We don’t need to cancel genius because mediocre cultural commentators who simply repeat slogans, and cannot create their own material, decide that great writers who put their finger on things they hold sacred must be ignored. So sorry, thoughts and prayers.
-
-
Replying to @JeremyPhilosoph @arthur_affect and
Of course, The Party doesn’t need to be the government. Orwell didn’t realize that. It can be high society, or your peers, or a number of private institutions. But it’s unlikely Party Members have an interest in identifying their own ideas.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JeremyPhilosoph @lawnerdbarak and
Which side of the argument here is looking at mathematicians trying to explain what they've learned about abstract algebra and telling them to shut the fuck up
2 replies 2 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @JeremyPhilosoph and
God the state of it *Do* you have even one opinion you didn't get from your public school education and from your peer group? Do you yourself actually make any effort to learn interesting things from outside your bubble? Cause it really doesn't come off that way
2 replies 2 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @lawnerdbarak and
One side is arguing something stupid because they really want James to be wrong about Critical Theory and their whole ideology that gets everything wrong. But all the cool kids are into it, so why not, everyone needs to get ahead somehow.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JeremyPhilosoph @arthur_affect and
But yea, let’s bash Orwell because all the cool kids who within about 5 years, all started thinking the exact same slogans and using an alternative language at the institutional level, but hella shit god forbid the internets points it out.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JeremyPhilosoph @arthur_affect and
The dystopian control of language that happened in 1984 was not the creation of slang, jargon, or inside jokes without telling you about it. It wasn't the expansion of language at all. It was the restriction of language to limit the variety of ideas that could be expressed.
2 replies 8 retweets 43 likes -
Replying to @RedOphiuchus @JeremyPhilosoph and
Yeah this frustrates me the most The point of Newspeak was that it *didn't contain any words that weren't in Oldspeak* It was designed so that anyone could supposedly look at it and instantly know what everything said, to discourage thinking
1 reply 3 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @RedOphiuchus and
The appendix about Newspeak says that the Party finds specialized academic jargon to be a threat and seeks to avoid it as a necessary evil -- engineers who build the Floating Fortresses etc get to use jargon but only at work
2 replies 3 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @RedOphiuchus and
I mean, Orwell did have shitty "get off my lawn" sentiments about neologisms and slang, that's what his essay Politics and the English Language is about, but that's not what Newspeak in 1984 is His own thoughts on the issue were clearly somewhat muddled
2 replies 2 retweets 18 likes
(The idea that there actually is one definition of "clear, plain English" that gets across your objective meaning without bias or manipulation is wrong, of course Any grownup should be able to see that)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.