Nineteen Eighty-four

[trolls' bane]

Okay, I'm not sure if this is or isn't SciFi/Fantasy, but as the book was not written for that to be the major theme, I'll just err on the side of caution.

Well, I've never been good at opening arguments, so I'm going to jump right in with this question:
If, for instance, a child of a party member had thought-criminal thoughts, would the party treat them the same as an adult or do you think they would "rehabilitate" them in other ways, being that they are young with thoughts easily molded.

[Alcuin]

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask a student at Columbia University in New York City what happens when you say something the Thought Police dislike? (Click here (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015459.php) to find out what happened when the president of the anti-illegal immigration group Minutemen was invited to speak: be sure to watch the video, and pay particular attention to the campus police, who do absolutely nothing: which side should we suppose the University supports, regardless of what it may say to unhappy alumni and donors?) They have considerable experience in shutting down the wayward children of Party Members. I believe that current punishments range from shouting down to ostracizing to beating.

This is now the pinnacle of American Intellectualism. Little wonder the United States cannot come to a national consensus on anything: there is one side in the debate that seeks to shut down, silence, criminalize, and terrorize those who dare to disagree with them, and violence is a perfectly legitimate tool for them. Their actions are officially but quietly sanctioned by large segments of society in the United States, the United Kingdom, and across Europe, while their antics and destruction are deliberately obfuscated by journalists and editors who sympathize with them: the video would certainly not be available without the internet, and reports of the riot at Columbia would have been vilified both by University officials and the people who perpetrated it as nothing but malicious slander.

Do not ask how would the party react to a wayward child in 1984, troll’s bane. Ask how they react in 2006 – in universities, public schools, and the press, and you will begin to form a reasonable answer. (And only 22 years behind George Orwell’s original timeline!)

[Spock]

Actually this book is Science Fiction and should be moved to that section.

[Spock]

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask a student at Columbia University in New York City !)

Columbia has been taken over more times than Cuba. A conservative should know better than to go into 'indian territory' :cool: :evil:

[brownjenkins]

I think they'd try to rehabilitate anyone, but in the case of a child, they probably would not execute the child after rehab, as they would with an adult.

[Alcuin]

Columbia has been taken over more times than Cuba. A conservative should know better than to go into 'indian territory' :cool: :evil:Well, it puts the lie to idea that Columbia is providing its students a “liberal education.”

Or are you saying that Columbia University is an example of Gresham’s Law at work: “The Bad drives out the Good?” That is a theme of 1984, is it not?

[trolls' bane]

I love this green entmoot banner and its incredible shades of blue. :p

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid to click that link. It's not you, it's just that every time I open a page with a video on it, my computer freezes.

[Spock]

Well, it puts the lie to idea that Columbia is providing its students a “liberal education.”

Or are you saying that Columbia University is an example of Gresham’s Law at work: “The Bad drives out the Good?” That is a theme of 1984, is it not?

Both actually. :cool:

[Bran]

Sweet. 1984 was actually the last book I read and I was near to starting a thread on which to discuss it.

I don't know what they would do with a child. It's a really disturbing thought, as I'm sure it wouldn't be nice. What I wonder though, is how likely it would be for them to catch a child commiting Thought-crime. Like Troll'sBane mentioned, children's minds a very easily molded and wouldn't be as likely to resist the programing the citizens of the Party recieve. Which it felt to me the author thought, also, as it seemed almost as if the children were some of the most fanatical.

*Spoiler Warning*
It was a horrifying read, to say the least, and the book had a very emotional effect on me. Standing by while and watching while O'Brian slowly broke Winston was excrutiatingly painful. The idea of someone being able to reach into another persons mind and re-wire them to the point of betraying their own identity; their reasoning, their ideals and even their love was such a saddening thought.

George Orwell clearly understood better then many of us how bad it could really get if we don't hold fast to our freedom, and he's got me on my toes, I can tell you.

P.S. By the way, how do you hide spoilers like I've seen done on others posts? I couldn't seem to find how to make the backround go gray in order to hide the writing. I'd appreciate knowing how if anyone can tell me?

