ChatterBank0 min ago
Has ‘Newspeak’ Become A Reality?
61 Answers
For those who don’t know what Newspeak is, this from Wiki. //Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".//
It seems to me that we now inhabit a very strange world where we’re expected to be ever-conscious not only of what we say but of how we say it. A very slippery slope, in my opinion – and beyond the point of no return. What say you?
It seems to me that we now inhabit a very strange world where we’re expected to be ever-conscious not only of what we say but of how we say it. A very slippery slope, in my opinion – and beyond the point of no return. What say you?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I was trying to separate the two cases. Not really sure how that qualifies as a mistake, but never mind.
//Just as an example, anyone today who is lukewarm or less on the subject of homosexuality is labelled 'homophobic' ...//
Again, though, that's not really an example of "Newspeak", which specifically has to be regarded as a systematic regulation of what is said by some specific authority, rather than -- in this case -- societal self-regulation. As attitudes towards certain aspects of society change, those who hold on to a more traditional viewpoint can be seen as being "left behind". But they aren't being censored, or persecuted for their views. Or, in as much as they are, it is no more acute a persecution than people still undergo for being "liberal" -- or gay, transgender, etc etc.
What I think is going on is that previously entrenched and unchallenged attitudes are now being challenged, suddenly, resulting in a certain amount of hypocrisy. Consider the Cecil Rhodes statue issue. One of the main arguments against its being taken down was that the statue being there represents a challenge to modern attitudes, and that such a challenge to one's views is a part of life. Fair enough, as far as it goes. Except that, when the traditional views are challenged in essentially the same way that people were wanting, suddenly it's their turn to cry foul. By claiming it's PC gone mad, or Big Brother, or Newspeak, or some such. Well, no, it is not. It is simply that you can't expect any longer to hold 'controversial' viewpoints without being called out for them.
What I'm trying to say is that it works both ways. People can go too far in trying to suppress a challenge to modern life. Traditionalists also seem keen to suppress challenges to their views, though, in a subtly different way.
//Just as an example, anyone today who is lukewarm or less on the subject of homosexuality is labelled 'homophobic' ...//
Again, though, that's not really an example of "Newspeak", which specifically has to be regarded as a systematic regulation of what is said by some specific authority, rather than -- in this case -- societal self-regulation. As attitudes towards certain aspects of society change, those who hold on to a more traditional viewpoint can be seen as being "left behind". But they aren't being censored, or persecuted for their views. Or, in as much as they are, it is no more acute a persecution than people still undergo for being "liberal" -- or gay, transgender, etc etc.
What I think is going on is that previously entrenched and unchallenged attitudes are now being challenged, suddenly, resulting in a certain amount of hypocrisy. Consider the Cecil Rhodes statue issue. One of the main arguments against its being taken down was that the statue being there represents a challenge to modern attitudes, and that such a challenge to one's views is a part of life. Fair enough, as far as it goes. Except that, when the traditional views are challenged in essentially the same way that people were wanting, suddenly it's their turn to cry foul. By claiming it's PC gone mad, or Big Brother, or Newspeak, or some such. Well, no, it is not. It is simply that you can't expect any longer to hold 'controversial' viewpoints without being called out for them.
What I'm trying to say is that it works both ways. People can go too far in trying to suppress a challenge to modern life. Traditionalists also seem keen to suppress challenges to their views, though, in a subtly different way.
Without getting involved in tortuous answers - when I began teaching there was one lesson a week dedicated to vocabulary, spelling and meaning. When I left there was none. Without subtle vocab. you cannot express yourself - in fact you cannot form thoughts. Devastating as far as politics, everything in life is concerned. It is how to turn the populace into sheep long-term.
no WAS newspeak a reality ?
1984 was written in response to actual events and was a satire
the War Office had morphed into Minipax - mini is short for ministry and pax is latin for peace - heavens the tone of this thread is a bit clunky - and in real life it morphed into the Ministry of Defence ( not war yeah geddit ?)
Big Brother's hate figure was based on Trotsy who was murdered in 1940 by Stalins agents
Newspeak if you read the book - was designed to destroy language and meaning so that very very bad became doubleplus ungood for example. and Language destruction occurred in that " Big Brother is doubleplus ungood" could never be a grammatical sentence
[ actually we might modernise this to Big Brother could never be a valid context for "double plus ungood" ]
"those who dont know what Newspeak is "
seems to be a very large part of AB
I think I might go back and read it.....
1984 was written in response to actual events and was a satire
the War Office had morphed into Minipax - mini is short for ministry and pax is latin for peace - heavens the tone of this thread is a bit clunky - and in real life it morphed into the Ministry of Defence ( not war yeah geddit ?)
Big Brother's hate figure was based on Trotsy who was murdered in 1940 by Stalins agents
Newspeak if you read the book - was designed to destroy language and meaning so that very very bad became doubleplus ungood for example. and Language destruction occurred in that " Big Brother is doubleplus ungood" could never be a grammatical sentence
[ actually we might modernise this to Big Brother could never be a valid context for "double plus ungood" ]
"those who dont know what Newspeak is "
seems to be a very large part of AB
I think I might go back and read it.....
homophobic semantically incorrect
yup
homos - the same
and phobos or phobomai - I fear
the roots done really describe the meaning of the word
as tachyometry - ( tachys rapid and metron measure - doesnt really describe the photogrammetric method of assessing archeological structure but photographing them and taking measures from the neg - but it is quick ! ) - haha you werethinking I was gonna say those speedy things in lorries what ever they are called
yup
homos - the same
and phobos or phobomai - I fear
the roots done really describe the meaning of the word
as tachyometry - ( tachys rapid and metron measure - doesnt really describe the photogrammetric method of assessing archeological structure but photographing them and taking measures from the neg - but it is quick ! ) - haha you werethinking I was gonna say those speedy things in lorries what ever they are called
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Is This Man A Bigger Liar Than Boris.
News3 mins ago
Please Help Me Find More Of These.....
Jokes7 mins ago
Body & Soul7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.