Monday, 10 March 2014

Facts vs opinions, some examples

Immigration is a good example of separating facts and opinions in a single issue. The left, as they are, as exemplified by the material of Stuart Lee, claim unless you want totally free immigration and no doubt (as others have said elsewhere) hate the idea of a white British city, you must be racist. This is using the standard totalitarian means they have now adopted of taking an opinion and making it appear to be a fact. But those who say (including existing immigrants) the only reason they don't want more is because there's no room, and that includes white Europeans coming in at a rate of six figures a year, are simply stating facts. The EU claim it's racist to test their doctors on language when moving countries, but not if someone dies as they couldn't understand what they were saying.

This represents every single other example, where generally those on the left make the two heinous transgressions of forcing their opinions on others under the disguise of facts (if you say marriage is between a man and a woman you're just 'homophobic') and trying to make facts into mere opinions where they disagree with them.

This state of mind dominates 21st century politics, but once pointed out and identified, can no longer work. These sleights of hand are no different from poor magic tricks. They may work on the majority of average people for a while but can never last once they know how they're done. The nature of facts and opinions can never change, so when a thermometer rises 0.8C then there is no way anyone can claim it is anything more than a fact, but then saying 'but it's rising fast and will soon reach 2C' when no one outside a linear system can know, and you say that then it's called an opinion and you get labelled a murderer (as I have been).

Otherwise politics is and should be driven by the majority of opinions in that society at the time, and known as such.
Therefore you can have two parties who want more or less immigration, but be honest and say clearly 'We would prefer a society with more/fewer immigrants and vote for us if that's what you want'. No false claims of economic benefits or more curry for everyone, just strip it down and say 'we want more/less immigrants in our country as that's what we prefer'. That's an opinion, as opinions even if you don't like one they're always equal, and can never be any different to what you prefer on a menu.

When the other side (that is the other side from honesty) make claims otherwise, they are being totalitarian. You must have our opinion otherwise you don't belong in society. Therefore only the party who said 'we want more immigrants as that's how we'd personally prefer to live' would be the only ones allowed, the only 'right' opinion, and the other would be outlawed, and like Russia and many like it today the other side and its supporters would be imprisoned wherever possible.  That's how the second world war started, and is responsible for deaths across the world since the start of history. There is a third related thread of religion, which takes the opinion and attributes them to a supernatural source they claim makes them into facts, so when carbon dating shows life on earth to be millions of years old they simply say it must be wrong as God said so. These sorts of arguments are expanded by the political dictators of today and vast armies of their propogandists are employed to tell you gay marriage is equal marriage, and temperatures will rise dangerously in 2100. Both are totally their opinions, but disagree and you could end up in serious trouble one way or another. That is because these memes can and are becoming enshrined in laws, the British government tried to make it illegal to cause offence to others recently, and only narrowly escaped becoming law. Of course that would have included gay marriage, so had it been enacted I would have been potentially liable for claiming it was only their opinion and more so may not even be valid as only a man and a woman can be a married couple.

So where opinions can not only become elevated to the level of facts, but override them, you have the most dangerous situation of all. The terracentric universe or flat earth. Where the authorities enforce a lie over reality and punish anyone who disagrees. Labour and the Greens are now considering legislation against climate change denial if they come into power, even though it is impossible to know if the temperature can rise that much as it's a chaotic system and none of us can live that long anyway. We are in a lot of trouble politically. The totalitarians have the upper hand and are currently winning, but knowing their tricks is always enough to undo them, and that's what you do now.

No comments:

Post a Comment