[trolls' bane]

You use the and tag. (Quote this post to see what the tag looks like.)

I think the children were the most fanatical, because they, unlike their parents, were taught the Party's ideals from the very instant of their birth. However, for there to be a need of a Miniluv (Ministry of Love=torture), they would have to expect that one of them, not quite fully integrated into Newspeak* and still know and use Oldspeak, could come to realise a flaw in the system. Catching them would be easy: that's what telescreens are for.

I think the party wouldn't have a rehabilitation at all. They would just control the flow of thoughts into the individual's mind, and eventually "make the individual realise" the "just cause" of the Party.

* I find Newspeak a very interesting subject. As you probably know, when you speak in English, you think in English. I'm just starting to realise the significance of Newspeak, though I finished the book over a year ago. When the population of Oceania spoke only Newspeak, they would only think in Newspeak, and since Newspeak doesn't have enough words to form thoughts of...er...thoughtful concepts, thinking is drastically limited. (I'm assuming that someone who knows many languages is probably a much better abstract thinker than I. I'm saying this, not referring to the statement above, but drawing from a logical conclusion of my train of though. Ironic that we're talking about Newspeak here.)

[The Telcontarion]

I need to read this book. What I know from it reminds me much of what is happening in our society today...
Do not ask how would the party react to a wayward child in 1984, troll’s bane. Ask how they react in 2006 – in universities, public schools, and the press, and you will begin to form a reasonable answer. (And only 22 years behind George Orwell’s original timeline!)
Exactly!!

[trolls' bane]

Personally, I disagree with that point of view. If we were really bad (oh, I haven't had a chance to see the video, because I'm still afraid it will crash my computer. What happens?) enough to be called a "police state", the very fact that I'm saying "police state" would wind up having me disappear into the back of one of those sinister looking black vans I've always joked about. Many of you will agree with me, but I think, as a global society we're getting better. Admittedly, we'd be on top of the world if we spent half as much money on scientific research and those "dumb, expensive projects" like the space elevator as we do potato chips and video games and flavored toothpicks and movies.

I have to admit, however, that I marvel that I can remain so optomistic after spending a week, even a day, at school. :(

[Bran]

I think the children were the most fanatical, because they, unlike their parents, were taught the Party's ideals from the very instant of their birth. However, for there to be a need of a Miniluv (Ministry of Love=torture), they would have to expect that one of them, not quite fully integrated into Newspeak* and still know and use Oldspeak, could come to realise a flaw in the system. Catching them would be easy: that's what telescreens are for.

I think the party wouldn't have a rehabilitation at all. They would just control the flow of thoughts into the individual's mind, and eventually "make the individual realise" the "just cause" of the Party.


Very true. There obviously isn't going to be a whole load of previous programing to overwrite in an infent, so they're going to be much easier to control. I wonder also if they would have a rehabilitation center at all for children, and if instead of disposing of the Thought-criminals they simply continue to bombard them with propaganda knowing they'll submit.

Thanks for the help with the spoiler warning thing, by the way. That's helpful :D* I find Newspeak a very interesting subject. As you probably know, when you speak in English, you think in English. I'm just starting to realise the significance of Newspeak, though I finished the book over a year ago. When the population of Oceania spoke only Newspeak, they would only think in Newspeak, and since Newspeak doesn't have enough words to form thoughts of...er...thoughtful concepts, thinking is drastically limited. (I'm assuming that someone who knows many languages is probably a much better abstract thinker than I. I'm saying this, not referring to the statement above, but drawing from a logical conclusion of my train of though. Ironic that we're talking about Newspeak here.)

Newspeak is an interesting subject, I agree. Previding a populice with a language in which complex thoughts aren't possible would indeed be an effective way of reducing the number of Thought-crimes commited. But this leads me to a detail I found particularly intriquing about the book, which was Parsons arrest at the end of the book. Parsons, who, if you remember, was a loyal member of the Party before he committed the thought-crime of saying "down with big brother" in his sleep. So while being a seemingly loyal Party member through and through, he clearly nursed in his subconcious an understanding that something about the party was wrong, and it needed to fall. This is a clear implication that George Orwell believed that, while Big Brother could take control of the masses concious thoughts, that he couldn't subdue human nature and it's need to be free.

