NationStates Jolt Archive

http://geraldjohndavis.googlepages.com/links

These are links(not mine) comparing the ideas in the novel 1984 to Christianity, Islam, religions in general, and Republican Fundamentalism(Bush style).

Defend, discuss, bust a nut, flame... feed a troll, whatever. Lets hear your thoughts. Are they apt comparisons?

It's just another instance of inane, vapid, liberal, bullshit.

not entirely,

but a million monkeys with a million typewriters have written most of what i read online

This is just stupid, articles made for people to just go "yeah" and "damn straight!"

Ironically their alot like the 2 minutes hate.

It's just another instance of inane, vapid, liberal, bullshit.

I donno. I liked them and I've always voted conservative...

It's just another instance of inane, vapid, liberal, bullshit.

Ever read the book? There are some rather interesting parallels. Not everything is, of course, but there are some.

So, read the book.

I have read the book. Near as I can tell, our society is rather better than the Ingsoc model. Now, I wonder how long it's going to be before someone brings up THIS EXACT TOPIC again?

I have read the book. Near as I can tell, our society is rather better than the Ingsoc model. Now, I wonder how long it's going to be before someone brings up THIS EXACT TOPIC again?

what direction is your society moving and is it forcing others along with it?

It's just another instance of inane, vapid, liberal, bullshit.

What a convincing argument. Care to elaborate?

Uhm, no. Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. Simply because we are currently drifting to the right (admittedly, too far right) does not mean that we'll become the 1984 state.

Logical fallacy doubleplus ungood thoughtcrime.

slippery slope is hardly a logical fallacy


look at smoking

Oh? (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html)

Uhm, no. Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. Simply because we are currently drifting to the right (admittedly, too far right) does not mean that we'll become the 1984 state.

Logical fallacy doubleplus ungood thoughtcrime.

I must agree. Slippery slope sucks. The wonderful thing about a democratic system is that when people get fed up with one side's bullshit they move over to the other side's bullshit. The pattern repeats itself. Effectively preventing a 1984esque state.

Uhm, no. Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. Simply because we are currently drifting to the right (admittedly, too far right) does not mean that we'll become the 1984 state.

Logical fallacy doubleplus ungood thoughtcrime.

in the last 5 years your government has

- started 2 wars, one of which was based on a series of lies

- legalised torture

- allowed your spooks to operate secret camps

- initiated a 'spy on your neighbour' scheme unheard of since the stasi

- eroded significantly your legal protection from the government

- illegally tapped phones

- given a network preferrential treatment for soft reporting

its not 1984 but its a severe regression and people are entitled to draw parallels between the language used by your govermnent and how easily the legal changes were enacted and how the oceania state was founded

im sure many of you are too young to remember when you could smoke on planes

when i was a kid if you told people they wouldnt be able to smoke in bars in new york city theyd have laughed at you.

When things are taken away slowly and methodically, people dont protest overly much.

in 25 years we have gone from resteraunts where you could smoke everywhere, to bars where you cant smoke at all. prohibition didnt work because it was done all at once. Take it just a bit at a time, paint people who object as children haters and you can destroy any civil liberty you want

in the last 5 years your government has

- started 2 wars, one of which was based on a series of lies

- legalised torture

- allowed your spooks to operate secret camps

- initiated a 'spy on your neighbour' scheme unheard of since the stasi

- eroded significantly your legal protection from the government

- illegally tapped phones

- given a network preferrential treatment for soft reporting

its not 1984 but its a severe regression and people are entitled to draw parallels between the language used by your govermnent and how easily the legal changes were enacted and how the oceania state was founded

Yes and it looks liek the republicans are about to pay for it. odds are that they are about to lose their hold on the House and/or senate. For mor details, see my above post.

in the last 5 years your government has

- started 2 wars, one of which was based on a series of lies

- legalised torture

- allowed your spooks to operate secret camps

- initiated a 'spy on your neighbour' scheme unheard of since the stasi

- eroded significantly your legal protection from the government

- illegally tapped phones

- given a network preferrential treatment for soft reporting

its not 1984 but its a severe regression and people are entitled to draw parallels between the language used by your govermnent and how easily the legal changes were enacted and how the oceania state was founded

You forgot to add that it has infected millions of children with werewolfism.

I call plagiarism, because Orwell himself wrote in 1984 that the government was built on the same platform as the Roman Catholic Church was founded on, with alterations to prevent folks like Martin Luther to come to influence.

Uhm, no. Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. Simply because we are currently drifting to the right (admittedly, too far right) does not mean that we'll become the 1984 state.

Logical fallacy doubleplus ungood thoughtcrime.

That' not necessarily the point. The point is to point out some striking parallels. Doe that meen we are, or will become, like Oceana? No, not at all. However, that does not mean that there is no point to the parellels.

A decent point, Jeff, but not for Slippery Slope re. 1984. Roughly 55 million Americans still smoke (myself amongst them, although I smoke cigars rather than cigarettes. Counter-counterculture ftw!), outnumbered by 200 million Americans for whom the habit is offensive to the senses, both nose and eyes. The Oceania state took away liberties from the majority to give to the select few, whereas in this case the majority is taking away a 'liberty' from a select few because, in the eyes of the majority, the liberty isn't worth the risk posed to them via secondhand smoke.

SR:

Oh, sure. You're entitled to say anything you like about my government, quite frankly, I'm not going to get too upset about it. Fact is, it's not a legitimate connection because the Oceania state is based on ideas really quite foreign to Neoconservative doctrine. For example, Ingsoc (Oceania's system/ English Socialism) is based upon socialism and the leadership of the 'party', as well as the planning agencies and suchlike that go along with it.

But more on topic, let's go point by point. Forgive me for not typing out your words verbatim or fiddling with the quote function.

1) Iraq was based on a series of errors, not lies. While it's fashionable today to claim that Bush was the only human being on the planet to believe that Saddam had WMD, it isn't true. Intelligence agencies from Britain, France and to a lesser extent Germany agreed. Mossad (Israel's world-beating intel people) backed us on this one as well. Let's not go re-writing history, shall we?

2) And the Supreme Court didn't just give the Executive Branch the smackdown on that one?

Excluding the one about 'wire taps' your statements are really too broad for me to respond to. You'll have to be more specific, since it's difficult to prove or disprove a sweeping generalisation.

6) Well, nobody's come out and said "it's illegal" yet (at least, nobody with any kind of legal authority) so let's hold off on saying so, neh?

. For example, Ingsoc (Oceania's system/ English Socialism) is based upon socialism and the leadership of the 'party', as well as the planning agencies and suchlike that go along with it.



read the thread. no-one is saying the neo-cons and ingsocs are the same. the parallels are just interesting, and the fact that there are so many who are actually thikful for the loss of freedoms in america today.

http://geraldjohndavis.googlepages.com/links

These are links(not mine) comparing the ideas in the novel 1984 to Christianity, Islam, religions in general, and Republican Fundamentalism(Bush style).

Defend, discuss, bust a nut, flame... feed a troll, whatever. Lets hear your thoughts. Are they apt comparisons?

Religion, when taken too far, as it often is, is a force of evil. However, as a non-compulsory personal expression it can have beneficial aspects, such as more confidence in one's self, a feeling of peace, etc.

What, you're supposed to read on a forum? I'd never guessed.

Well, I was pointing out that people were drawing parallels between very different ideologies. I thought that I was clear, but perhaps not. Yes, the current US government has reduced civil liberties. However, the current US government will change, because as Bobslovakia pointed out, people tend to get tired of having freedoms reduced. The thing about Ingsoc was that it had been so ingrained and established so as to be impossible to change. The things done (or not done) by the US government are nothing like that.

