The insidious agenda to outlaw 'misinformation'
The following is my subjective opinion. Irrespective of whichever of the following sentences appear to be, or are deemed to be ‘misinformation’, they remain my opinion.
There have been recent political moves to outlaw ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ within Australia.
In my earlier post* I offered my understanding that “the world in which we live is a self-organizing system in which everyone and everything is dynamically interacting... This self-organizing system reveals itself in nature as a dynamic balance of two tendencies, one being toward community and togetherness, and the other is toward individuality and separateness.”
The tendency toward community and togetherness naturally requires agreeableness, empathy and a sense of unity. That tendency is quintessentially feminine in nature. The feminine propensity toward being agreeable and empathetic is the vital essence, the glue that binds families and groups together in harmony.
And yet disharmony, despite its seemingly distasteful nature, is a vital balancing energy that gives rise to creative new insights, disruptive technologies, new ways of doing things, and … solutions to problems that the prevailing harmonious, unified thinking has failed to see, let alone remedy. Disharmony, in the form of an original idea or solution, by definition lies outside, external to the inner, intimate nature of harmony, unity and agreeableness. Hence why the vast majority of ‘outlaws’ are masculine in nature.
Politicians, the clever ones, know that the feminine propensity toward harmony, empathy and agreeableness can be easily exploited when the vital balancing energy of a masculine, disagreeable disharmony is absent.
The creative tension between harmony and disharmony - vital to any creative, entrepreneurial and compassionate culture, has been, in recent years, subverted and is now heavily biased toward obedience to a harmonious ‘group-think’, for the sake of greater centralized control.
Misinformation can be, in theory, objectively defined. Information is a bit, a byte, a collection of data - it’s an objectively identifiable ‘thing’, able to be entered into a computer, seen, shared, and most importantly clearly articulated. What the law is seeking to do, however, is to disallow subjective opinions that run contrary to the allowed ‘group-think’. And therein lies a pernicious subterfuge. This is not about some objectively-defined transgression against the accepted rule of law. ‘Misinformation’ is a subjective judgement of being contrary to the current ‘group-think’, typically termed ‘community standards’. That’s evident by the fact that there remains no objective definition of what constitutes ‘misinformation’ or what constitutes ‘community standards’. Its intent is to disallow individual subjective opinions. It’s to disallow the very essence of individuality – one’s ability to think and feel differently.
The subterfuge is the attempt to claim objectivity within an irreducibly subjective realm (one’s personal subjective opinions). It’s a smoke-screen hiding the deceitful attempt to quantify that which irrevocably remains a subjective, qualitative dimension to life. If the law is passed, we may well expect genuinely original art, creativity and compassion to be expunged from our culture. We will rue the day when, for the sake of ‘harmony’ and ‘selfless’ conformity, we lose our individuality – compassion requires individuality. Those of a selfless disposition, fixated on some illusory collective ideal, have, by definition, no self with which to feel compassion for others. We may well expect to see a repeat of the unimaginably horrendous, cruel and intolerant behaviours of past collectivist societies toward their own citizens.
As an aside, the above-mentioned manipulation toward a cultural collectivism, at the expense of vibrant free-speaking individuality, was readily observed in recent years when many were, and some still are, mandated to receive experimental medical interventions, supposedly to protect grandma. The subtext being: ‘Be good, obedient and compassionate. Do the right thing, for the sake of others.’
It’s not a coincidence that the proponents of a ‘yes’ vote in the forthcoming referendum seeking ‘a voice’ for indigenous Australians, pull heavily on our ‘heart-strings’ by appealing to our empathy and compassion. The ‘yes’ proponents have not and will not objectively clarify the precise details of the intended legislation. They’ll stay within the subjective realm, wherein manipulation, fluid and irrational expectations, mandates and work requirements can be proclaimed at whim.
see