Thanks for the help with the spoiler warning thing, by the way. That's helpful :D

[The Gaffer]

I need to read this book. What I know from it reminds me much of what is happening in our society today...
Everyone needs to read this book, because the best thing about it is its critique of modern society.

Things which ring spookily true:

War is Peace: our leaders have launched us into a perpetual and unwinnable warlike status. This status is used to mobilise patriotism and stifle criticism. One of the most scary moments in the book is when the enemy changes from being Eurasia to Eastasia (or is it the other way round?); this has spooky parallels with how Afghanistan, then Iraq and now Iran and North Korea have been seamlessly substituted in the role of enemy #1.

One thing which Orwell understood was the economics of warfare: that one way to stimulate the economy is to consume via warfare. Tax revenues are thus diverted to industry on a massive scale. Some key phrases here: military industrial complex, outsourcing, Halliburton.

Ignorance is strength: more subtle than portrayed in the Ministry of Truth, there is nevertheless a vibrant and burgeoning industry of spin within our governments. The purpose of this industry is to manipulate our beliefs. Asking awkward questions is routinely derided as unpatriotic and, crucially, undermining.

Freedom is slavery: Of course, freedom™ is our rallying cry and our fig leaf. There is an interesting discussion to be had around the extent to which we actually have freedom.

[The Telcontarion]

Personally, I disagree with that point of view. If we were really bad (oh, I haven't had a chance to see the video, because I'm still afraid it will crash my computer. What happens?) enough to be called a "police state", the very fact that I'm saying "police state" would wind up having me disappear into the back of one of those sinister looking black vans I've always joked about.
Oh, it is a fore gone conclusion my friend:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/161006bushwaiting.htm

with this law in effect, you can be arrested and detained without due process, tried by a secret tribunal (if your lucky) and shot in the face a couple times kid...
Here also is a video of a documentary, it is long but...oh, my, god...

http://infowars.com/terrorstorm/google_high_quality.htm

By the way, you donot live in the united states of amerrica, you are now a member of the american union, which already suspends the constitution anyway. What, didn't know that, just type into google, american union or use the search engine of the site I posted earlier. America is dead my friend.

[Spock]

. America is dead my friend.

Rather a harsh statement from one who chooses to live here. :confused:




Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read- Groucho Marx

[The Telcontarion]

What I meant spock is that the country as you know it has ceased to exist. Laws now can be made without the consent of the congress or the senate, thus without the consent of the american people. All I am doing is sounding the alarm, I am not the one causing it.

As for living here, I am desperately trying to find a way to leave as soon as possible, but my career and love ones are here so it is not easy. Eventually though I will be leaving, things are just way to scary; especially in NY. But the police here are very aware of what is going on and they talk about it all the time with the war protestors or just in random conversation in the subway whenever I engage them about it, and that is a very encouraging sign.

[Spock]

What I meant spock is that the country as you know it has ceased to exist. Laws now can be made without the consent of the congress or the senate, thus without the consent of the american people.

I understand what your saying, however, it's too generalized. Laws, no, terrorist related laws, yes.


All I am doing is sounding the alarm, I am not the one causing it.
That's the minimum a concerned citizen can do.

I am desperately trying to find a way to leave as soon as possible,

I went through a similar phase a few years ago but determined that the economic cost to me would have been too great. That and the fact that most countries give job preference to their own citizens first.

[The Telcontarion]

Now do you think it's 1984 trolls' bane?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/181006Olbermann.htm

[Gwaimir Windgem]

* I find Newspeak a very interesting subject. As you probably know, when you speak in English, you think in English.