Yeah, some people think that reducing some freedoms to increase security is an okay thing. Your point?

The thing about Ingsoc was that it had been so ingrained and established so as to be impossible to change. The things done (or not done) by the US government are nothing like that.

are they though? you confident that the next president will turn it all around?

the brits and irish never relaxed their anti terror laws, and we are 10 years since the IRA ceasefire

Yeah, some people think that reducing some freedoms to increase security is an okay thing. Your point?

people in 1984 revelled in an environment where they had no choices and no freedoms, there are americans who are encouraging the state to take their liberties away and attacking others for ojecting to that. its sinister.

It's just another instance of inane, vapid, liberal, bullshit.

You shouldn't call a book that just because it depicts your ideal state for what it is.

Perhaps some clarification is needed here.

It seems that some people think that 1984 was a history book. It was not. It was a good alarmist novel. It was fiction. About a future which never happened. To somehow determine that all or a part of the real world will follow the model drawn by 1984 because of similarities between the real world and the fictional novel is folly. Orwell did not even get it totally correct in his fictional novel Animal Farm which was written after the historical events the novel is modelled after actually occurred. Yet some would seem to trust and believe that he had a more accurate and complete vision of the future than he had of the immediate past. They argue we are obviously and logically headed straight towards Orwell's imaginary vision even though this has never happened to any country anywhere ever. If it takes a fool to read alarmist authors of fiction with a grain of salt and instead to believe combined human history along with his own eyes then count me as one of the fools.

Trusting in another's imaginary vision of where one is headed rather than one's own eyes and reasoning is laziness of humungous proportions and probably vapid and inane no matter which political leanings one embraces. The future will of course be the only sure way to determine the bullshit content of these modern prophecies of doom.

Perhaps some clarification is needed here.

It seems that some people think that 1984 was a history book. It was not. It was a good alarmist novel. It was fiction. About a future which never happened. To somehow determine that all or a part of the real world will follow the model drawn by 1984 because of similarities between the real world and the fictional novel is folly. Orwell did not even get it totally correct in his fictional novel Animal Farm which was written after the historical events the novel is modelled after actually occurred. Yet some would seem to trust and believe that he had a more accurate and complete vision of the future than he had of the immediate past. They argue we are obviously and logically headed straight towards Orwell's imaginary vision even though this has never happened to any country anywhere ever. If it takes a fool to read alarmist authors of fiction with a grain of salt and instead to believe combined human history along with his own eyes then count me as one of the fools.

Trusting in another's imaginary vision of where one is headed rather than one's own eyes and reasoning is laziness of humungous proportions and probably vapid and inane no matter which political leanings one embraces. The future will of course be the only sure way to determine the bullshit content of these modern prophecies of doom.

I study dystopian literature in general and 1984 in particular.

While a dystopia tends to be a system that's impossible to sustain for more than a few years, thus rendering it unlikely, the point here is that there are parallels between what Ingsoc did and what Bush is trying to do: Permanent surveillance (telescreen), permanent state of war (on a noun), dissent-is-treason thought pattern (Bill O'Reilly is just one example), secret detentions, abolishing of rights, and on goes the list. Those that know 1984 but don't know dystopian literature theory will see it with understandable alarm. However, even if a dystopian state can't sustain itself long, it does can sustain itself a while, and even a mere five years under a dystopian 1984-esque USA would cause irreversible damage, both to Americans and to the world. This is an actual problem: It couldn't be very bad very long, but it could be very bad long ENOUGH.

A decent point, Jeff, but not for Slippery Slope re. 1984. Roughly 55 million Americans still smoke (myself amongst them, although I smoke cigars rather than cigarettes. Counter-counterculture ftw!), outnumbered by 200 million Americans for whom the habit is offensive to the senses, both nose and eyes. The Oceania state took away liberties from the majority to give to the select few, whereas in this case the majority is taking away a 'liberty' from a select few because, in the eyes of the majority, the liberty isn't worth the risk posed to them via secondhand smoke.

