Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:57:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3326 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
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.
|
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.
| |
You may also want to check a dictionary for the spelling of
“euphemism”.
|
Fair enough. But if we’re going to start policing spelling and grammatical
errors here on LUGNET then Big Brother is going to be awfully busy...
| |
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.
|
Are you implying that you and Richie Dulin are the same person? I think what
you really mean to say is that “you think he was implying...” Until he speaks
up for himself, it would be misleading for either of us to state definitively
what he meant when he made his “Orwellian” comment.
| |
| |
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.
|
Again, murfling does not prevent access to the words or the information. In
fact, it is a system that has been devised specifically to avoid preventing
access to those words, respecting the rights of the author while still upholding
the property rights of the owner of this board.
It’s not as if murfling is applied in some mysterious way to suppress the ideas
of certain individuals. It is (very rarely) applied in a way that defends
against certain violations of TOS that should come as no surprise to the people
who find themselves on the receiving end. To somehow try to equate this with
the deliberate manipulation of the public consciousness is disingenuous, but not
even that rises to the level of doublethink.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) And you didn't bother to correct it even while commenting that I hadn't read the book (and doublethink is (URL) most definitely 1984> so I'm wondering if you've read a single book by Orwell). Since your argument seemed to involve arguing that (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (17 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
|
|
|
|