Are you saying language is necessary for thought?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Personally, I disagree with that point of view. If we were really bad (oh, I haven't had a chance to see the video, because I'm still afraid it will crash my computer. What happens?) enough to be called a "police state", the very fact that I'm saying "police state" would wind up having me disappear into the back of one of those sinister looking black vans I've always joked about. Many of you will agree with me, but I think, as a global society we're getting better. Admittedly, we'd be on top of the world if we spent half as much money on scientific research and those "dumb, expensive projects" like the space elevator as we do potato chips and video games and flavored toothpicks and movies.

Or how about we spend half as much on feeding the world's starving as we spend on space elevators?

Laws now can be made without the consent of the congress or the senate, thus without the consent of the american people.

Are you equating the Senate and Congress with the American people?

[The Telcontarion]

Are you equating the Senate and Congress with the American people?

Through our vote they are our representitives.

[hectorberlioz]

I own both Animal Farm and 1984, but have yet to read the latter. I have, on the other hand, read Animal Farm twice. ;)

[trolls' bane]

Now do you think it's 1984 trolls' bane?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/181006Olbermann.htm
Sorry, I still disagree. As long as I still have that space between my ears, albeit no more, I don't think this is quite like Nineteen Eighty-four. We're in a unique and admittedly bad situation, and I've been hearing about secret imprisonment and whatnot for quite a while (my dad is a vhemenent (Sp?) critic of Bush, et al.)

Gwai, I respectufully decline to acknowlege that. Building a space elevator would end world hunger. Once colonization of Mars and the hospitable Jovian moons is complete, plus the benefits from the space elevator (such as the Berkowitz-Helliwell People Mover System a friend and I are developing, as well as an idea I've had regarding gargantuan aerial tramways spanning the Strait of Gibraltir and connecting Russia to Alaska). You know, I'm also a big fan of genetic engineering. Eight-legged cows pack a lot of steak! :D
And much can be learned from zero-G genetic experiments (or so I've heard), which would become very cheap with the construction of a space elevator.
On top of that, development of terraforming efforts in the more hostile environments could begin to apply to the less hostile environments of Earth, creating rich farmland more efficiently than it's currently being developed. Not to mention oceanic and maybe even atmospheric colonization: whole floating cities and farms made largely out of carbon nanotubes (which are the primary construction components of the space elevator, and the development therin is crucial for the development of such cities) could be built.

[hectorberlioz]

We should probably make a new thread for this subject...

I have to make it known: I'm against really "altering" the planet or animals for any cause...

One of these days our technology is going to catch us up, and it'll be the Fall of Rome all over again...

[trolls' bane]

We should probably make a new thread for this subject...

I have to make it known: I'm against really "altering" the planet or animals for any cause...

One of these days our technology is going to catch us up, and it'll be the Fall of Rome all over again...
You're a Red! Hectorberlioz is a Red! Get ready: There is no going back. Free Mars! :p
I agree. Maybe roll them all into part of the space elevator discussion. I'd hate to have a thread for every one of these ideas.

[hectorberlioz]

I AM NOT red ;) . Definitely not....

It's not that I'm anti-discovery/better means, it's that I think sometimes we leap into something just because it is "new" and think that it is automatically better.

[trolls' bane]

[Borg Voice]Thinking is irrelevant. The space elevator, etcetera, is better.[/Borg Voice]

[The Telcontarion]

We should probably make a new thread for this subject...

I have to make it known: I'm against really "altering" the planet or animals for any cause...

One of these days our technology is going to catch us up, and it'll be the Fall of Rome all over again...

Amen!!!

[rohirrim TR]

I AM NOT red ;) . Definitely not....

It's not that I'm anti-discovery/better means, it's that I think sometimes we leap into something just because it is "new" and think that it is automatically better.
I agree in fact i'm writing a research paper on that very idea how bio-tech and some of our greatest technological leaps need to be looked at a little more carefully on long term effects that sort of thing. *slaps forehead* in fact I should probably be working on that now. :eek: :D

[Spock]

This thread is wandering further from the topic than Moses did from the Promised land.

This is in the General Literature Thread and is about a BOOK

you can post on other topics in the appropriate topic threads.