The "slippery slope" is nothing more than a graded change as opposed to a sudden one. A sound strategy really, you can find it used successfully in a huge variety of endeavors.

But, when they ban tobacco, they are not taking a liberty from a minority, they are taking it from everyone. Sure, the freedom to possess, transport, trade or smoke cigarettes might not be missed by anyone but smokers (though I am glad that isn't strictly true) - but that's the thing. It's the precedent of taking away a liberty and getting people used to it.

Once people are accustomed to having their freedoms slowly filed away "for the greater good," the question of whether it's a majority or minority that is affected isn't all that important IMO.

It's just another instance of inane, vapid, liberal, bullshit.

I like you. You're silly.

Seriously, though, the one about Islam doesn't even quite make sense. The one about Christianity is drawing from all over the place, and 1984 really only applies to the real fundies. As for the Busheviks...well, he isn't that scary. A lot of the people who follow him are. And Bush is very good at playing to the loud, uber-conservative, bloodthirsty conservatives who want to kill homosexuals and still believe Saddam had WMD and ties to al-Qaeda. Bush himself doesn't agree with any of that, but he certainly won't tell the wackos on his side to STFU.

http://users.telenet.be/elnutsio/pics/shit.jpg

http://users.telenet.be/elnutsio/pics/shit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/gaffeur/chiraxcopy.jpg

Perhaps some clarification is needed here.
I think so.

It seems that some people think that 1984 was a history book. It was not. It was a good alarmist novel. It was fiction. About a future which never happened.
It is a dramatised novel, of course. Orwell extracted, generated and sought to explain themes arising from aspects of the real world and he gave them a central cohesion by binding them together in a fictional story.

To somehow determine that all or a part of the real world will follow the model drawn by 1984 because of similarities between the real world and the fictional novel is folly.
That is exactly correct, but the implications are perhaps not what you think. I have never known anyone to actually believe that the fictional world of 1984 was going to materialise. I have known people to use the familiarity of 1984 to express things related to the themes in 1984. People might for instance make comments such as "Welcome to 1984" as a hyperbolic tool to communicate a message, but never in any communication that I've been party to has the person actually intended to communicate that the exact world Orwell created and explored in 1984 is going to materialise.

In fact just about the only people who do seem to have a simplistic view of the issue are the ones running around going "It's nothing like 1984 because....[insert detail that proves the exact world described inm 1984 isnt about to happen]..".

If you understand what Orwell was doing, then you'll understand that the plot of the story is there to 'hang' the themes on. When people draw on 1984 while making statements about the real world, they are drawing on the themes in 1984 that are about the real world, not asserting the impending reality and materialisation of the plot detail.

Orwell did not even get it totally correct in his fictional novel Animal Farm which was written after the historical events the novel is modelled after actually occurred.
Er, I'm going to go with the benefit of the doubt here and believe that I dont know what you mean. It sounds like you are saying a writer got a fictional story incorrect because the fictional story didnt conform to real world events....:confused:

Yet some would seem to trust and believe that he had a more accurate and complete vision of the future than he had of the immediate past.
Would they? Well I have to say, I've not encountered those people personally. I'm not saying they dont exist, but rather they probably represent a sufficiently small enough group that it's not worth putting out a blanket-corrective (such as your post) for their benefit. I imagine they are sufficiently rare that none of them 'just happens to be' among the small number of people who will ever read your post.

They argue we are obviously and logically headed straight towards Orwell's imaginary vision even though this has never happened to any country anywhere ever.
Wow, that must be interesting to observe, unfortunately I never have...as I say, what you describe is probably not untrue, just really, really, really rare.

If it takes a fool to read alarmist authors of fiction with a grain of salt and instead to believe combined human history along with his own eyes then count me as one of the fools.
Well it might take someone who was thinking a bit simplistically to misinterpret the hyperbolic use of iconic literature in discussion about the real world as being literal and indicative of some belief that the exact circumstances of 1984 were going to materialise in the real world. That wouldnt necessarily make them a fool though.

