4 ms·

It's an unpopular view but I think this is a good start. Why? Violence is supported and enabled by the narratives people use to justify it. Some element of pol

It's an unpopular view but I think this is a good start. Why? Violence is supported and enabled by the narratives people use to justify it. Some element of policing & countering the narrative is going to control ideas that embolden people to commit crimes or to harm others. It's really no different than saying the way we talk about women, or PoC, or gender, or sex helps constructs the reality of how we behave. A lot of people are already shouldering the burden of trying to police and counter how other people speak and think, but they are often not backed up by legislation in doing so. Trying to stamp out the wrong ways people talk and think about other people is part of making a society that is more free and just. I think actually in this case 1984 has the unfortunate chilling effect of making it so easy to equate any sort of control with dire, evil and illogical totalitarian government. It's the sort of "short circuited" thinking that i think impedes people actually thinking clearly or deeply or even at all about these things. In that sense, having neat metaphors from literature to reach for actually harms the public discourse, because it is silenced before it can start. We do need to be talking about these things, and looking at them, not stereotyping and simplifying them, so I think a proposed piece of legislation is a good start and a sign that people are waking up to the importance of the stories we tell each other about who we are, and what's okay, in shaping and normalizing the culture and society we have.

__alias 9y ago
It's interesting to think about how novels like 1984 have influenced society's perception of governments with total control, connecting totalitarianism to dystopia. I feel like if history took a different path, we could quite easily be living in a polar opposite world where democracy and having the freedom of choice is looked at as wild and dangerous primitive society full of crime.
- Banthum 9y ago
  There are societies now with such a view of 'democracy and having from of choice'. The more conservative Muslim countries come to mind. Many of our ancestors would also see us this way. It's fully possible or descendants will look at our way of life the same way too. Really, this liberalism of ours is an aberration. It's the way of 20% of the world population for a few decades... Nobody should be surprised if your 'polar opposite world', which comprises almost all people for almost all of history, reasserts itself.
  - projectant 9y ago
    Yes, and China is doing very well with regard to economic planning, infrastructure, GDP, development and raising of the middle class standards without democracy, and has done for 70+ years and the Chinese have a long history of being able to govern competently.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      So the state-run news agency tells us.
      - projectant 9y ago
        Which state? Because China's rise is corroborated by governments and press worldwide. Not sure if you're suggesting they're all in on your conspiracy. But even if they were it would probably take a lot of money and influence to buy them all off as mouthpieces, so either way, China rose. If you still doubt it, visit & see for yourself.
Joe-Z 9y ago
>...the wrong ways people talk... >...shaping and normalizing the culture and society we have. There is no wrong way to talk. Nobody is advocating giving terrorists and bigots a forum where they can publicly discuss their ideas with people actually concerned with the progress of society. But policing thoughts and criminalizing people for _reading_ something on the internet is just indistinguishable from fascism and there should be no tolerance for it. Especially not for furthering the 'right ways' in which people should talk according to your statement.
- projectant 9y ago
  I love freedom. There is also currently a lot of precedent for saying there are wrong ways that people talk. Twitter is full of conversations where one person is criticising the other for using a word the wrong way ( and I don't mean grammar ) or using a particular word, or having a particular idea.
  - Joe-Z 9y ago
    >There is also currently a lot of precedent for saying there are wrong ways that people talk. No there is not. People are people and there have always been bigots and assholes. Just because now we have the technical means to shut everybody down who acts or talks that way does not mean that we should. Can't you see how your well-intentioned ideal of 'talk nicely to each other' is actually an oppressing view by itself? Burying your head in the sand won't solve any problems.
    - projectant 9y ago
      First, that things have "always been" one way does not mean they should remain so. And "people are people" is not excuse for bad behaviour. People can choose to be good or bad. Second, there are a really big bunch of clear rules about how to talk and the things it is okay to say and think that are being worked out right now. It doesn't equate with talking "nice". I'll give some examples: - Use the name and pronoun and non-binary person requests you use, [1] - Don't ask a transgender person what their "real name" is. [2] - Stop Using Diminutives [3] - Do not say racism is over because we have a black president. [4] - Don't say #AllLiveMatter, nor that you can where whatever you want, nor that black culture is disrespecting women [5] - Don't think reverse racism is a thing [6] - Don't say things that suggest physical contact or simulated physical contact [7] - Do not say, “Hey baby,” or “Hi cutie.” [8] - Acknowledge your privilege [9] - Do not center yourself, tone police or victim blame [10] For twitter examples of people policing ways of talking and thinking ( but bearing that burden without legislative support ), see: and [11], and [12] for some examples, and see [13] for it beginning to happen with the help of law enforcement at the intersection with civilian-enabled speech policing. This is not fascism because this was created by the American and UK left, these are the same people who railed against Trump, drive changes in the civil rights and social justice movements, and love freedom. This group clearly has the best chance of contributing significantly to the debate about rules and laws for right and wrong ways for people to think and talk. If you go against that, you're pretty much in the wrong. And they've already making progress on getting this accepted across society. What I'm saying is that, the work is currently being done without legislative backing, and starting a formal, whole-society debate by beginning to introduce legislation is, I believe, the right way forward. [1]: https://www.transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-non-binary-people-how-to-be-respectful-and-supportive https://www.transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding... [2]: https://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies https://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies [3]: https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/5-ways-men-can-respect-women/ https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/5-ways-men-can-respect-... [4]: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/23/99-ways-to-respect-black-women/ http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/23/99-ways-to-respect-bla... [5]: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/things-white-people-stop-saying https://www.theodysseyonline.com/things-white-people-stop-sa... [6]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/ten-things-white-people-n_b_9765436.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/ten-things-whit... [7]: https://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ https://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ [8]: http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/male-allies/how-to-talk-to-women/ http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/male-allies/ho... [9]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-lawrence/how-to-be-a-better-ally-in-2017_b_13932312.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-lawrence/how-to-be... [10]: http://www.guidetoallyship.com/#the-work-of-allyship http://www.guidetoallyship.com/#the-work-of-allyship [11]: https://twitter.com/search?q=thanks%20for%20mansplaining&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?q=thanks%20for%20mansplaining&src... [12]: https://twitter.com/search?q=check%20your%20privilege&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?q=check%20your%20privilege&src=ty... [13]: https://twitter.com/search?q=racism%20report%20%40metpoliceuk&src=typd&lang=en https://twitter.com/search?q=racism%20report%20%40metpoliceu...
badsectoracula 9y ago
The best, less biased and least slippery slopey way to do this would be to provide more information, not less. If people are in a position to justify violence through something they read online, they also need to learn the opposite side and why that something they read might be wrong. Of course this assumes things happen in a vacuum, but in reality people don't really justify violence by reading a thing as much as they confirm and reinforce pre-existing ideas they have. In which case all you've managed to do is to give power to already too powerful people (government) for silencing thoughts they disagree with. Also FWIW i disagree with the notion that trying to restrict the ways people talk and think has anything to do with freedom. And consider that your thoughts about 1984 might also be your inability to see yourself being wrong (i mean if you cannot consider yourself being wrong in this case and since what you consider a good solution is shown as a bad one in 1984, then you consider 1984 to be bad instead of your solution).
- projectant 9y ago
  I think theoretically more not less sounds technically correct, the problem is we seem to already been enveloped in too much information. So there has to be some filtering, and filtering is basically editorializing, so who decides? I don't know if I'm right. And I don't know if I'm advancing even a coherent idea about this. I think in reality people do justify violence by the narratives they are exposed to. I think they see other people justifying hate and violence with these narratives, and they think to do it as well. I think narrative can give a concrete form to a pre-existing hate, frustration, anger or disatisfaction, and narrate a villain responsible for that feeling. These narratives inform and shape a person's worldview and their notions of who or what is responsible for how they feel and things they see happening. Narrative is an incredibly powerful way to guide people's actions. Observe this: your narrative about the weakness of narrative in determining action, guides us to believe we ought not regulate narrative. You're shaping reality using the very tool you are saying cannot be used to shape it! Double-think extraordinaire! No offence to you, just trying to (en)lighten this up.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > I think in reality people do justify violence by the narratives they are exposed to. I think they see other people justifying hate and violence with these narratives This is true, but the question is then Plato's: who guards the narrative guards? What narratives do they tell themselves in their righteousness? Pretty much everyone ends up with a narrative about how they're doing X for the good of society, even the Nazis.
