Science2 mins 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 wouldn't agree.
I think the points Orwell made were (naturally) writ large to fit with the tone and scope of his novel.
I think that being aware of how we speak and what we say where has always been the hallmark of a civilised society.
I can eff and jeff with my colleagues at work - I would never do it at home.
I can joke with my wife about sex, I would not do it with my children.
Tailoring speech patterns and subject matters to the company you are with is not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of courtesy and manners.
I think the points Orwell made were (naturally) writ large to fit with the tone and scope of his novel.
I think that being aware of how we speak and what we say where has always been the hallmark of a civilised society.
I can eff and jeff with my colleagues at work - I would never do it at home.
I can joke with my wife about sex, I would not do it with my children.
Tailoring speech patterns and subject matters to the company you are with is not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of courtesy and manners.
Svejk - //Hopefully, we're escaping from the nightmare of Political Correctness. (slowly) //
Agreed.
I think 'political correctness' has been the sort of fad that sweeps though cultures, and eventually dissipates and disappears into history.
Reember McCarthyism in the fifties, when the talk was 'reds under the bed' - it seems archaic and faintly ludicrous now, but was very real at the time.
I also remember when the threat to world peace was from the Russians, not Muslims - CND and Ban The Bomb - again largely redundant, unless Korea stirs it all up again.
Culture evolves as generations of movers and shakers become old, and become static and shaky instead.
Agreed.
I think 'political correctness' has been the sort of fad that sweeps though cultures, and eventually dissipates and disappears into history.
Reember McCarthyism in the fifties, when the talk was 'reds under the bed' - it seems archaic and faintly ludicrous now, but was very real at the time.
I also remember when the threat to world peace was from the Russians, not Muslims - CND and Ban The Bomb - again largely redundant, unless Korea stirs it all up again.
Culture evolves as generations of movers and shakers become old, and become static and shaky instead.
The exact opposite I'd have thought (don't forget that in 1984, "Newspeak" is only the language of the state, of slogans and publications. Below that the Party members had to watch what they said and the proles could pretty much do what they like).
Concepts such as "thoughtcrime" and "newspeak" etc, only make sense if you assume that there is a contolling "influence", a "they" out to get "us". That idea seems to have caught on despite the fact that the world has never been more democratic in terms of freedom and speed of expression.
Some authoritarian countries probably come close to Orwell's 1984, but they are probably only small countries like North Korea. Bigger operations like those in China and Russia do it in very different ways, because they have to.
Concepts such as "thoughtcrime" and "newspeak" etc, only make sense if you assume that there is a contolling "influence", a "they" out to get "us". That idea seems to have caught on despite the fact that the world has never been more democratic in terms of freedom and speed of expression.
Some authoritarian countries probably come close to Orwell's 1984, but they are probably only small countries like North Korea. Bigger operations like those in China and Russia do it in very different ways, because they have to.
I think you have to separate what happens on AB from what happens in the wider world. AB (and for that matter, many other internet settings) is, to me, the virtual equivalent of walking into somebody's house. Well, it's their house, so stick to their rules, right? Sure, AB, is quite a large house with a varied spectrum of guests, but nevertheless it seems to me that the analogy is one to bear in mind. Presumably if it were your house you'd like people visiting to respect whatever boundaries you see fit to impose, or not. Same in the other direction. I don't think this is in any meaningful sense comparable to "newspeak" -- it's just common courtesy, to other people who use AnswerBank as well as to those who run it.
Actually, for that matter I'd say the same thing is going on in the wider world. People are becoming more aware of what should always have been recognised as a universal truth, that in general it's not a very nice thing to be rude, offensive and just downright disrespectful of other people's feelings, opinions, lifestyle, personality etc etc. Very probably that will lead to things going too far on occasion. This is natural -- whenever there's a change in social habits things tend to swing violently around one way and the other before finding some sensible balance. The key thing that separates the current situation from Newspeak, though, is that in the wider world no-one is really in control of what you can and can't say, except society itself that is gradually becoming less tolerant of intolerance. Certainly, the (current, UK) government isn't in control -- "hordes" of migrants, anyone? -- and, despite concerted efforts, the loud minority of people who might support such aggressive censorship are yet to be taken seriously by the wider community.
