La pensée unique: a freedom of thought conundrum

[Estro Felino]

I am realizing how there is a very saddening ideological drift, that the expression "pensée unique" sums up perfectly. Pensée unique - Wikipedia
In fact it deals with a term that the French language has adopted to describe the tendency, certain mainstream media have, to monopolize information. And especially, to decide what information is and what is not, and to impose this decision to the public.

Actually in juridical systems like the French one, la liberté de penser, expresses the notion of liberty much better than "freedom of speech".
Because it implies that the random citizen has the right to think whatever they want. There are no limits to their thought. They can invent an ideology, they can think of the most absurd things ever. And they can express them by speech.
And so the mere term "disinformation" cannot be used to silence a free citizen. Since the random citizen is not supposed to be a information source (as media are).
But the unbearable thing is that people want to impose the pensée unique to random citizens too.

So the freedom of thought goes beyond the freedom of speech.

 

[Estro Felino]

The dictatorship of pensée unique aims to silence everyone that dares speak of conspiracies.
Which, if you think about it, is very suspicious.

Given that, history has showed us that people who set up a conspiracy, did anything to cover it up and to silence the people who dared suspect about them.
So...I am very suspicious and diffident towards the ones who do anything to deny conspiracies a priori.
This is a scheme also police officers and procurators use, to make people confess.
It is a very subtle psychological tactic. That worked out most of time.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

The dictatorship of pensée unique aims to silence everyone that dares speak of conspiracies.
Which, if you think about it, is very suspicious.

Given that, history has showed us that people who set up a conspiracy, did anything to cover it up and to silence the people who dared suspect about them.
So...I am very suspicious and diffident towards the ones who do anything to deny conspiracies a priori.
This is a scheme also police officers and procurators use, to make people confess.
It is a very subtle psychological tactic. That worked out most of time.

Conspiracy theorists may be playing the same dirty mind games they're accusing their opponents of though.
That's what I often see.

 

[Estro Felino]

Conspiracy theorists may be playing the same dirty mind games they're accusing their opponents of though.
That's what I often see.

Could you elaborate?


The difference between conspiracy theorists and conspiracy deniers is that the first do not want to silence anybody. The latter do want to silence the first.
So, if we are speaking of tolerance and empathy, it is the so called conspiracy theorists who cultivate them

 

[Kenny]

I am realizing how there is a very saddening ideological drift, that the expression "pensée unique" sums up perfectly. Pensée unique - Wikipedia
In fact it deals with a term that the French language has adopted to describe the tendency, certain mainstream media have, to monopolize information. And especially, to decide what information is and what is not, and to impose this decision to the public.

Actually in juridical systems like the French one, la liberté de penser, expresses the notion of liberty much better than "freedom of speech".
Because it implies that the random citizen has the right to think whatever they want. There are no limits to their thought. They can invent an ideology, they can think of the most absurd things ever. And they can express them by speech.
And so the mere term "disinformation" cannot be used to silence a free citizen. Since the random citizen is not supposed to be a information source (as media are).
But the unbearable thing is that people want to impose the pensée unique to random citizens too.

So the freedom of thought goes beyond the freedom of speech.

And, thus, our new Disinformation Bureau is highly suspect of thought control as it looks to me as a tool to silence a free citizen.

 

[Estro Felino]

And, thus, our new Disinformation Bureau is highly suspect of thought control as it looks to me as a tool to silence a free citizen.

1984 by George Orwell

 

[Stevicus]

I am realizing how there is a very saddening ideological drift, that the expression "pensée unique" sums up perfectly. Pensée unique - Wikipedia
In fact it deals with a term that the French language has adopted to describe the tendency, certain mainstream media have, to monopolize information. And especially, to decide what information is and what is not, and to impose this decision to the public.

Actually in juridical systems like the French one, la liberté de penser, expresses the notion of liberty much better than "freedom of speech".
Because it implies that the random citizen has the right to think whatever they want. There are no limits to their thought. They can invent an ideology, they can think of the most absurd things ever. And they can express them by speech.
And so the mere term "disinformation" cannot be used to silence a free citizen. Since the random citizen is not supposed to be a information source (as media are).
But the unbearable thing is that people want to impose the pensée unique to random citizens too.

So the freedom of thought goes beyond the freedom of speech.

I had never heard this phrase before, although the Wiki article you linked mentioned this:

The term has been used regarding prohibitionism of marijuana, with some commenters saying that pensée unique is a barrier to legalization.[2]

I've often thought that public discussion regarding legalization was sometimes stacked and manipulated, although I've never heard this term used to describe it. Any type of manipulation or intellectual dishonesty should be called out.

Another thing that I would consider suspect is any kind of sanctimony or appeals to emotion. I remember just before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, where people who opposed the invasion were accused of supporting Saddam Hussein's torture of women and children. Any type of emotionalism or faux outrage should be immediately considered suspect and most likely an attempt at manipulation.

