NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

And that, RealAmerica, is why noone takes you seriously.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

No one said it wasnt fiction.

And the Bible is conservative propaganda, since they quote from it.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Are you trolling, or are you serious? And have you read the book?

Oh oh oh oh oh!

I need to read this for school!

*keeps an eye on thread*

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/402507-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

fucking nutjob nazis, where do they keep coming from?

SNIP

I suggest you read it first then say what you think of it

edit: and why would you be protected from terrorism in 1984?

Okay. I'm now officially convinced that you are not real. I had my doubts before but I doubt any real person could have as ridiculous an opinion as this. You took it too far, man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

This is the page on the novel. Read it before talking about it, RA.

Because, no one has any rights, stupid. Everyone's content because they don't know there's a better way. Would you want to live in a 1984-esque society? No.

REALAMERICA -

Are you for real? Do you read thse things you post? Or are you just trying to get a rise out of people?

Also, have you read the book? Or even seen the movie (easier to do, but not really worth it)

Big Brother is a very applicable analogy to the current structure that the Administration is trying to apply to our government.

I'd advise reading a book before you discuss it.

Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society.
I think that says it all. Good night dahrlin' :D
http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/goodone.gif

Because, no one has any rights, stupid. Everyone's content because they don't know there's a better way. Would you want to live in a 1984-esque society? No.

Exactly. They don't know what they're missing. Do you think that cavemen spent their days bawling their eyes out because they didn't have a big-screen TV? Hell, no. They were happy with doing whatever technologically inferior devices of amusement they had. The same applies to citizens of 1984 -- they are blissful despite their lack of rights.

Oh oh oh oh oh!

I need to read this for school!

*keeps an eye on thread*

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/

:cool:

If you want I can beat you with hammers untill you are ignorant. Oh wait you are already there.

Big Brother is a very applicable analogy to the current structure that the Administration is trying to apply to our government.

Yes, the same way Fahrenheit 451 is a very applicable analogy to the world of bums.

Okay. I'm now officially convinced that you are not real. I had my doubts before but I doubt any real person could have as ridiculous an opinion as this. You took it too far, man.

Agreed!

Okay. I'm now officially convinced that you are not real.

Yes, I'm just a figment of your imagination. Do you have such hallucinations often?

I think that says it all. Good night dahrlin' :D
http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/goodone.gif

That's unfair. He's just trying to show us the truth about liberals!

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7941/tmw062806pj4.jpg

And that, RealAmerica, is why noone takes you seriously.

Well, all the people who don't "take me seriously" haven't bothered to answer my query. Liberals: what's wrong with 1984?

Exactly. They don't know what they're missing. Do you think that cavemen spent their days bawling their eyes out because they didn't have a big-screen TV? Hell, no. They were happy with doing whatever technologically inferior devices of amusement they had. The same applies to citizens of 1984 -- they are blissful despite their lack of rights.

just like North Korea or Stalin’s Russia yes those people have great fun

And no are nomadic ancestors is not a fair comparison because it feels normal not to have a T.V (at least in Nature where your not used to it) whereas to live in a totalitarian state requires heavy brainwashing because deep down it will not feel right (most of all it will upset your natural instincts)

Exactly. They don't know what they're missing. Do you think that cavemen spent their days bawling their eyes out because they didn't have a big-screen TV? Hell, no. They were happy with doing whatever technologically inferior devices of amusement they had. The same applies to citizens of 1984 -- they are blissful despite their lack of rights.

Cavemen had the freedom of choice. The charachters of 1984 don't; it's not a matter of technology. If you actualy lived in 1984, your fancy big-screen TV would only show "government approved" stations and propaganda. If you were to be caught doing anything wrong at any time in any place, you would be kidnapped, tourtured, and killed.

Are you against the concept of free will?

Exactly. They don't know what they're missing. Do you think that cavemen spent their days bawling their eyes out because they didn't have a big-screen TV? Hell, no. They were happy with doing whatever technologically inferior devices of amusement they had. The same applies to citizens of 1984 -- they are blissful despite their lack of rights.

The protanganist is obviously not blissful especially when he's sent to room 101

Are you against the concept of free will?

It's nice to see fascism lives on.

Well, all the people who don't "take me seriously" haven't bothered to answer my query. Liberals: what's wrong with 1984?

as a left-libertarian (center of the third quadrant (pro-welfare-state libertarian): EVERYTHING!

Well, all the people who don't "take me seriously" haven't bothered to answer my query. Liberals: what's wrong with 1984?

Nothing. I have not thought anything wrong! I would never think a critical thought - I love Big Brother with all my heart and soul!

:eek: Aaaaah! Don't take me to room 101, take RealAmerica instead! I beg of you! I'll do anythiiiiiii

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

So in other words, you're talking out of your ass? Yeah...read the book, THEN comment on it. Not the other way around.

Oh, and "ignorance is bliss" doesn't come out of 1984...it comes out of Thomas Gray's "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College". Ironic that you choose a line that argues against education, but not for the reasons you seem to think.
To each his sufferings: all are men,
Condemned alike to groan;
The tender for another's pain,
The unfeeling for his own.
Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.

Liberals: what's wrong with 1984?

well its a thrashing good read but I must say there aren’t any pictures and tends to cause one to drift off (as all books do!)

Actually, to put the record straight, I'm going to go through this. Let's see:

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things.
Wrong. It is used by 'liberals' (without meaning to go into ridiculous crude political labels) who are against the creeping authoritarian techniques of the State, regardless of which it may be. Of course, noone actually thinks that kind of society is going to happen (yet...) but it is used as a straw-man or a label.

Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda,
Well, it was written by a democratic socialist, so it must be filthy propaganda. Just like the works of Einstein, and any other writer with non-conservative tendencies.

it seems to be an ideal society.
Then you must be twisted. Seriously. Torture? Dictatorship? No privacy, even when having a shit? Being intentionally kept in poverty? Is that really 'ideal' to you?

Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them.
So, you have nothing against regimes like Stalin's USSR, Nazi Germany and China? Even your hated Iran? They do exactly that.

Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable.
If you describe bliss as being indoctrinated by your government, go ahead. Each to his own I suppose.

So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

Because it bloody well isn't. But like Isaid. Each to his own. It's a shame Air Koryo doesn't fly from the US to Pyongyang these days. I'd have brought you a one way ticket. I guess you'll be taking a boat to paradise.

just like North Korea or Stalin’s Russia yes those people have great fun

No, because those people knew how much their life sucked. Someone who has been completely brainwashed would think his life was excellent when it really wasn't. Shouldn't our goal to be make everyone as happy as possible?

Well, all the people who don't "take me seriously" haven't bothered to answer my query. Liberals: what's wrong with 1984?

You probably wouldn't ask that question if you had read the book.

Well, all the people who don't "take me seriously" haven't bothered to answer my query. Liberals: what's wrong with 1984?

...misery, oppression, and lack of hope doesn't count as being wrong?

And you say that everyone was happy watching the viewscreens... whereas most of the Airstrip One citizens didn't have viewscreens... or much of anything, really.

So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

It's not like you surprised anyone with that.

Well, it was written by a democratic socialist, so it must be filthy propaganda. Just like the works of Einstein, and any other writer with non-conservative tendencies.

No, Einstein was an extremely smart man. He was not very political and did not expound on his views in the form of propaganda disguised in fictional form. He stuck to what he was best at, for the most part -- physics. Many other writers with non-conservative tendencies may also produce good books, granted that they are not partisan propaganda.

Then you must be twisted. Seriously. Torture? Dictatorship? No privacy, even when having a shit? Being intentionally kept in poverty? Is that really 'ideal' to you?

