Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:25:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3514 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
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.
|
I’ve read 1984 but it was a long time ago. The
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
“euphemism”.
My point is that you clearly missed the point. Richie was in now way implying
that murfling was a part of Big Brother like activities on Lugnet. He was
implying it was a euphemism for censorship. You can argue the semantics of
doublespeak all you like but it doesn’t in any way remedy your original error of
comprehension.
| |
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.
|
“Murfle” is a made up word to euphemise a form of censorship.
| |
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.
|
Murfling is a form of censorship. It is not “pink” to the “red” of censorship.
With murfling you are “suppressing a text” 1 and taking action “to prevent
others from having access to... information”. Just as one can have a censored
and uncensored version of a film one gets a censored (murfled) and uncensored
(viewing the raw text) version of Lugnet.
Tim
1 http://www.medialit.org/readingroom/article565.html
2 http://www.odl.state.ok.us/servlibs/l-files/glossc.htm
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) Perhaps you should re-read our own words then, before you dust off your old copy of Animal Farm. It was you who "assumed" that Richie was referring to doublespeak when he invoked Orwell. (...) Fair enough. But if we're going to start policing (...) (18 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
