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

George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

openculture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–648 of 648 posts

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#641

Post by nyolfen »

legodt wrote: post #612
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their smaller number does mean they can expect mass propaganda to target mass audiences, and that they have to speak up for their own interests to be heard. I don't go around complaining that every single non-Jewish progressive or leftist demonstration has somehow failed to include Jews simply because I don't see a Magen David on most signs about racism.

The symbol perpetuated a continued trend of trans-exclusion, in your example it would be as if people selected to march under the symbol of crosses when protesting on behalf of all religions. I am astounded by the negativity my comments have received for relaying long standing tensions and issues in the transgender community on relation to mainstream feminism. It's as if any time you ask the community here to look at…

assuming some better symbol could be presented as an alternative hat, what issue is solved by using those hats? what material condition is improved for trans people? the self esteem of some of the more histrionic ones?

it's a non-issue, you're using it as a bludgeon for status by virtue signaling.

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#642

Post by azernik »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #579
azernik wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my (quite far-left) perspective, I would be very okay with that outcome. The Presidency's most unchecked power is in foreign policy, where Trump truly scares me. Pence as President would not change the balance of power in Congress, which is where most of the social and economic decisions (where I really have problems with Pence) would be made. Putting on my non-partisan hat, though, I am nervous about the preced…

>Putting on my non-partisan hat, though, I am nervous about the precedent of removing a president from office iff it is seen as a partisan move. The removal of Trump without widespread Republican support (as opposed to a small defecting faction) might be seen as precedent for a higher frequency of partisan impeachments - a danger to be weighed against (in my not-very-objective opinion) the dangers of a Trump presiden…

Unilateral disarmament is not a good idea, but neither is escalation.

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#643

Post by [deleted] »

flukus wrote: post #619
knieveltech wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chance has nothing to do with it. I've intentionally sought out the groups that I follow and the people I socialize with.

Just don't look surprised if Trump gets re-elected. And don't pretend to know what his voters interests are.

[deleted]

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#644

Post by Arizhel »

bzbarsky wrote: post #637
Arizhel wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that didn't get much exposure in the west. I've never even heard of it. Also, this isn't to say that the rest of the world was doing great either; lots of other 3rd-world places were surely having a hard time too. But the question is, were they having an unusually hard time during the 90s, or was that normal for them? In former Yugoslavia, it was abnormal: before that they had stability behind the Iron Curtain,…

The death toll numbering in the millions was pretty abnormal for the region, yes.

Huh? According to Wikipedia, only roughly 140,000 people died during that 10-year period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars

Still a horrific number, but one or two orders of magnitude fewer than "millions". There were millions displaced though.

Edit: I'll also add that that number (140k) is far less than the number of Rwandans killed during their 1994 genocide, and in Rwanda's case that happened in just a few days IIRC, not over a multi-year period.

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#645

Post by Arizhel »

fnl wrote: post #631
Arizhel wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting comic, but I'd like to point out that becoming a society concerned with triviality is nothing new. Just look at the crap they were watching on TV in the 50s and 60s. And even if you go back in time to before TVs, there was plenty of crap that people occupied themselves with. It's just a lot easier now since so many of us no longer have to struggle just to survive every day. Wishing for the enti…

Which begs the question: Is modern's "occupied with crap" better, equal, or worse than the ancient "struggle to survive"? While in the measurable numbers game, the world certainly has become a better place (less child deaths, more literacy, longer life expectancy etc.), the actual question to ask oneself is if those numbers indeed are good proxies for a "better" world or life. Is living longer, assisted by mechanical…

I really don't think there's any way to easily answer this. So much depends on the particular person (and who you're comparing them to) and their particular circumstances, plus your own perspective and your own values which are subjective.

I do think you have factual errors here though. We are not "working more hours than ever before in history". That is blatantly wrong. Go back 100 years and look at what lower-class people put up with: there was no such thing as a "weekend" or a 40-hour work week; those are relatively new inventions. Factory workers in America in the early 20th century had truly horrible lives and working conditions, including horribly long hours (not to mention child labor). We have more free time now than ever, in general (unless you're comparing to some privileged rich person in the past), though it's probably not changed that much over the last 50 years since we standardized on 40-hour work weeks. There's definitely pockets of society that aren't doing that great, working 2 jobs, etc., but that's not unusual; there's always been people on the fringe like that. I really think you're comparing modern life to some kind of rose-tinted and false romantic vision of the past as portrayed in fiction.

Are we happier? Who knows. I think that for much of the population, there wasn't much time to worry about that in the past 100+ years ago, nor did they live all that long due to disease and poor health. Now we have more freedom to contemplate these things.

This doesn't mean we couldn't use more free time, plus a way of freeing ourselves from financial strain which I do believe causes a lot of that antidepressant use. How much of our activities are shaped by financial pressure to "keep up with the Joneses" (or to stay in "nice" neighborhoods)?

