Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:04:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3467 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
Given the conext of its use and the lack of mention of ‘Big Brother’ I would
assume that Richie is using Orwellian to refer to doublespeak. In this case
murfling is Orwellian. It’s a ‘nice’ way of saying censored.
|
Nice try, but you might want to actually read Orwell before you start using him
to back you up. Doublespeak does not refer to the simple use of euphamism. To
qualify as doublespeak, a phrase must use words in a disingenuous way to imply
their opposite. “War is Peace” or “Compassionate Conservatism” for example.
In this case, the term “murfle” is very descriptive of what is going on - the
words are muffled, but you can still make them out if you want to expend the
extra effort. If Todd had used a word like “emphasizing” or “underscoring” or
“spotlighting” then I might see your point.
I would argue that “murfle” isn’t even a euphamism for “censorship” because,
as I’ve already pointed out, it is describing something that is many degrees shy
of censorship. Is “pink” a euphamism for “red?” No, it is a different word
describing a different (if somewhat similar) concept.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) I've read 1984 but it was a long time ago. The (URL) wikipedia article> shows that you obviously haven't read it to recently either since the term doublespeak never actually appears. You may also want to check a dictionary for the spelling of (...) (18 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
