.

Dear Foxy,

.

Here is an interesting passage on public opinion from a book entitled “Multitude” (link at end) :

« This notion of public opinion quickly divides in modern political thought according to two opposing views: a utopian vision of the perfect representation of the will of the people in government and an apocalyptic vision of manipulated mob rule. Consider, for example, two texts published in 1895: James Bryce's American Commonwealth and Gustave Le Bon's Psychologie des foules (The Crowd). Bryce, a Scottish scholar and politician who, like Tocqueville before him, celebrates U.S. democracy, sees public opinion as an essential mechanism of democratic representation. The rule of public opinion could be achieved, Bryce writes, "if the will of the majority of citizens were to become ascertainable at all times, and without need of its passing through a body of representatives, possibly without the need of voting machinery at all .... this informal but direct control of the multitude would dwarf, if it did not supersede, the importance of formal but occasional deliverances made at the elections of representatives. Bryce imagines a political system in which the will of all individuals is completely and immediately represented in government, a system that he thought nineteenth-century U.S. politics made possible.

« Le Bon, in contrast, sees in the public expressions of the masses not many rational individual voices but one indifferent and irrational voice. In the crowd, according to Le Bon, "the heterogeneous is swamped by the homogeneous and the unconscious qualities obtain the upper hand. Crowds are fundamentally irrational and susceptible to external influence; they naturally and necessarily follow a leader whose control maintains their unity through contagion and repetition. In fact, panic might be thought of as the primary emotion of the crowd. The Greek god Pan, from whose name the term derives, leads the masses and drives them insane: innocent people are lynched by mobs, markets collapse, currencies crumble, wars begin. Public opinion is so dangerous according to this second, apocalyptic vision, then, because it tends to be both unified and susceptible to manipulation.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

« In the field of media studies … we find once again the old, bifurcated view of public opinion as either rational individual expression or mass social manipulation. The utopian view is promoted chiefly by the mainstream media itself: the media present objective information that allows citizens to form their own opinions, which in turn are reflected back to them faithfully by the media's opinion polls.

« The scholarly field of media studies tends instead toward the apocalyptic view. Scholars highlight the manipulative effect of opinion polls. There is, of course, something strangely circular in the notion that opinion polls tell us what we think. At the very least, opinion polls « have a centripetal psychological effect, encouraging all to conform to the view of the majority. Many on both the left and the right charge that the media and their opinion polls are biased and serve to manipulate and even fabricate public opinion.

« Once again, public opinion seems to be trapped between the naive utopianism of objective information and rational individual expression and the cynical apocalypticism of mass social control. »

http://ia800204.us.archive.org/11/items/ruidolibrebibliografia/Hardt&Negri_Multitude.pdf

.

Hi Diver Dan,
I think you're right, the last line was a bit ambiguous;
- But I can't seem to find the right words to fix it.

I maybe should've tried to explain that we shouldn't EVER set out to humiliate or inflict harm on others with our words, end of story;
But that if during the course of a discussion, (or a response to someones foolish actions) there's a need to make fun of them in order to effectively put ones opinion across, then that's fair play.

So I'm saying that I recognise I shouldn't run around using my words as a sword to attack people for no reason, because I know that my words can cause harm;

Also, when I do use words in a manner that seems to attack others, (usually it's because I'm actually defending some position) I have to be responsible in recognising that not all peoples skin is as thick as others.
Some people can take it while others are more timid and can really take comments to heart.

I don't always get it right, but I try to be mindful of it.

Anyhow, that's kind of what I was trying to say.

The WA Labor Governments believe a majority of opinion is the only one allowed in Public buildings. All other are to be silenced.
Fron a letter I receiived:

Freedom of religion and belief remains woefully unprotected in this country – despite promises from our political leaders.
But if we did need any reminding, the WA Government has made it VERY clear.
It has been reported by media this week that, only 48 hours after its crushing victory in March, the McGowan Labor Government issued a shocking edict.
State-funded facilities are banned from hosting events “where the content of the event does not represent the views of the West Australian government or the vast majority of Western Australians”.
These are taxpayer-funded venues. And you’ll be banned from using them if your views run contrary to those of the government.
You’d expect this sort of treatment in China, Cuba or North Korea, but in an Australian state?
It takes the idea of ‘cancel culture’ to a whole new level.
And it’s not only the Australian Christian Lobby (which tried to make a booking) that’s fallen foul of this totalitarian ruling.
A prohibition on bookings from organisations “identifying with countries whose political status is unclear or in dispute” seems squarely aimed at stifling critics of the Communist Chinese government.
Apparently Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, Uighurs and Tibetans need not apply.
These happenings underline the abject failure of our Federal Parliament to legislatively protect our basic freedoms.
We're moving beyond individuals coming under fire for their beliefs (think Israel Folau, Archbishop Julian Porteous and Senator Claire Chandler to name but a few).
We're now talking entire groups who will be cancelled for their beliefs.
WA is the latest state to treat freedom of religion and belief with contempt – and until we have some meaningful action at a federal level, nothing will change. end quote.

Because the majority Party in WA voted Labor it could mean a party that condemns communism like the Liberal Party could ultimately be denied use of public buildings in WA.

Gentlemen,

I appreciate all of your opinions and posts.
This discussion has gone for far longer than
I expected. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
For me I've nothing further to add. This discussion
has now run its course.

I look forward to our next discussion.

Take care and stay safe.

The fight for freedom of expression is just beginning, as Marxism believes it is the only opinion that should be heard in public.