Also when the line between editorial, commentary, and a supposedly objective, fact-based news article becomes blurred, then I would also consider that to be suspect.

As an example, in sports, all we really need is a box score and statistics. We do not need a narrated article about the game, no interviews with the players, and above all else, we do not need to know how the players "feel" about being the World Series champions. That has absolutely no purpose and no validity in disseminating factual information about the game. All we need is factual data (if we need anything at all).

When media waver from a "just the facts" approach to news, then their motives and agenda should be considered suspect.

 

[Estro Felino]

I had never heard this phrase before, although the Wiki article you linked mentioned this:



I've often thought that public discussion regarding legalization was sometimes stacked and manipulated, although I've never heard this term used to describe it. Any type of manipulation or intellectual dishonesty should be called out.

Another thing that I would consider suspect is any kind of sanctimony or appeals to emotion. I remember just before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, where people who opposed the invasion were accused of supporting Saddam Hussein's torture of women and children. Any type of emotionalism or faux outrage should be immediately considered suspect and most likely an attempt at manipulation.

Also when the line between editorial, commentary, and a supposedly objective, fact-based news article becomes blurred, then I would also consider that to be suspect.

As an example, in sports, all we really need is a box score and statistics. We do not need a narrated article about the game, no interviews with the players, and above all else, we do not need to know how the players "feel" about being the World Series champions. That has absolutely no purpose and no validity in disseminating factual information about the game. All we need is factual data (if we need anything at all).

When media waver from a "just the facts" approach to news, then their motives and agenda should be considered suspect.

I guess post#2 is more clarifying.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Could you elaborate?


The difference between conspiracy theorists and conspiracy deniers is that the first do not want to silence anybody. The latter do want to silence the first.
So, if we are speaking of tolerance and empathy, it is the so called conspiracy theorists who cultivate them

I don't think this is necessarily true.
Have you heard of the Zeitgeist documentaries and The Zeitgeist Movement?
I don't know what has become of the movement now, but back in the day I did a lot of research about them because some of my friends were obsessively talking about it and quoting it so often like it was their Bible.
This behaviour turned out to be quite common among the movement's followers.
Critics and skeptics were mocked and treated with contempt.

Their founder and de facto leader was even worse.
He was such a paranoid control freak that he treated any form of criticism as a personal attack, and was not too shy to threaten people with lawsuits, harassing emails or even voicemails, and did everything in his power to censor anything he didn't like.
Later on he had gotten so paranoid that even some of his own followers were kicked off the forums without a warning because they asked some innocent questions about the policy of the movement, which he apparently saw as yet another case of "character assassination", as he liked to call it.

It's kind of ironic.
The conspiracy theorist was conspiring against the conspiracy to make sure there are no conspiracies.
This may be a good reason for opponents to start a conspiracy.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't think this is necessarily true.
Have you heard of the Zeitgeist documentaries and The Zeitgeist Movement?
I don't know what has become of the movement now, but back in the day I did a lot of research about them because some of my friends were obsessively talking about it and quoting it so often like it was their Bible.
This behaviour turned out to be quite common among the movement's followers.
Critics and skeptics were mocked and treated with contempt.

Their founder and de facto leader was even worse, he was such a paranoid control freak that he treated any form of criticism as a personal attack, and was not too shy to threaten people with lawsuits, harassing emails or even voicemails, and did everything in his power to censor anything he didn't like.
Later on he had gotten so paranoid that even some of his own followers were kicked off the forums without a warning because they asked some innocent questions about the policy of the movement, which he apparently saw as yet another case of "character assassination", as he liked to call it.

It's kind of ironic.
The conspiracy theorist was conspiring against the conspiracy to make sure there are no conspiracies.
This may be a good reason for opponents to start a conspiracy.

The presence of extremists and of extreme cases does not imply that serious people such as jurists, economists, scientists are intolerant.

Quite the opposite. They do want to have a peaceful debate with those who disagree with them.
The problem is the latter escape the debate most of the times .

 

[Nakosis]

I am realizing how there is a very saddening ideological drift, that the expression "pensée unique" sums up perfectly. Pensée unique - Wikipedia
In fact it deals with a term that the French language has adopted to describe the tendency, certain mainstream media have, to monopolize information. And especially, to decide what information is and what is not, and to impose this decision to the public.

Actually in juridical systems like the French one, la liberté de penser, expresses the notion of liberty much better than "freedom of speech".
Because it implies that the random citizen has the right to think whatever they want. There are no limits to their thought. They can invent an ideology, they can think of the most absurd things ever. And they can express them by speech.
And so the mere term "disinformation" cannot be used to silence a free citizen. Since the random citizen is not supposed to be a information source (as media are).
But the unbearable thing is that people want to impose the pensée unique to random citizens too.

