Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

I have not read the books. That makes me ignorant in your opinion, right? In all honesty, I am not particularly interested in Orwell's books. What I do know about the books strike me to believe they are rather shallow, and just one man's twisted ideas. I don't think that disqualifies me from registering a valid opinion about your debate here.

Setanta. the pathetic wrote:

Part of the problem is the liberal political correctness we have to go by. Example, none of us can carry on a spray can of shaving cream onto the airplane, regardless of who we are. 80 year old gray haired grandmothers are checked for bombs in their shoes, while Arabs named Mohammed walk through checkpoints. We cannot stereotype the people, we have to be fair, remember? The liberals gave us this situation.

Well, Mr. Setanta, go to Heathrow today and try to get on to a plane with a spray can of shaving cream!!!

Or don't you follow the news???

You call it "political Correctness"?

Don't you know that is exclusively the property of the left wing?

People like you won't be happy until a plane load of innocents is blown out of the skies.

People like Mohammed walk through checkpoints? That's what you say, Setanta. Do you have proof?

They didn't get past the Heathrow screening!!!!!

The better question is how many posters has Setanta labeled "naive."

First, kudos on your honesty.

But, this makes you ignorant not in my opinion but as a simple matter of definition of the word ignorant. That's fine, in and of itself, none of us is free of ignorance, eg myself and physics or economics and much more.

The problem arises when we make assumptions or pronouncements which we have no intellectual warrant to make, not knowing what the thing is that we are speaking about. How could Orwell's work strike you as shallow or the man as twisted if you haven't read the man's work?

You are trying to get by on the cheap and lazy. You did that earlier, too, in the discussion on principle and the ACLU. Perhaps you feel that you already know enough, or already know the important stuff and so your learning work is done. Either one of those is an intellectual self-deceit, and a trap, and a perfect receipe for stupidhood.

Thanks for the complement about honesty, blatham, Have you read every book? If I ever get time, I might consider reading the books, but just because I haven't read the books does not mean I have no inkling of the meaning of "Orwellian." The term has been around a long time, and I've been aware of the general meaning of it. Most of the stuff here on A2K requires no book reading. Its simple common sense.

You call it cheap and lazy. I call it cutting to the chase, knock out the fluff, and get to the point.

Don't you know that in the new Bush World actually having knowledge is an impediment to opinion? Only those berift of such information can speak with purity about things of which they do not know. That is the Way of the Common Man promoted by the banshees on the Right. It remains your God-given right in Bush World to be wilfully ignorant, and say so proudly and loudly. The more ignorant you are the more your opinion counts. In fact as a true American, Democracy demands it.

Knowledge? Well son, that'll just make you stupid.

BernardR wrote:

Setanta. the pathetic wrote:

Part of the problem is the liberal political correctness we have to go by. Example, none of us can carry on a spray can of shaving cream onto the airplane, regardless of who we are. 80 year old gray haired grandmothers are checked for bombs in their shoes, while Arabs named Mohammed walk through checkpoints. We cannot stereotype the people, we have to be fair, remember? The liberals gave us this situation.

Well, Mr. Setanta, go to Heathrow today and try to get on to a plane with a spray can of shaving cream!!!

Or don't you follow the news???

You call it "political Correctness"?

Don't you know that is exclusively the property of the left wing?

People like you won't be happy until a plane load of innocents is blown out of the skies.

People like Mohammed walk through checkpoints? That's what you say, Setanta. Do you have proof?

They didn't get past the Heathrow screening!!!!!

As Setanta and Old Europe have correctly pointed out, the author of the post you quoted was your friend and supporter, okie. You know, okie, one of the men you claim to speak for.

This has to be the funniest event on A2K this year.

You get WHAT from your dog? "adolation"? What in the hell is that? Do you think I will pay attention to a person who is so bereft of basic skills that he cannot spell simple words? Or are you in such an emotional state that you cannot control your thought processes.

I note you are seconded by Snood. Ah yes, Snood. The person who thinks that "tookie" was a wonderful man. I love to converse with Snood. He is one of the few on these threads who is wrong over 80% of the time. That is what happens when you become a captive of the Snoop Doggy Dog mantra on "hos" and "beetches."

I may indeed be barred from making posts on this venue again, Kuvasz.

That is because I call hypocrisy and self-righteousness for what it is. If you were indeed adventurous enough you would find out that I do the same on two other venues.