Trusting in another's imaginary vision of where one is headed rather than one's own eyes and reasoning is laziness of humungous proportions and probably vapid and inane no matter which political leanings one embraces.
Right, but as I indicated earlier, I expect that's kinda' rare.

The future will of course be the only sure way to determine the bullshit content of these modern prophecies of doom.
Your comments are true of a very tiny group of people (if they are true of anyone at all), some of whom may be psychotic. This group is (to the best of my knowledge) far out-weighed by those who refer to 1984 in order to communicate and discuss certain ideas and themes, but without ever confusing a work of fiction for a work of prophecy.
I cant help but suspect the problem isnt people not being able to tell fiction from prophecy, but rather you not being able to understand the distinction between the theme or phenomenon being discussed (in the context of 1984 references) and the plot detail that Orwell used to string his material together into a cohesive piece of entertainment.

They argue we are obviously and logically headed straight towards Orwell's imaginary vision even though this has never happened to any country anywhere ever.

I'd make a case for North Korea, but you're right - no one's really come too close to Orwell's vision.

I'm not sure why nobody has pointed out the obvious yet...

As with any book, Orwell's ideas for 1984 didn't come out of thin air. Where, exactly, do you think he got them, if not from the things now these articles are creeped out at the similarities. Come on! Bounce a few brain cells about and realise that Orwell wrote the book as what he thought the logical conclusion of the things he saw were, if they kept going down a certain path. That there are some similarities to real life (and other drastic differences) ought not come as a surprise.

It's like futuristic sci-fi things written fifty years ago. They have flying cars (haha) and wall-screens with constant moving pictures/ads (can you say flat-screen tvs?) and pocket sized devices wherewith you can communicate with anyone, or access all sorts of information (cell phone, anyone?) and latex jumpsuits with clunky boots. Hey, they're already hitting 50/50. How hard can it be to figure that politics follows patterns, and combine that with a futuristic view, and hit a few balls into the right area.

another doubleplus ungood thread, with double plus much duckspeak. Much crimethink and fallacy. Newspeak is teh p0wnxor.

I'm not sure why nobody has pointed out the obvious yet...

As with any book, Orwell's ideas for 1984 didn't come out of thin air. Where, exactly, do you think he got them, if not from the things now these articles are creeped out at the similarities. Come on! Bounce a few brain cells about and realise that Orwell wrote the book as what he thought the logical conclusion of the things he saw were, if they kept going down a certain path. That there are some similarities to real life (and other drastic differences) ought not come as a surprise.

It's like futuristic sci-fi things written fifty years ago. They have flying cars (haha) and wall-screens with constant moving pictures/ads (can you say flat-screen tvs?) and pocket sized devices wherewith you can communicate with anyone, or access all sorts of information (cell phone, anyone?) and latex jumpsuits with clunky boots. Hey, they're already hitting 50/50. How hard can it be to figure that politics follows patterns, and combine that with a futuristic view, and hit a few balls into the right area.

Well, of course it came from something. The government of Oceania has a number of similarities to that of the Soviet Union, and the setup is very much communist and Bolshevik in nature. And I don't think Orwell was thinking, "This is what will happen in 1984." He was writing more as a way of saying, "If we're not careful, we risk turning our world into something like this, and come 1984, this is what it might look like." People flocked to the Bolsheviks in Russia. People flocked to the Maoists in China. It's a matter of saying, "There's a precedent for this sort of thing. What if it happens on a large scale?"

another doubleplus ungood thread, with double plus much duckspeak. Much crimethink and fallacy. Newspeak is teh p0wnxor.

I must now find a way to merge Newspeak with 1337speak. New1337speak it will be called. Then people will anoint me O One With Too Damn Much Time On His Fucking Hands, Seriously.