No, because I have not been brainwashed with Big Brother's ideals. I would resent such a society should it crop up anywhere in the world. However, it would be bliss for those indoctrinated with Party beliefs -- if they thought that the country was like heaven, they obviously would be happy.

So, you have nothing against regimes like Stalin's USSR, Nazi Germany and China? Even your hated Iran? They do exactly that.

That's because their citizens are miserable. From what I read of 1984, most citizens are brainwashed and happy to live in such a society.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/

:cool:

*humps*

...misery, oppression, and lack of hope doesn't count as being wrong?

Does that generalization apply to all citizens of the state? I was under the impression that they lived under squalid conditions but were content with it.

It's not like you surprised anyone with that.

Nor was I intending to.

Stay tuned for RealAmerica's next thrilling installments of "What's Wrong with...", including:

What's Wrong with Stalinism?
What's Wrong with Burning Witches at the Stake?
What's Wrong with Blowing Up Abortion Clinics?
What's Wrong with Rape?

Only here in NSG: all trolls, all the time.

No, Einstein was an extremely smart man. He was not very political and did not expound on his views in the form of propaganda disguised in fictional form. He stuck to what he was best at, for the most part -- physics. Many other writers with non-conservative tendencies may also produce good books, granted that they are not partisan propaganda.

Then why did he leave Germany? Or plead with FDR not to drop the bomb? Or bother coming to the United States?


No, because I have not been brainwashed with Big Brother's ideals. I would resent such a society should it crop up anywhere in the world. However, it would be bliss for those indoctrinated with Party beliefs -- if they thought that the country was like heaven, they obviously would be happy.

So you support brainwashing?


That's because their citizens are miserable. From what I read of 1984, most citizens are brainwashed and happy to live in such a society.

I thought you never read it.

From what I read of 1984, most citizens are brainwashed and happy to live in such a society.
If you read the book, you'd know that was completely erroneous.

Don't feed the troll.

They reproduce by mytosis, so if you keep feeding him, he'll reproduce.

No, because those people knew how much their life sucked. Someone who has been completely brainwashed would think his life was excellent when it really wasn't. Shouldn't our goal to be make everyone as happy as possible?

Thats the crux of the matter right there. The characters of 1984 arn't happy, they just think they are because that is what they are told. The reason the setting of 1984 is widely regarded as a dystopia is because the government had managed to dehumanise the population. They have no dreams or aspirations, all work and thought is for the greater good of the state or the party. To quote Winston Smith "you cannot build a society on hate. It will self destruct".

PS I really recommend you read the book before trying to discuss. And calling it liberal propaganda filth is not only uninformed and stupid, but an insult to a great writer and thinker.

Does that generalization apply to all citizens of the state? I was under the impression that they lived under squalid conditions but were content with it.

It applies to 90-95% of the citizens.

*humps*

psst...

*taps on shoulder*


sparknotes often have plot errors. Make sure to actually read the book too.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

You must be a troll or have some kind of mental disability you should really read books before you talk about them.

Then why did he leave Germany? Or plead with FDR not to drop the bomb? Or bother coming to the United States?

I didn't say that he was so completely devoid of political opinion that he would allow the slaughter of millions of Jews...including himself. That would not be very bright, now, would it?

So you support brainwashing?

I think that in the end, it would be justified. If everyone is happy, what's wrong with it?

I thought you never read it.

I didn't read it, I read of it.

Well, all the people who don't "take me seriously" haven't bothered to answer my query. Liberals: what's wrong with 1984?

Well, obviously you have already made up your mind, but 'the party' did have some unpleasant habits...

How about arresting, torturing and executing loyal citizens because their children pretended they were dissenters?

Keeping the 'prolls' in a state of crushing poverty? They even carried out airstrikes on them to keep them down while pretending it was from their enemies.

They're fighting a pointless imperialistic war with no end in site, and a huge bodycount.

You're not allowed a moments privacy, you are under surveilance EVERYWHERE you go 24/7.

The government tortures random people and declares them traitors to inspire hate of them in citizens.

You're not allowed to love.

The people aren't happy, there's just nothing they can do about it because as soon as they do they are tortured to death.

Well hey, there's a sample. I wouldn't like it, but I guess that's what you 'evil conservatives' with your 'lies and propoganda' are trying to do to the world anyway.

Now go read the book before you make even more of a fool of yourself...

No, because those people knew how much their life sucked. Someone who has been completely brainwashed would think his life was excellent when it really wasn't. Shouldn't our goal to be make everyone as happy as possible?

so you want to spend trillions brainwashing the population and cutting out all outside influences just to get rid of the natural instinct to have a wizz in private (yes I’m bladder shy myself!)

Why don’t we just give people the freedom to live and allow them to be happy and prosperous its much cheaper and more productive (hence why we won the cold war)

and no our goal is not to make the people happy

I think that in the end, it would be justified. If everyone is happy, what's wrong with it?

You heard it: RealAmerica justifies brainwashing.


I didn't read it, I read of it.

Sorry then. But that sill doesnt qualify you to talk about it.

You heard it: RealAmerica justifies brainwashing.


Don't forget incest.

And oh, only "liberals" think 1984 depicts a dystopia. But then, maybe only "liberals" actually read the book.

RealAmerica is either

1) A troll
2) A dumb asshole

hahaha Yes that 1940's liberal propaganda.

psst...

*taps on shoulder*


sparknotes often have plot errors. Make sure to actually read the book too.

You mean, touch the actual book?

..really? :(

RealAmerica is either

1) A troll
2) A dumb asshole

My moneys on both

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.


...

Well first off, they're commies. No problem with that?

Well, quasi-commies.

This was George Orwell's warninga gainst totalitarianism You see nothing wrong with a society that sees massive torture as a good solution to people wanting to screw?

I didn't read it, I read of it.

to the library! *batman music*

Don't forget incest.

And oh, only "liberals" think 1984 depicts a dystopia. But then, maybe only "liberals" actually read the book.

RealAmerica is either

1) A troll
2) A dumb asshole

Can he be both?

Actually, calling 1984 "Liberal propaganda filth" is extremely insulting to conservatives everywhere. Seriously.

Read
the
damned
book!

If, in the end, the government manages to brainwash all people to such a degree that they are happy to live in squalor, I see nothing wrong with that. Perhaps that is not what actually happens in 1984 and everybody resents the government's influence -- in that case, I apologize. However, I do not see what is wrong in the former case.

You mean, touch the actual book?

..really? :(

Oh, its Orwell. Writer of such good reads like 1984 and, my favorite book, Animal Farm

Well first off, they're commies. No problem with that?

The problem I have with communism is that it completely quashes personal freedoms -- however, if people are happy to live without those freedoms, then I don't hold a grudge against it.

Well, if you think, you would be happy after brainwashing - move to a dictatorship and ask their intelligence, if they can test their newest methods on you.

Then you will life peacefully and happy for the rest of your life. And you don't have to ask such stupid questions.

(What's next? If a new holocaust would be good? If all liberals should leave America?)

Okay, let's assume you are serious for a bit.

Brainwashing can never be fully successful, as human beings have an instinctual desire for liberty. All brainwashing can ever do is supress the output from that instinct, but can never actually extinguish the instinct itself, it can create neuroses and complexes within the citizen so that they are no longer even aware of their urges, but that would simply render the citizen insane and ultimately unproductive.

An evil government sets an evil example to its people, as noted in 1984 in the spineless and grotesque characters.

(What's next? If a new holocaust would be good? If all liberals should leave America?)

