Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:34:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3557 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:
| |
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.
|
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
it wouldn’t be the first time
that my brand of humor has proven to be too subtle for you.
| |
| |
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.
|
Is that what you were trying to say? I suppose it wouldn’t be the first time
that your brand of logic has proven to be too subtle for me.
| |
| |
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.
|
Doublespeak implies the misleading use of terminology to cloak the true meaning
of phrases. Since the word “murfle” was invented whole cloth by Todd to
describe something new, which even you admit is not full-out censorship, and
since it does not have a pre-existing meaning which would distract somebody from
understanding its true meaning, your statement that the word “murfle” is used as
doublespeak for censorship falls flat.
Is it censorship when a web site makes you click an extra link in order to see
material that may be considered offensive to some? If so, then I think it is
hysterical that the home page of a certain board that was created specifically
in response to “too much censorship on LUGNET” contains exactly such a warning.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I am perfectly satisfied that a rational reader can understand what I am saying,
and I am also completely comfortable with the consistency of my statements. If
you don’t fall into that category, well then that really isn’t my problem.
Please demonstrate how I have been “fluid” in my interpretation?
| |
| |
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.
|
If you say so.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Ah, well let me save you some time. Without thumbing through my copy I can
pretty much guarantee you that you will not find any mention of the word
“Orwellian” in the book 1984.
| |
| |
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.”.
|
Again, I’m not really sure which side of the argument you are on here. Sure,
Richie and I seem to be able to use the term “Orwellian” correctly. Does the
Wikipedia definition “match” any of the statements you’ve made?
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Oh, I don’t think coarseness weakens an argument per se, but it is usually a
sign that emotion is taking over for logic.
And that is really the crux of this whole murfling thing to begin with. It is
possible to teach even a sex education class without resorting to vulgar or
profane language, so it really baffles me when people claim that the threat that
their profanity might get murfled is somehow suppressing their ability to
express their ideas.
Your interpretation: Richie was saying that, because the Admins see a button
that says “murfle” instead of one that says “delete” or “cancel” that this
somehow makes it easier for them to censor a post for less-than-honorable
reasons. Show me a post, any post on LUGNET that has been murfled for any
reason other than a clear violation of TOS regarding strong language.
My interpretation: Richie was saying that “murfling” is a mysterious tool that
is arbitrarily applied by the admins to suppress certain viewpoints and/or
sanitize the historical record of this site. Again, show me any murfled post
that supports that position. And then explain to me why Todd went to such great
lengths to create a system which allowed the admins to bury the profanity
without actually deleting the offensive text from the permanent record.
Regardless of which interpretation is correct, I stand by my initial reaction
that Richie was being rather alarmist. Nothing fluid about it whatsoever.
| |
| |
Why don’t you reboot and try again?
|
Why bother. Whatever logical flaws I may have made are dwarfed by yours.
|
“I know you are, but what am I?”
Brilliant.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| --snip-- (...) Not that interested to be honest. I've read most of his books and the only ones I can think of that are relavent are 1984 and Animal Farm (and posible some snippets from Shooting an Elephant). Obviously my joke about Keep the (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