I must now find a way to merge Newspeak with 1337speak. New1337speak it will be called. Then people will anoint me O One With Too Damn Much Time On His Fucking Hands, Seriously.

fr33d0m l5 5l4v3ry
lgn0r4n5e l5 5tr3ngth

d0ubl3 plu5 g00dxor!

Well, of course it came from something. The government of Oceania has a number of similarities to that of the Soviet Union, and the setup is very much communist and Bolshevik in nature. And I don't think Orwell was thinking, "This is what will happen in 1984." He was writing more as a way of saying, "If we're not careful, we risk turning our world into something like this, and come 1984, this is what it might look like." People flocked to the Bolsheviks in Russia. People flocked to the Maoists in China. It's a matter of saying, "There's a precedent for this sort of thing. What if it happens on a large scale?"

Which is just another way to say what I just said...

This conspiracy thoery, wow, amazing how it relates to reality, "plagerizing!!!" stuff is absurd.

Or, for the rest of you

7h15 c0N5p1r4cY tH30r33, w0w, 4m4z1n5 h0W 17 R3l473z t0 r34l1Ty, "pl4g3R1z1nG!!one!eleven!" 57uF 1z 48zuRd.

Ever read the book? There are some rather interesting parallels. Not everything is, of course, but there are some.

So, read the book.

Of course he didn't. Reading is for liberal intellectuals.

You forgot to add that it has infected millions of children with werewolfism.

If only. Werewolves are normal 27 days out of the month.

Of course he didn't. Reading is for liberal intellectuals.

And since he's neither...

I think so.

It is a dramatised novel, of course. Orwell extracted, generated and sought to explain themes arising from aspects of the real world and he gave them a central cohesion by binding them together in a fictional story.

People might for instance make comments such as "Welcome to 1984" as a hyperbolic tool to communicate a message, but never in any communication that I've been party to has the person actually intended to communicate that the exact world Orwell created and explored in 1984 is going to materialise.

In fact just about the only people who do seem to have a simplistic view of the issue are the ones running around going "It's nothing like 1984 because....[insert detail that proves the exact world described inm 1984 isnt about to happen]..".

If you understand what Orwell was doing, then you'll understand that the plot of the story is there to 'hang' the themes on.

. I imagine they are sufficiently rare that none of them 'just happens to be' among the small number of people who will ever read your post.



Well it might take someone who was thinking a bit simplistically to misinterpret the hyperbolic use of iconic literature in discussion about the real world as being literal and indicative of some belief that the exact circumstances of 1984 were going to materialise in the real world. That wouldnt necessarily make them a fool though.




Your comments are true of a very tiny group of people (if they are true of anyone at all), some of whom may be psychotic. This group is (to the best of my knowledge) far out-weighed by those who refer to 1984 in order to communicate and discuss certain ideas and themes, but without ever confusing a work of fiction for a work of prophecy.
I cant help but suspect the problem isnt people not being able to tell fiction from prophecy, but rather you not being able to understand the distinction between the theme or phenomenon being discussed (in the context of 1984 references) and the plot detail that Orwell used to string his material together into a cohesive piece of entertainment.

Well since you insist on implying my view is simplistic and childlike and incomplete,...you mght be right. You would need to bring up some point about the novel though for me to know.Every point you tried to make was so generic it is equally true of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms or Little Women as it is of 1984. Why do you think 1984 is so real and current and vital that only ignorant children would dare to point out that it is merely a novel?

Why has every g3neration of students since 1984 was written identify so strongly with it that they are convinced it is real (hyperbolicly speaking of course, otherwise youll fiercly pounce again)

So go on put yourself out there. What IS real in 1984?

Well since you insist on implying my view is simplistic and childlike and incomplete,...
Actually I didnt do anything that even vaguely resembles insisting.

you mght be right. You would need to bring up some point about the novel though for me to know.
You need me to bring up a point from some novel for you to be able to work out if you have a childlike view?

