as it’s sung in a well-known song: Mister Reagan says “We will protect you”…
Emmanuel Goldstein usually appears in the guise of a benevolent politician offering a strategic defense initiative, or a simple way to wipe out all the world’s terrorists by bombing country X; or as a successful businessman offering a “reliable” operating system for housewives; or a hastily tested vaccine; or “green” energy in exchange for nuclear power plants that supposedly very bad. Was the risk in these cases explicitly named, or was it deliberately overstated in order to extract political or economic benefit?
I see that someone is exaggerating the risks of a techno-apocalypse, But I don’t deny that they really exist.
As someone also born in the USSR (and still occasionally pinching myself to make sure I haven’t gone back), I confirm: I’ve seen this pattern before.
Fear is a resource. Someone always shows up to monetize it. But here’s the good news: a risk that’s explicitly named is harder to exploit.
as it’s sung in a well-known song:
Mister Reagan says “We will protect you”…
Emmanuel Goldstein usually appears in the guise of a benevolent politician offering a strategic defense initiative, or a simple way to wipe out all the world’s terrorists by bombing country X; or as a successful businessman offering a “reliable” operating system for housewives; or a hastily tested vaccine; or “green” energy in exchange for nuclear power plants that supposedly very bad.
Was the risk in these cases explicitly named, or was it deliberately overstated in order to extract political or economic benefit?
I see that someone is exaggerating the risks of a techno-apocalypse, But I don’t deny that they really exist.