No. Yes, Canada would be happy to accept you.

If, in the end, the government manages to brainwash all people to such a degree that they are happy to live in squalor, I see nothing wrong with that. Perhaps that is not what actually happens in 1984 and everybody resents the government's influence -- in that case, I apologize. However, I do not see what is wrong in the former case.

Oh the majority of the people are brainwashed, but those who give any hint of being anything but completely and totally content are tortured back to compliance, and then killed.

You mean, touch the actual book?

..really? :(

look at it this way...you could actually read the book, and be able to talk about it (and it is a pretty important book), or you can read about it, and sound like RealAmerica.

If, in the end, the government manages to brainwash all people to such a degree that they are happy to live in squalor, I see nothing wrong with that. Perhaps that is not what actually happens in 1984 and everybody resents the government's influence -- in that case, I apologize. However, I do not see what is wrong in the former case.

The problem with the former case is, primarily, that it is not the case. :rolleyes:

The problem I have with communism is that it completely quashes personal freedoms -- however, if people are happy to live without those freedoms, then I don't hold a grudge against it.

What? :confused:

You don't like communism because it takes away your personal freedom - but you wouldn't mind communism if they took away your longing for personal freedom as well?

If, in the end, the government manages to brainwash all people to such a degree that they are happy to live in squalor, I see nothing wrong with that. Perhaps that is not what actually happens in 1984 and everybody resents the government's influence -- in that case, I apologize. However, I do not see what is wrong in the former case.

Well it destroys the economy one would think and also education (what with it all being lies and mass censorship) both of which would eventually crumble your nation under massive debt and an uneducated population that can’t mend the cameras/screw in the light bulbs

So as you can see it’s a system that doesn’t work (and is proven not to work)

And that, RealAmerica, is why noone takes you seriously.
DITTO

Even if people are content and happy to live with it, why should they have to live in squalor?

Why don't we try it out? Get all the mentally retarded people out of their homes and force them to live in squalor, they won't know whats going on and soon they won't know any better.

No. Yes, Canada would be happy to accept you.

Luckily, I don't live in America. I live in a country, there we have access to independent, intelligent media, where we can talk on the phone without being spyed, and where even the churches accept the evolution.

The following is a speech by a Party member in the book. It is a long read, but necessary if you fail to grasp the core message of the book. Would you really want the world to be governed by this philosophy? (spoilers have been edited out, btw)

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What does pure power mean? It shall be clear soon.

We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

How do you exert power over another? By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love and justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy -- everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always, always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever.

And remember that it is forever. The face will always be there to be stamped upon. The heretic, the enemy of society, will always be there, so that he can be defeated and humiliated over again. The espionage, the betrayals, the arrests, the tortures, the executions, the disappearances will never cease. It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph. The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant; the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism. The scapegoats of the Party will live forever. Every day, at every moment, they will be defeated, discredited, ridiculed, spat upon -- and yet they will always survive. This drama will be played out over and over again, generation after generation, always in subtler forms. Always we shall have the heretic at our mercy, screaming with pain, broken-up, contemptible -- and in the end utterly penitent, saved from himself, crawling to our feet of his own accord. That is the world that we are preparing. A world of victory after victory, triumph after triumph after triumph: an endless pressing, pressing, pressing upon the nerve of power.

The heretics say that we cannot create such a world. That it is a dream. That it is impossible to found a civilization on fear and hatred and cruelty. They say it would never endure. That it would have no vitality. That it would disintegrate, commit suicide.

Nonsense. They are under the impression that hatred is more exhausting than love. Why should it be? And if it were, what difference would that make? Suppose that we choose to wear ourselves out faster. Suppose that we quicken the tempo of human life till men are senile at thirty. Still what difference would it make? The death of the individual is not death. The Party is immortal.

Oh, its Orwell. Writer of such good reads like 1984 and, my favorite book, Animal Farm
Animal Farm, the book I was going to read before someone else piked it..
look at it this way...you could actually read the book, and be able to talk about it (and it is a pretty important book), or you can read about it, and sound like RealAmerica.
Oh my god.

You win.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

How did you get out of the asylum?
But anyway.
In 1984 the people are content because Big Brother is all they've known.
And they take their Zoloft.
(Is this flaming?)

I like having food, a healthy economy, quality goods, decent housing, and political rights...therefore, the society of 1984 sucks serious ass.

I like having food, a healthy economy, quality goods, decent housing, and political rights...therefore, the society of 1984 sucks serious ass.
Ya know that the others all preclude having a strong ecenomy?

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

Read the book, and you'll understand. The government shown in the book is actually closer to a liberal totalitarian dictatorship, but the book is speaking about totalitarianism is general.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

I'll ignore the rest of the OP, but I'm a liberal and I'm not against making it easier to apprehend terrorists. I just think the government should obey the law, is all. The Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, and have since 2001. They have also placed conservative justices on the Supreme Court. It would have been easy for them, in the days after 9/11, to get anything they wanted passed (and they did, partly, in the USA Patriot Act). Apparently that would have been too public, going through Congress. Okay, fine, so why didn't they use the existing FISA provisions, which include secret warrants issued by secret courts based on secret evidence? No FISA application has ever been turned down, from what I've heard. Ever. But no, that wasn't good enough, even though FISA allows you to do what you want first and ask for the warrant later. The administration decided they could do whatever they wanted based on the President's inherent powers. "Warrants? We don' have to show you no stinkin' warrants." It's the arrogance that pisses me off most, the "shut up, sit down, I know better than you" attitude. Exactly what I'd expect from a bunch of Ivy Leaguers.

Ya know that the others all preclude having a strong ecenomy?

They all go hand in hand, but a good economy's useless if you get nothing from it...so yeah.

I mean, the USSR grew at 6% per year in the 1950's and 1960's, but almost all of the growth went to defense or heavy industry leaving the consumer and agricultural sectors way behind.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.
That would be true if everyone were happy with the ways things were going. 1984 is not so much about a government that stays in power by promising security (i.e. fighting terrorists) as it is a government that stays in power by brainwashing, rewriting history, and twisting the language to a point where it is impossible to speak ill of the government (at least that is the goal). In the book, it is very clear that no one is really happy, even the people in power are unhappy. The important thing is, they are in power, and they are willing to forsake their joy to keep that going.
As to calling 1984 propaganda: that is more true than not, but dismissing something as propaganda does not mean what is says should go unnoticed, or unread. If you really wish to successfully show why 1984 is not a dystopia, RealAmerica, I suggest you read it. I'm sure an attempt of proving it an utopia can be done, but because you know little of what you're criticizing, I find it hard to bother rethinking it.

How did you get out of the asylum?

It's easy. He just threw the console through the window. Didn't you read One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest?

I'm in love with NS General again because this thread exists. Thank-you, Real America. I always knew you were the realest America in the whole world.

Read the book, and you'll understand. The government shown in the book is actually closer to a liberal totalitarian dictatorship, but the book is speaking about totalitarianism is general.

I agree; the book cannot be said to be liberal or even conservative, it is just against a government that will do anything it can to sustain itself. The point is not so much whether Big Brother wants to torture terrorists or is in support of abortion, it is criticizing more the willingness of Big Brother to torture terrorists or be support of abortion if it means he can stay Big Brother, and his willingness to destroy anyone that might stop that.

Well, all the people who don't "take me seriously" haven't bothered to answer my query. Liberals: what's wrong with 1984?

Apart from it having Youth Brigade ( or something) that is similar to Hitlers Youth by being brainwashed into loving Big Brother more than there families so they tell on there parents. A world where no art, literature etc exists, a place where histry does not and never will exist as it is constantly changed, a place where you are vaporised for expressing yourself, a world where they are trying to get rid of the orgasm :eek: a place where you are under surveillance 24/7, a place where you are killed for laws you never even knew existed...Apart from all that nothings wrong wth it now off you go to read it.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things.
Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

How do you live with yourself?

Apart from it having Youth Brigade ( or something) that is similar to Hitlers Youth by being brainwashed into loving Big Brother more than there families so they tell on there parents. A world where no art, literature etc exists, a place where histry does not and never will exist as it is constantly changed, a place where you are vaporised for expressing yourself, a world where they are trying to get rid of the orgasm :eek: a place where you are under surveillance 24/7, a place where you are killed for laws you never even knew existed...Apart from all that nothings wrong wth it now off you go to read it.

Which, if society were like the one in the book, you wouldn't be able to do.

They all go hand in hand, but a good economy's useless if you get nothing from it...so yeah.

I mean, the USSR grew at 6% per year in the 1950's and 1960's, but almost all of the growth went to defense or heavy industry leaving the consumer and agricultural sectors way behind.

I may have misused preclude...

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

A more important question to ask is what is wrong with a trolling troglodyte such as yourself. (actually, that would be unfair to cave men)

If you had read 1984, you would know quite a few things:

1. It is a critique of bureaucratic collectivism (the kind of economic system in Stalinist Russia)
2. It was written not by a liberal, but a libertarian socialist.
3. It was an attack on the reigning Cold War social order, that, capitalism or communism, would have produced the same identical totalitarian states if it continued indefinitely.
4. Last of all, it was meant as a critique of government intrusion into our personal lives.

I know the OP is trolling, but this is the closest I've ever been to knowing the answer to a literary question off my own back, so I'll bite anyway...
In the book, it is very clear that no one is really happy, even the people in power are unhappy. The important thing is, they are in power, and they are willing to forsake their joy to keep that going.
That's the important bit. Except for the proles, everybody in the book is terrified. They are not happy - but they think that everybody else must be, because how else could the world be as it is? Many of them can even remember how it was before the Revolution. But nobody can do anything, because everybody is alone; they cannot trust anybody, and even if they could they are under constant surveillance so there is no hope of rallying together to overthrow their oppressors.

Is that the world you would like to live in, RealAmerica? One where you are terrified every waking moment that your facade might crack for a single second and lead to your Disappearance and torture? One where you are always alone, where you cannot trust anybody and have to be constantly on your guard that you don't say or do anything that might be (mis)construed to imply disloyalty to the Party?

The good thing I have noticed about this thread is that no NS conservatives have tried to pitch in and save RealAmerica's sorry ass. I will give them credit for that, although it would be difficult to imagine ANY conservatives or liberals wanting to live in the world of Orwell's "1984".

The good thing I have noticed about this thread is that no NS conservatives have tried to pitch in and save RealAmerica's sorry ass. I will give them credit for that, although it would be difficult to imagine ANY conservatives or liberals wanting to live in the world of Orwell's "1984".

Difficult, but I think we've found one rather easily:D

How do you live with yourself?

A better question would be how could I not live with not myself.

"Real"America does not have a problem with brainwashing because his brain has been washed, dried, folded and neatly put away by the Bush administration.
Anyone that does not agree 100% with his views is labeled a Liberal (by the way why don't you look up the word liberal in the dictionary RA it might surprise you to learn what it actually means) terrorist sympathizer.

The fact that you have the lack of intelligence to start a thread to debate a book that you have never read does not surprise me in the least.

Here is a link for you so you do not have to drag your lazy ass away from your computer screen.
1984 (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/)

Talk to you in a couple of months when you have finished reading the book!

A better question would be how could I not live with not myself.

:mad:

RealAmerica:

Oceania (the 1984 country) is a dystopia: a bad place. There, everyone is poor and terrified.

It IS bad.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

I don't know who you are, but you are seriously fucked up.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

So you're out as a full-on troll now, are you? Good to know.

I don't know who you are, but you are seriously fucked up.

Right on.

RealAmerica, I think you are making a big mistake in identifying a good government.
A good government does not nessisarily have a happy populace.
A good government is a government where the citizens are in the government's monkeysphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeysphere).

If you want to be brainwashed and tortured into becoming a slave of the state, that's fine.

But don't drag the rest of us along with your pathetic servility.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.Because the main character gets his teeth pulled out.

Here is a link for you so you do not have to drag your lazy ass away from your computer screen.
1984 (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/)

In retrospect, t was a mistake to make a topic about a book which I had not read. However, my reading that "novel" would be equivalent to you reading FOX News.

But don't drag the rest of us along with your pathetic servility.

No one's talking about any type of "dragging" here. You'll most likely be tranquilized and carried away on a stretcher.

In retrospect, t was a mistake to make a topic about a book which I had not read. However, my reading that "novel" would be equivalent to you reading FOX News.

if it were from 1948, then yes.

In retrospect, t was a mistake to make a topic about a book which I had not read. However, my reading that "novel" would be equivalent to you reading FOX News.

And you know this without reading it.

If ignorance truly is bliss, you must be the blissfullest motherfucker in the world.

In retrospect, t was a mistake to make a topic about a book which I had not read. However, my reading that "novel" would be equivalent to you reading FOX News.

Just read the fucking book! I watch FOX news, and I'm politically about as far away from you as one can get (to be fair, I do it just because I want a good laugh)

And you know this without reading it.

How do you know I know that without reading FOX News? And yes, for your information, I am quite blissful. And ignorance is bliss, true. Does it logically follow that I am ignorant?

In retrospect, t was a mistake to make a topic about a book which I had not read. However, my reading that "novel" would be equivalent to you reading FOX News.

the OP was also based on an incorrect assumption, you assumed that all the people living in the 1984 world were happy due to their ignorance. Orwell makes it very distinct that no one in oceania is happy nobody.

[/END THREAD]

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

Liberals don't consider "1984" to be a dystopia.

Anyone with the slightest shred of sanity will consider "1984" as a dystopia.

Out of curiosity... who are you trying to RP? Stalin, Hitler, etc?

In retrospect, t was a mistake to make a topic about a book which I had not read. However, my reading that "novel" would be equivalent to you reading FOX News.If you'd have read it, you wouldn't be supporting Communism the way you are right now :D

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

Dance, puppet. DANCE!

the OP was also based on an incorrect assumption, you assumed that all the people living in the 1984 world were happy due to their ignorance. Orwell makes it very distinct that no one in oceania is happy nobody.

[/END THREAD]Err, yes they are, once they are brainwashed enough.

If you'd have read it, you wouldn't be supporting Communism the way you are right now :D

Yeah.

Cuz they were teh ub3r c0mm135.

Liberals don't consider "1984" to be a dystopia.

Anyone with the slightest shred of sanity will consider "1984" as a dystopia.

Therefore, liberals don't have the slightest shred of sanity. Ha! You said it yourself! :)

Yeah.

Cuz they were teh ub3r c0mm135.I mean, RA is propagating Double Think, which is called Neo Bolshevism in Eurasia. (Something he might have known had he actually read the book).

Err, yes they are, once they are brainwashed enough.

If the government has to resort to brainwashing to make its citizens happy, then it is fair to say that simply keeping the "proles" in the dark does not make them happy, No?

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

You didn't read the book then. Go read it.

If the government has to resort to brainwashing to make its citizens happy, then it is fair to say that simply keeping the "proles" in the dark does not make them happy, No?They seemed content enough. You remember that father that was proud of his own kid denouncing him?

They seemed content enough. You remember that father that was proud of his own kid denouncing him?

Yeah, and I find it to really show that things were good with cameras in every room, watching you at all times, analyzing every move you made, everything you say, everyone you meet. Yeah, my idea of a paradise.

Therefore, liberals don't have the slightest shred of sanity. Ha! You said it yourself! :)

I obviously meant to say that considering "1984" a dystopia is not a caracteristic of only Liberals. It is not even a matter of perspective unless we are speaking of the perspective of an authoritarian prick.

Yeah, and I find it to really show that things were good with cameras in every room, watching you at all times, analyzing every move you made, everything you say, everyone you meet. Yeah, my idea of a paradise.It didn't sound like Winston liked it either. Then he accepted it after he was brainwashed.

A more important question to ask is what is wrong with a trolling troglodyte such as yourself. (actually, that would be unfair to cave men)

If you had read 1984, you would know quite a few things:

1. It is a critique of bureaucratic collectivism (the kind of economic system in Stalinist Russia)
2. It was written not by a liberal, but a libertarian socialist.
3. It was an attack on the reigning Cold War social order, that, capitalism or communism, would have produced the same identical totalitarian states if it continued indefinitely.
4. Last of all, it was meant as a critique of government intrusion into our personal lives.

;) Well Said!!!;)

It didn't sound like Winston liked it either. Then he accepted it after he was brainwashed.

You'll accept anything after being beaten and berated for months on end.

You'll accept anything after being beaten and berated for months on end.Yes, and you'll be happily ignorant. Not of your own free choice, but happy.

Orwell was a Democratic Socialist, in a time and age when there was no political centre. He was frequently critical of socialism.

By today's standards I believe he would qualify as a centrist or centre-left social liberal. Much like myself.

In retrospect, t was a mistake to make a topic about a book which I had not read. However, my reading that "novel" would be equivalent to you reading FOX News.

Well, i'm a liberal, and i watch FOX news (granted i think theat that channel is a load of editorial Bulls**t, scant in facts and heavy in opinion and boardering on propoganda) and think nothing of it
My concience and veiws wont be swayed one way or the other by meaningless nonesense radical some notjob spews out,
RA, If you are truely as convinced about your belifs as you appear to be, then nothing some "terrorist sympathyzing liberal" says should be able to disuade you from it

Yes, I'm just a figment of your imagination. Do you have such hallucinations often?

You have not read the book so why speak? Further, let's follow your brilliant logic to its conclusion. If you were ignorant of the fact your skin was melting off and blood was pouring from your vessels it would not matter to you for ignorance is bliss. You're be a smiling, happy, dead F'er. That's what happenens to democracy when people like you ignore the toor causes of its demise. Finally, people don't claim you don't exist. They just happen to wonder how someone continues to survive without the slightest sense of rational thought. So for now and always I'll leave you with my loving moniker for you which is "blissful asshat."
:mp5:

The regular headline news isn't that biased b/c it's hard to put a bias on that. However, the editorial shows are quite biased. Liberal editorial shows are also biased but at least they do not try and pass it off as though they aren't. None of the media gets any of the War coverage any bit right and i have every right to hate them for more than that but i have to say that fox does get it worst.

I obviously meant...

Maybe that's what you meant, but that's not what you said. You said that liberals don't have the slightest shred of sanity. I'm adding that quote in my sig. :)

You have not read the book so why speak? Further, let's follow your brilliant logic to its conclusion. If you were ignorant of the fact your skin was melting off and blood was pouring from your vessels it would not matter to you for ignorance is bliss. You're be a smiling, happy, dead F'er. That's what happenens to democracy when people like you ignore the toor causes of its demise. Finally, people don't claim you don't exist. They just happen to wonder how someone continues to survive without the slightest sense of rational thought. So for now and always I'll leave you with my loving moniker for you which is "blissful asshat."
:mp5:
Would that be "Blissful Asshat" the 1st?

Would that be "Blissful Asshat" the 1st?

I thought I was Blissful Republican Asshat the 1st

Maybe that's what you meant, but that's not what you said. You said that liberals don't have the slightest shred of sanity. I'm adding that quote in my sig. :)And? By that logic, you are a communist.

Maybe that's what you meant, but that's not what you said. You said that liberals don't have the slightest shred of sanity. I'm adding that quote in my sig. :)
Then you would be making something up that he didn't say and that could get you 5 to 10 from a Mod. :p

Maybe that's what you meant, but that's not what you said. You said that liberals don't have the slightest shred of sanity. I'm adding that quote in my sig. :)

So is the fact that you ignore any actual arguments, and just blurt out nonsense about "liberals" :) :) :) and try to drag this idiotic thread out as long as possible evidence that you're a troll, or is it evidence that you're a fuckwad?

And? By that logic, you are a communist.

What are you talking about? He said all As do B. Liberals do not do B. The logical conclusion is that liberals are not A. In this case, A is to be replaced with "have the slightest shred of sanity." The logic is indisputable -- you're defending a lost cause.

I thought I was Blissful Republican Asshat the 1st
Well there is a difference in that you have a middle name. ;)

You don't want to hang with RealAmerica do ya?

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

I hate joining a thread this late into it, but damnit man... read the goddamned book before you go all 'cletus the slack-jawed yokel' on us. The world of 1984 is not really all that contrived. Try living in the former Soviet Union for instance. The 'commoners' in Orwell's book would most likely get by in any scenario... the problem is inherent in anyone who dare defy what the stae decides is 'legitimate'.

I thought I was Blissful Republican Asshat the 1st

I will gladly accept that moniker, elitist liberal asshole the 345th.

What are you talking about? He said all As do B. Liberals do not do B. The logical conclusion is that liberals are not A. In this case, A is to be replaced with "have the slightest shred of sanity." The logic is indisputable -- you're defending a lost cause.

I think he was trying to say "NOT JUST liberals", but, B.R.A. (Whoah, the acronym for your monkier is BRA!), I must agree with you. on that point.

What are you talking about? He said all As do B. Liberals do not do B. The logical conclusion is that liberals are not A. In this case, A is to be replaced with "have the slightest shred of sanity." The logic is indisputable -- you're defending a lost cause.
This thread is a lost cause. You already proved that you do not possess logical thinking. :p

Try living in the former Soviet Union for instance.

I hate commies. Anyway, that's impossible as long as no one has invented a time machine.

What are you talking about? He said all As do B. Liberals do not do B. The logical conclusion is that liberals are not A. In this case, A is to be replaced with "have the slightest shred of sanity." The logic is indisputable -- you're defending a lost cause.You yourself claim that the communist totalitarian government of Oceania is a good society. You are a communist, plain and simple.

I hate commies. Anyway, that's impossible as long as no one has invented a time machine.Why do you support such a government then?

on that point.

I wouldn't expect any more. ;)

I wouldn't expect any more. ;)

You are right again, BRA. ;)

RealAmerica, do you currently reside in The Pacific by choice or was your nation created there?

I hate commies. Anyway, that's impossible as long as no one has invented a time machine.

Are you implying that I'm a commie? That's kinda funny...

at any rate, Orwell was criticising any totalitarian state, not just the communist ones.

You yourself claim that the communist totalitarian government of Oceania is a good society. You are a communist, plain and simple.

I think that the Nazis had a strong military. Therefore, I am a Nazi. I think the Oceanians had a good society, therefore I am a communist. There is a fundamental flaw in your logic.

And you know this without reading it.

If ignorance truly is bliss, you must be the blissfullest motherfucker in the world.

