Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:19:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3786 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:
| |
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.
|
I would trust you on this had you not brought up Animal Farm.
| |
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.
|
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.
| |
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.
|
It doesn’t have to mean the opposite. Neither the Wikipedia article on
Doublespeak nor on Newspeak demand that it be the opposite. I’m not sure why you
think it does.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Brilliant comeback.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Do you mean the facts or your own narrow interpretation thereof? I’ll happily
keep to the former but the latter seems a little too fluid for me to keep up
with.
| |
Honestly, Tim, I think you are allowing your apparent dislike of me to cloud
your logic. Did I really get inside your head somehow?
|
Not at all. My logic is sound. I’m yet to see any from you to determine if yours
is the same.
I’m not making any claims to like you but for all I dislike your tone and
quality of argument it’s not enough to make me dislike you. I’m afraid it takes
a lot more than being an arrogant and illogical debater to get in my head.
| |
| |
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.
|
You have yet to dismantle anything in my interpretation. I gave a clear argument
why I thought it was wrong (context and lack of use of the term ‘Big Brother’).
You’ve focused on various semantic points, sometimes correctly and sometimes
incorrectly but that’s not the same as a solid logical argument.
Your initial argument seemed to rest on your incorrect assumption that I’d not
read 1984. You then go on to incorrectly claim that doublespeak (sic) has to be
the opposite. This is followed by some more application of your incorrect
interpretation of doublespeak and finally an incorrect analogy to colours.
Care to point out your logic to me?
If I had a copy of 1984 handy I’d refer to it but unfortunately I don’t.
| |
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.
|
Nor do I see anything about “some government drone in a dark cubicle underneath
Virginia is reading this post to screen for some fuzzy definition of
“unpatriotic activities”” however it does match “Orwell would’ve had the admins
re-writing history (or posts) to make it appear that the past was always a
happy, shiny place.”
It also matches “To my mind, murfling is an insidious Orwellian alternative to
‘cancel’ or ‘delete’ button of the traditional censor.”.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Not an analogy, a metaphor. Incidentally referring to it as coarse tickles me
pink. I love when people act like they think that coarseness weakens an
argument.
| |
Why don’t you reboot and try again?
|
Why bother. Whatever logical flaws I may have made are dwarfed by yours.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) I said "Animal Farm" because I got sick of typing "1984." The intended joke was that you would scour every George Orwell book that you could get your hands on to find something, anything to support your argument. But (URL) it wouldn't be the (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
