3 ms·

The part where the government uses double-speak to convince the people, which as I recall is most of the book. The amount of double-speak behind the ''merit'' o

The part where the government uses double-speak to convince the people, which as I recall is most of the book. The amount of double-speak behind the ''merit'' of this policy is maddening. The linked tweets 'saving jobs and protecting communities' translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of my Union's interest'. Makes my skin crawl to read it. I genuinely don't think I have the diction to adequately express the inanity of a policy requiring humans to babysit machines and the resulting loss of economic efficiency. Like I said, it is something I would expect to read in a dystopia, about how shitty and unfulfilling life is that the government needs to invent make-work jobs like sitting in automated trucks. Or in a history book about how some once-great empire has fallen "the consuls in their wisdom dictated that every slave must have an overseer, who is required to not work an only observe the work of the slave such that the working slave not accidentally deviate from his or her assigned tasks -- the obviously resulting crash in grain output was one of the contributing factors in the destabilization of the 8th dynasty". I am also reminded of wikipedia article I read recently, from an HN post, about how the Soviet union starved themselves (and china followed) because they put a psuedo-scientist in charge of their agriculture. >new automation I missed the part where this would've been a transitory policy with a clearly defined and reasonable exit condition? If so I judged too hastily, but I doubt it.

orwin 3y ago
So this has nothing to do with 1984 then. ?Doublespeak or rather newspeak is a third of the book at most, and mostly because the main character works at the ministry of truth. Also newspeak is about removing words and simplifying the language. If anybody talk about 'newspeak' because new words were added, they're lying about having read the book or morons, I don't see a third option.
viraptor 3y ago
> translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of my Union's interest' And you don't think the veto translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of tech companies'? Just because you don't like the proposed solution doesn't make it double speak for something you think. > where the government uses double-speak to convince the people It was used to control the narrative/population, not convince people - everyone knew it's obvious BS. But there the government was implementing totalitarian system squashing opposition. Here, we've got agreement from majority of both the government and population and a veto from a single person higher up. It's almost the complete opposite of the book. > how shitty and unfulfilling life is that the government needs to invent make-work jobs like sitting in automated trucks Wait until you hear about mining and farming subsidies in lots of countries and how much voting weight those groups had around the time of increasing automation and phasing out coal. Or why corn is in everything in the US...
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  >And you don't think the veto translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of tech companies'? Just because you don't like the proposed solution doesn't make it double speak for something you think. How precisely is not forcing an industry into an inefficient[0] mode of operation 'corrupt regulatory capture'? It's pretty literally the opposite of regulatory capture. (hence when removing the not the above sentence becomes regulatory capture, regardless of how double-speakily it is described). [0]A non-market derived solution.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    There's a lot that we force the market to do that's not a market derived solution. Slaves are very market efficient. Racketeering can be too. You can make choices of long-term benefits of not choosing a purely free market solution. What I meant though is that the veto may be simple opposition to the idea, or it may come from having a special interests of tech corps influencing that decision - given popular acceptance of the proposed law, that would make it corrupt regulatory capture.

orwin 3y ago

So this has nothing to do with 1984 then. ?Doublespeak or rather newspeak is a third of the book at most, and mostly because the main character works at the ministry of truth. Also newspeak is about removing words and simplifying the language. If anybody talk about 'newspeak' because new words were added, they're lying about having read the book or morons, I don't see a third option.

viraptor 3y ago

> translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of my Union's interest' And you don't think the veto translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of tech companies'? Just because you don't like the proposed solution doesn't make it double speak for something you think. > where the government uses double-speak to convince the people It was used to control the narrative/population, not convince people - everyone knew it's obvious BS. But there the government was implementing totalitarian system squashing opposition. Here, we've got agreement from majority of both the government and population and a veto from a single person higher up. It's almost the complete opposite of the book. > how shitty and unfulfilling life is that the government needs to invent make-work jobs like sitting in automated trucks Wait until you hear about mining and farming subsidies in lots of countries and how much voting weight those groups had around the time of increasing automation and phasing out coal. Or why corn is in everything in the US...

thereisnospork 3y ago
>And you don't think the veto translates to something along the lines of 'corrupt regulatory capture for the benefit of tech companies'? Just because you don't like the proposed solution doesn't make it double speak for something you think. How precisely is not forcing an industry into an inefficient[0] mode of operation 'corrupt regulatory capture'? It's pretty literally the opposite of regulatory capture. (hence when removing the not the above sentence becomes regulatory capture, regardless of how double-speakily it is described). [0]A non-market derived solution.
- viraptor 3y ago
  There's a lot that we force the market to do that's not a market derived solution. Slaves are very market efficient. Racketeering can be too. You can make choices of long-term benefits of not choosing a purely free market solution. What I meant though is that the veto may be simple opposition to the idea, or it may come from having a special interests of tech corps influencing that decision - given popular acceptance of the proposed law, that would make it corrupt regulatory capture.