IshKebab 9y ago
This is the same argument people in favour of the death penalty use. I think there is a decent chunk of people that think that death is a reasonable punishment for certain crimes. But we don't have a magical oracle that tells us whether a person is guilty or innocent so you must consider that innocent people will be killed if you advocate the death penalty. Similarly the government isn't some magical oracle that perfectly decides whether a website is "extremist", so you must consider that some people reading websites that you wouldn't really consider to be extremist will be sent to prison for this. Is 4chan extremist? What about Greenpeace?
- projectant 9y ago
  It's a compelling-sounding point, but it lacks nuance. While I don't think many are advocating for a "fantasy land" with magic oracles to give us Perfect Truth, we can certainly approach the truth of guilt or innocence, using the courts and their accreted layers of checks and balances, such as appeals, standards of proof, and revisionable legal doctrines. And when we reasonably dispense with the requirement of "Perfect Knowledge" we are left with the imperfect but practical and broadly satisfactory result that when the courts have adjudicated someone is guilty, they most likely are. This guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" means the system is able to express and satisfy what you ( I think ) rightly say is the sense of a decent chunk of people that death is appropriate for some crimes ( not saying I agree with it being so ). That we can approach truth "to within some epsilon" seems even more correct regarding the death penalty in the US, where, at the end of death row, you've now been through many appeals ( I think, I'm no expert ). So shifting things back from your analogy to adjudication of which materials are "extremist" (or whatever language the actual proposed bill uses), I agree ( and I think few would dissent ) that we cannot magically know for sure whether it is or isn't so, but I want to expand your thinking to encompass the idea that we can approach the truth of whether it is or isn't, with a reasonable deal of accuracy. And given we ought to be able to approach such a judgement reasonably accurately, I feel a system like this will be able to express the notion that: censorship or banning or punishment for propagation or use of some materials and information is a reasonable punishment, because those informations are so harmful. So, not perfect, but mostly effective, is how I would wrap that up. A second, more general, point this leads me to is that our systems do not begin as perfect, they evolve, and we must be prepared, as a collective of people, to take risks in order that we have progress. When new laws and so on are introduced we are not experts in them, and there is fallout, and we make mistakes, and innocent people get hurt, but society makes progress. I think the risks we are prepared to take ought to be proportional to the reduction in harm achievable, and with things like terrorist propaganda, we are talking about significant harm, and the chance to reduce it. So, to risk wrongful imprisonment, is not perfect, and it's a tragedy to innocents, but I think it's an acceptable risk given the consequences of a failure to intervene. It would certainly be nice to ensure zero harm is ever done, but in practice, we do not have such magic oracles to tell us how to achieve that, so on the road to progress, and getting results that improve us, we fuck up and people get hurt. It's not to condone in any way that this happens, but we must face the reality that this happens, be motivated by that reality to improve those false positives, and recognize that as we make introduce new laws and norms and make efforts to intervene and improve society, there are risks, just like with any new technology. Ultimately I think society decides whether the risks are worth the potential improvement.
pjc50 9y ago
> Trying to stamp out the wrong ways people talk and think about other people is part of making a society that is more free and just. I'm not sure if this is some kind of ""false flag"" post attempting to discredit the concept of hate speech or not. Yes, people should probably not be going around promoting the murder or degradation of their fellow citizens. No, we should be very careful about criminalizing it. > I think actually in this case 1984 has the unfortunate chilling effect of making it so easy to equate any sort of control with dire, evil and illogical totalitarian government. Are you old enough to remember the weird censorship compromise where Gerry Adams MP was allowed to speak on television only if his words were read by an actor? You don't have to look very far into UK history to find bits of illogical totalitarianism.
kthejoker2 9y ago
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
kthejoker2 9y ago
Also, that you have reduced 1984 to a neat metaphor is a failing on your part, not Orwell. The man wrote hundreds of pages on the effects of totalitarianism. As did hundreds of other writers.
- projectant 9y ago
  I fail at many things everyday, but I did not fail in the way you meant because I did not use 1984 as a neat metaphor. What I meant was people use it as a neat metaphor, by likening anything that smells in anyway similar to 1984 with something bad, and unworthy of further consideration, thereby prematurely stunting critical debate. Hilariously, such blinkered thinking, and confinement to a limited set of goodthink far afield from anything they could paint as similar to 1984, is the very rigidly-controlled result those people, who prematurely shutdown debate by invoking 1984, pretend to be against! My only failing here is conveying this to you clearly. I'm sorry.

