Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Bzdyn… I apologize-and in which state does the system not seek to eliminate the threat to its primacy? In which country does the government not seek to crush the opposition? I just don't know, probably, but no matter where we live, we yell all the way-they don't report meat, they take away gingerbread! What's the question?
Well, the question is not very correct.
It implies that the rest of the people around us in this country are much more stupid than us (they don't know how to do it) and much more passive or lazy.
Consideration of such issues will be more constructive and logical:
I would like to see a country where this is possible. There can be millions of opinions, each of them changing ten times a day – how do you imagine tracking and destroying them? One liked egurt, the other did not – how can you destroy one of them?
It seems to me that raising such a question as a whole is an individual paranoia projected on society.
How, in principle, does a person react if his opinion is unreasonably ignored? He gets annoyed, starts taking revenge, or withdraws into himself, or runs away from an uncomfortable situation. The solution to such a problem in a particular case depends on the consciousness of the person himself and those who neglect his opinion.
I would try to leave such a country. If I didn't succeed, I would start looking for ways to fight the system. Most likely, I would have started to cheat. Seeing that there is no way to achieve success in the opposition, I would try to merge with the authorities. I would start destroying the system from the inside out. I would think about one thing and say something else. I would lie and pretend that I was part of the system, but in fact I would look for weaknesses in the system to destroy it. There is a high probability that I would work for the intelligence of some country that is an enemy of my state.
In general, I would not give up. It is possible, of course, that I would go to the provinces and try to live peacefully there, bringing less benefit to the system, so that it would not use its resources to its advantage.
But since I consider myself an intellectual, I would rather fight the system. I would try to be trickier than the system. No one can ever know my thoughts. You know, there was such a story. Hitler went to Church at Easter and prayed. Journalists ask him “What did you pray for”, and Hitler replied:: “Everyone knows that I was in the Temple. Everyone knows I'm a believer. But no one will ever know what I talked to God about. No one will ever know my thoughts. I am not the master of my words, but I am the master of my thoughts.”
This is the key to survival in a totalitarian society. There are only two ways to go anyway. Or, like Solzhenitsyn, avoid engaging in lies and try to minimize the benefits you bring to the system. Or go through a battle with the system. Become a part of it and harm it from within by decomposing it. I would choose this path.
I could pass on any secrets abroad or just engage in sabotage. I could study the system, find weaknesses, and come up with a plan of action against it. In general, with my own brains, I would have brought more benefits to my movement at the top. I would be a kind of scout who would fight against the system formally embedded in it.
This is very difficult and only smart people can do it. But this game is worth the candle. Remember the Fuhrer's phrase, ” No one will ever know my thoughts.” You can play anything, but no one will read your mind. And as long as no one reads them, we are invincible. Not even Altshuller wrote about it. But Jewish theologians have written quite a lot about this.
You need to fight the system with what is effective. Women teach us the right way. They are really above us. Look at Roxolana. Of course, her behavior wasn't perfect. But it is integrated into the system has extracted the maximum benefit for itself. So it is here. Dzhugashvili did exactly the same. This is effective. It works. So you need to use it.
Well, if you slip up and get killed, it's not a big deal. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. But it is very interesting to play such chess.
Very strange question. If they “destroy any alternative opinion” – what “rallies”??? “Destroy” is a very strong word.
In such conditions, only underground struggle, sabotage activities, and the preparation of an armed uprising are possible. “Rallies”, that is, meetings of a large number of personally unknown unarmed people-what is this all about? A call to a rally in these conditions can be considered only and exclusively as a provocation of the special services. Anyone who calls for a rally (and not for an underground secret meeting, etc.) is automatically a provocateur.
I know exactly the answer to this question, I don't know anything more accurate than the answer to this question in my life. I would definitely not do anything, because I have already lived in such a country for 35 years and did absolutely nothing to change anything in it, so I came to Gorbachev's perestroika together with the same people as myself, I only later learned to cut the air with my fists , that is, I became smarter in hindsight and began to show moderate activity.
Classical totalitarian methods of general control and suppression in the modern world have long ceased to rule. Now the alternative opinion is not destroyed. Propaganda tools make it unpopular and marginal, while maintaining the illusion of a free society.
In general, totalitarian systems unwittingly generate not only loyal and opponents, but also those who seek to simply use it, survive with the installation to circumvent this system. Not to win, not to oppose, not to change, but to tear as far as possible. How they dragged little things in the USSR over the fence from factories. And so the collapse of the system in this stratum was associated not with loss, but with the collapse of barriers to the possibility of tearing off even more. Trains have already been brought from the factories.
You have very strange questions that do not correspond to the realities of society… in fact, everything is much simpler… it's not a matter of opinions, but a matter of elementary education, social irresponsibility… All problems are common…Power is a trainer of the people, if parents do not bring up then others will bring up. People simply do not strive for happiness and comfort, or the concept is different for everyone.
