Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:38:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3321 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
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.
|
And you didn’t bother to correct it even while commenting that I hadn’t read the
book (and doublethink is most
definitely 1984 so I’m wondering if you’ve read a single book by Orwell). Since
your argument seemed to involve arguing that my definition of doublespeak (sic)
was incorect based on my not having read the book the fact that you didn’t
correct the error suggests to me that you were, to definitely not doublespeak,
speaking out your arse.
| |
| |
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...
|
Ordinarily I wouldn’t bother pointing it out but I feel that when someone
decides to be pedantic they really ought to do it properly.
| |
| |
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.
|
And yet you were happy to do so earlier and until I pointed out another, more
fitting interpretation you were willing to take your own interpretation as writ.
Of course we could both be wrong and he may have meant Orwellian in the sense of
“petty and self-absorbed with an overwhelming desire to have sex an avoid
marriage” (Keep the Aspidistra Flying).
I notice that while you seem to be good at picking up on little semantic
mistakes by me (and equally good at missing them from yourself) you’re yet to
make a coherent argument for your own interpretation of Richie’s use of
“Orwellian”. Would you care to actually state an argument why you believe that
Richie was using it in the sense of “Big Brother” rather than the sense of
“doublespeak”?
--snip--
| |
| |
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.
|
Murfling prevents those who are unaware of how to circumvent it from reading the
words. It also suppresses the text. It is censorship albeit a very mild form.
Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) I didn't "bother to correct it" because I recognize that the term "doublespeak" has largely entered the public vocabulary as a result of Orwell's work, even if he himself didn't coin the term. Likewise, the Wikipedia article that you cited (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
