scaramanga describing his plot to a tied up James Bond.

Ok. I can see how you came to this, but I actually agree that it is best to leave the characterisation out of a novel of this kind when used as a example of realpolitik or anything else real. It would be like saying that cocaine addiction is a necessary part of Holmesian logic because Holmes took cocaine as a cognitive boost.
I and others who look at 1984 for allegory leave O'Brien, even Winston Smith out of it and concentrate on Oceania and its modus operandi.

 sebster wrote:

So, uh, no, self aware tyrant is not a key element of 'Orwellian', and it's kind of strange that you'd think it would be..

I am puzzled as to how you came to that conclusion from my post.

 sebster wrote:

China also doesn't remove self expression, it instead penalises self expression that is considered detrimental to the state.

This is a thing someone actually typed.

Indeed.
Perhaps I should quantify though. Marxism 'penalises self expression' also, but in that case the penalty is very severe such as incarceration, it is also highly arbitrary as everything is based on the whim of the secret policeman.
Sesame society penalises self expression in a far more muted way, denial of privilege, peer pressure, furthermore the causes of the negative status are open visible and counterable.
Under most communist systems if you don't have enough loyalty points you don't get the chance to address this, the secret police arrive at your door and you get taken away. With this system people who are in danger of falling foul of the state can address where they are losing points. Its an open score system not the arbitrary whim of a secret policeman that determines credit or demerit.

There are two things you need to understand to get how Sesame society works.

1. China is a centralised authoritarian regime with ability and intent to remain that way at all costs.
That is hard reality, and is likely to remain that way. You (or I) dont have to like it and neither do the Chinese people. Overthrowing the Chinese government and replacing it with a representative democracy with a bill of rights is not a realistic goal right now.

2. Centralised control requires heavy policing, which in turn results in brutality, first by the removal of enemies, second by the discord caused by same and third because in a police state the power goes to some peoples heads and it always results in excessive bloodletting.

China will have order (point 1) because the communist party will not allow itself t lose control. So how to avoid the brutality of point 2. China's new answer is Sesame society, a softer, mostly indirect form of tight internal security. Frankly I think they have done a very clever job.

Remember everyone..... 'It Can't Happen here!"

In 1936 Senator Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a charismatic and power-hungry politician, wins the election as President of the United States on a populist platform, promising to restore the country to prosperity and greatness, and promising each citizen $5,000 a year. Portraying himself as a champion of traditional American values, Windrip easily defeats his opponents, Senator Walt Trowbridge and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Though having previously foreshadowed some authoritarian measures in order to reorganize the United States government, Windrip rapidly outlaws dissent, incarcerates political enemies in concentration camps, and trains and arms a paramilitary force called the Minute Men, who terrorize citizens and enforce the policies of Windrip and his "corporatist" regime. One of his first acts as president is to eliminate the influence of the United States Congress, which draws the ire of many citizens as well as the legislators themselves. The Minute Men respond to protests against Windrip's decisions harshly, attacking demonstrators with bayonets. In addition to these actions, Windrip's administration, known as the "Corpo" government, curtails women's and minority rights, and eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors. The government of these sectors is managed by "Corpo" authorities, usually prominent businessmen or Minute Men officers. Those accused of crimes against the government appear before kangaroo courts presided over by "military judges". Despite these dictatorial (and "quasi-draconian") measures, a majority of Americans approve of them, seeing them as necessary but painful steps to restore American power. Others, those less enthusiastic about the prospect of corporatism, reassure themselves that fascism cannot "happen here", hence the novel's title.

 Orlanth wrote:
Ok. I can see how you came to this, but I actually agree that it is best to leave the characterisation out of a novel of this kind when used as a example of realpolitik or anything else real. It would be like saying that cocaine addiction is a necessary part of Holmesian logic because Holmes took cocaine as a cognitive boost.
I and others who look at 1984 for allegory leave O'Brien, even Winston Smith out of it and concentrate on Oceania and its modus operandi.

Sure, and while Orwell's big idea was that totalitarian power wasn't just a means to an end, but power for its own sake, there is nothing say such a system must be self-aware. As such, you are wrong in assuming that a system must be self-aware and desiring of its utopia in order to be Orwellian.

I am puzzled as to how you came to that conclusion from my post.

Because you wrote this;
"I would not call the Chinese system Orwellian, it certainly includes a high level of party control, and a perpetuation of said control, but it wants a prosperous one party state not a dystopia."

China will have order (point 1) because the communist party will not allow itself t lose control. So how to avoid the brutality of point 2. China's new answer is Sesame society, a softer, mostly indirect form of tight internal security. Frankly I think they have done a very clever job.

I think you're being very strangely optimistic if you think that a system with some framework of formality won't still be suspect to information gathering from secret police, or have any meaningful means of addressing negative scores unless a person is well connected, policitally. All this does is further entrench the system enforcing obedience, and bring it more in to the lives of every citizen.

And none of that actually addresses your statement that I found quite incredible;
"China also doesn't remove self expression, it instead penalises self expression that is considered detrimental to the state."

This is much like saying the Titanic didn't sink because it hit an iceberg, it sank because water poured in after hitting the iceberg.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Ok. I can see how you came to this, but I actually agree that it is best to leave the characterisation out of a novel of this kind when used as a example of realpolitik or anything else real. It would be like saying that cocaine addiction is a necessary part of Holmesian logic because Holmes took cocaine as a cognitive boost.
I and others who look at 1984 for allegory leave O'Brien, even Winston Smith out of it and concentrate on Oceania and its modus operandi.

Sure, and while Orwell's big idea was that totalitarian power wasn't just a means to an end, but power for its own sake, there is nothing say such a system must be self-aware. As such, you are wrong in assuming that a system must be self-aware and desiring of its utopia in order to be Orwellian.

I think we see more or less eye to eye on principle, but I think you have misread what I am saying.

I hadn't mentioned self awareness directly, but to address: China is self aware of the dangers of direct control methods and want to avoid them if possible. The Cultural Revolution cemented power but impoverished the country and fostered long term resentment. China has had enough time to outlast such resentments for the most part and wants to form a quasi utopian system by allowing a populace with access to mass communications but is conditioned so that majority us will praise rather than condemn the government.

Oceania never desired a utopian system or self awareness. The proles didn't know what a utopia was and were not self aware either, high IQ proles were routinely assassinated. Outer party members might be desiring a utopia, but newspeak and goodthink meant that had to visualise, and the outer party were the main targets for both The inner party was self aware as it needed to be so to command the system, but didnt want self awareness to extend downwards, and certainly didnt want a Utopia. They had mass communications, but it was directed one way only.

Though it could be argued that the party elite in any authoritarian regime are in favor of form utopian closed societies within the nation as a whole, and dependent on the internal control policy might expect to have comfortable pleasurable lives.

 sebster wrote:

I am puzzled as to how you came to that conclusion from my post.

Because you wrote this;
"I would not call the Chinese system Orwellian, it certainly includes a high level of party control, and a perpetuation of said control, but it wants a prosperous one party state not a dystopia."

Sorry I think you have misread me. Orwellian systems are dystopias, China if it is a dystopian system wants to mask the dystopia with soft control measures.
China wants to have the assuredness for the party of centralised control common to a Maoist or Stalinist state, but without the Mao or Stalin like slaughter. Direct internal control only works by brutality, and brutality impoverishes the nation and is bad for the economy even from the point of view of the party elite.

 sebster wrote:

China will have order (point 1) because the communist party will not allow itself t lose control. So how to avoid the brutality of point 2. China's new answer is Sesame society, a softer, mostly indirect form of tight internal security. Frankly I think they have done a very clever job.

I think you're being very strangely optimistic......

Ok. My optimism is less strange when yo see that I am not placing any moral merit on the idea. Please get out of your head the ideology that speaking positively about something is to approve or it. Let me give you a clearer example. Ancient Rome managed wonders in civic engineering on a scale and organisation unsurpassed until the modern age. Yet behind that was also vast scale human slavery, equally deeply organised. To appreciate Rome is not to endorse slavery, this much is understood as we ave long found it acceptable to marvel at the roads the made and the buildings the built, or how Roman state organisation was copied by European powers in the age of reason.
There is no such social gateway for you to look at communist ideology and control techniques with an analytical eye that approves success on its merit. In fact as we are products of a post cold war society it makes sense that most people are conditioned to only see the evil. This is after all how Chinese free market communism was underestimated by the west especially the US for a very long time. It doesnt helped that China has no ideological problems with being underestimated internationally.

 sebster wrote:

if you think that a system with some framework of formality won't still be suspect to information gathering from secret police,.....

