People v. Reason

Thought policing creates discord by rewarding the obedient with praise for being "good" by showing mindless compliance to the ideological order.

Their enemy consists of all who defy the new standards and not only think for themselves, but communicate about reality and mock the claims central to the ideological order.

Reason never enters this movement. There are only commands and expectations of behavior, and from that a dividing line of followers and apostates, each unable to understand the motivations of the other.

Previously this tension culminated in name-calling against the disobedient. The burden was on the deviant to prove he wasn't the false name spuriously attributed to him, which could only be disproven by denouncing himself and parroting the talking points of his attackers. Sincerity wasn't required to defuse the conflict, only a demonstration of submission.

The name-calling and insults were just a means of forcing conversion, barely different from a religious declaration extracted by fire and sword.

To speed this process, believers promote purges of dissenters, trying to get people unemployed if they've privately expressed criticism of ideas considered sacrosanct and important to the conversion process.

Their method reminds of communism where ideological compliance overtook reality. Shutting down dissenting expression is just a small step from sending enemies to labor camps, mandating re-education to ideological obedience, and liquidating those who speak out and are capable of contributing to a rationally based counter-revolution.

This undercurrent has been bubbling for decades, periodically emerging in efforts to remove bad words from pop music or restrict video games.

News that was previously locked down by major networks and then major cable channels now runs wild, and people have never been able to communicate with each other more freely. Anonymous communication is especially troubling because it allows common citizens to avoid threats of violence or homelessness when voicing unpopular opinions and criticism of essential ideological pillars.

It was never about reason.