__alias 9y ago

It's interesting to think about how novels like 1984 have influenced society's perception of governments with total control, connecting totalitarianism to dystopia. I feel like if history took a different path, we could quite easily be living in a polar opposite world where democracy and having the freedom of choice is looked at as wild and dangerous primitive society full of crime.

Banthum 9y ago
There are societies now with such a view of 'democracy and having from of choice'. The more conservative Muslim countries come to mind. Many of our ancestors would also see us this way. It's fully possible or descendants will look at our way of life the same way too. Really, this liberalism of ours is an aberration. It's the way of 20% of the world population for a few decades... Nobody should be surprised if your 'polar opposite world', which comprises almost all people for almost all of history, reasserts itself.
- projectant 9y ago
  Yes, and China is doing very well with regard to economic planning, infrastructure, GDP, development and raising of the middle class standards without democracy, and has done for 70+ years and the Chinese have a long history of being able to govern competently.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    So the state-run news agency tells us.
    - projectant 9y ago
      Which state? Because China's rise is corroborated by governments and press worldwide. Not sure if you're suggesting they're all in on your conspiracy. But even if they were it would probably take a lot of money and influence to buy them all off as mouthpieces, so either way, China rose. If you still doubt it, visit & see for yourself.

Joe-Z 9y ago

>...the wrong ways people talk... >...shaping and normalizing the culture and society we have. There is no wrong way to talk. Nobody is advocating giving terrorists and bigots a forum where they can publicly discuss their ideas with people actually concerned with the progress of society. But policing thoughts and criminalizing people for _reading_ something on the internet is just indistinguishable from fascism and there should be no tolerance for it. Especially not for furthering the 'right ways' in which people should talk according to your statement.

projectant 9y ago
I love freedom. There is also currently a lot of precedent for saying there are wrong ways that people talk. Twitter is full of conversations where one person is criticising the other for using a word the wrong way ( and I don't mean grammar ) or using a particular word, or having a particular idea.
- Joe-Z 9y ago
  >There is also currently a lot of precedent for saying there are wrong ways that people talk. No there is not. People are people and there have always been bigots and assholes. Just because now we have the technical means to shut everybody down who acts or talks that way does not mean that we should. Can't you see how your well-intentioned ideal of 'talk nicely to each other' is actually an oppressing view by itself? Burying your head in the sand won't solve any problems.
  - projectant 9y ago
    First, that things have "always been" one way does not mean they should remain so. And "people are people" is not excuse for bad behaviour. People can choose to be good or bad. Second, there are a really big bunch of clear rules about how to talk and the things it is okay to say and think that are being worked out right now. It doesn't equate with talking "nice". I'll give some examples: - Use the name and pronoun and non-binary person requests you use, [1] - Don't ask a transgender person what their "real name" is. [2] - Stop Using Diminutives [3] - Do not say racism is over because we have a black president. [4] - Don't say #AllLiveMatter, nor that you can where whatever you want, nor that black culture is disrespecting women [5] - Don't think reverse racism is a thing [6] - Don't say things that suggest physical contact or simulated physical contact [7] - Do not say, “Hey baby,” or “Hi cutie.” [8] - Acknowledge your privilege [9] - Do not center yourself, tone police or victim blame [10] For twitter examples of people policing ways of talking and thinking ( but bearing that burden without legislative support ), see: and [11], and [12] for some examples, and see [13] for it beginning to happen with the help of law enforcement at the intersection with civilian-enabled speech policing. This is not fascism because this was created by the American and UK left, these are the same people who railed against Trump, drive changes in the civil rights and social justice movements, and love freedom. This group clearly has the best chance of contributing significantly to the debate about rules and laws for right and wrong ways for people to think and talk. If you go against that, you're pretty much in the wrong. And they've already making progress on getting this accepted across society. What I'm saying is that, the work is currently being done without legislative backing, and starting a formal, whole-society debate by beginning to introduce legislation is, I believe, the right way forward. [1]: https://www.transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-non-binary-people-how-to-be-respectful-and-supportive https://www.transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding... [2]: https://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies https://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies [3]: https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/5-ways-men-can-respect-women/ https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/5-ways-men-can-respect-... [4]: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/23/99-ways-to-respect-black-women/ http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/23/99-ways-to-respect-bla... [5]: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/things-white-people-stop-saying https://www.theodysseyonline.com/things-white-people-stop-sa... [6]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/ten-things-white-people-n_b_9765436.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/ten-things-whit... [7]: https://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ https://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ [8]: http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/male-allies/how-to-talk-to-women/ http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/male-allies/ho... [9]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-lawrence/how-to-be-a-better-ally-in-2017_b_13932312.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-lawrence/how-to-be... [10]: http://www.guidetoallyship.com/#the-work-of-allyship http://www.guidetoallyship.com/#the-work-of-allyship [11]: https://twitter.com/search?q=thanks%20for%20mansplaining&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?q=thanks%20for%20mansplaining&src... [12]: https://twitter.com/search?q=check%20your%20privilege&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?q=check%20your%20privilege&src=ty... [13]: https://twitter.com/search?q=racism%20report%20%40metpoliceuk&src=typd&lang=en https://twitter.com/search?q=racism%20report%20%40metpoliceu...