The truth will always conquer and the phonies will meet their defeat.

Like Cyrano, I carry my adornments on my soul and if I were to be killed, I would know that I have driven some people (my favorites) over the edge. That is a source of great satisfaction to me."

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

ACCORDING TO GEORGE ORWELL, EVENTS AND IDEAS CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED ORWELLIAN IF THEY ARE UTILIZED THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF "THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWSPEAK"

Manipulation of language for political ends. Most significantly by introducing to words meanings in opposition to their denotative meanings.
Invasion by the state of personal privacy, whether physically or by means of surveillance.
The total control of daily life by the state, as in a "Big Brother" society.
The disintegration of the family unit by the state.
The replacement of religious faith with worship of the state in a semi-religious manner.
Active encouragement by the state of "doublethink," whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent.
The denial or rewriting of past events.
A dystopian or antiutopian future.
The use of verbose and ambiguous language.

AGAIN, the Term Orwellian is not applicable to the Bush Administration because , ACCORDING TO GEORGE ORWELL, EVENTS AND IDEAS CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED ORWELLIAN IF THEY ARE UTILIZED THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF "THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWSPEAK"

Manipulation of language for political ends. Most significantly by introducing to words meanings in opposition to their denotative meanings.
Invasion by the state of personal privacy, whether physically or by means of surveillance.
The total control of daily life by the state, as in a "Big Brother" society.
The disintegration of the family unit by the state.
The replacement of religious faith with worship of the state in a semi-religious manner.
Active encouragement by the state of "doublethink," whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent.
The denial or rewriting of past events.
A dystopian or antiutopian future.
The use of verbose and ambiguous language

blatham wrote:

First, kudos on your honesty.

But, this makes you ignorant not in my opinion but as a simple matter of definition of the word ignorant. That's fine, in and of itself, none of us is free of ignorance, eg myself and physics or economics and much more.

The problem arises when we make assumptions or pronouncements which we have no intellectual warrant to make, not knowing what the thing is that we are speaking about. How could Orwell's work strike you as shallow or the man as twisted if you haven't read the man's work?

You are trying to get by on the cheap and lazy. You did that earlier, too, in the discussion on principle and the ACLU. Perhaps you feel that you already know enough, or already know the important stuff and so your learning work is done. Either one of those is an intellectual self-deceit, and a trap, and a perfect receipe for stupidhood.

Thanks for the complement about honesty, blatham, Have you read every book? If I ever get time, I might consider reading the books, but just because I haven't read the books does not mean I have no inkling of the meaning of "Orwellian." The term has been around a long time, and I've been aware of the general meaning of it. Most of the stuff here on A2K requires no book reading. Its simple common sense.

You call it cheap and lazy. I call it cutting to the chase, knock out the fluff, and get to the point.

In regard to the ACLU, I don't know what your problem is. You asked for an example, and I provided it. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal. Instead, you keep asking to go off on a tangent. The ACLU is no "holier than thou" organization that only they know the intricate principles of what they do. Ordinary citizens that are not lawyers can observe their hypocrisy day in and day out. I've noticed it for decades. They claim to stand for civil liberties in an unbiased manner, and they are full of it, plain and simple. They have agendas beyond civil liberties, and most people can see it whether you can or not, blatham.

During their August 9 coverage of the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary, the three major broadcast networks' morning news programs interviewed Sen. Joseph Lieberman but failed to host the winner, Ned Lamont, or any of his representatives. Additionally, NBC's Today and CBS' The Early Show aired twice as much footage of Lieberman's statements following the election as they ran of Lamont's statements.

What does "purposeful manipulation of language" really mean?

What does "purposeful manipulation of language" really mean? After all speech itself is purposeful manipulation of verbal symbols of objects and ideas to make a point or convey a thought. Perhaps you are making a distinction here with very little real difference behind it.

The idiot Bernard continues to assert, after pages of my denial that this is so, that i have labelled the Bush administration as Orwellian. I have not done so, and the idiot Bernard will be unable to provide a quote which demonstrates that i have done so--for the good and sufficient reason that i have not.

Such things obviously to not penetrate his thick skull. On the topic of this thread, i haven't the least doubt that acheiving an Orwellian control of information would be consumation devoutly desired by neo-cons, and in particular, by the Shrub and Company. That is not the same as saying that i believe the jerks have succeeded.