Every point you tried to make was so generic it is equally true of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms or Little Women as it is of 1984.
The points responded to your post, and being the polite cookie I am, I kindly kept the replies as much 'in kind' as I could. Since your post was a bunch of unproven generalisations it is mystifying why you would expect responses to it to be something other than generalised in nature...

Why do you think 1984 is so real and current and vital that only ignorant children would dare to point out that it is merely a novel?
Why do you think that I think that, it's certainly not something that is stated in my post (which actually states more than once that 1984 is indeed a novel)?
Let me review the situation. Having posted a tirade of generalisations that seeks to denigrate the view of others by positing some other incrediably idiotic view in it's place and pretending that the two view are the same, you get called on your "strawmanism", and your only recourse is to accuse others of generalising and to try to insinuate some more strawmen into the conversation out of sheer desperation....

Why has every g3neration of students since 1984 was written identify so strongly with it that they are convinced it is real (hyperbolicly speaking of course, otherwise youll fiercly pounce again)
I've never met a single person who is convinced it is real, and I've met numerous students).
As to your disengenious attempt to deal with the fact that such people are exceptionally rare (if indeed they even exist) by appeal to some impossible, self contradictory notion of 'real hyperbolically speaking', good grief, that's lamer than lame.

You make a ranting raving tirade, full of generalisations and accusations that you cannot provide any real examples for, and which require that the accused (who never are specified or identified) be so deficient of mind they actually quite literally meet the definition of psychotic (ie unable to differentiate between reality and 'not-reality'), all with no evidence or even a single example. In fact I think what you are doing is taking a ridiculous argument that no one is making and arguing against to prove some group or other is wrong...another words, you're bashing on a strawman.
Then when you are called on your generalising-dependent strawman, you accuse others of making generalisations as if you had yourself done otherwise, and set about misrepresenting that person's argument so that you can argue against (well actually chuck out silly questions about) an arugment they never made, which is to say bashing a strawman.
Were you hoping to impress someone with this little performance?

So go on put yourself out there. What IS real in 1984?
It's a fictional book, I easily differentiate between fictional novels and 'real', just as I suspect the very large majority of people do, which is why I dont believe for a moment that the accusations you made in your earlier post are in the least bit realistic when applied to all but a very few (and very probably psychotic) individuals, none of whom I've ever yet come across in my own life.

Benedict. Arnold. Masks. But today, they're on sale! Just $3.99 each!

It's just another instance of inane, vapid, liberal, bullshit.

Oh look - no... no wait, it's just another pronouncement of inane, reactionary, conservative invective - without so much as a half-hearted attempt to illustrate the intended supposition.

It must be quite taxing being MTAE, near as I can figure. Feeling spread a little thin lately?

Well since you insist on implying my view is simplistic and childlike and incomplete,...you mght be right. You would need to bring up some point about the novel though for me to know.Every point you tried to make was so generic it is equally true of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms or Little Women as it is of 1984. Why do you think 1984 is so real and current and vital that only ignorant children would dare to point out that it is merely a novel?

Probably because pointing out that it's a novel contributes nothing to the conversation. The people who discuss the parallels between 1984 and real-world politics are going on the understanding that everyone understands that it is a work of fiction intended to parallel the disturbing political trends that Orwell witnessed in his own life and whether or not we're seeing similar elements of that now.

To point out that it is "only a novel" is like pointing out that we are not talking about the year in which Wham! released the album "Making it Big." We know that already, and pointing it out indicates that you are either way behind, or ar trying to imply that someone else doesn't understand this already, making it a snide insult rather than a point in a conversation.

Nothing particularly new.

I think it's kind of funney how they link to the one about GWB with the words "Republican Fundamentalism (Capitalism)", even though none of those words appear in the text of the article itself, especially none linking it all to the practice of Capitalism.

Mmm... sorry, I had to sleep.

