Posted on 02/01/2015 7:39:57 PM PST by ReformationFan
Good article. When one controls the vocabulary and definitions, one controls the debate.
I stopped screaming that about 10 years ago because nobody seemed to agree with me
ping
“Alarmed, I tried to explain that the world was an altogether cheerier place than Orwell, writing in 1948, could have imagined.”
Really? I think it’s worse.
He who controls the Language controls the Argument.
In times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
See this. You’ll enjoy it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYQKDqjCEBQ
Twelve is far too young to properly understand 1984. All it can possibly do is create exactly the kind of despair in a child he observed in his daughter.
I "got" it just fine.
I didn't have some leftist kook telling me what to believe.
Pretty stupid person who didn't understand it.
16 is not 12 - there are far more than four years difference in maturity at those ages than perhaps any other.
And “understanding.”
And effect.
That was AWESOME!
I think it fair to say that a 12 year old may not have the mental framework to have much empathy for the portent of that novel. Even so, as she matures, those concepts from the novel will lead to an "understanding".
I read 1984. I know that I didn't understand it then, like I do now.
Truly, though, whether she did or didn't have the 'ability' or 'experience' to comprehend the political aspects of the novel is not really that critical to the premise of the article.
Funny, it seemed to me like the premise of the article was to justify the answer he gave to his daughter. In any event, I was simply commenting on what I believe to be her immaturity to properly comprehend the book at her age. I have no doubt she could write a book report and get an "A," but that's not what I'm talking about. My point was the very effect it had on her that so horrified her father. To me, her age made that effect inevitable.
Orwell, Bradbury and others were quite prescient regarding what govt’s would do with technology to oppress, control, and rule. They missed foreseeing in some ways what the free market side would give us - smart phones, internet everywhere, video gaming, etc. However, I never forgot Bradbury’s interactive TV walls, and we’re essentially there. Or the smart home in “There Will Come Soft Rains” - seemed fantastic in the 70’s but now - it’s here.
So what’s left of the free market provides bread and circuses, endless silly entertainment, while the damned totalitarians are robbing us blind of everything that truly matters using the same technology. And then there is cyber warfare - a whole ‘nuther beast threatening us all continually as we’ve become utterly dependent on our technology. Those old sci-fi guys weren’t too far off the mark. Strange times indeed.
Bookmark
Income used to be wages. (the Derivation of interest/dividends can Be taxed)
Vehicle used to be an automobile. (Vehicle transports something and can be taxed and regulated — no right to travel)
My point is that sure, a 16 year old can grasp more concepts than a 12 year old.
I read Catcher in the Rye when I was 13, because I saw it on an episode of "Lou Grant" and Rossi complained about censorship.
Talk about making me WANT to read a book.
Lots of things went over my head. In particular, just how kooky liberal that TV show was.
I read it in HS later and really "got" it.
I enjoyed it at 13 as a read. But with guidance from a relatively unbiased teacher, I picked up on the symbolism.
Excellent article!
A short handbook on how to reply to any and all attacks.
Reject the premise. Ridicule the redefinition, counterattack the newspeak, and the clear oxymorons of nonsense with which the "progressive" Newspeakers manipulate the feeble-minded and the uninformed.
To that end, the glossary provided is the mirror with which to confront the vampire; the silver bullets with which to face the beast.
No longer will we be responding to nonsense, but relentlessly attacking the nonsense itself.
I certainly intend to use it that way. A stand alone reference.
"It's the Right thing to do!"
While it should be obvious that the true meaning depends on the character and agenda of the speaker, it doesn't matter if the speaker is...
Uneducated.
Ignorant.
Dogmatic.
Mentally unbalanced.
Presumptuous.
Condescending.
Fanatic.
A zealot.
Or plain batshit crazy.
The acceptance of the premise and definition is entirely and conclusively under the complete control of the reader or listener.
It is thus meaningless, as an intended statement of fact. ,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.