Do we live on Mars? This is exactly the kind of country we live in. I can't say I'm resigned. But being a fighter for the truth is terribly exhausting, and even if you are lucky and you don't get a criminal charge, all you will do day and night is participate in all sorts of rallies and other actions. But it is clear that the rallies themselves are useless. in any case, in our country. In addition, I have not yet met such rally organizers with whom I would like to identify myself. Every leader of the opposition sees himself as a great politician, and you as a pawn, an expendable tool for achieving his goals. Therefore, it seems to me less effective, but more effective, to live a normal life and try to reduce the amount of negativity inherent in our lives by personal example. Personally, I strive not to lie, not to hack, not to steal, etc. Raise your children normally. Fight for social justice in your workplace by setting specific goals. This probably sounds like a rejection of some important actions, but all this civic activism, in my opinion, is even less effective. However, I do not exclude that I will take part in actions of this kind, if circumstances develop.
I hope you understand that 99.9% of people do not come up with their own opinions on any issue, but take them from the mass media. Therefore, the fight against alternative opinion — if any) is usually a fight against organized groups that pour their “alternative opinion” into the fragile brains of gullible ordinary people. And it all depends on whether this “alternative opinion” is constructive or destructive. Suppression of the latter only needs to be privetstvovat.
What does “if”mean? We have been living in such a country for the last ten years. Personally, I still put up with this situation, and then we'll see how things develop…
I lived in a country called the USSR. Today, a thinking person is still safer.
But, pissing against the wind is useless.
He never interfered when people were acting smart, but when there was an opportunity to correct something, or stop stupid ratsuhi, he acted. Naturally, evaluating their capabilities.
I'm a gambler. Very much so. I also love to invent and test new things. And I'm all for it!
This is ideal when the state is obviously against you and you, in fact, have nothing to lose. You can't win a war with the state alone, but you can go down in its history as a very annoying person. Like a “crazy engineer who went crazy”. Dark thoughts have their own way. And I would take advantage of it. I can't live in peace and stability – it causes enormous boredom…
I definitely wouldn't have accepted it. Most likely, I wouldn't organize rallies either. A good organizer should think about how to change what they don't like and be able to quietly find like-minded people. And then let the people of the country and the government know what benefits they will get from the changes.
Public opinion in the country on a particular topic is only interested in the state, because it squeezes money from the population and wants to convince them that this money stolen from people is used exclusively for good purposes, for the well-being of the inhabitants of the robbed country.
Any opinion that does not serve this purpose immediately generates indignation of state hangers-on, patriots and parasites of the state profit. In order not to have a conflict with this audience (the question is asked personally to the respondent), I try to compensate for what I have wrung out, which I have wrung out from them. The situation, of course, is not very correct. And I am ready to change it to a more honest one, but the state hangers-on don't want to do this, because they are stupid, and they can't believe that someone (not one of them) also eats at their trough, so they live in peace. And since they think that I eat from a different source (like, nothing personal, he's on the payroll of the State Department), my heresy is tolerated.
To fight openly and at your own expense is stupid, not promising, dangerous, always losing.
There are absolutely all such countries. Some countries struggle with alternative opinions harshly, for example, in the United States. They are deprived of their jobs, American citizenship, expelled, or even sent to prison. An example is the story of Charlie Chaplin. He was expelled from the United States. Somewhere they are not fighting so hard. For example, in Europe and Russia. An alternative opinion is allowed only within certain limits everywhere.
Interesting question.
It largely depends on which opinion is considered uncontested. In which areas of life there is a “non-alternative opinion”. Exactly how it is formulated is an opinion that has no alternatives.
Yes, I would fight, but not with rallies. Here we are talking about a change of power, so at least we are talking about a coup d'etat. Which must be prepared for a long time by underground work.
We all live on a planet where any opinion other than ideology is destroyed. Many of them resigned themselves, obeyed. Some people began to fight, organize rallies.
I certainly wouldn't be a wrestler. I believe that only the unfortunate people who are deprived of their mother's warmth and family are drawn into political games. Those who lived in the USSR know what a country is like in which any opinion is not destroyed, it simply cannot be in the field of public policy. There are a lot of assholes out there right now. This is such an absolutely meaningless activity from the point of view of human normality – adults go out to shout and pour out the accumulated fears and stresses. In general, a madhouse from the animal world.
It depends on the economic situation in such a country. The majority of people join the struggle not for the right to openly express an opinion, but when it becomes like dying-at home on the couch from starvation or on the barricades, where it is not yet known who will take it.
Usually, the struggle is not with opinion, but with its propaganda. There is a party line, and all those who oppose it are suppressed. This is often a mistake: being dissenting and publicly defending your opinion are two different things. If I lived in the country as described above, I would have a personal opinion, but I would not express it, because I have no desire to engage in its propaganda, there are students for this.
But I live in such a country somehow….
Many classes of people that I belong to now or have ever been part of dictate their own rules. The simplest example is a school.