Returning to an earlier analogy, I think it's better to view societal development not as a slippery slope but as a (damped) pendulum. For a very long time, as has been pointed out, the exact opposite was the case (ie you could be as rude as you like to certain of the population and hard cheese to them who would have to both put up and shut up). Or, for that matter, things were already newspeak-esque -- woe betide anyone who dared to insult their lords and masters. In both cases things have tended to swing the other way, with less deference to authority and more concern for others. In both cases, too, things may have swung too far -- but then, hopefully, the pendulum will eventually start to return to the balanced middle, where we are indeed after all free to say what we like, but choose not to.
Actually, for that matter I'd say the same thing is going on in the wider world. People are becoming more aware of what should always have been recognised as a universal truth, that in general it's not a very nice thing to be rude, offensive and just downright disrespectful of other people's feelings, opinions, lifestyle, personality etc etc. Very probably that will lead to things going too far on occasion. This is natural -- whenever there's a change in social habits things tend to swing violently around one way and the other before finding some sensible balance. The key thing that separates the current situation from Newspeak, though, is that in the wider world no-one is really in control of what you can and can't say, except society itself that is gradually becoming less tolerant of intolerance. Certainly, the (current, UK) government isn't in control -- "hordes" of migrants, anyone? -- and, despite concerted efforts, the loud minority of people who might support such aggressive censorship are yet to be taken seriously by the wider community.
Returning to an earlier analogy, I think it's better to view societal development not as a slippery slope but as a (damped) pendulum. For a very long time, as has been pointed out, the exact opposite was the case (ie you could be as rude as you like to certain of the population and hard cheese to them who would have to both put up and shut up). Or, for that matter, things were already newspeak-esque -- woe betide anyone who dared to insult their lords and masters. In both cases things have tended to swing the other way, with less deference to authority and more concern for others. In both cases, too, things may have swung too far -- but then, hopefully, the pendulum will eventually start to return to the balanced middle, where we are indeed after all free to say what we like, but choose not to.
Jim, you’ve made the same mistake that andy-hughes made – but since you mention it, the boundaries in the AB house shift with alarming regularity so I’ve no idea what they are. However, that isn’t the issue here, so onwards.
ichkeria, I looked on the internet for a suitable example and found this.
//A comparison to Newspeak may arguably be seen in political rhetoric where two opposing sides string together phrases so empty of meaning that they may be compared to the taunts young children toss back and forth. The arguments of either side ultimately reduce to “I’m good, he’s bad”. //
Further …..
//The effect may be observed in the abortion debate where those advocating restrictions on abortion label themselves ‘pro-life’, leaving their opponents presumably anti-life. Conversely those advocating greater availability of abortion call themselves ‘pro-choice’ and the opposition ‘anti-choice’ to engender similarly positive emotions.//
The article ends with an appropriate quote from George W Bush.
//I just want you to know that when we’re talking about war we’re really talking about peace.//
I fear that very soon this growing penchant for, and acceptance of what I view as insincerity will become the norm, no one will know, or trust, what anyone else is saying - and we’ll all end up meeting ourselves coming back. I think we’re creating a very sad, mad, world.
ichkeria, I looked on the internet for a suitable example and found this.
//A comparison to Newspeak may arguably be seen in political rhetoric where two opposing sides string together phrases so empty of meaning that they may be compared to the taunts young children toss back and forth. The arguments of either side ultimately reduce to “I’m good, he’s bad”. //
Further …..
//The effect may be observed in the abortion debate where those advocating restrictions on abortion label themselves ‘pro-life’, leaving their opponents presumably anti-life. Conversely those advocating greater availability of abortion call themselves ‘pro-choice’ and the opposition ‘anti-choice’ to engender similarly positive emotions.//
The article ends with an appropriate quote from George W Bush.
//I just want you to know that when we’re talking about war we’re really talking about peace.//
I fear that very soon this growing penchant for, and acceptance of what I view as insincerity will become the norm, no one will know, or trust, what anyone else is saying - and we’ll all end up meeting ourselves coming back. I think we’re creating a very sad, mad, world.
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.