Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

newworker.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 186 posts

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#121

Post by dotancohen »

srean wrote: post #105
kikokikokiko wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These Minessota videos are classic examples of what Scott Adams used to call "two different movies being played on the same screen", in this case quite literally. From the point of view of a left leaning person, that movie shows a man being assassinated for no reason at all, nothing justify what happened. From the point of view of a right leaning person, Alex Pretti was actively interfering with law enforcement, and…

These so called right leaning people were, in the recent past, crying themselves hoarse that they have all the right and moral prerogative to carry arms at a protest.

Having the right to do something does not make it safe.

Americans have the right to carry a pistol. But carrying a pistol while heckling police officers and touching a police officer who is performing their duty, sounds deadly to me.

Can we agree that the deceased had a right to carry a pistol? Can we agree that the deceased had been heckling police officers? Can we agree that the deceased had touched a police officer?

Nothing he did warranted death. But he did choose to put himself in an extremely dangerous position, moreso by touching a police officer than by carrying a pistol. But in any case don't carry a pistol when you are out looking for confrontation, especially with police. Even if you're right, you're still dead.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#122

Post by dotancohen »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #70
kikokikokiko wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These Minessota videos are classic examples of what Scott Adams used to call "two different movies being played on the same screen", in this case quite literally. From the point of view of a left leaning person, that movie shows a man being assassinated for no reason at all, nothing justify what happened. From the point of view of a right leaning person, Alex Pretti was actively interfering with law enforcement, and…

You seem to be using the terms "left leaning person" and "right leaning person" when you actually mean "normal people" and "sociopaths." Left and right have nothing to do with it.

So you consider people with different values then you sociopaths? You sound very intolerant.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#123

Post by willis936 »

globular-toast wrote: post #115
willis936 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are. And I'm allowed to read into the author's psychology when they wear it on their shoulder. And I'm also allowed to critique the author when they misunderstand their work and write rambling, uninspired sequels that ruin the original work. Lucas and Disney couldn't help but copy even these bad parts of Foundation in the Star Wars prequels and sequels.

> ruin the original work I've never understood this. The beauty of recorded media is authors cannot ruin or revoke their work, assuming no actual censorship, of course (copyright can also be a problem). Just ignore the subsequent works if you don't like them. This is the first time I'm hearing about people only reading the first Foundation book but it's definitely worth doing some quick checks before dedicating one's…

The trilogy, prequels, and sequels are all "canon" and retcon the most interesting concepts of the original book as ruses, conspiracies, and lies. This is unambiguously a ruining of the original because the author went out of their way to mute the concepts rather than explore them.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#124

Post by a_better_world »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #34
krapp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TV was evil? I feel like people forget that so much of what they blame on social media now existed with television. Propaganda, misinformation, addiction, emotional manipulation, mind rot, overstimulation, excessive advertising, even moral panics blaming it for violence and deviant behavior. Television didn't create self-reinforcing bubbles of hyperreality because it represented a corporate model of reality appli…

I would go so far as to say that the criticisms of broadcast television were completely correct; and that for all the problems of modern centralized social media and other internet use, one major good thing that it has done is kill off broadcast television. It is much easier now than it was for much of the 20th century for random ordinary people who weren't members of established mass media organizations to broadcast…

gems and turds. The far right consipiracy stuff was filtered out, likewise the neonazi/technocracy stuff (and yes, there is clear historical links between technocracy and nazi idologies, see the history of Joshua Norman Haldeman (1902–1974), the American-born Canadian maternal grandfather of Elon Musk, and why they moved to South Africa)

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#125

Post by ninalanyon »

pmontra wrote: post #100
chungy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on one's definition of dictatorship. I personally do not believe, for instance, the British Crown is one such instance.

The British Crown had to concede some rights centuries ago, or there would have been civil wars and probably no more crown. Dear Leaders are the ones that don't have to concede anything, yet.

> or there would have been civil wars

Would have been? There were.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#126

Post by kavalg »

kleiba wrote: post #72

> those controlling the government kept themselves in power bybrute force, by distorting the truth, by continually rewriting history, by mesmerising the people generally Sound familiar?

> Computers and tyranny do not necessarily go hand in hand.

... but the latter may greatly benefit from the former

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#127

Post by itsalwaysgood »

riazrizvi wrote: post #29
hleszek wrote: post #8

This is still so relevant now: > This Orwellian preoccupation with the minutiae of 'historical proof' is typical of the political sectarian who is always quoting what has been said and done in the past to prove a point to someone on the other side who is always quoting something to the opposite effect that has been said and done. As any politician knows, no evidence of any kind is ever required. It is only necessary…

Relevant because it's universal human nature, to only have domain over a narrow context in life, and assert what's good/bad based on that limited view with others who occupy a different one. We use justifications which make sense to us that others rightly disagree with. It's not left politics, it's not right politics, it's not just politics, it's everything. Anyone who asserts they are beyond it are full of it.

That isn't human nature at all, that is a feature of our economy.

The human nature bit is that we are inclined to follow conviction: belief in an idea. And if someone says something with conviction, whether true or not, our first instinct is to believe them, maybe even trust them.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#128

Post by srean »

dotancohen wrote: post #121
srean wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These so called right leaning people were, in the recent past, crying themselves hoarse that they have all the right and moral prerogative to carry arms at a protest.

Having the right to do something does not make it safe. Americans have the right to carry a pistol. But carrying a pistol while heckling police officers and touching a police officer who is performing their duty, sounds deadly to me. Can we agree that the deceased had a right to carry a pistol? Can we agree that the deceased had been heckling police officers? Can we agree that the deceased had touched a police office…

A 'right' in this context by definition means government (agencied) will not persecute you for the activity protected by this right. If that's not the case you don't have the right at all, period.

Note though, I do not agree with this particular right (that of bearing arms, visibly so, at a protest), but the so called right leaning people are very enamored by this one and were very vocal about it just yesterday. Suddenly those same people seem to be equivocating about it now.

The people who were supportive of bringing assault rifles to contentious public rallies are now falling over themselves to blame Alex Pretti.

Touching a 'police officer' had nothing to do with the killing. Had he touched his own behind the same thing could have transpired. What killed him is the political support for ICE to be beyond accountability and the license for violence.

In this atmosphere anyone killed by ICE is automatically a homegrown terrorist, if by nothing else, by presidential fiat.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#129

Post by srean »

dotancohen wrote: post #122
CamperBob2 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be using the terms "left leaning person" and "right leaning person" when you actually mean "normal people" and "sociopaths." Left and right have nothing to do with it.

So you consider people with different values then you sociopaths? You sound very intolerant.

Depends on what those values are. Epstein had different values than I do.

I don't think parent commenter is saying that leaning right is sociopathic, but that some people try to pass their sociopathy as a simple act of being right leaning.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#130

Post by CamperBob2 »

dotancohen wrote: post #122
CamperBob2 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be using the terms "left leaning person" and "right leaning person" when you actually mean "normal people" and "sociopaths." Left and right have nothing to do with it.

So you consider people with different values then you sociopaths? You sound very intolerant.

Yes. Karl Popper's 'Paradox of Tolerance' applies. TL,DR: tolerating intolerance turns out to be a bad idea.

Glancing at your user page, this should be an exercise in preaching to the choir. You do understand that the only reason the Republicans in the US support Israel is because embracing fundamentalist Christian eschatology gets them votes they don't have to work for. Right?

Post reply on HN