[Alcuin]

This thread is wandering further from the topic than Moses did from the Promised land.Wait – is that the Jordan or Kadesh up ahead? or a mirage…?


Come to think of it, Smith cracks and surrenders in 1984. Sam Lowry cracks and escapes – into a mirage, a dream – under the same conditions in Brazil (http://imdb.com/title/tt0088846/). It that pertinent?

[BeardofPants]

Everytime I see the title of this thread, I always get the Dead Kennedys song stuck in my head. [editted bad smiley-code]

[trolls' bane]

Wait – is that the Jordan or Kadesh up ahead? or a mirage…?


Come to think of it, Smith cracks and surrenders in 1984. Sam Lowry cracks and escapes – into a mirage, a dream – under the same conditions in Brazil (http://imdb.com/title/tt0088846/). It that pertinent?
So...It's like a version of Nineteen Eighty-four with a happier ending? :confused:

[trolls' bane]

So...It's like a version of Nineteen Eighty-four with a happier ending? :confused:
WTF happened here? Oh, never mind. I see now that I quoted it.

[XRogue]

I liked 1984. But then I remember being alive then...:)

Seriously, it's a good book. Spooked me but good with the psychological bits about breaking Winston.

[Alcuin]

So...It's like a version of Nineteen Eighty-four with a happier ending?Yes. In many ways, Brazil is a “happy” version of 1984. You have to take that for what it’s worth: all the folks in Brazil are smiling and appear happy except the folks in the torture chamber chair; but the society it depicts is every bit as horrible and soulless as that George Orwell drew from his vision of the future at the end of World War II. It is, in fact, a retelling of the same story, but with a twist. I remember going to see it with two good friends when it was first released in the 1980s: it took us about 45 minutes to recover our sense of reality. It is every bit as shocking and horrific as 1984, but it gets under your skin faster and easier, which is alarming.

[trolls' bane]

Yes. In many ways, Brazil is a “happy” version of 1984. You have to take that for what it’s worth: all the folks in Brazil are smiling and appear happy except the folks in the torture chamber chair; but the society it depicts is every bit as horrible and soulless as that George Orwell drew from his vision of the future at the end of World War II. It is, in fact, a retelling of the same story, but with a twist. I remember going to see it with two good friends when it was first released in the 1980s: it took us about 45 minutes to recover our sense of reality. It is every bit as shocking and horrific as 1984, but it gets under your skin faster and easier, which is alarming.
Neat! :cool:

[Bran]

One thing I liked better about Brazil was the amount of contrast they gave you between the world the character is in and the one he would like to be in. In 1984 you don't get the impression that Winston knows how much better life could really be, only that he knows something is wrong. He doesn't seem as sure of what's missing in his life. While Sam Lowry of Brazil has dreams about being a hero with morals, in a world seemingly without heroes and morals, and heroicly rescuing the girl he loves, in a world seemingly without love. He dreams about being able to fly and having total freedom.

Also, Brazil is more about how sociaty in general went crazy, and not just it's goverment. It's about how shallow the world is becoming and how hard it is for people with values to live in a sociaty that is increasingly becoming amoral without going insane.

1984 is a terrific book, though. I can see why it's such a classic.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes. In many ways, Brazil is a “happy” version of 1984. You have to take that for what it’s worth: all the folks in Brazil are smiling and appear happy except the folks in the torture chamber chair; but the society it depicts is every bit as horrible and soulless as that George Orwell drew from his vision of the future at the end of World War II. It is, in fact, a retelling of the same story, but with a twist. I remember going to see it with two good friends when it was first released in the 1980s: it took us about 45 minutes to recover our sense of reality. It is every bit as shocking and horrific as 1984, but it gets under your skin faster and easier, which is alarming.

It may look happier, on the outside, but I certainly wouldn't say it had a happy ending. Well, sort of...but it's a little to characterise that ending as 'happy'.

[trolls' bane]

Hence the quotation marks... *shines a bright light in the former grammar nazi's eyes*

(That was you, right? I'm not thinking of anyone else?)

[Nurvingiel]

Grammar nazi? Where? :D


Well folks, I just bought 1984. I'll read it after the two other books I'm currently reading. But still, I'm very excited.

After I read Animal Farm, I really wanted to read more Orwell, but somehow I never got around to this gem until now.

:)

[Serenoli]

Margaret Atwood - The Handmaid's Tale, rather similar in the whole Big Brother scenario of 1984.

[trolls' bane]

Grammar nazi? Where? :D


Well folks, I just bought 1984. I'll read it after the two other books I'm currently reading. But still, I'm very excited.

After I read Animal Farm, I really wanted to read more Orwell, but somehow I never got around to this gem until now.

:)
Besides Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, I found all of the other books of his I've picked up boring.

[GrayMouser]

So...It's like a version of Nineteen Eighty-four with a happier ending? :confused:

Actually, Brazil has been released with three different endings.

SPOILERS!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The original Terry Gilliam version with the 'bleak' ending was released in Europe at 142 minutes. It ends with Sam being tortured, but he escapes into
the fantasy in his own mind- into madness, actually.

Universal Studios insisted the film be shortened and a happier ending put in, so Gilliam did an American release (132 minutes). Instead of opening with a terrorist bombing, it has a dream-like cloud sequence; in the ending the torture chamber fills up with the same clouds while the interrogators look on in amazement.

This wasn't good enough for Universal president Sidney Sheinberg; he insisted on turning it into an optimistic romance. This, at 94 minutes with the tacked on happy ending - derisively referred to as the "Love Conquers All" version- is an abomination.

Terry Gilliam actually had to take a full page add out in Variety demanding to knoow when his movie was being released. He then staged a clandestine showing for the LA critics. When the LA Film Critics had their Awards night, Brazil won Best Picture- a slap in the face for Universal, which didn't know it had been screened, and was heavily promoting "Out of Africa".

[GrayMouser]

Besides Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, I found all of the other books of his I've picked up boring.

As far as his fiction goes, yeah. His first, "Burmese Days" has an interesting setting, but it's very undeveloped; the others "Keep the Aspidistra Flying", "A Clergyman's Daughter" and " Coming Up For Air" are period pices- though the last one is much better.

OTOH his nonfiction- "Down and Out in Paris and London", "The Road to Wigan Pier" and "Homage to Catalonia"- is great, though the for the latter two you have to be interested in the period (1930s, Depression, rise of Hitler and Stalin)

Of his essays, "Politics and the English Language" is a must-read for anyone concerned with our modern society and the ways we are manipulated by language.

[Falagar]

Actually, Brazil has been released with three different endings.

SPOILERS!!!!!!!
[...]
Loved Brazil, and this only heightens my esteem for Mr. Gilliam. :)

As to 1984, I found the book to be brilliant (along with most people around here, it seems) . Definitely deserves its place among the greats of literature.

[trolls' bane]

I'm having some fun at school now. I'm doing the same thing I did in eight grade: I now have half of the sophomore students calling me (and eventually (hopefully) each other) Comrade. :D

[hectorberlioz]

I'm having some fun at school now. I'm doing the same thing I did in eight grade: I now have half of the sophomore students calling me (and eventually (hopefully) each other) Comrade. :D
Communists! Bolsheviks! :eek:

[trolls' bane]

Communists! Bolsheviks! :eek:
LOL!
What's a Bolshevik? It sounds like some sort of edible pastry.
"Excuse me, Comrade. May I have two cheese and one rasberry Bolshevik? Oh thank you ma'am that's very nice of you."

[hectorberlioz]

The Bolsheviks were the socialist revolutionaries who took over Russia...

"Comrade" is a famous stereotype of communists...I imagine they used it the word a lot... ;)

[trolls' bane]

The Bolsheviks were the socialist revolutionaries who took over Russia...

