Master Index of Archived Threads


Orwellian

Edgy DC May 30 2006 06:24 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 31 2006 03:01 PM

Or·well·i·an Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic totalitarian state Now, I know the Orwell canon. Orwell did not depict a state in 1984 that used softer terms --- euphemisms --- to soften the impact of the actions. The state used the exact opposite of what they meant. The Ministry of Plenty made shortages, the Ministry of Peace made war, etc. Let's ask Wikipediea. The term "Orwellian" usually refers to one or more of the following: Manipulation of language for political ends. Most significantly by introducing to words meanings in opposition to their denotative meanings. Invasion by the state of personal privacy, whether physically or by means of surveillance. The total control of daily life by the state, as in a "Big Brother" society. The disintegration of the family unit by the state. The replacement of religious faith with worship of the state in a semi-religious manner. Active encouragement by the state of "doublethink," whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent. The denial or rewriting of past events. A dystopian or antiutopian future. The use of verbose and ambiguous language. Now, Vic, one typically means the top, most common, meaning, but that certainly doesn't apply as what I wrote certainly was in no way the opposite of the denotive meaning. And for Pete's sake, there are no mind games. Now, if you want to jump ahead to the last bullet here, which is the only other example applying to language usage and the weakest usage of the term, I certainly wasn't in the example cited verbose and amn't generally, but more typically terse. If you want to accuse me of ambiguity, that's not true either. An admitted euphemism I posted --- but did not write, and likely would've removed but I'm too damn heartsick to see straight here --- was soft, but not in any way ambiguous. It was far clearer in fact than any reference to a nuclear option. That you'd cite it as a justification --- however small --- for his behavior is <Daffy Duck>presposterous</Daffy Duck>. I didn't even want to make this announcement, because I really don't think it's appropriate or productive to review the events that got us here. I haven't spoken about this publickly the whole time it's been going on because it's been too absurd story to have been involved with, and to dedicate precious hours to. Addressing it publickly just wastes more and more hours. I don't have that kind of time to throw away.

Nymr83 May 30 2006 09:40 PM

]The use of verbose and ambiguous language. Sounds like Acts of Congress to me...

Edgy DC May 30 2006 10:07 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 30 2006 10:56 PM

I take that to mean imprecise or deliberately confusing bureaucratic language. But among the ambiguity Orwell hated was supposedly weak and ambiguous uses of what his name was applied to as an adjective.

Nymr83 May 30 2006 10:48 PM

I wouldnt really know, among the "classic" novels (the ones you get forced to read in high school) 1984 (which i actually didnt read until college) was probably my least favorite.

Vic Sage May 31 2006 12:01 PM

From Orwell's essay, Politics And The English Language (1945): http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/essays/language.html ...In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this: While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find -- this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify -- that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship. ...What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualising you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases: 1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. 2. Never us a long word where a short one will do. 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active. 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. 6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. ...I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognise that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs.

Edgy DC May 31 2006 02:16 PM

Well, what you've told me is that he's made reference to euphemism in his writing. The fact that Orwell criticized use of euphemisms --- big deal --- does not make using them Orwellian. Abusing language in the broader sense as described above is what is meant by Orwellian. He would be disappointed to find the over-broad use of the adjective. He was disappointed. It robbed it of meaning. You can dismiss any particular language as Orwellian just as everything in his day was dismissed as fascist. Speech that Orwell criticized is not Orwellian. Speech charaacteristic of the abusive totalitarian governments of his novels is Orwellian. Now, who was more accurate --- Yancy/myself in the term "restricted from further use," or you with the term "nucelear option"? As if the problem with Orwell's dystopiae was merely that the governments in his stories didn't use blunt enough language. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Is my language political? Does it consist largely of euphemism? Question-begging? Sheer cloudy vaugeness? I think I was then and am generally as clear as day. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. This is generally true of euphemism, but not a realiization particular to George Orwell at all. And therefore it's useage should hardly be called Orwellian. The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. I didn't and don't use inflated style. You decided to drench this thing in quasi-intellectual nonsense in order to paint me as a purveyor of mind games. I'm reluctantly making a terse announcement. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. I'd say Yancy's/my usage was far more sincere and accurate than yours. I also clearly did not turn to long words or exhausted idioms. 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Was I long-winded? 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active. "Several days ago, the administrators jointly and reluctantly decided..." is the active voice. "Several days ago, it was decided..." is the passive voice. ...I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. And what thought am I concealing? If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. There is nothing --- nothing --- in my statement desgined to make lies sound truthful or murder sound respectable. What do you think of speech designed to make banning sound murderous? I'd say I write as simply ---- and as plainly and clearly --- as anyone here. I passed on a statement that blunted a reality. It bunted it --- what? ---- 10%? Twelve? That doesn't make me Orwellian --- at all --- it makes me someone too wearied by this whole thing to care as much I might have, and, yes, as much as readers deserve. I'm sorry. But how about merely pointing that out and, instead of coming up with a faux-intellectual indictment of me as being both passive-aggressive and Orwellian, you just roll with it as you would anybody else whose usage was less than perfect, approach it with a little more perspective? I fully acknowldege you found a molehill. Let's not call it Mt. Orwell.

Vic Sage May 31 2006 03:20 PM

]Well, what you've told me is that he's made reference to euphemism in his writing. The fact that Orwell criticized use of euphemisms --- big deal --- does not make using them Orwellian. It does, if those in power use euphemisms to publically distance themselves from the harsh reality of their own actions. This way, you didn't ban Bret because you'd had enough. You just restricted him from further participation, reluctantly, and for the good of us all. Which is just such a load of crap. ]Speech that Orwell criticized is not Orwellian. Speech charaacteristic of the abusive totalitarian governments of his novels is Orwellian. I'd say you have just described the statement in question quite well... it is speech by this forum's authority that uses a soft euphemism to publically distance itself from having to own up to the harshness of its own behavior. ]Is my language political? Does it consist largely of euphemism? Question-begging? Sheer cloudy vaugeness? I think I was then and am generally as clear as day. I am not talking about your statements GENERALLY. The language in THIS case was surely political, because you are the government here and you were making a public announcment as to an action you'd taken on behalf of the CPF, or so you claim. As to the statement's euphemistic quality, you've already acknowledged it. ]I'd say Yancy's/my usage was far more sincere and accurate than yours. yes, i know you'd say it. you just did. but i would not. ]Was I long-winded? Relatively speaking. Compare the statement you used to the phrase "I banned him". ]And what thought am I concealing? Bret was giving you shit on the RLF on a daily basis and so, since you'd long ago determined never to give him the satisfaction of a reply, you were impotent. After you'd taken enough, you engaged in a series of emails to get him to stop, and when he wouldn't promise to be nice, you banned him. Not for the CPF, or the greater good, because he'd already pulled back on the content of his baseball forum posts. No, the banning was because you were simply tired of his shit. Which is totally understandable, by the way. And you had every right to ban him. I just want you to own up to it. Instead you hide behind all this crap. ]There is nothing --- nothing --- in my statement desgined to make lies sound truthful or murder sound respectable. What do you think of speech designed to make banning sound murderous? Well, of course not, literally speaking. But in cyberspace, banning someone from a community is the ultimate punishment. Painting that act with a soft brush obscures its meaning and evades responsibility. ]But how about merely pointing that out and, instead of coming up with a faux-intellectual indictment of me as being both passive-aggressive and Orwellian, you just roll with it as you would anybody else whose usage was less than perfect, approach it with a little more perspective? I fully acknowldege you found a molehill. Let's not call it Mt. Orwell. i did roll with it. i pointed it out in another thread and moved on. You, however, are so defensive about your actions that you've created this separate thread so you can demonstrate your superior expertise in the realm of Orwellian philosophy while continuing to publically defend and rationalize your behavior. Whether your bullshit constitutes a mountain or only a mole hill depends on how long it takes to climb it, i guess. And as you keep piling it higher and deeper, it is slowly becoming the Himalayas. Whatever, dude.

Edgy DC May 31 2006 03:51 PM Edited 5 time(s), most recently on Jun 27 2006 11:49 PM

]It does, if those in power use euphemisms to publically distance themselves from the harsh reality of their own actions. I quote the defitintion. It doesn't fit. Period. ] ]You just restricted him from further participation, reluctantly, and for the good of us all. Which is just such a load of crap. Oh, we weren't reluctant? We were what, hasty? ]I'd say you have just described the statement in question quite well... it is speech by this forum's authority that uses a soft euphemism to publically distance itself from having to own up to the harshness of its own behavior. Such harshness. Get some perspective. ]I am not talking about your statements GENERALLY. The language in THIS case was surely political, because you are the government here and you were making a public announcment as to an action you'd taken on behalf of the CPF, or so you claim. No, not all speech from an authority is political. There's nothing there. And it doesn't even characterize this statement, merely one phrase. Unanswered here: Question-begging? Sheer cloudy vaugeness? ]yes, i know you'd say it. you just did. but i would not. You're wrong. Nobody has been nuked. ]Relatively speaking. Compare the statement you used to the phrase "I banned him" . Far freaking terser than you. Unanswered here: the passive voice insinuation. Are you just throwing things at me to see what sticks? ]Bret was giving you shit on the RLF on a daily basis and so, since you'd long ago determined never to give him the satisfaction of a reply. Public knowledge here. ]...you were impotent. Pretty inconsistent with characterizing me as nuker. ]After you'd taken enough, you engaged in a series of emails to get him to stop, and when he wouldn't promise to be nice, you banned him. Is it a secret that he's been abusive? ]Not for the CPF, or the greater good, because he'd already pulled back on the content of his baseball forum posts. Being 60% less destructive is not going to cut it. ]No, the banning was because you were simply tired of his shit. No, it was because the forum was tired of it and he was explictly bent on poisoning the forum with it. Do you really want to rehash this? Do you? Do you need to read the testimony of everyone at their wits' end, including yours? ]Which is totally understandable, by the way. And you had every right to ban him. I just want you to own up to it. Instead you hide behind all this crap. All what crap? A single blunted phrase? Oh, boo hoo. I'm not hiding anything. If he was banned because of me, I would've happily done it two years ago. And hopefully my fellow admins would have stopped me or ripped me for my gross abusive of authority in self-interest. ]Well, of course not, literally speaking. But in cyberspace, banning someone from a community is the ultimate punishment. Painting that act with a soft brush obscures its meaning and evades responsibility. Orwell had very literal reasons for using those terms. ]i did roll with it. i pointed it out in another thread and moved on. You, however, are so defensive about your actions that you've created this separate thread so you can demonstrate your superior expertise in the realm of Orwellian philosophy while continuing to publically defend and rationalize your behavior. I'm defending myself because you deliberately offend me. I'm not demonstrting superiority, I'm distancing myself from a really ugly characterization. It's a separate thread because this isn't about Bret, it's about me.If I don't defend myself, it's passive aggressive. What'll you have me do? ]Whether your bullshit... That's not rolling with it. That's a cheap potshot. ]...constitutes a mountain or only a mole hill depends on how long it takes to climb it, i guess. No, it's a molehill. "...the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world." ("Looking Back on the Spanish War")

Nymr83 May 31 2006 05:45 PM

]But in cyberspace, banning someone from a community is the ultimate punishment. Painting that act with a soft brush obscures its meaning and evades responsibility out of curiosity, what lesser, yet meaningful, punishment could be given out on a message board? let me point out that he was already temporarily banned and that didnt change his behavior. banning, be it temporary or permanent, is the only punishment available to an internet forum that doesn't amount to a slap on the wrist.