It is impossible to deny that there are parallels between real life in America and Orwell's 1984. This is true (to varying degrees) of every centralised government in the world, because every centralised government has varying degrees of societal control over its people. Britain has its anti-terror laws, America has its Gitmo. Israel has its Mossad, North Korea is in a state of perpetual antagonism against the entire planet.

Those of you who suggest a connection between 1984 and the United States are, in a sense, correct. I do not deny that there are parallels, but I would suggest that every organized society has certain similarities to the Oceania state. However, I do deny that the United States will one day become something very similar to the Oceania state, because I simply don't believe that the American people will stand for it. It's been shown in the past that Americans will take a great deal of bullshit for a certain amount of time before rejecting it, sometimes spectacularly (Vietnam) and sometimes violently (the American Revolution). Sometimes it takes us a while (slavery), and sometimes it takes us a very long while indeed (institutional discrimination). But we do reject it.

What's to say that we will again? Nothing concrete. However, the weight of historical evidence suggests that we will, and long before we reach a state terribly similar to Oceania.

Of course, some say that the suggestion was never that the United States will someday reach such a point. To that, I have to ask you, what's the point of the thread? I've already asserted that almost every organised society has connections to 1984, America not especially more than most. If the point is to only draw connections, well, we can do that.

The articles posted, however, seem to disagree with you.

As President Bush wages his war against terrorism and moves to create a huge homeland security apparatus, he appears to be borrowing heavily, if not ripping off ideas outright, from George Orwell.--Learning to love Big Brother

If you think about it, fundamentalist Christianity is a very Orwellian religion.

When your sources say one thing, and you another, you need a better platform.;)

Your comments are true of a very tiny group of people (if they are true of anyone at all), some of whom may be psychotic.

I am now a firm advocate of your theory. In fact I will add to it. Not only are those who believe fictional novels whole probably wholy psychotic, the more tenuous parallels a person draws between a work of complete fiction and real life the more likely they are to be fully psychotic.

Probably because pointing out that it's a novel contributes nothing to the conversation. The people who discuss the parallels between 1984 and real-world politics are going on the understanding that everyone understands that it is a work of fiction intended to parallel the disturbing political trends that Orwell witnessed in his own life and whether or not we're seeing similar elements of that now.

To point out that it is "only a novel" is like pointing out that we are not talking about the year in which Wham! released the album "Making it Big." We know that already, and pointing it out indicates that you are either way behind, or ar trying to imply that someone else doesn't understand this already, making it a snide insult rather than a point in a conversation.

You have just added a critique of my post and nothing more to the conversation kettle.

I am now a firm advocate of your theory. In fact I will add to it. Not only are those who believe fictional novels whole probably wholy psychotic, the more tenuous parallels a person draws between a work of complete fiction and real life the more likely they are to be fully psychotic.
Right, whole parallel = wholy psycotic, partial (ie tenuous) parallel = more (than wholy)....
Your theory is provably false, it's not even internally coherent, in fact it's self-contradictory and obviously so.

If you wish to formulate nonsensical theories so that you can ensure your understanding and knowledge of the world are further removed from reality than they need to be, bully for you I guess. I dont know why a person would want to do that to themselves, but hey, it's your ability to know and understand reality that you are compromising.....:rolleyes:

Right, whole parallel = wholy psycotic, partial (ie tenuous) parallel = more (than wholy)....
Your theory is provably false, it's not even internally coherent, in fact it's self-contradictory and obviously so.

If you wish to formulate nonsensical theories so that you can ensure your understanding and knowledge of the world are further removed from reality than they need to be, bully for you I guess. I dont know why a person would want to do that to themselves, but hey, it's your ability to know and understand reality that you are compromising.....:rolleyes:

http://www.street.fighter.free.fr/sagat/tigeruppercut_b.jpg

:D

(Well, your nick is ZAGAT, someone had to make that joke eventually) :p