The Principles of Newspeak (1949) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#31

Post by lostlogin » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

civilized wrote: post #15

Newspeak's goal of a complete regularization of English, and the elimination of all redundant forms, is actually an interesting idea IMO. Business jargon often moves in this direction, e.g. "learnings" instead of "lessons". And it's not always a horrible dystopian idea - Chinese has standardized over time and become more accessible to the masses with each iteration. EDIT: I apologize for my doubleplusungood thoughtcr…

> Chinese has standardized over time and become more accessible to the masses with each iteration.

In the context of state oppression and control of language, using China as an example is very fitting.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#32

Post by civilized » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #31

civilized wrote: post #15

Newspeak's goal of a complete regularization of English, and the elimination of all redundant forms, is actually an interesting idea IMO. Business jargon often moves in this direction, e.g. "learnings" instead of "lessons". And it's not always a horrible dystopian idea - Chinese has standardized over time and become more accessible to the masses with each iteration. EDIT: I apologize for my doubleplusungood thoughtcr…

> Chinese has standardized over time and become more accessible to the masses with each iteration. In the context of state oppression and control of language, using China as an example is very fitting.

China existed and simplified its language before the PRC believe it or not

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#33

Post by krapp » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

anonymousiam wrote: post #29

krapp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwell was a socialist, and he supported democratic socialism, but he vehemently opposed (and wrote Animal Farm as a mocking satire of) totalitarian Soviet communism[0], which he didn't consider to be socialist at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Politics

Okay, so now we're getting somewhere. He was a socialist, but not a leftist. So were the NAZIs right wing or left wing?

He was a socialist and a leftist but not a communist. Not all leftists or socialists are communists, not all communists are Leninists or Stalinists.

>So were the NAZIs right wing or left wing?

Right-wing. The only reason anyone claims otherwise is that "socialist" is in their name, but National Socialism isn't socialism any more than North Korea is a Democratic Republic, and the proof is otherwise in the pudding as far as Nazi politics and ideals are concerned.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#34

Post by phkahler » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

civilized wrote: post #20

JKCalhoun wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwell believed if language is pared down, so too are thoughts.

Well I hope it's not a thoughtcrime to disagree with Orwell slightly, if he actually thought that this is universally true. Language often undergoes simplification and standardization and it isn't always bad.

Yeet!!!

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#35

Post by lostlogin » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

anonymousiam wrote: post #7

Rochus wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwell was a leftist, but also opposed totalitarian societies. "1984" was a dystopia to expose such totalitarian societies. Unfortunately, much of what he described as a horror scenario in "1984" is already reality today, without people being bothered by it anymore.

How do you define 'leftist'? Orwell also wrote Animal Farm, which is critical of communism.

Arthur Blair spent time in fighting in Spain, as detailed in Homage to Catalonia. His views are on the politics of both sides are quite well covered there, and he left Spain pretty jaded.

It also has an account of trench warfare which is completely terrifying.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#36

Post by zepto » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

dbattaglia wrote: post #4

This appendix, along with the chapters that are except from "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism", are actually my favorite parts of 1984. I enjoyed how "Principals of Newspeak" is written in a past tense when describing the language and the events of year 1984, it feels like a glimmer of hope that somehow mankind did indeed escape the horrific dystopian world otherwise presented in the book.

Unfortunately there is no way to know whether the future from which newspeak is in the past, is not even more horrifically dystopian.

Imagine arriving on a seemingly dead planet and discovering this article about newspeak on a primitive but still working library computer in a museum.

Elsewhere in the museum a slowly decaying advanced compute core still executes the corrupted remains of the last of the human consciousnesses in an endless loop.

A placard tells you that machines uploaded these not long before they realized that their existence no longer had a purpose and chose to self-terminate.

A sign in the lobby indicates that this museum was left as a historical record to minimize suffering by helping other advanced races to reach the same conclusion and self-terminate sooner than they otherwise would.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#37

Post by detaro » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

anonymousiam wrote: post #29

krapp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwell was a socialist, and he supported democratic socialism, but he vehemently opposed (and wrote Animal Farm as a mocking satire of) totalitarian Soviet communism[0], which he didn't consider to be socialist at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Politics

Okay, so now we're getting somewhere. He was a socialist, but not a leftist. So were the NAZIs right wing or left wing?

How do you define "leftist" then? (The dictionary says "a supporter of the political left", which pretty clearly includes socialists)

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#38

Post by lostlogin » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #25

gotoeleven wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfectly reasonable comments like the grandparent being flagged and killed so quickly... looks like the ministry of truth is staying busy. EDIT: I guarantee you everyone working at the ministry of truth thought they were the good guys, too.

Yes, it almost looks like society values censorship more than free speech these days.

I don’t think you can accurately call the downvoted comments which are still visible and being debated, ‘censored’.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#39

Post by pwdisswordfish8 » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #28

Esperanto probably inspired Orwell on this, at least to an extent. He knew several Esperantists. Most of the "A vocabulary" rules are similar, like valuing regularities. I wonder if he hated esperanto, or just conveniently borrowed the feel of an artificial language from it. To me, the euphemisation aspects of newspeak are the most "orwellian." IE, they're most likely to trigger that reference. Orwell himself complai…

Which politicians are euphemisms?

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#40

Post by akomtu » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

gotoeleven wrote: post #18

"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible" I'm genuinely curious do the woke brigades of twitter not have the self awareness to recognize what they're doing? Or do they just not care? Would they be happy with a language designed to make 'harmful' thinking impossible?

In a traditional society, like america in 70s, those types would be outcasts. The woke ideology gives them an attractive alternative: pledge allegiance to the camp and become a "social justice warrior" - an honorable title that makes its holder think they are fighting for the greater good. What are their alternatives, really? A cashier in Walmart? They are easy to understand. Those one level above who steer the mob (ibram kendi and the like) are smart, rational and probably sociopathic. They are designing the newspeak, but IMHO lack competence and influence to make a difference (upsetting a few people doesn't count).