311–320 of 600 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
Interesting the way that you group "not very smart" and "girlfriendless" with "delivery rider" as if being a gig worker makes you some kind of undesirable loser. Nice casual elitism.
So, there's a lot to be said about Hitler and fascism and propaganda and all the other fascinating topics Orwell brings up here, but I'd just like to point out how routinely excellent Orwell's analysis is. Of course I mostly see the best bits brought out and dusted off, no doubt he did mediocre stuff as well, but it is worth noticing how often it turns out that Orwell, nearly a century on, still has plenty in his wri…
Any recommendations for other writings and analyses by Orwell?
- Why I write [1]
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I-FfrkGiWQ
[1]: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer to this is sports. War is competition through violence. When you remove the violence you get peaceful competition. It satisfies the tribal urge to fight things different than you, but also encourages healthy behaviors. Respect for your opponent. Accepting loss. Recognizing your weaknesses and working to improve them.
I'm with you in the abstract, but where I live there's toxic culture around sports that made it unpalatable for me as a kid. Back then what turned me off was belligerent parents on the sidelines yelling at the children, but the symptoms actually go way beyond that one little thing. (Conflating excellence with dominance is another example.)
It may be that some level of toxic behavior is inescapable when humans release their tribal competition instinct. And if team sports is construed as a war-replacement, perhaps it is a better (though not perfect) mechanism to absorb that toxicity.
Maybe there are better-still options to absorb tribal toxicity, bit I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, usually you get the cult of war and cult of sports together as a bundle.
Do people regularly mass murder each other over sports? Because that's the stakes we're talking about here in context. Brawling and screaming over a sport is much preferred to bombing and poisoning.
Orwell omitted a few details: Hitler never had a majority in the Reichstag/german parliament - he benefited from the enmity between the Social democrats and the Communist. I mean a popular front, like in France of 1936 would have stopped them. The German soial dems and communist were mortal enemies, because the social dems shot a lot of communists in the aftermath of the Kapp putsch. Also Hitler had the massive suppo…
The fact remains that Fascism, Hitler, and Nazism was popular and that was key to achieving power . This is essay is about that. Why, despite promising burdens and hardship, was Fascism popular. It just isn't about electoral tactics, negative politics or such. I'm sure he would have conceded the point that any given elections could have been determined by such tactics.
I agree with Orwell. The tactical-electoral subject isn't really that interesting, even if it is/was consequential. The point about promising voters burdens, hardship, & "military virtues" is interesting.
For example, I think this gives us clues about Russian communism's decline (also in the West, ideologically) after Stalin.
^Also I doubt Orwell was against "popular front politics." (a) I've read a lot of Orwell and can't recall any statement that suggests this and (b) Orwell himself volunteered in a communist militia against fascism. He himself was a socialist. If you're willing to join a communist militia to fight fascism, surely you'd be OK with joined ticket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer to this is sports. War is competition through violence. When you remove the violence you get peaceful competition. It satisfies the tribal urge to fight things different than you, but also encourages healthy behaviors. Respect for your opponent. Accepting loss. Recognizing your weaknesses and working to improve them.
> The answer to this is sports. War is competition through violence. Absolutely not. Sports is competition through violence, as well. Watch a game of American football, or ice hockey, or basketball for that matter and be able to say otherwise with a straight face. The answer is cooperative, not competitive, activities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer to this is sports. War is competition through violence. When you remove the violence you get peaceful competition. It satisfies the tribal urge to fight things different than you, but also encourages healthy behaviors. Respect for your opponent. Accepting loss. Recognizing your weaknesses and working to improve them.
> The answer to this is sports. War is competition through violence. Absolutely not. Sports is competition through violence, as well. Watch a game of American football, or ice hockey, or basketball for that matter and be able to say otherwise with a straight face. The answer is cooperative, not competitive, activities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always thought of Wall Street and what goes on there to be our substitute for war.
Big Law too
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> aspiring elites who viewed themselves as oppressed losers out of a misguided sense of entitlement. Yep, sounds like the disaffected white males who kill others or themselves in droves, despite often having better conditions than (less aspirant/entitled) non-white males.
If you honestly reflect on your comment, do you see anything wrong with it? When I read it, I got very angry at what I perceive to be pointed racism. But I'd like to try to step away from that and instead of lashing out, to understand your perspective more. Would you mind explaining your thinking a bit more?
p.s. I am aware that suicide is not a function solely of material circumstance (and material circumstance relative to other people's)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this counts as Godwin's law given the context, but: What exactly is your solution to the sort of naked aggression by Hitler in WW2? Is war not a solution to that problem?
Lets translate your question. What exactly is your solution to the sort of [war] by Hitler in [war]. Is war not a solution to [war]?