Oh come now, Nazz....read?! and THEN discuss?! Who does that these days?:rolleyes:

Maybe that's what you meant, but that's not what you said. You said that liberals don't have the slightest shred of sanity. I'm adding that quote in my sig. :)

Wow... Throwing sweeping generalizations around...*sigh* way to be mature

RealAmerica, do you currently reside in The Pacific by choice or was your nation created there?

No, it was created there. Perhaps I should opt for relocation.

I think that the Nazis had a strong military. Therefore, I am a Nazi. I think the Oceanians had a good society, therefore I am a communist. There is a fundamental flaw in your logic.

The Americans had a stronger military. Therefore, the Americans had a better society, so why aren't you a democrat? Isn't there a fundamental flaw in your logic?

I will gladly accept that moniker, elitist liberal asshole the 345th.
Whatever, the fact remains that not only are you outnumbered but even your conservative brethern, that is if they think of you as a brother, won't save your sorry ass. :p

I think that the Nazis had a strong military. Therefore, I am a Nazi. I think the Oceanians had a good society, therefore I am a communist. There is a fundamental flaw in your logic.Maybe you should read a dictionary and find out what the wonderful word "logic" really means. ;)

No, it was created there. Perhaps I should opt for relocation.

*Almost puts ad for own region (TGLM) but stops b/c BRA is not a desirable member.*

No, it was created there. Perhaps I should opt for relocation.

I most definitely would as I would not stand to reside in a totalitarian region any longer than it would take me to leave. But that's just me. You know... A Liberal...

The Americans had a stronger military. Therefore, the Americans had a better society, so why aren't you a democrat? Isn't there a fundamental flaw in your logic?

Obviously, there is no logical conclusion between the fact that the Americans have a strong military and an excellent society. Similarly, there is no logical connection between approving of the society in the novel and approving of communism.

Maybe you should read a dictionary and find out what the wonderful word "logic" really means. ;)

That wouldn't help and you know it.

Particularly since RA is intentionally trolling. It's clear he just wants to piss people off and make them look at him. "Hi, Mom!" Arguing with him is a total waste of time in this context.

logic 
–noun 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

logic
n.
The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.



logic

n 1: the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference 2: reasoned and reasonable judgment; "it made a certain kind of logic" 3: the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation; "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war" 4: a system of reasoning



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic

I think that the Nazis had a strong military. Therefore, I am a Nazi. I think the Oceanians had a good society, therefore I am a communist.I'm putting this in my sig.

Whatever, the fact remains that not only are you outnumbered but even your conservative brethern, that is if they think of you as a brother, won't save your sorry ass. :p

There are not many conservatives on here, and few are as conservative as I am. It's most likely due to the fact that most conservatives have a life, and few are left on NSG. :)

*Almost puts ad for own region (TGLM) but stops b/c BRA is not a desirable member.*
Yeah, if you did conscript him, he just might send the thought police after you. :eek:

Similarly, there is no logical connection between approving of the society in the novel and approving of communism.

"The society in the novel" = Stalinist "communism" of a particularly disgusting kind (though Orwell intended it to criticize all sorts of authoritarian societies.)

Yeah, if you did conscript him, he just might send the thought police after you. :eek:

well, Im a MOD there, so... :p

BTW, TGLM means "The Great Land of The Moon" for all of you who wish to look into it.

"The society in the novel" = Stalinist "communism" of a particularly disgusting kind (though Orwell intended it to criticize all sorts of authoritarian societies.)

See, even though I'm not an anarchist, I knew I'd agree with Soheran sooner or later...

There are not many conservatives on here, and few are as conservative as I am. It's most likely due to the fact that most conservatives have a life, and few are left on NSG. :)
Therefore RealAmerica doesn't have a life. Mostly.

That wouldn't help and you know it.

Particularly since RA is intentionally trolling. It's clear he just wants to piss people off and make them look at him. "Hi, Mom!" Arguing with him is a total waste of time in this context.Is pointing out his abuse of the English language a form of arguing or a form of chastise? :D

Therefore RealAmerica doesn't have a life. Mostly.

Although it does not logically follow, it is correct. :)

I'm putting this in my sig.Priceless :D

There are not many conservatives on here, and few are as conservative as I am. It's most likely due to the fact that most conservatives have a life, and few are left on NSG. :)Nah, they just hang around at Strategypage.com.

Although it does not logically follow, it is correct. :)


Okay. Now remove my gaffe from your sig or I'm putting your quote about you being both a nazi and a communist. I'd call that a fair deal.

Okay. Now remove my gaffe from your sig or I'm putting your quote about you being both a nazi and a communist. I'd call that a fair deal.

I don't negotiate with terro -- err, liberals, that is. I was just giving examples of faulty logic, there. I was by no means saying that I was either a Nazi or a communist, both of which are morally abhorrent political leanings.

I don't negotiate with terro -- err, liberals, that is. I was just giving examples of faulty logic, there. I was by no means saying that I was either a Nazi or a communist, both of which are morally abhorrent political leanings.

Have it your way.

That wouldn't help and you know it.

Particularly since RA is intentionally trolling. It's clear he just wants to piss people off and make them look at him. "Hi, Mom!" Arguing with him is a total waste of time in this context.
I know that if Santa Barbara was still posting here that he would put RA in his place right quick!! :D

I don't negotiate with terro -- err, liberals, that is. I was just giving examples of faulty logic, there. I was by no means saying that I was either a Nazi or a communist, both of which are morally abhorrent political leanings.

Is being what I am (Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23) "abhorrent" to you?

Just need to know what defines "abhorrent". ;)

Okay. Now remove my gaffe from your sig or I'm putting your quote about you being both a nazi and a communist. I'd call that a fair deal.
If you don't like it, then you can ask the Mods to have him remove it.

If you don't like it, then you can ask the Mods to MAkE him remove it DUE TO IT BEING INSULTING/INFLAMMATORY.

A little more specific. ;) :p :D :) :cool:

Is being what I am "abhorrent" to you?

No. Pitiful, but not abhorrent. I find nothing wrong with your morality, just your perception of reality.

I'll eventually get the mods to remove my quote from there. For now I'll give him some of his own medicine.

If you don't like it, then you can ask the Mods to have him remove it.True. You could construe that it is a form of baiting. Now I don't know if the mods would see it the same way, but it doesn't hurt if you ask (unless you've done so repeatedly :p)

Similarly, there is no logical connection between approving of the society in the novel and approving of communism.

Yet Orwell intended the novel as a critique of communism/totalitarianism. So 'logically' the position that you claim to stand for - in favour of such a rigid, inf;exible and rightless society - is against all the democratic values that america supposedly stands for...I'm confused as to what you actually think democracy/society should be...or should it be a closed-off, unscrutinised, freedomless and constantly warring place: where one may be quilty of doublethink (read the book) at any second and taken away by the thought police for rehabilitation. I thought conservatives cherished their libertarianism in your country?

Incidentally, forget about rats: my room 101 would contain ignorant, loudmouth conservatives talking about things they don't know anything about in order to rile harmless left-leaning types like myself...

A little more specific. ;) :p :D :) :cool:

It's a joke. If the mods tell me to remove it, I obviously will, but I do not see anything wrong with my sig.

No. Pitiful, but not abhorrent. I find nothing wrong with your morality, just your perception of reality.

I feel exactly the same about you, BRA.

*laughs at moniker's acronym*

It's a joke. If the mods tell me to remove it, I obviously will, but I do not see anything wrong with my sig.

I've requested you to remove it.

I'm requesting it a second time.

Remove it please.