badsectoracula 9y ago

The best, less biased and least slippery slopey way to do this would be to provide more information, not less. If people are in a position to justify violence through something they read online, they also need to learn the opposite side and why that something they read might be wrong. Of course this assumes things happen in a vacuum, but in reality people don't really justify violence by reading a thing as much as they confirm and reinforce pre-existing ideas they have. In which case all you've managed to do is to give power to already too powerful people (government) for silencing thoughts they disagree with. Also FWIW i disagree with the notion that trying to restrict the ways people talk and think has anything to do with freedom. And consider that your thoughts about 1984 might also be your inability to see yourself being wrong (i mean if you cannot consider yourself being wrong in this case and since what you consider a good solution is shown as a bad one in 1984, then you consider 1984 to be bad instead of your solution).

projectant 9y ago
I think theoretically more not less sounds technically correct, the problem is we seem to already been enveloped in too much information. So there has to be some filtering, and filtering is basically editorializing, so who decides? I don't know if I'm right. And I don't know if I'm advancing even a coherent idea about this. I think in reality people do justify violence by the narratives they are exposed to. I think they see other people justifying hate and violence with these narratives, and they think to do it as well. I think narrative can give a concrete form to a pre-existing hate, frustration, anger or disatisfaction, and narrate a villain responsible for that feeling. These narratives inform and shape a person's worldview and their notions of who or what is responsible for how they feel and things they see happening. Narrative is an incredibly powerful way to guide people's actions. Observe this: your narrative about the weakness of narrative in determining action, guides us to believe we ought not regulate narrative. You're shaping reality using the very tool you are saying cannot be used to shape it! Double-think extraordinaire! No offence to you, just trying to (en)lighten this up.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > I think in reality people do justify violence by the narratives they are exposed to. I think they see other people justifying hate and violence with these narratives This is true, but the question is then Plato's: who guards the narrative guards? What narratives do they tell themselves in their righteousness? Pretty much everyone ends up with a narrative about how they're doing X for the good of society, even the Nazis.