"Comrade" is a famous stereotype of communists...I imagine they used it the word a lot... ;)
I'm sure they did, Comrade Berlioz. :p
Darn. And I was getting hungry, too. :( :D

[hectorberlioz]

I'm sure they did, Comrade Berlioz. :p
Darn. And I was getting hungry, too. :( :D

You want to eat a Bolshevik! You Cannibal! :eek:

Whenever I hear "comrade" I imagine a hefty hand on my shoulder, trying to influence me...kinda like Mafia persuasion... :p ;)

[trolls' bane]

Whenever I hear comrade, at least lately, I imagine a bunch of revolutionaries entrenched and in control of some torn nation's capital city busily setting about the execution of former government leaders.

Yes, I just read a bit about the French Revolution. :p

[hectorberlioz]

Whenever I hear comrade, at least lately, I imagine a bunch of revolutionaries entrenched and in control of some torn nation's capital city busily setting about the execution of former government leaders.

Yes, I just read a bit about the French Revolution. :p
Well, you're in luck, because thats how most revolutions go... ;) .

[trolls' bane]

Well, you're in luck, because thats how most revolutions go... ;) .
Ooo! How fun! *goes and founds a distant colony in Antarctica just to observe this phenomenon*

[hectorberlioz]

Ooo! How fun! *goes and founds a distant colony in Antarctica just to observe this phenomenon*

With one exception...but since you're observing, I'll wait to tell you...

[Alcuin]

The only difference between a Bolshevik and a Nazi is his excuse for murder.

-|-

Edit:
Oh, heavens! Have I just invoked Godwin’s Law here?

[Rían]

Hence the quotation marks... *shines a bright light in the former grammar nazi's eyes*

(That was you, right? I'm not thinking of anyone else?)
One is never a former grammar nazi ... *twitch*

*waves to Grey Mouser*

[rohirrim TR]

The only difference between a Bolshevik and a Nazi is his excuse for murder.

-|-

Edit:
Oh, heavens! Have I just invoked Godwin’s Law here?

Thats rather oversimplification the Bolsheviks motivation was very different from the Nazis. But yes they did kill lots of people, Communism has killed many millions more over the years than the Nazis.

[trolls' bane]

The only difference between a Bolshevik and a Nazi is his excuse for murder.

-|-

Edit:
Oh, heavens! Have I just invoked Godwin’s Law here?
Whose law? :confused: *alarmed* :eek: :eek:

[GrayMouser]

Godwin's Law:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

It basically means that whatever the topic- abortion, evolution, politics, censorship, baseball, whatever- discussion will usually grow heated and someone will compare the other side to the Nazis

It's often extended to the corollary that whoever does so, loses.

Since this discussion is actually about totalitarianism, and Orwell very much had the Nazis in mind (not as much as the Commies, true), it is not applicable to this thread. Post away.

[GrayMouser]

Question:

I've got a pretty good background in history and political philosophy covering this era (example- at one time I actually owned the complete works of Orwell, including the 4-volume collected Essays, Journalism and Letters) and I grew up during the Cold War.

Does it make a difference to younger readers? Even for me, 1984 was pretty much a historical work- the Soviet Union under Brezhnev was not the Soviet Union under Stalin.

As for Animal Farm, it is an allegory - can you fully appreciate it without knowing which historical figures Major, Napoleon, Snowball are; what groups Boxer, Benjamin and Moses represent; what the Battle of the Windmill was?

[trolls' bane]

Godwin's Law:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

It basically means that whatever the topic- abortion, evolution, politics, censorship, baseball, whatever- discussion will usually grow heated and someone will compare the other side to the Nazis

It's often extended to the corollary that whoever does so, loses.

Since this discussion is actually about totalitarianism, and Orwell very much had the Nazis in mind (not as much as the Commies, true), it is not applicable to this thread. Post away.
LOL! That is so true. I'm going to use that very law as my weapon on my school's myspace, where almost every discussion I enter into spirals into near digital fist falls.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

LOL! That is so true. I'm going to use that very law as my weapon on my school's myspace, where almost every discussion I enter into spirals into near digital fist falls.

*cough cough*

Gee, what's the common denominator in all therse discussions that you enter?

:D

[trolls' bane]

*cough*
Err...the same few people that always fight? ;)
*cough* *cough*