I know that if Santa Barbara was still posting here that he would put RA in his place right quick!! :D

;) Oh, I don't think SB would do anything with him. Santa Barbara wasn't a "liberal," after all... he was a conservative capitalist evil bastard who doesn't care for the rights of the workers!

I've requested you to remove it.

I'm requesting it a second time.

Remove it please.

I see no valid grounds for removing it, and you are not a mod. Don't make stupid comments if you don't want to be quoted for them. :)

I'll agree with Canada6:
RealAmerica, are you aware of the existance of something called rhetoric?
What he was saying in logical terms is:
Not only do all <As do B, all A's do B too.
Where A is anyone with a shred of sanity, <A would be liberals, and B would be thinking that 1984 is dystopic.
Not A does not B, all Cs B, therefore A is not C.
Nice fallacy there.
BTW, this is obvious from reading your sig. At least Canada6 had the brains to take out the qualifyer from his sig.

A better question would be how could I not live with not myself.

You support brainwashing, invasion of privacy, total elimination of civil rights, and torture. You've been thoroughly indoctrinated by Bush and his assholes to the point that you sound like a Nazi.

Handgun! Apply directly to the temple!

Handgun! Apply directly to the temple!

Handgun! Apply directly to the temple!

Not only do all <As do B, all A's do B too.

Where do you see a "not only" there? I don't. What he meant and what he said are two distinct things.

I was just giving examples of faulty logic, there. I was by no means saying that I was either a Nazi or a communist, both of which are morally abhorrent political leanings.
Speaking of faulty logic.....

Your OP is extolling a totalitarian "utopia" therefore your disqualifers about Nazis and Communists preferences is BS.

I've heard 1984, ........ It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.
You have obviously bought into the totalitarian concept of 1984.

I may have misused preclude...

You get a cookie for owning up to a possible error in word usage. :)

It's a joke. If the mods tell me to remove it, I obviously will, but I do not see anything wrong with my sig.
It is easy to see that you are truly deserving of the "Blissful Asshat" moniker that has been laid upon you. :p

I see no valid grounds for removing it, and you are not a mod.

The mods have been notified.

The mods have been notified.

Hopefully this won't interfere with our friendship. :)

RealAmerica, you realize that under the Nazis, a lot of Germans were brainwashed until they were "happy," correct? As a "perfectly functional society," with your logic, you should support Nazism.

Hopefully this won't interfere with our friendship. :)

It is impossible to interfere with what does not exist.

RealAmerica, you realize that under the Nazis, a lot of Germans were brainwashed until they were "happy," correct? As a "perfectly functional society," with your logic, you should support Nazism.

No, most people were decidedly unhappy but afraid to protest. I'm talking about being perfectly happy and the thought of protest not even crossing your mind. I most definitely do not support Nazism.

It is impossible to interfere with what does not exist.

You're...breaking up with me? Say it isn't so!

No one said it wasnt fiction.

And the Bible is conservative propaganda, since they quote from it.

That is quite possibly, the stupidest peice of crap called writing I have ever seen, heard about or have read to me.

No, most people were decidedly unhappy but afraid to protest. I'm talking about being perfectly happy and the thought of protest not even crossing your mind. I most definitely do not support Nazism.
Wait for it....

This is exactly the state of the world in 1984. People are miserable, but they are afraid and unable to rebel. They pretend that they are happy because it is the only way to survive, or because, eventually, the very words required to voice disapproval simply do not exist.

Therefore, 1984's society is a bad one, very comparable to the totalitarian governments that you claim are despicable.

Game, set, and match.

Don't make stupid comments if you don't want to be quoted for them. :)

Sound advice, indeed.

RealAmerica is without doubt the most inaptly named character in all of nationstates.

I don't negotiate with terro -- err, liberals, that is. I was just giving examples of faulty logic, there. I was by no means saying that I was either a Nazi or a communist, both of which are morally abhorrent political leanings.

I'm sure that if he asks you to take it off and you don't it's baiting...or something similar

That is quite possibly, the stupidest peice of crap called writing I have ever seen, heard about or have read to me.

Haven't you heard? It's a vast right-wing conspiracy -- Karl Rove actually wrote the Bible.

No. Yes, Canada would be happy to accept you.

I'm a Conservative Canadian, and I can tell you, if you are a liberal, Canada would be happy to accept you. I would too.

Wait for it....

I already stated that my comparison was not apt, since I mistakenly believed people were happy in the novel. My point is valid, however with Fahrenheit 451 as the novel.

Nothing if your one of the elite. As long and I'm the one opressing, yay for totalitarian rule.

Nothing if your one of the elite. As long and I'm the one opressing, yay for totalitarian rule.

Actually, I would no more want to be one of the Inner Party in 1984 than anywhere else.

I already stated that my comparison was not apt, since I mistakenly believed people were happy in the novel.

Would reading the book next time before you start spouting off your self-admittedly ill-informed rhetoric be too much to ask? 'Know your enemy' and all that?

I'm a Conservative Canadian, and I can tell you, if you are a liberal, Canada would be happy to accept you. I would too.

Don't you wish. I mean.. the grits did let in one potential slimeball (http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/) from the south. Bringing in a certified one is a different matter. :D
You would be happy about it, but I doubt that Canada would. :D

Would reading the book next time before you start spouting off your self-admittedly ill-informed rhetoric be too much to ask? 'Know your enemy' and all that?

If liberals stop calling FOX News conservatively-biased without reading it, then I'll stop calling liberal propaganda biased without reading it. However, that scenario is unlikely to transpire, and I'm not going to listen to the advice of a Chinese guy who lived 2500 years ago.

If liberals stop calling FOX News conservatively-biased without reading it

:p

If liberals stop calling FOX News conservatively-biased without reading it, then I'll stop calling liberal propaganda biased without reading it.

What makes you think 1984 is 'liberal' propaganda?

I'm not going to listen to the advice of a Chinese guy who lived 2500 years ago.

He's older than Jesus. They say age brings wisdom.

:p

Huh? I'm not talking about the TV news show, but rather the news articles. I don't get it. :(

What makes you think 1984 is 'liberal' propaganda?

He doesn't think.

What makes you think 1984 is 'liberal' propaganda?

It was written by a liberal and it was anti-Communist propaganda. Ergo, liberal propaganda.

Huh? I'm not talking about the TV news show, but rather the news articles. I don't get it. :(

Except Fox News' awfulness - like the rest of cable news - is most pronounced when it is watched.

Indeed, the same is true of most propaganda.

It was written by a liberal and it was anti-Communist propaganda. Ergo, liberal propaganda.

It was written by a social-democrat and a damn fine author.

He's older than Jesus. They say age brings wisdom.

Yes, "they" say lots of things. Back in the day, "they" said that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Not very wise.

It was written by a liberal and it was anti-Communist propaganda. Ergo, liberal propaganda.

Under what definition was Orwell a 'liberal'?

You seem to be confusing anti-authoritarian with anti-Communist.

It was written by a social-democrat.

What's your point? Social democrats aren't liberals?

Yes, "they" say lots of things. Back in the day, "they" said that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Not very wise.

I still remember the day "they" used to say there were both ties with Al-Qaeda and WMD's, in Iraq. Go figure.

"It seems the more things change the more things stay the same."

Guess who said that?

It was written by a liberal and it was anti-Communist propaganda. Ergo, liberal propaganda.


Sorry mate. I'm British. George Orwell was NOT a liberal. He was a disilllusioned Socialist/Social Democract.

Don't you dare prescribe British political commentators with American sweeping generalisations.

