Just How Stupid Can the 'Woke' Culture Get...

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
E55BOF said:
Whose definition of 'hate speech' would you use, though? That of the man on the Clapham omnibus, or of a far-Right/Left/Woke demagogue with an agenda to push?
Click to expand...
I think that’s the problem. Peoples idea of hate speech is debatable.

I’m probably miles out here but isn’t this why Salman Rushdie got attacked last week?
 
Good point. One man's Hate Speech is another man's Free Speech...

It's all relative, and determined by the context, informed by the cultural norms and preconceptions of those who hear or read it.
 
Bellow said:
A pendulum only ever swings as far in one direction as it was in the prior direction...
Click to expand...
True, but it follows that if it was too far in one, wrong, direction, it can swing equally as far in the other, equally wrong, direction. How far in either direction is regarded as 'wrong' is a matter of opinion.

At the end of the day, extremist views are just that; extreme. Most people are somewhere in or near the middle. I live in hopes that common sense will eventually prevail, as it usually does.
 
For tinfoil hat wearers conspiracy theorists, perhaps; for the rest of us, maybe. Hasn't happened yet, though, has it?
 
E55BOF said:
Whose definition of 'hate speech' would you use, though? That of the man on the Clapham omnibus, or of a far-Right/Left/Woke demagogue with an agenda to push?
Click to expand...
The legal one that applies to most of the UK. Seems reasonable to use the definition we are answerable to.
 
Swotty said:
You must have read Orwell's1984?

Fahrenheit 451?

Brave New World?

They explain it soooo much better than I can.
Click to expand...
That's not an answer. I'll ask again. Give one example of 'hate speech' that is truth and not an attempt to deride, insult, or incite hatred intentionally (within Western culture).

And answer the question instead of hiding behind authors who never used the term 'hate speech'.
 
E55BOF said:
True, but it follows that if it was too far in one, wrong, direction, it can swing equally as far in the other, equally wrong, direction. How far in either direction is regarded as 'wrong' is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...
Absolutely the case. My point though is that those who for so long held the pendulum in that prior position should not be surprised by the consequences of their actions. And should understand that their views are not being opposed out of spite but because there is a demand to do things differently - to benefit more, not a fewer number of people. When this is understood by them and their resistance to change reduces, then the forces opposing them can lessen.
E55BOF said:
At the end of the day, extremist views are just that; extreme. Most people are somewhere in or near the middle. I live in hopes that common sense will eventually prevail, as it usually does.
Click to expand...
Things find their own level in time.
 
Bellow said:
That's not an answer. I'll ask again. Give one example of 'hate speech' that is truth and not an attempt to deride, insult, or incite hatred intentionally (within Western culture).

And answer the question instead of hiding behind authors who never used the term 'hate speech'.
Click to expand...

You are completely missing the point. These days hate speech is whatever the offended say it is. It is "their truth".

J.K Rowling on biological women;

The poor teacher in Batley who is even now still in hiding with his family;

The forces veteran arrested by 6 police officers because he retweeted a tweet which made someone "anxious";

Is not "colonialism" a form of hate speech to the offended?

And what is "truth"? The one spoken by Maegan Markle ... "her truth", which has been roundly debunked.

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

Free Speech in the UK?

"It isn't hate to speak the truth." — J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, Twitter, June 6, 2020. "An entire generation are puzzled by the idea that anyone has the right to say things they don't agree with...for most people, true free speech
www.gatestoneinstitute.org www.gatestoneinstitute.org

Here is the instruction manual:

www.paultowlson.com

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four and Hate Speech

I’ve just finished George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four, a dystopian vision of a totalitarian society. There are many connections that could be developed between Orwell’s portrayal and contemporary…
www.paultowlson.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: 190
Dryce said:
Poignantly - and for more than one reason - it is the most significant aspect of underlying control.

Why?