You're a student. And not just any school, but Her Majesty's school number N itself! According to the teaching staff, this means that you SHOULD do everything as required. Did some author say some nonsense? Write an essay that you agree with him, even if your opinion is the opposite.
Although, it would be great if everyone could have their own opinion and respect the opinions of others…
I would probably do everything in my power to achieve normal freedom.Somewhere I read, I forgot the truth.Having a lot, is not free, is forced to take care of a lot.But the caged sage is the one who has freedom.As a result, the estate has almost nothing.
I would leave such a country far away. Even if the opinion coincided with the position of the dominant ideology, there is no guarantee that tomorrow you yourself will not be declared a disgrace (for example, if you approve of the fight against dissenters itself, but condemn the methods with which it is carried out).
Well, I've lived in such a country. Thank God, I didn't grow up to the age when my alternative opinion could have hurt me, perestroika and other fun things began. It is difficult to answer unequivocally without having been in such a situation yourself. Anyone, and I, of course, am ready to stand proudly in a pose and say, without deceit: yes, no way, I would fight! But in reality, going against the system is almost impossible, and involves huge personal risks, including risks for loved ones. Under Stalin, dissidents were exiled and shot; under Brezhnev, they were even more terrible: they were declared mad and locked up in a durka. I probably would have tried to fight. But if my family, those who are dear to me, could suffer in this case, I would probably accept it:(. Or ran away abroad:).
What are the rallies in such a country? You would have woken up in the bullpen before you printed your calls. Because Ivan Fyodorov's printing press is difficult to hide, and printers and copiers have long been withdrawn from the public. Or do you think that” in a country where any opinion that differs from ideology is destroyed”, censorship and control over all information would work? You can fight openly in such a country (and this, judging by the description in the question , is a classic Soviet department) only for the sole purpose of becoming a martyr. Just imagine that the reality you describe has existed for decades: generations are washed up by descendants, every fifth is a snitch, your friends will turn you in, and your parents will be questioned. And they will not see that you are a popadanets from a beautiful distance. The only way out is to remain untrue in secret, dissenting, denying, ironically destroying the mental foundations of the system. Water sharpens the stone.
I would just outwardly accept the existing system and try to benefit from my law-abiding behavior for myself and my relatives,because if you choose the path of struggle, your loved ones may suffer.
If an opinion is destroyed, you will never know about it. You just don't have another one. If the opinion is not destroyed, it makes sense to evaluate it. Perhaps no one, not even you, needs it. If you need it, it makes sense to determine its value to others. Living with your own opinion or imposing it on others are two big differences. If you think your opinion is absolutely valuable to everyone, it's worth fighting for it.
An alternative opinion cannot be destroyed. You can't make everyone think the same way. You can discuss, argue, or fight with an alternative opinion… But the opposition, which seeks power, can be destroyed, and sometimes it is necessary. Although it is easier to organize and lead it :)))
Never in history have rallies changed life in the country, or improved it or the relationship between the government and the people. A rally is a populist action of the organizers, it is a desire to attract the subjects of politics of the subject, that is, the crowd, to the dispute. Do you want to be an object and a puppet in someone else's game? I don't want…
The only way to change anything is to create a powerful party, with an ideology and program of action, with a strong leader and a lot of money. With this, you can enter into a PEACEFUL AND LEGITIMATE political struggle for power. Well, or revolution and civil war, blood, victims and so on…
We live in such a country, if we talk about Russia. Yes, someone will say that on the Echo of Moscow you can still hear something… But the few opportunities to hear an alternative to the frenzied state propaganda make little difference. And millions of people in Russia are fighting against it. The result is unsanctioned and sanctioned mass actions all over the country, boiling on the Internet, political prisoners, hundreds of people detained and fined, politicians and journalists killed…
You want to walk, and I want to sleep. Whose opinion will we destroy? You can arrange anything, but if I decided to sleep, I'll lie down and go to sleep. Which of us is more unfree?
you can fantasize on any topic even this one the parents who take care of the child also have different opinions about what to eat and how to save money the child has a third and everyone is alternative to each other and that this is a family and that the child needs to start a tantrum if they don't let him out at night walk around the cold city in winter or don't buy him a bottle of beer so that he can treat his friends at school he may be offended but making a scandal out of thin air is unlikely
Do we live in a different country? In addition to the proposed options, there are also internal emigration and already familiar departure.
To accept / submit means to lose self-esteem, honor. You can fight with a strong, equal enemy.It is humiliating and useless to fight a cunning and dodgy creature. Organize rallies – enter into a dialogue with the system, the very thing.
So the choice is not very large-internal or external emigration. Both do not promise a heavenly life. But it seems to be the most worthy choice.
I would try to escape to another country, or just to a neutral territory/wilderness, where no one would touch me once again. I'm not one of those who obey, that's for sure, but I'm not one of those who run to protest either. I don't like both options. If we are going to fight for something, then, rather, by democratic legal methods.