Thought Police 1984 Reflection
Thought Police Game Reflection Paper Playing "the Game" made me feel indifferent and did not affect my behavior or actions. I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that any of a person's personal actions, in regards to the sharing of information and personal transactions, should be monitored and used as evidence against them in any kind of situation. "The Game" has further reinforced my opinions on the monitoring of personal things. While some students allowed "the Game" to change the way they acted, I chose to continue my normal routines and hoped that they either wouldn't break the rules or that the thinkpol wouldn't catch me. The probability that any of the three original thinkpol were around to see me break a rule and then keep record of it so they could report it to Mrs. Hamilton was pretty low. The only rules that changed my behavior were rules 6 and 5, as these were rules that could not simply be avoided. I have always had a general dislike of people monitoring my actions and this game has not helped to sway my opinion of monitoring. Ingsoc is largely based around the monitoring of people and would not succeed without monitoring and controlling through things like telescreens, newspeak, and doublethink. In the book 1984, even thoughtcrime was punishable. They monitored even your facial expressions to make sure you weren't committing facecrime. In the book, Miniluv is the name of the ministry responsible for monitoring people. The main reason I dislike the idea of monitoring people's actions is because the people that monitor your actions are, in fact, no different from the people being monitored. Humans are, in their very nature, able to be swayed by something like a bribe or just a personal feeling. The fact that the thinkpol were our peers who had already formed opinions about us, whether good or bad, also changed the way they monitored us, even if they weren't consciously aware of it. The same principles will apply in