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#646

Post by masondixon »

pg314 wrote: post #503
masondixon wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[2] Talk is cheap. Honestly, what do you think is going to happen? And in 4 years when we look back, if it doesn't happen - what will you think? [3] How is it a lie? > is losing thousands of subscribers You interpret this as net subscriber count to suit your narrative. Now if the NYT lost subscribers during the election which they almost certainly did then the first part of the statement is literally correct. Now the…

> [2] Talk is cheap. Honestly, what do you think is going to happen? And in 4 years when we look back, if it doesn't happen - what will you think? You think it is ok for a presidential candidate to make those statements? Do you know of any other democratically elected leaders making those statements? You do not think this could have a chilling effect on the free press? > So if 1000 people left because of poor coverag…

> You do not think this could have a chilling effect on the free press?

I personally do not think it will. And I don't think anyone can make that argument that is has as of yet.

But if it does, what objective measures can we point to, to say that it has?

> You assume it is literally correct, after admitting that there is no evidence for it.

No hard evidence. But are you going to make the argument that 1000 ppl did not leave NYT over the course of the campaign. No, its a pretty reasonable churn rate for a newspaper.

Did they leave because of poor coverage? I personally noticed the coverage deteriorate, and tracking the sentiment against the NYT from Twitter, Reddit, etc. I believe this statement to be true. Am I certain of it. No. But do we need hard evidence of everything we say? No. Only if it matters. And this, simply does not matter. The question is would you hold a similar statement by Hillary or Obama with to the same standard. Depends what side of politics you are on.

> A literally correct statement can still be a lie.

If you had 100% proof (voice recording) that someone knew something, and then they stated publicly that they didn't, what do you call this? I would call it a lie.

Calling everything else a lie that cannot be proved is like the boy crying wolf. The word loses its meaning and is less effective at pointing out proven lies which both sides of politics could agree on. The left likes to cry wolf a lot over sexism, racism, etc. These words are almost meaningless now - whilst there are still proper racists in the world.

> Can you agree that saying the NYT is losing thousands of subscribers without saying they are at the same time gaining 41,000 net new subscribers is misleading?

They could be gaining 41K left wing supporters while losing moderates. Personally, I feel that they are losing a lot of moderates and republicans, and accruing a new base of progressive leftists because the paper has headlines that they agree with and don't want to question. So I don't think its misleading. It can be read as saying that the Times reader base is shifting, and the people who are reading it now are just looking for something to confirm their narrative. So in this scenario, net numbers don't matter so much. You can agree or disagree with that, but all I am arguing is that using lie is too strong and if you call everything a lie it has no meaning anymore.

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#647

Post by dllthomas »

int_19h wrote: post #213
azernik wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't who enforces the constitution; it's what the constitution says . Congress has the power to decide which emoluments are okay. Assuming parent comment's interpretation of the law is correct (which it may not be), Congress has given blanket permission, in the same way that it has historically signed away large parts of its Constitutional war-making powers to the executive.

Congress hasn't given blanket permission. The law says that it's illegal for certain government officials to accept gifts etc. It doesn't say anything about whether it's legal for the president to accept them; it merely says that the president is not within the scope of that particular law.

There is an argument that the spelling out of cases in which it would be illegal implies that they're okay with it in other cases. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule...

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#648

Post by fnl »

Arizhel wrote: post #645
fnl wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which begs the question: Is modern's "occupied with crap" better, equal, or worse than the ancient "struggle to survive"? While in the measurable numbers game, the world certainly has become a better place (less child deaths, more literacy, longer life expectancy etc.), the actual question to ask oneself is if those numbers indeed are good proxies for a "better" world or life. Is living longer, assisted by mechanical…

I really don't think there's any way to easily answer this. So much depends on the particular person (and who you're comparing them to) and their particular circumstances, plus your own perspective and your own values which are subjective. I do think you have factual errors here though. We are not "working more hours than ever before in history". That is blatantly wrong. Go back 100 years and look at what lower-class…

Re. work hours; Right, the Industrial Revolution had quite many work hours, possibly even "peak" hours for some regions, particularly central Europe and the US. However, prior to that, research says "we" worked less than "we" do today [1]. But yes, 1880s were probably peak "worst-time", apart from some notorious companies today :-). And, work-hours should be compared and considered globally, not just the niceties that are found in some parts of Europe, maybe. I think many industrial (slave-) workers in Asian countries like China can be assumed to work far more than what they did when they were farmers or hunter-gatherers or whatever prior society they had, and probably work even more than the workers of the Industrial Revolution, too. So I really think you are comparing German and French minimalist work hours to the "Western-world" worst case, the Industrial Revolution ~150 years ago, without actually contemplating either a global view or considering other times.

Re. being happier; Again, if you try to look back more than 100-200 years ago, things seem to have been quite different otherwise. Just take the Greek philosophers, for examples. They would not have flourished without "time to think", one might argue. Also, is that modern slave-worker in a Chinese factory really happier than his great grandfather was 100 ago? Thinking globally, I think there is enough evidence we might be unhappier than ever - mostly, thanks to globalization...

[1] https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...

Post reply on HN