Secret police will still exist. That being said you don't need communism to live in a police state. NSA, GCHQ etc.
Sesame society will forgo the need for active brutal secret police work to maintain the state goal of internal security. Thus less secret police. It doesn't eliminate secret police though, but could well channel the towards more over threats like special case dissidents, and ethnic and religious extremists. Even that might be muted somewhat.

 sebster wrote:

or have any meaningful means of addressing negative scores unless a person is well connected, politically.

That is incorrect. In fact Sesame society might offer better chances of redemption from bad security records than exist in the west. There is little way of telling without connexions of you are I have fallen foul of our nations intelligence agencies, and again without such connexions there is no redress if we have. I remember a case study on this based on a woman who while traveling unwittingly stayed in the same hotel as some terrorists being monitored. This hotel was in IIRC Belgium, and the security team monitoring the hotel recored all British number plates present. The woman just happened to check in and out on the same day as the terrorists. She was flagged as a security risk and wondered why she couldnt get a decent job afterwards. It was only because she had connexions to find out why she was blacklisted she was able to clear her name eventually, had she lacked those connexions she may have been blacklisted for life with no recourse.
Ok that is just one possibly extreme example, but unlike our credit history our security history is well beyond the ability of the vast majority of citizens to find out.

Now admittedly only minor criteria would be addressable, so likely not reported links terrorism, but as the score is given and ongoing it can be addressed. Buy a foreign car and lose patriotism points, solve this by buying something else from China. Also criteria offset each other. Critics of soviet cars in the soviet union could be shot or be set to a labour camp, critics of Chinese cars merely lose points and they can offset this worth positive beaviour, in some cases the negative score could be addressed entirely. Without the points system you get a system which only records the negatives and ignores the positives, which is why it is common in communist countries for someone to be placed under heavy censure for even a single unpatriotic remark, and any good behaviour is often irrelevant. With Sesame Society someone who criticises the state might learn a fifty point demerit, this an be used to graduate penalty and also include a measure of second chance, redemption of plain offsetting unwanted behaviour with positive behaviour.
Thus in reality you get a system with the control of a brutal police state, because the social and fear pressure not to speak out is the same but with built in measure of leniency a police state cannot really have and remain functional.

 sebster wrote:

All this does is further entrench the system enforcing obedience, and bring it more in to the lives of every citizen.

Yes it does. Th only downside is that everyone will need to be wired for tis to work. A lot of rural Chinese dont have much technological access, but China is big enough to accomplish this by the time goal set. It will require a digitised currency and social security and communications for over a billion people. Achieveable by 2020.

 sebster wrote:

And none of that actually addresses your statement that I found quite incredible;
"China also doesn't remove self expression, it instead penalises self expression that is considered detrimental to the state."

This is much like saying the Titanic didn't sink because it hit an iceberg, it sank because water poured in after hitting the iceberg.

No. This is where you simple do not understand. Or at least only understand communism in two dimensions.

This is much like saying the Titanic let in some water and sank when it hit an iceberg, but the new Titanic let in some water was deducted fifty points for bad seamanship and allowed to continue onwards.

Od school police state brutality might mean what you say, in both cases the person is 'sunk'. Sesame society is intended not to sink the individual to but maintain control with opportunity for penalty deduction with built in moderation, and that is the key.
There is no point in a credit system were any demerit recorded equates to a trip to a gulag. Sesame society links through to everything so it centralises control, t works through peer pressure and it monitors privilege and demerit both. Initially privilege is concentrated on.

Second notice what the 'hands' are doing. It is very similar to marketing techniques. Cut the size of a chocolate bar and at the same time advertise it as 20% bigger, making it the same. When the promotion ends the bars cut to the size it as intended to now be. This is how chocolate bars got smaller over the last thirty years. The chocolate analogy is a good one as Orwell also used the example when Winston Smith edited history so the chocolate ration increased rather than decreased to 25 grammes a week.
Now may to sesame society, notice how you need positive credit to unclock internet access, meaning as it rolls out people will go offline until they can prove themselves loyal. Foreign travel was already positively vetted as is common with communist countries.

There is a lot more to this than you can see with a quick glance.

The Chinese aren't Orwellian, they are Fascistic in the non-Nazi sense.

I do see rebellious hackers going to town on this. Maybe its a trap?

 Frazzled wrote:
The Chinese aren't Orwellian, they are Fascistic in the non-Nazi sense.

I do see rebellious hackers going to town on this. Maybe its a trap?

A system which will track their citizens every post online, every withdrawal they make from an ATM, every purchase made using their bank card online isn't Orwellian?