3 ms·

1984 and other works of science fiction were always used to represent these psdeu-truths to me growing up. It would range from why socialism was bad, to why Ame

1984 and other works of science fiction were always used to represent these psdeu-truths to me growing up. It would range from why socialism was bad, to why America was good, to why reading was important, etc. etc. But it's just a book, it's just a series of thoughts put into a really compelling story, but that doesn't mean it's true, probable, or even possible. It's a reference to our collective consciousness and contains some potentially key insights, but whenever something REMINDS us of 1984 we're all still like "HOLY SHIT IT'S LIKE 1984 THAT MEANS BIG BROTHER IS TOTALLY GONNA HAPPEN!" It doesn't mean that at all. This Snowden business is massively disturbing, but our ability to collectively disseminate and digest information about it is encouraging, something that wasn't remotely possible in 1984. People make jokes about their tweets being censored by PRISM, and they're funny because it's not happening. Freedom of speech is so important. Edit: not saying a 1984esque future is impossible, just that the book being written doesn't make it any more or less possible.

jonnathanson 13y ago
"Edit: not saying a 1984esque future is impossible, just that the book being written doesn't make it any more or less possible." The book is hyperbolically over-referenced in pop culture, in internet arguments, in OpEd pages, and so forth. I'll grant you that. Chances are, PRISM is not the beginning of a steady march toward a fascist police state. Far from it. But that's not the point of this article. The author isn't claiming "a 1984esque future" is in the cards. Rather, she's drawing comparisons between a particular aspect of Orwell's concept -- that of linguistic manipulation for political ends -- and the tactics being used in actual politics today. The playbooks are similar. The fact is, we've sacrificed quite a few of our freedoms in recent decades in service of a vaguely defined "War on Terror," and it's highly disconcerting. It doesn't mean we're ready to put Big Brother in office, and drastic hyperbole to that effect is indeed silly. But it does testify to the power of language to bend a population toward an agenda.
- tomasien 13y ago
  Agreed. I agree with the thesis of the article whole-heartedly. I'm adding some context of my thoughts, not a counter-argument. That the meat of the book, not the "words and the ability to think will keep us free" message the underlies it is annoying to me, and it's been used that way my entire life.
- dkl 13y ago
  Chances are, PRISM is not the beginning of a steady march toward a fascist police state. But it is certainly a precondition. Just like "free speech zones" after the Iraq war and during the run up to the 2004 presidential election. Let's not kid ourselves: we won't awaken in a fascist state. It will be like the frog boiled alive, the ratchet will be turned ever so slowly, but the march is definitely in the direction of fascism. How long will it take? Will it ever happen? We can't say now, but the last 12 years have had an alarming number of movements in the wrong direction.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    We need only consider the difference in freedom between now and before 9/11. How many more attacks or Bushes before 1984? It's a finite Number, and on my opinion low.

jonnathanson 13y ago

"Edit: not saying a 1984esque future is impossible, just that the book being written doesn't make it any more or less possible." The book is hyperbolically over-referenced in pop culture, in internet arguments, in OpEd pages, and so forth. I'll grant you that. Chances are, PRISM is not the beginning of a steady march toward a fascist police state. Far from it. But that's not the point of this article. The author isn't claiming "a 1984esque future" is in the cards. Rather, she's drawing comparisons between a particular aspect of Orwell's concept -- that of linguistic manipulation for political ends -- and the tactics being used in actual politics today. The playbooks are similar. The fact is, we've sacrificed quite a few of our freedoms in recent decades in service of a vaguely defined "War on Terror," and it's highly disconcerting. It doesn't mean we're ready to put Big Brother in office, and drastic hyperbole to that effect is indeed silly. But it does testify to the power of language to bend a population toward an agenda.

tomasien 13y ago
Agreed. I agree with the thesis of the article whole-heartedly. I'm adding some context of my thoughts, not a counter-argument. That the meat of the book, not the "words and the ability to think will keep us free" message the underlies it is annoying to me, and it's been used that way my entire life.
dkl 13y ago
Chances are, PRISM is not the beginning of a steady march toward a fascist police state. But it is certainly a precondition. Just like "free speech zones" after the Iraq war and during the run up to the 2004 presidential election. Let's not kid ourselves: we won't awaken in a fascist state. It will be like the frog boiled alive, the ratchet will be turned ever so slowly, but the march is definitely in the direction of fascism. How long will it take? Will it ever happen? We can't say now, but the last 12 years have had an alarming number of movements in the wrong direction.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  We need only consider the difference in freedom between now and before 9/11. How many more attacks or Bushes before 1984? It's a finite Number, and on my opinion low.