we are living in "1984" today

[slimreaper]

Today we are living a very close reality to that predicted by George Orwell in his book 1984

You must be registered for see links

[video=youtube;vuEQixrBKCc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc[/video]
This is George Carlin talking about "newspeak" in the early 90's

He predicted this shit in 1949 and it's coming true today. If you haven't read the book you should.

 

[CloyEscapade]

Sooo are you wrong because you're not being censored... Or are you our dystopian overlord spreading false information and manipulating the public... Or maybe I am, muahahahaha

 

[-immortal-]

Wow that's good for him

 

[slimreaper]

Sooo are you wrong because you're not being censored... Or are you our dystopian overlord spreading false information and manipulating the public... Or maybe I am, muahahahaha

Our dystopian overlord is social media, and the political correctness it entails

 

[Phact]

i don't think anyone gives a shit

 

[Υαmí]

I wish it was 1984.

 

[slimreaper]

I wish it was 1984.

no you don't

You must be registered for see links

 

[Υαmí]

no you don't

You must be registered for see links

I don't really care. All I care about is good music, long hair and a more affordable education.

 

[Joon]

You could be thinking too much into this.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Wow. It's almost like different phrasing can mean the exact same thing, and it doesn't matter which one you use, what matters is that people are smart enough to understand what you're saying.

This video is nothing more than him talking about a mundane, non-issue in a sarcastic tone. You can talk about anything in a tone like that, and it'll sound like an issue. Just say something like "Back when I was a kid, cakes were cakes. Now, I see cakes with cookies. With cookies, Charlie! When did cakes start being a breeding ground for food?" in this tone and it'll sound like you're saying something that matters. Calling it shellshock, for example, wouldn't have made a difference. "Shock" sounds a lot less serious than stress, trauma, and disorder, all of which means lasting damage while shock is mostly temporary and sudden. This just sounds like any other old man *****ing that the world continues to spin and change and he has to keep up.

 

[slimreaper]

Wow. It's almost like different phrasing can mean the exact same thing, and it doesn't matter which one you use, what matters is that people are smart enough to understand what you're saying.

This video is nothing more than him talking about a mundane, non-issue in a sarcastic tone. You can talk about anything in a tone like that, and it'll sound like an issue. Just say something like "Back when I was a kid, cakes were cakes. Now, I see cakes with cookies. With cookies, Charlie! When did cakes start being a breeding ground for food?" in this tone and it'll sound like you're saying something that matters. Calling it shellshock, for example, wouldn't have made a difference. "Shock" sounds a lot less serious than stress, trauma, and disorder, all of which means lasting damage while shock is mostly temporary and sudden.

I was using carlin to illustrate the original point. That is languages fluidity being used to control people

You must be registered for see links

 

[chopstickchakra]

Today we are living a very close reality to that predicted by George Orwell in his book 1984

You must be registered for see links

[video=youtube;vuEQixrBKCc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc[/video]
This is George Carlin talking about "newspeak" in the early 90's

He predicted this shit in 1949 and it's coming true today. If you haven't read the book you should.

Yeah not yet. You should check out Cloud Atlas it has a part in it where they speak a sort of newspeak dialogue.

 

[Ken Kaneki]

No
North Korea is closer to 1984
USA would be closer to Brave New World

But I would always remember " Ignorance is strength, Freedom is slavery and War is peace."

:Sdo: :sdo: :sdo: :sdo:

 

[Punk Hazard]

I was using carlin to illustrate the original point. That is languages fluidity being used to control people

You must be registered for see links

Hence why one should be smart enough to look into phrasings and see what they are euphemisms of. Do some research, or personal information intake and retention, whatever you wanna call it.

 

[slimreaper]

Hence why one should be smart enough to look into phrasings and see what they are euphemisms of. Do some research, or personal information intake and retention, whatever you wanna call it.

Example the word retard is no-longer used as it isn't politically correct. Mentally challenged means the same thing, but it's the exorcise of control over people, that people advocating vernacular change get off on(typically the left).

You will go to any lengths to justify the totalitarian left won't you?

 

[Punk Hazard]

Example the word retard is no-longer used as it isn't politically correct. Mentally challenged means the same thing, but it's the exorcise of control over people, that people advocating vernacular change get off on(typically the left).

You will go to any lengths to justify the totalitarian left won't you?

Lol and? The official term used in politics, medical documents, professional documents, etc. is mentally challenged. It means the exact same thing as mental retardation. If you think they are different things, then you're probably stupid to begin with.

For example, in the article you linked, it mentions the Homeland Security director uses "man-caused disasters" in lieu of "terrorists." If you tell someone "3000 killed in terrorist attack" and "3000 killed in man-caused disaster" and they focus on the noun instead of the part about 3000 killed, then the problem isn't the phrasing, it's the person

You will go to any lengthy to attack the left, won't you?

 

[slimreaper]

Lol and? The official term used in politics, medical documents, professional documents, etc. is mentally challenged. It means the exact same thing as mental retardation. If you think they are different things, then you're probably stupid to begin with.

For example, in the article you linked, it mentions the Homeland Security director uses "man-caused disasters" in lieu of "terrorists." If you tell someone "3000 killed in terrorist attack" and "3000 killed in man-caused disaster" and they focus on the noun instead of the part about 3000 killed, then the problem isn't the phrasing, it's the person

You will go to any lengthy to attack the left, won't you?

No the problem is the need to exorcise control over people. Yes they mean the same thing... but the don't. if they did then I would viably be able to say either.

 

[Punk Hazard]

No the problem is the need to exorcise control over people. Yes they mean the same thing... but the don't. if they did then I would viably be able to say either.

You are viably either to say either. That's what synonyms mean.

And it's not control. They aren't making you say mentally challenged instead of retardation. Is Obama saying mentally challenged suddenly going to physically force people to only be able to say that?

 

[slimreaper]

You are viably either to say either. That's what synonyms mean.

And it's not control. They aren't making you say mentally challenged instead of retardation. Is Obama saying mentally challenged suddenly going to physically force people to only be able to say that?

You must be registered for see links

they do make you. Ignorance is bliss I guess

 

[EmotionalRockfish]

I agree with the article, until the last part. I agree that governments use language as a means of control, but... newspeak doesn't fit the modern definition of political correctness... it does quite literally fit the old meaning, to hold only believes sanctioned by the government, the whole point of the language. Our governments and the rich benefit from the poor fighting amongst themselves, so modern day PC that folks who just want to say their favourite racial slurs talk about is sorta ironic... I mean, they're literally towing that line, a line born from a system of hatred used to keep wealth unfairly distributed.

Tbh, I'd rather live on the moon sometimes.