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

131–140 of 186 posts

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#131

Post by CamperBob2 »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #71
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.

Yep, no rational argument can be used to make you (or me) see the same movie.

List the rational arguments in favor of the so-called "right-leaning" point of view (OP's term, not mine) with respect to the Pretti killing. Spoiler: there are no such arguments, effective or otherwise. To apologists it looks like a Rorschach test; to normal people it looks like a snuff film, brought to us by the same studio that is now distributing child pornography.

Meanwhile, it's possible to favor free enterprise, (genuinely) smaller government, low taxes, free trade, and other so-called "right-leaning" perspectives without joining a slack-jawed personality cult that demands that you deny the evidence of your own eyes.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#132

Post by CamperBob2 »

snayan wrote: post #116
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.

The sociopaths you refer to see themselves as the normal people and you as the sociopath.

(Shrug) Nobody thinks they're the bad guys, including the actual bad guys.

As usual, it's not hard to tell who the bad guys are: they're the ones who initiate violence.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#133

Post by red-iron-pine »

squarefoot wrote: post #98
riffraff wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Trump and his administration also prove what GP is saying. Few care about the truth. Trump states obvious lies so blatant ("prices will go down 200%") that anyone who cares could tell they are untruth without needing to look up any paper trail, but it does not matter. Mike Johnson just quoted St Paul as saying you should respect the authority forgetting that the Romans beheaded him . And it's not like the Bible i…

People is kept away from details by shortening their attention span with the production of continuous pervasive stimuli. Regarding Trump, when he does something apparently stupid (on behalf of the rich people pulling his strings, let's never forget this) he's just forcing the media and people consuming them to start talking about the next event without further exploring more important ones.

put another way, they don't care about history because every economic actor in the economy is trying to keep them distracted -- so that they don't learn the history

the goal is to keep keep em poor, distracted, and angry

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#134

Post by pcf »

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…

Because it's timeless, not just "relevant now".

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#135

Post by ahartmetz »

whizzter wrote: post #120
kergonath wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just gate keeping. How hard does science fiction have to be in order to be considered worthwhile? Why does it matter?

Asimov's sci-fi has both hard and soft parts (especially his later works). The main thing is that Asimov was more of a bright person(mensa member and professor) and good at making conjectures about development based on technology and it's impact on humans, rather than a great writer per-se (there's some famous interview from the 70s that makes a fair bit of things that weren't obvious at the time). Like how he immedi…

About feasibility, did Asimov even read the book properly? I remember quite well that telescreens were not permanently watched, but that wasn't necessary because the consequences of getting caught with "wrongthink" were terrible.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#136

Post by expedition32 »

willis936 wrote: post #112
globular-toast wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read books because I enjoy them. I enjoy reading about hot 20 year olds and big breasted women in space actually. Women are allowed to have 50 Shades , I'm allowed to enjoy books too.

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.

Writers are part of the world they live in.

Take Dune. After the third book it gets weird. But Herbert was a white man in the 1970s- ofcourse the books become degenerate and druggie.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#137

Post by lijf »

” As a matter of fact, political obfuscation has tended to use many words rather than few, long words rather than short, to extend rather than to reduce. Every leader of inadequate education or limited intelligence hides behind exuberant inebriation of loquacity.”

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#138

Post by genewitch »

drivers99 wrote: post #11
bitwize wrote: post #3

"1984? Yeah, RIGHT, man, that's a typo. Orwell's here now and he's living large. We have no names, man, no names. We are NAMELESS. Can I score a fry?" —Cereal Killer, Hackers , whose words ring even more true today even as we watch tech billionaires attempt to build an all-watchful god in silico

Right before that, he says, "FYI man, alright. You could sit at home, and do like absolutely nothing, and your name goes through like 17 computers a day." Whenever I rewatch that movie, I think 17 is a tiny number compared to today. Probably 17,000+ now.

if you google your name (or handle, every hacker needs a handle, man...) it goes through double that, if memory serves (i might be off by a factor of 10 either side...)

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#139

Post by banku_brougham »

He makes a lot of great points, but I vaguely feel he missed the point of the book. I guess he "just couldn't like get into it man."

>In fact, in one of the more laughable parts of the book, he goes on and on concerning the necessity of permanent war as a means of consuming the world's production of resources and thus keeping the social stratification of upper, middle, and lower classes in being.

Re: Review of 1984 by Isaac Asimov (1980)

#140

Post by riazrizvi »

itsalwaysgood wrote: post #127
riazrizvi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm often baffled by how people online find a tone of disagreement to agree with people.
Post reply on HN