So the freedom of thought goes beyond the freedom of speech.

It seems the idea is to limit diversity of thought which is always to the benefit of the current regime.
Generally there are no complaints as long as you support whichever party is in power.

 

[sun rise]

freedom of thought goes beyond the freedom of speech.

In authoritarian countries especially China but all of them, there are attempts to control thought.

And, thus, our new Disinformation Bureau is highly suspect of thought control as it looks to me as a tool to silence a free citizen.

Here we go again. Just like a doctor talking to a patient about end of life choices became "death panels" on the right, now an agency is being attacked by the right because the Trump-loving right loves lies and hates to see them challenged.

That's why we've seen such violent attacks on fact checkers who do determine what is a lie and what is not and tell people about it.

In this apocalyptic age, not allowing fear to rule our lives is a challenge for all who wish to be aligned with Love and Truth.

 

[Estro Felino]

In authoritarian countries especially China but all of them, there are attempts to control thought.



Here we go again. Just like a doctor talking to a patient about end of life choices became "death panels" on the right, now an agency is being attacked by the right because the Trump-loving right loves lies and hates to see them challenged.

That's why we've seen such violent attacks on fact checkers who do determine what is a lie and what is not and tell people about it.

In this apocalyptic age, not allowing fear to rule our lives is a challenge for all who wish to be aligned with Love and Truth.

That is a very good point, but what I pointed out in the OP is that fact-checking cannot be applied to random citizens who are not supposed to be information sources.
Also because I think that anyone knows that random internet users are not media, like TV newscasters or newspapers.

 

[Nakosis]

That is a very good point, but what I pointed out in the OP is that fact-checking cannot be applied to random citizens who are not supposed to be information sources.
Also because I think that anyone knows that random internet users are not media, like TV newscasters or newspapers.

With the internet, any random citizen can act the "news reporter".
Kind of saw this in Ukraine. So Putin could not control the information release.
I suspect Putin would have liked to classify them all as fake news propaganda.

How do you separate official news reporter from random guy in the street with an IPhone?

 

[Estro Felino]

With the internet, any random citizen can act the "news reporter".
Kind of saw this in Ukraine. So Putin could not control the information release.
I suspect Putin would have liked to classify them all as fake news propaganda.
How do you separate official news reporter from random guy in the street with an IPhone?

If people believe a random internet user who comments on a social media...instead of relying on qualified media...it is not my fault. It's their choice.
But this cannot limit a constitutional right. A right for the sake of which people have sacrificed their lives, first with the French Revolution and then all the European Revolutions of the 19th century, back when people used to assault the tyrannical buildings of power.

 

[Nakosis]

If people believe a random internet user who comments on a social media...instead of relying on qualified media...it is not my fault. It's their choice.
But this cannot limit a constitutional right. A right for the sake of which people have sacrificed their lives, first with the French Revolution and then all the European Revolution of the 19th century, back when people used to assault the tyrannical buildings of power.

So you favor some degree of governmental control over "official" news media?

But not over individual citizen's posting on the internet?

Seems reasonable.

 

[Estro Felino]

So you favor some degree of governmental control over "official" news media?
.

Where did I say that?
I guess it was implicit that Russia is light years away from us, as for freedom of speech.

 

[Nakosis]

Where did I say that?
I guess it was implicit that Russia is light years away from us, as for freedom of speech.

I'm asking.
I realize this is not what the OP is about.
Just wondering if you feel some control over "official" news is necessary?

To me it'd be nice to see journalists who took neutrality seriously.
I suppose enforcement would require a neutral government which isn't likely though.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm asking.
I realize this is not what the OP is about.
Just wondering if you feel some control over "official" news is necessary?

To me it'd be nice to see journalists who took neutrality seriously.
I suppose enforcement would require a neutral government which isn't likely though.

Exactly. They should be as impartial and neutral as possible.
And not controlled by any Government.

But again..the thread is about random citizens on the net.

 

[Kenny]

In authoritarian countries especially China but all of them, there are attempts to control thought.



Here we go again. Just like a doctor talking to a patient about end of life choices became "death panels" on the right, now an agency is being attacked by the right because the Trump-loving right loves lies and hates to see them challenged.

That's why we've seen such violent attacks on fact checkers who do determine what is a lie and what is not and tell people about it.

In this apocalyptic age, not allowing fear to rule our lives is a challenge for all who wish to be aligned with Love and Truth.

i don't think my position has anything to do with Trump--which sounds more like a strawman effort. What in the world does the government have anything to do with disinformation.

First... the definition

NOUN
False information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.

Second, we have laws on the book for libel - exchange of ideas because of freedom of speech, whether right or wrong information, is a bedrock of democracy.