Well you can stick as much technology around to suppress people as you like - but it's not the technology that does the oppressing part - it's the mindset and culture behind it's operation.
Click to expand...
There is no Newspeak there.
As far as I am aware (using full text not the jargonistic acronym that may be construed as Newspeak) no 'suppression' or 'oppression' has been performed via the technology being discussed. So far it has been used to collect significant amounts of personal data for the purpose of marketing. Its most malign use appears to be to have targeted (political) ads during elections/referenda. That in the two known instances of it occurring in the Western world the election/referendum outcomes weren't disliked enough to be criticised allowed them to pass with impunity. Still no Newspeak though. Only messages send to people deemed to be appreciative of them, susceptible to them. Giving people what they wanted to see/hear.

In the event of widespread civil unrest will the platforms (eg, FaceBook) that meetings/gatherings will be arranged on be shut down? Very probably. In the event of looting - or protest (now illegal under recently introduced laws) will perpetrators be identified (and prosecuted) by their phone data? Almost certainly. But still no Newspeak.

Is arachnophobia Newspeak? Nope, it is merely a portmanteau - as is 'transphobia'.
There is no Newspeak of the type Orwell elaborated on at some length in the appendix to Nineteen Eighty-Four (yes, I re-read it) - contractions with the purpose of eliminating thought.
Such words do exist though but are not new. 'Patriotism' and 'traitor' as examples. Words that deny valid discussion of such things as monarchy, unionism, Britain's colonial past, etc. Without discussion there is no change - only the ways of the past. 'Who controls the past controls the future'.
Dryce said:
Orwell got that.
Click to expand...
'Who controls the past controls the future'. Yes, Orwell got that.

But in the argument between Orwell and Huxley it was Huxley who called it correctly. Orwell feared that books would no longer be read because they'd be banned. Huxley's contention was that books would no longer be read because people wouldn't want to read them as they'd be too distracted by other media and entertainments offering instant gratification made possible by technology. Still no Newspeak in sight. Only vast amounts of data of people's likes and dislikes and no comprehension of whether that will ever be used to stifle thought or not. The loss of book reading has likely done more to dull thought (there's more ideas on one page of a Dostoevsky novel than in one month of TV) but no one was ever told not to read. Or books from the past re-written or made unavailable.
That the physical whereabouts - past and present - of any person in possession of a smart phone (etc) can be accessed by those enabled legally to do so is a fact. As is a copious amount of CCTV footage and electronic recordings of transactions. Thus far - in the main - used benignly. When that data is used for purposes other than marketing it is for law enforcement it is used. Not brainwashing, stifling of thought by the state but prosecution. Newspeak isn't in it - not in the UK at least.
 
John N said:
Important trigger warning for Wokes: Don't watch any old films about Roy Rodgers!;)
Click to expand...
mmmmm . They are surrounded by and Indian (“First Americans for the PC correct and woke) war party.

RR to Tonto: “Hey Tonto it looks like we are in trouble!
Tonto to RR: “Who is ‘we' white man?"
 
Bellow said:
There is no Newspeak there.
Click to expand...

Orwell's newspeak was about contracting and condensing thought. It was a clever idea.

The shifts we are seeing in language over the last few years may not be down to the same totalitarian regime but are a push by advocates basically using the same strategy.

So if you want to blur gender you start with pronouns. The once you grab that territory you start to challenge and change definitions. You start to use that to control what people are supposed to say - and what they are allowed to say. Once you get people to assume the absurd or illogical as normal then you have the means to take things further.
 
John N said:
Important trigger warning for Wokes: Don't watch any old films about Roy Rodgers!;)
Click to expand...
mmmmm . They are surrounded by and Indian (“First Americans for the PC correct and woke) war party.

RR to Tonto: “Hey Tonto it looks like we are in trouble!
Tonto to RR: “Who is ‘we' white man?"
John N said:
That would have been the Lone Ranger that Tonto was speaking to! ;)
Click to expand...
True but RR played the Lone Ranger didn’t he?:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom