U.K. Arresting People for Implied Wrongthink

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not that I'm defending his arrest but the source is quite clear on the fact that there were more than 1 tweets.

Also, people really need to stop making references to 1984. Not even North Korea is as fucked as the world in 1984. The comparisons are always superficial and/or misapplied.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not actually drawing a comparison or even referencing the book. I've not read it ^^. Several useful terms from it have bled into normal political discourse, one of those is wrongthink.

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not actually drawing a comparison or even referencing the book. I've not read it ^^. Several useful terms from it have bled into normal political discourse, one of those is wrongthink.

I forgive you, you may rest easy again.

Lover

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I forgive you, you may rest easy again.

Lover

I am relieved. Thank you!

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Some of the comparisons are actually quite profound regarding 1984. Nobody is saying the world is the same here as it is in the book, but the whole perpetual war thing is pretty damn applicable.

Who do you think they're profound? I've always found the comparisons to be lazy. It's not an obscure book and the book is not vague about its allusions (that's not a criticism by the way). I don't see any depth in refering to a dystopian novel. "It's like what happens in that book". That's what the comparisons amount to for me. That doesn't make them untrue of course but I don't understand why you'd think they were profound. Curious to hear why.

I think the perpetual war comparison you're bringing forth is actually a great example of why I think most comparisons are superficial and misapplied.

George Orwell actually explicitly states that the wars that came before "The Party" came into power were a different beast all together. Sure, 1984 was written in the 20th century but I don't think our wars have changed and George Orwell would include the 21th century wars in the pre-The Party era.
It's not about the frequency. Adding more war wouldn't bring us any closer to what George Orwell was referring to.
The 'perpetual war' was a type of war that had never occurred before in history. It had no end in sight by design. This war was never meant to be won. Some ground would be 'won' and 'lost' within a specific area like the tie coming in and going out but no more than that. There was an unspoken 'agreement' between the governments of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia to ensure that it never ended. The war itself was simply a means to an end. It was a way to have an enemy. It was a way to justify shortages. You've read it, it's very explicitly laid out.

The wars that are fought in our world may not always be honestly represented but they are always intended to be won. They can be a means to an end but they end and are intended to. There are no unspoken 'agreements'.

There might perpetually be wars but that is not even close to being a 'perpetual war' in the sense that Orwell was talking about.

[Csihar]

I'll just let the Socialist Orwell speak for himself:

“The war, therefore if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that the hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that is exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This--although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense--is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.”

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll just let the Socialist Orwell speak for himself:

“The war, therefore if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that the hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that is exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This--although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense--is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.”

No. That doesn't sound right and I doubt that's Orwell meant in any case.
Jeremy has the right of it.

[Csihar]

Unless you're referring to some NWO/Illuminati type of shit and then ... I agree with you.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Apparently a man has been arrested in the U.K for inciting racial hatred with the following tweet [TRIGGER WARNING]:




Source

Hope this shitbag is hit with the full force of the law. This kind of deplorable activity has no place in our society.

Yup! Someone grab a pen...

UK Thought Police Arresting People Who May Offend Muslims

Winston Churchill 1899: "Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

[Swish]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Apparently a man has been arrested in the U.K for inciting racial hatred with the following tweet [TRIGGER WARNING]:




Source

Hope this shitbag is hit with the full force of the law. This kind of deplorable activity has no place in our society.



Swish,

Could explain this situation?

Yeah I'll explain it, from the point of view of a white guy who isn't religious.

Basically the police and judicial system are hell bent on not offending muslims or anyone who isn't white. To that end, they score points with minority communities by arresting anyone who is white and who airs an opinion like that.

If someone robs someone for their phone here you get probably a suspended sentence, a fine and/or community service (painting fences and shit).

If someone white robs someone who isn't white for their phone and the police think it was racially motivated, you're probably going to get a small prison sentence (under 28 days) on top of the fine.

The whole situation is basically ridiculous. Muslims here (well actually everywhere) are great at using the political correctness to get what they want. My city has plans for a huge mosque to be built here in the middle of it, and nobody wants it, and there aren't enough muslims here to support one... but the local council are insistent on it because councillors don't want to be voted out of their seats, right?

Take a quick look at Luton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA6XcyXsxXU

Basically we're going to end up with a Muslim state in this country in 30 years, or a civil war unless the government start doing something.

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah I'll explain it, from the point of view of a white guy who isn't religious.

Basically the police and judicial system are hell bent on not offending muslims or anyone who isn't white. To that end, they score points with minority communities by arresting anyone who is white and who airs an opinion like that.

If someone robs someone for their phone here you get probably a suspended sentence, a fine and/or community service (painting fences and shit).

If someone white robs someone who isn't white for their phone and the police think it was racially motivated, you're probably going to get a small prison sentence (under 28 days) on top of the fine.

The whole situation is basically ridiculous. Muslims here (well actually everywhere) are great at using the political correctness to get what they want. My city has plans for a huge mosque to be built here in the middle of it, and nobody wants it, and there aren't enough muslims here to support one... but the local council are insistent on it because councillors don't want to be voted out of their seats, right?

Take a quick look at Luton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA6XcyXsxXU

Basically we're going to end up with a Muslim state in this country in 30 years, or a civil war unless the government start doing something.

If they only integrated properly like the masses of European immigrants the US accepted in the early 20th century there would be no problem. It wasn't an instant integration but they worked at it because to them it was important to be American in America.

We certainly have our problems here in the US but wow Europe you're in for a shitstorm.