12-06-2018, 01:33 AM
(12-05-2018, 11:25 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: How many words that the liberal's use and associate or identify with supposedly don't really mean what they're actually supposed to mean according to the dictionary these days. How many liberal news channels aren't actually real news channels these days? Now, I've never read Orwell's "1984" but I've got a pretty good idea what the book is about and the life lessons that the book is trying to teach its readers and so forth.
Anyone who despises any form of totalitarianism needs read Nineteen Eighty-Four. It exposes as easily as possible the dishonest rhetoric of totalitarianism, its manipulation of statistics (the chocolate ration has been increased by 20% -- after it was cut by 40%, of course), the promotion of hatred, the debasement of life for the people that the system allegedly serves, and the promotion of hatred as a means of creating support for a political system that deserves overthrow -- but cannot be overthrown because the system has so debased language that people can no longer think or even complain.
War is Peace... Freedom is Slavery... Ignorance is Strength! Yes, one can get away with the crudest form of lie, the simple contradiction of truth, when one compels the merging of opposites.
Read also Animal Farm, a work which mocks the Soviet Union by treating the upper hierarchy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) as literal pigs who have taken over a farm from humans in a revolution with promises to make life better for the farm animals and appeal to farm animals throughout England to overthrow their human exploiters. The pigs become just like their old human masters, exploiting other animals in much the same way. The dogs who in the absence of human guidance become as savage predators as bears or big cats, become the secret police.
I am tempted to contemplate a sequel to Nineteen Eighty-Four in which people rise against "Ingsoc", the allegedly socialist party that has created a nightmarish world that is the antithesis of any socialist ideal: people are compelled to compete against each other just to stay alive. The solution is to replace the language. Maybe a pidgin of Classical Greek?
Quote:According to Tucker Carlson, the liberals are pretty Orwellian which I tend to agree with based on my own knowledge of the liberals and their beliefs and what they want/prefer to have for a government. Now, I'm not a big fan of Tucker Carlson. He's a bit to smug and wimpy for my taste but he does have some interesting views and personal takes on issues. So, I do watch his show a bit when there is nothing else on that's more important for me to watch or something more important for me to do instead.
That is argument to authority*, and Tucker Carlson is a very suspect authority. Know well: you cannot know what "Orwellian" means unless you have read Nineteen Eighty-Four, or at least watched one of the movies derived from it. Then, and only then, can you know.
You have been debating me, so you surely think that I have some interesting ideas. Or do I remind you of someone that you may wish that you had paid more attention to in the past, like a high-school teacher? I can suggest plenty of other uses for your time -- like listening to a great work of classical music or visiting an art gallery. Or perhaps volunteering in a food pantry.
Quote:BTW, if the liberals want to preach to me or members of the white working class about the bad/ evil associated white white privilege, I'd suggest that they refrain from using or sending members associated or related to black privilege or Hispanic privilege or mixed black/ Asian Indian privilege and above all do not send a member of white privilege because we don't see them emptying their personal piggy banks that are filled with millions of dollars. I WILL EDUCATE NANCY PELOSI and PLACE A MORAL EXPECTATION ON HER AND THE MILLIONS SHE HAS IN HER PERSONAL ACCOUNTS AND PLANT A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING INTO THAT EMOTIONALLY BOGGLED LIBERAL BRAIN OF HERS THAT SHE WOULD NEVER FORGET.
If I had to choose between being part of the black bourgeoisie and being a poor white person in a poverty-hole like eastern Kentucky or southern West Virginia, then I would take the infusion of melanin so that I could live the Good Life in America now possible for millions of black people. (The worst part is that some dimwit salesclerk might think that a black person is a shoplifter and misses signals of behavior that say 'middle class'. Melanin or meth? That should be obvious enough. I know that white privilege exists, but I also know that one can (1) abuse it, which is horrible, or (2) be a pitiable loser who gets nothing out of white privilege because one throws it away on ignorance or drugs. (Interesting literary premise: take The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, in which a man becomes an insect, and have a white man become black due to some "disease" that turns him black).
But let me say this of white Christians: in contrast to non-whites and non-Christians of any well-defined group, well-off white Christians do nothing for their not-so-well-off brethren. Well-off white people would rather meet people similar to them in culture and economic circumstances than meet destitute white people. The majority of poor people in America are white.
Before you assume intellectual credibility for not being a liberal -- we liberals are generally better educated, and we prefer rational thought to superstition and bigotry. Have you ever heard her speak when she was Speaker of the House from 2007 to 2010? She is about as chilly a rationalist as you will ever met.
*Argument to authority implies either accepting someone completely devoid of intellectual credibility (as in, "I heard this from some drunk in an airport bar while I had a four-hour layover at Chicago O'Hare Airport"), when one accepts an authority on a matter settled later with further evidence (example: using Darwin to explain that gaps exist in his theory of evolution that he explains as principles when such gaps have been explained with the fossil record and with genetics), or when one accepts as authority someone outside of his area of expertise. I would not have debated Noam Chomsky on linguistics, William Shockley on electronics, or Albert Einstein on physics, but they have no more authority on politics than I have.
And, yes, I would not expect Nancy Pelosi to involve herself in debates on quantum physics.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.