Live data from Hacker News

The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

berfrois.com

111–120 of 145 posts

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#111

One thing I noticed as an English person during my time in the US is that you have less words . E.g. everything really is awesome! This is pretty much exactly double plus good. In English English we have a dazzling array (sorry, awesome list) of adjectives, often particularly tied to certain nouns. For example 'a splendid view [out the window]', we wouldn't say a person is 'splendid' - except the somewhat archaic 'sp…

My guess is you haven't been in America long or you are interacting in a business setting.

"One thing I noticed as an English person during my time in the US is that IN MY OPINION you have less words."

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's an experimental language called Toki Pona[0]. It is just composed of 14 phonemes and 137 root words. It is meant to be learned in a weekend essentially. But you can't easily express abstract concepts in it because of its limitations. Though it was created to have users concentrate on basic things. So there's at least ways to experimentally test this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona

From what I've learned of toki pona so far it seems to be reasonably effective at conveying abstract concepts, poetry, haiku, and the like.

It's the specifics and precision that seem hard to convey. For example, it's hard to talk about physics because the number system is deliberately anemic and power, force, and strength are all the same word. (wawa)

If you wanted to be precise you'd have to build specific concepts using a lot of semantic primes and it ends up being even more wordy than xkcd's Up Goer Five: https://xkcd.com/1133/

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#113

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.

> We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

> But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

> What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.

> This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.”

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#115
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

This is a gross simplification, and not really accurate. The nazi party grew from both left and right leaning aspects. (Booth anti-communist and anti-capitalist) Many of the aspects of nazi ideology where socialist in nature - for example, the building projects, the “strength through joy” institutions, and much of their early party doctrine. The Strassers and Goebbels in particular were deeply aligned to the socialis…

> Instead of Marx’s race war, the Nazis instead believed in Racial War.

> So where the Marxists would call for a class war to violently overthrow the evil capitalists in a all-composing global struggle for communism, the Nazis called for a a “blood and soil” war to eliminate the enemies of the people - with everything subjugated to that violence.

Are you really using puns to try to make this argument? None of this has to do with the Nazis being socialists or left wing, regardless.

> Both were totalitarian in their nature.

Left and right wing ideologies can both advocate for representative democracy too but still not be interchangeable.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#116

One thing I noticed as an English person during my time in the US is that you have less words . E.g. everything really is awesome! This is pretty much exactly double plus good. In English English we have a dazzling array (sorry, awesome list) of adjectives, often particularly tied to certain nouns. For example 'a splendid view [out the window]', we wouldn't say a person is 'splendid' - except the somewhat archaic 'sp…

>One thing I noticed as an English person during my time in the US is that you have less words.

I'm not sure how to resolve the pronoun "you". Are you comparing news broadcasts? Politicians' speeches? Conversations with people in random situations?

When I think of British English, I certainly think of different words, but not necessarily more words.

> In English English we have a dazzling array (sorry, awesome list) of adjectives, often particularly tied to certain nouns.

This sounds horrible!

I assign no value, and indeed negative value, to adjectives whose only value is that they exclusively apply to different nouns. If that's the case, then go the newspeak way and just tell me it's a good/great/bad view. Yes, the verbiage gets more repetitive, but if you're just avoiding repetition by using the correct synonym with the correct noun, why bother?

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#117
post #82

I think the map of 1984 is really interesting[0]. It makes it really obvious it was about if Axis countries had won the war, thus predating "Man in the High Castle" by 13 years. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_geography_of_Ninetee...

Looks more like the axis losing against Russia while the US remained "neutral" (no D day). Nothing there to stop Stalin from invading the entire continental europe.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#118
post #104
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conscious…

Death is too optimistic about dystopias. 1984 wasn't a world which wanted to kill you: it might, but that wasn't the goal. The goal was to keep the system going: achieve absolute dominion over the human condition and thought. Suicide means that's no longer happening, so it can't have that. The 1984 cycle continues forever: it is it's own purpose.

Have some compassion for the poor corrupted consciousnesses running in a loop. You can speculate on the conditions the suicidal machines have left them in. Remember, they are only there to remind others about the futility of existence.

Re: The Principles of Newspeak (1949)

#119
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both "woke" ideology and MAGA ideology use words in this way. - Make America Great Again - Black Lives Matter - Stop the Steal - Homophobia - Drain the Swamp - Ableist - America First All of those exist to make it difficult to express an opposing viewpoint. Orwell would have recognized this.

The recent "Jan 6 was an act of love" (for Trump) is another good example. It was both true-in-a-sense (oxytocin doesn't make you less racist), and brilliant, in much the same way that "Proud Boys" was clever, but it seems to sail right over peoples' heads (Or they're just pretending not to get it. I can't tell.). And some older political phrases could also be added to your list; for me the archetype is "Pro Life" vs…

It's ok to be white was another smart one. I think the difference between the two sides was that the Trump side was a bit more tongue in cheek whereas the woke side is very sincere and joyless. Another issue is that the woke side tries to force people to use certain terms, something that doesn't exist much on the Trump side.
Post reply on HN