Also, did you know that George W Bush's economic policy is neo-liberal?
And that the founding father's of the USA were all classical liberals?
Why can't you use a more justified and ideologically correct term, rather than lumping every left-minded individual in together?

Under what definition was Orwell a 'liberal'?

He was, according to at least two posters in this thread, a social democrat.

You seem to be confusing anti-authoritarian with anti-Communist.

The system of government outlined in the book was based off of the USSR. Although it was not explicitly against the Soviet Union, it was implicitly so.

It was written by a social-democrat

A socialist with anarchist sympathies. He was not a "social-democrat" in today's sense of the word.

It was written by a liberal and it was anti-Communist propaganda. Ergo, liberal propaganda.

Anti-Communist?
Communism is leftist.
Anti-communist propaganda would presumably be libertarian. (Libertarians being in the opposite quadrant of the political compass graph)
Which Orwell was.

I still remember the day "they" used to say there were both ties with Al-Qaeda and WMD's, in Iraq. Go figure.

And there were such ties, and there remain to be such ties. However, I don't want to get dragged into that debate again.

It is easy to see that you are truly deserving of the "Blissful Asshat" moniker that has been laid upon you. :p

RealAmerica's moniker is BRA: Blissful Republican Asshat.

The system of government outlined in the book was based off of the USSR. Although it was not explicitly against the Soviet Union, it was implicitly so.

And as Animal Farm points out, the USSR did not practice genuine socialism of any sort.

What's your point? Social democrats aren't liberals?
Exactly. Social democrats aren't liberals. Social democrats are generally aligned with the socialist international. Liberals are generally aligned with the Liberal International. Two different fields of thought that often oppose each other.

And as Animal Farm points out, the USSR did not practice genuine socialism of any sort.

I never claimed that. I only used the term Communist to describe the USSR. Orwell, on the other hand, was a genuine socialist.

Which Orwell was.

Orwell was no defender of libertarian capitalism.

A socialist with anarchist sympathies. He was not a "social-democrat" in today's sense of the word.

Debatable: He would undoubtably have approved further of Atlee's postwar Social Democrat government had he not been to ill to notice anything much at that point. Also reading Homage to CataloniaShould give you an idea of how he drifted centrewards post Spanish civil war...

I never claimed that. I only used the term Communist to describe the USSR. Orwell, on the other hand, was a genuine socialist.

Communism is a sort of genuine socialism.

Orwell's critique of authoritarian systems was never a critique of Communism, merely of Stalinism.

Any honest reading of Animal Farm makes this clear.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.


You should be living under a bridge.

If liberals stop calling FOX News conservatively-biased without reading it, then I'll stop calling liberal propaganda biased without reading it. However, that scenario is unlikely to transpire, and I'm not going to listen to the advice of a Chinese guy who lived 2500 years ago.

Not listen to it despite the fact that it's been proven time and time again over those 2.5 thousand years to be effective? (And if you doubt this, then you clearly do not know your military history and your opinion on military operations does not matter) That's a pretty unintelligent attitude to take. I mean, our current administration has ignored the advice, and look how well we're doing in Iraq. What was supposed to be a quick in and out operation is taking years, and it will probably take several more years.

He was, according to at least two posters in this thread, a social democrat.

That is avoiding the question: how do you define a liberal? Youa re throwing it around hither and yon, and I am left utterly unsure what you mean by it. As used by you it seems to mean anyone who is neither a Nazi, a Communist nor a supporter of the current American Republican party. What are the defining political beliefs of a 'liberal'?



The system of government outlined in the book was based off of the USSR. Although it was not explicitly against the Soviet Union, it was implicitly so.

Actually the social conditions of day-to-day life and system of political patriarchy in the novel had a great deal more to do with day-to-day life in post-War England than any nominally communist state.

[plaintive query] Why oh why do people dine with trolls and puppets? What do they expect to come of it?

Communism is a sort of genuine socialism.

I was under the impression that there was a difference between communism, as in extreme socialism, and Communism, the type of Stalinism practiced by the USSR.

And there were such ties, and there remain to be such ties. However, I don't want to get dragged into that debate again.
Today there is an overwhelming presence of Al-Qaeda friendly terrorists in Iraq. At the time they were initially saying this there was none. Saddam hated the Taliban as much as the western world now does.

[plaintive query] Why oh why do people dine with trolls and puppets? What do they expect to come of it?
Roasted troll complete with the trimmings? :D

Don't you wish. I mean.. the grits did let in one potential slimeball (http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/) from the south. Bringing in a certified one is a different matter. :D
You would be happy about it, but I doubt that Canada would. :D

/me laughs. NOT RealAmerica.. Whoever he was speaking to in that line! I just mean that Canada has room for just about anyone, and we dont seem to have these awful battlelines between conservatives and liberals.

We moan and bitch about each other, but its hardly like the american fights, right?

hey! let him in from the south? are you sure?

First sentence, second paragraph, middle column...
>>>Born and raised in Toronto, Michael has been a life-long Liberal.
quoted from his web page at...http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/en/about_intro.aspx

I guess he's a home grown twat...

And there were such ties, and there remain to be such ties. However, I don't want to get dragged into that debate again.

Actually, that was disproved by the CIA. Saddam had no ties with nukes or terrorists. RealAmerica, you need a RealRealityCheck.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

WOW, you bassically just said, hey the Nazi Germany and the holocaust was ok, you know, becuase it was keeping the German Race safe from impurtiy.

I've heard 1984, an obviously fictional book with an extremely contrived scenario, being quoted by liberals who are against making it easier to apprehend terrorists, among other things. Without actually having read that filthy piece of liberal propaganda, it seems to be an ideal society. Most people in that society seem to be content with the way things are going, although a few dissidents are not. Screw them. Ignorance is bliss, and bliss is desirable. So why do liberals consider 1984 to be about a dystopia? It seems like a perfectly functional and well-off society to me.

Little tidbit, here. 1984 is actually against liberalism. Why, you ask? Orwell, a Socialist, wrote it as a warning about the dangers of the Socialist and Communist movements. Of course, anybody who has taken an 8th grade literature class would know this, so either A)you were sick for the two weeks it would have taken to read it in class(Actually, it's a good day or two's read), or B) have never been to school.

The book is largely against the authoritarian results of such movements. The line of thinking of the citizens is not that they are blissfully ignorant; it is that they are forced to be blissfully ignorant. There is a difference.

Many ideas of this book are present even in todays American politics(as they have been for quite some time, on both sides). Double speak, propaganda, and ignorance are all accounted for in American politics.

Read the book. You may learn something. It's not just that the people were blissfully ignorant. And the plot of the book is not all that contrived, really. It takes real ideas, and real event, and applies them to a work of fiction.

Anti-Communist?
Communism is leftist.
Anti-communist propaganda would presumably be libertarian. (Libertarians being in the opposite quadrant of the political compass graph)
Which Orwell was.

Actually, quite wrong. Orwell was Socialist. He actually volunteered to fight for the Socialists in Spain. However, he knew very well the real dangers of Communism and other forms of Socialism, and was very critical of such movements, many times.

Who woulda thunk it, somebody actually criticizing the group that they are supposed to be a part of. If only that would happen today, our government wouldn't be so screwed up.

I heard that Victory Gin was rather plentiful.

WOW, you bassically just said, hey the Nazi Germany and the holocaust was ok, you know, becuase it was keeping the German Race safe from impurtiy.
Godwin's Law?

I heard that Victory Gin was rather plentiful.

But it was an absolutely terrible spirit, and incredibly disgusting. Think vodka, only times 10, and bad. And it wasn't that plentiful. It was still rationed.

And to the guy above me-

The theory holds true.