IshKebab 9y ago

This is the same argument people in favour of the death penalty use. I think there is a decent chunk of people that think that death is a reasonable punishment for certain crimes. But we don't have a magical oracle that tells us whether a person is guilty or innocent so you must consider that innocent people will be killed if you advocate the death penalty. Similarly the government isn't some magical oracle that perfectly decides whether a website is "extremist", so you must consider that some people reading websites that you wouldn't really consider to be extremist will be sent to prison for this. Is 4chan extremist? What about Greenpeace?

projectant 9y ago
It's a compelling-sounding point, but it lacks nuance. While I don't think many are advocating for a "fantasy land" with magic oracles to give us Perfect Truth, we can certainly approach the truth of guilt or innocence, using the courts and their accreted layers of checks and balances, such as appeals, standards of proof, and revisionable legal doctrines. And when we reasonably dispense with the requirement of "Perfect Knowledge" we are left with the imperfect but practical and broadly satisfactory result that when the courts have adjudicated someone is guilty, they most likely are. This guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" means the system is able to express and satisfy what you ( I think ) rightly say is the sense of a decent chunk of people that death is appropriate for some crimes ( not saying I agree with it being so ). That we can approach truth "to within some epsilon" seems even more correct regarding the death penalty in the US, where, at the end of death row, you've now been through many appeals ( I think, I'm no expert ). So shifting things back from your analogy to adjudication of which materials are "extremist" (or whatever language the actual proposed bill uses), I agree ( and I think few would dissent ) that we cannot magically know for sure whether it is or isn't so, but I want to expand your thinking to encompass the idea that we can approach the truth of whether it is or isn't, with a reasonable deal of accuracy. And given we ought to be able to approach such a judgement reasonably accurately, I feel a system like this will be able to express the notion that: censorship or banning or punishment for propagation or use of some materials and information is a reasonable punishment, because those informations are so harmful. So, not perfect, but mostly effective, is how I would wrap that up. A second, more general, point this leads me to is that our systems do not begin as perfect, they evolve, and we must be prepared, as a collective of people, to take risks in order that we have progress. When new laws and so on are introduced we are not experts in them, and there is fallout, and we make mistakes, and innocent people get hurt, but society makes progress. I think the risks we are prepared to take ought to be proportional to the reduction in harm achievable, and with things like terrorist propaganda, we are talking about significant harm, and the chance to reduce it. So, to risk wrongful imprisonment, is not perfect, and it's a tragedy to innocents, but I think it's an acceptable risk given the consequences of a failure to intervene. It would certainly be nice to ensure zero harm is ever done, but in practice, we do not have such magic oracles to tell us how to achieve that, so on the road to progress, and getting results that improve us, we fuck up and people get hurt. It's not to condone in any way that this happens, but we must face the reality that this happens, be motivated by that reality to improve those false positives, and recognize that as we make introduce new laws and norms and make efforts to intervene and improve society, there are risks, just like with any new technology. Ultimately I think society decides whether the risks are worth the potential improvement.

pjc50 9y ago

> Trying to stamp out the wrong ways people talk and think about other people is part of making a society that is more free and just. I'm not sure if this is some kind of ""false flag"" post attempting to discredit the concept of hate speech or not. Yes, people should probably not be going around promoting the murder or degradation of their fellow citizens. No, we should be very careful about criminalizing it. > I think actually in this case 1984 has the unfortunate chilling effect of making it so easy to equate any sort of control with dire, evil and illogical totalitarian government. Are you old enough to remember the weird censorship compromise where Gerry Adams MP was allowed to speak on television only if his words were read by an actor? You don't have to look very far into UK history to find bits of illogical totalitarianism.

kthejoker2 9y ago

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

kthejoker2 9y ago

Also, that you have reduced 1984 to a neat metaphor is a failing on your part, not Orwell. The man wrote hundreds of pages on the effects of totalitarianism. As did hundreds of other writers.

projectant 9y ago
I fail at many things everyday, but I did not fail in the way you meant because I did not use 1984 as a neat metaphor. What I meant was people use it as a neat metaphor, by likening anything that smells in anyway similar to 1984 with something bad, and unworthy of further consideration, thereby prematurely stunting critical debate. Hilariously, such blinkered thinking, and confinement to a limited set of goodthink far afield from anything they could paint as similar to 1984, is the very rigidly-controlled result those people, who prematurely shutdown debate by invoking 1984, pretend to be against! My only failing here is conveying this to you clearly. I'm sorry.