Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:34:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3620 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:
| |
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.
|
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
clearly links the very definition of doublespeak to the plot of the book 1984.
I do not feel the need to be purposefully obtuse in order to advance an
argument.
Furthermore, you might want to decide which side of the argument you are on
before you start typing. When did I ever say that “doublethink” wasn’t Orwell?
And if we can agree that “doublespeak” is largely derived from Orwell’s concepts
of “newspeak” and “doublethink” then it is simply a red herring for you to
debate the origin of the word.
Your assertion that using the word “murfle” to describe “censorship” is
doublespeak is flawed, because the word does not literally mean the opposite of
what it is being used for. So yes, I do think you might benefit from re-reading
(and grokking) Orwell’s books.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I’m always happy to learn from a True Master.
| |
| |
| |
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).
|
Not at all. I did not make definitive statements such as “Richie was in no way
implying...” as the foundation of my argument. I read Richie’s words and formed
an interpretation of what he meant, as did you. We both can debate on the
assumption that our own interpretation is the correct one, and we can attempt to
point out where the other’s interpretation may be inconsistent with Richie’s
original statement, as I have done with your doublespeak. But please try to
stick to the facts at hand when making your case.
Honestly, Tim, I think you are allowing your apparent dislike of me to cloud
your logic. Did I really get inside your head somehow?
| |
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”?
|
Again, not at all. You haven’t shown in any way that my Big Brother
interpretation is incorrect, you merely “assumed” that he meant something
different and then used that assumption as the basis for stating unequivocally
that I had made an error in comprehension. I may very well have mis-interpreted
Richie’s statement, but you have yet to actually dismantle my interpretation the
way that I have dismantled yours.
So let’s see what your favorite
reference source has to say about the word “Orwellian.”
Orwellian describes a situation, idea, or condition that George Orwell
identified as being inimical to the welfare of a free-society. An attitude and a
policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and
manipulation of the past (including the “unperson”--a person whose past
existence is expunged) practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this
includes the situations depicted in his fictional novels, particularly his
political novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Orwell’s ideas on personal freedom and
state authority developed during his time as a British colonial administrator in
Burma. He was fascinated by the effect of colonialism on the individual; it
requires accepting the lie that the oppressor exists for one’s own good. This
perverts the humanity of both the oppressor and the oppressed.
This definition seems to speak volumes about “control by propaganda,
misinformation, and denial of truth” but I don’t see a whole lot about
newspeak/doublethink/doublespeak.
| |
| |
| |
Murfling is a form of censorship. It is not “pink” to the “red” of
censorship.
|
|
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.
|
Just as “pink” is a very mild form of “red...?” I will avoid your coarse
analogy, but you are talking yourself in circles.
Why don’t you reboot and try again?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) I would trust you on this had you not brought up Animal Farm. (...) Where did I say you did? You dropped a comment on Animal Farm in reference to Doublespeak, I pointed out that it was from 1984 alone. (...) It doesn't have to mean the (...) (18 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
