Politics & The English Language -By George Orwell

[TECSHARE]

This is a quite relevant short essay by George Orwell, the author of 1984. We are now at the point in our political degeneration where words are literally being redefined in an attempt to manipulate the perception of reality itself. Our thoughts are composed of words, therefore our world views are dependent on their definitions. 1984 was not supposed to be a manual, but unfortunately he was even more prophetic than most people ever imagined. Just don't forget, 2 + 2 = 5. Your life may soon depend on it.


https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

[PavelMed]

This is a quite relevant short essay by George Orwell, the author of 1984. We are now at the point in our political degeneration where words are literally being redefined in an attempt to manipulate the perception of reality itself. Our thoughts are composed of words, therefore our world views are dependent on their definitions. 1984 was not supposed to be a manual, but unfortunately he was even more prophetic than most people ever imagined. Just don't forget, 2 + 2 = 5. Your life may soon depend on it.

https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

The laziness and the lack of precision of our current political 'influencers' lead to doublespeak.

hence

preference -> privilege (as in white privilege)

enforcement -> brutality (as in law enforcement)

resentment -> racism

The original meaning of the words on the right is lost as a result.  I believe we truly live in society as described in the 1984 novel, hate=love, war=peace, lie=truth, etc.

I do not know how this happens.
The most interesting thing is that you try not to live by these rules. But the leaders of the countries ... The most interesting thing is that we chose them, we endowed them with this power. So are they really we?

[Spendulus]

This is a quite relevant short essay by George Orwell, the author of 1984. We are now at the point in our political degeneration where words are literally being redefined in an attempt to manipulate the perception of reality itself. Our thoughts are composed of words, therefore our world views are dependent on their definitions. 1984 was not supposed to be a manual, but unfortunately he was even more prophetic than most people ever imagined. Just don't forget, 2 + 2 = 5. Your life may soon depend on it.

https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

The laziness and the lack of precision of our current political 'influencers' lead to doublespeak.

hence

preference -> privilege (as in white privilege)

enforcement -> brutality (as in law enforcement)

resentment -> racism

The original meaning of the words on the right is lost as a result.  I believe we truly live in society as described in the 1984 novel, hate=love, war=peace, lie=truth, etc.

In most sections of law, at the beginning or end are pretty precise definitions of the words used.

[Cnut237]

We are now at the point in our political degeneration where words are literally being redefined in an attempt to manipulate the perception of reality itself.

This is quite true. I think another relevant factor here is speed. The world nowadays seems to move so much faster than it did even a few years ago. It is partly 24-hour new culture, and partly everyone competing for attention on the internet, with everyone desperate to be first to report the latest developments. Each 'fact' is a headline only for a brief moment, before it is rapidly submerged by the next. If we combine this with the rise of social media and its facilitation of alternative methods of information dissemination, informal and unverified, without the responsibilities traditionally incumbent on print media and TV channels, then we reach a situation where people are bombarded with facts and 'facts', interlaced with misinformation, denuded of context, or just outright lies.
This is entirely intentional. People are inundated with conflicting 'truths', and these truths aren't open to careful analysis to determine what is accurate and what is not, because the sheer pace of news means that there is limited opportunity to evaluate what is truly happening before the next story is upon us. And once people become intellectually cast adrift like this, it becomes easier to erode their beliefs and to manipulate their behaviours. We can take Trump as a prime example here - lies after lies, each outrage quickly replaced by the next. It is the pace with which this all gets refreshed that prevents any in-depth study, and the pervasive climate of uncertainty that underpins it all provides a frictionless surface upon which all of this 'old' news can just slide away and be forgotten...

“We live in a world where the powerful deceive us. We know they lie, they know we know they lie, they don’t care. We say we care, but we do nothing. And nothing ever changes. It’s normal. Welcome to the post-truth world.”

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/adam-curtiss-essential-counterhistories
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b183c

[PopoJeff]

They found syrup and rice racist.
They were offended by a cartoon puppy.
They disarmed another cartoon.


I really dont know what else to say.

[Ecito]

Society is defined as a group of people who form a semi-closed (or semi-open) system, where most of the interactions are between individuals in the group. The word "society" itself is rooted in the Arabic word musyarak. More abstractly, a society is a network of relationships between entities. Society is an interdependent community (depending on each other).

[franky1]

when people think that the word is more important then the context. it makes people not learn anything
take racial slurs.
in the 1970's the N word was bad, then they said 'blacks' was bad, then 'people of colour' in the 1970's-1990's it took 30 years to cycle through those words. but the context of insulting/demeaning racism didnt stop. they just used a different word.

this very year the N word has popped up as a big word people should be scorned at, and only a couple months later they said using blacks as a noun is to be scorned at,, the use of internet turned something that took 3 decades into something that takes 3 months

these words cycles are not to unite people together and accept that everyone is unique and appreciate the differences, but to make using certain words become bad and those that are not racist become angry at other people if they hear a word or describe themselves as that word or are told to no use a new word of the week.

yep people get irritated by grammar nazi's who ignore the content. and just debate the word use

thus deflating the real issues of the context of racial hatred and just making it a english language lesson

other words like immigration detention centres used in the west but calling them re-education camps in the east
they both are the same thing, they both offer lessons to teach people the history and culture of the nation they want to be a citizen of. they both involve detaining them. they both have a test with minimal score requirements to win the citizenship. but by wording it differently makes one side seem good and one side seem bad

calling partnerships between countries by different things causes people to think of them differently even if their acts are the same
EG a corrupt government or a cooperative government can be claimed as descriptions of partnerships

peace deals are not absolute peace, because they come with repurcussions that lead to war if silly little things are not complied with
EG america wanting to go to war with the middle east over oil. oil has no brain. but america want it and will go to war if the middle east dont hand it over. oil has no motives. but america make peace deals where america wins the oil and the middle east suffer and can be harmed unless they just give up their oil

defense. is strangely used when countries armies leave their defended country and go to invade another country. whereby the reality is the word offense. but its never used, because they want to hide the real context of their actions

[Spendulus]

....EG america wanting to go to war with the middle east over oil. oil has no brain. but america want it and will go to war if the middle east dont hand it over. oil has no motives. but america make peace deals where america wins the oil and the middle east suffer and can be harmed unless they just give up their oil....

That was never true, as oil is a fungible resource. Economics 101. And the US never takes the product of a country's output.

Regardless, fracking has made the US energy independent, so these international dynamics have seriously changed.

[franky1]

so if the middle east started charging a premium and actually use that money to improve their lives.. america will just happily kiss them on the cheek and do nothing..?

if china started charging more for their manufacturing to the west. america would kiss their hand and do nothing?

oh wait trump would increase tariffs against china and the middle east and then get them to lower their prices if they want lower tariffs

..
anyway back to the topic at hand
the PC trolls and cancel brigade are taking grammar naziism to the next level. mis interpreting the context of a speach and just poking at the multitude of definitions of a particular word to find one that is against their motivations