Hillary Clinton believes 1984 is about loving the government, and other sick musings from her book.. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14843506
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/13/hilla ... and-media/

The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, ex-perts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.


This is what she thinks the section of the novel where O'brien tortures Smith into believing 2 + 2 = 5(or whatever else the party wants it to equal) is about.

Man, she is a fucking idiot.

To those who haven't read it, that part of the novel is about how all political parties brainwash individuals, often by force and often by subliminal means and should never be blindly trusted. The teaching Orwell imparts onto the reader is in fact the exact fucking opposite of what she said. Never trust anyone in a position of control over you. They will lie to you, spy on you and fuck with your psychology.

This kindof explains the Clintons and their legacy in a way. They have no idea what "Orwellian" means at all. She doesn't even remember the name of the characters in the book.

Anyone else find any other weird shit in her obviously unedited book? Apart from the "blame everyone else for my loss" stuff.
#14843510
In fairness, this is exactly the same mistake that conservatives make when attempting to force the writings of a revolutionary socialist that fought in a Trotskyist militia to break capitalism into an endorsement of Ann Coulter.
#14843513
Oh fuck yeah, one of my favorite things: colliric posting an article and self-immolating.

It's pretty clear the quote the Daily Caller is citing is being taken out of context and part of a larger conversation rather than an analysis of 1984. I mean look how much effort they put into it: there's a link to the Amazon store page as citation and it's four paragraphs long, just long enough to keep colliric's attention. Also, there's a helpful link to the 1984 Wikipedia page just in case you don't know there's both a book AND a year. Wouldn't want people getting confused during this deep dive into an important issue.

What I'm saying is that The Daily Caller's business model is basically: idiots write garbage for morons, and it looks like their business model is working in this case.

Just so you can see the mental caliber of the kind of people who write for the Daily Caller, here's a fun interview where NPR reporter Bob Garfield staples Scott Greer's balls to the wall while asking him about his article on Khizr Khan, the immigration attorney who spoke at the DNC.
#14843517
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ers-press/

Secondary source then.

You can argue it was a quick reference and she obviously hasn't read the book since College... But if so why didn't her editors pick up on this obvious blunder? Answer: The book probably was rushed or Hillary didn't leave the editors alone.
#14843521
Apart from the "blame everyone else for my loss" stuff.


This is the silliest claim about the book. People who spout it reveal themselves to have gotten all their information about it from places like the daily caller.

I doubt most on PoFo actually care but this discussion had an analysis of the book that more or less lines up with my thoughts so far.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is ... -she-lost/

As for the quote, taking a line out of context is a stupid way to critique a book.

Outside the questionable interpretation of that line her point is pretty well founded, and a very common critique of the Trump administration and it's alternative fact nonsense. Calling the administration orwellian is hardly some super controversial point.
#14843530
colliric wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/14/hillary-clinton-lesson-1984-trust-leaders-press/

Secondary source then.

You can argue it was a quick reference and she obviously hasn't read the book since College... But if so why didn't her editors pick up on this obvious blunder? Answer: The book probably was rushed or Hillary didn't leave the editors alone.


I wasn't questioning the fact that the quote is real, I was laughing at the"read the headline of an article and get enraged about it" thing you do. Citing another four paragraph article (which didn't even have helpful links to Amazon or Wikipedia btw) by a different idiot doesn't refute my previous post.
#14843550
Do you have any actual rebuttal for the counter arguments presented or just tweets from your echo chamber?

Knowing you, you will only spam random people on the internet who agree with you and avoid any real debate or discussion on the issue.
#14843555
I suppose it's good that Hillary got 2 out of 3 three things right, that the torture Winston undergoes is, in fact, meant to not simply break him, but to make him accept that whatever the Party says is reality as it is, regardless of if it's logical. I don't know how she can be so wrong about the third point... *Electric shocks @mikema63 and waves four fingers in front of his face*
#14843569
mikema63 wrote:I'm more than willing to admit the interpretation is... odd. I said it was questionable a few posts ago after all.

But as Tig said, she's not the first or last person to not quite get Orwell.


There are all kinds of misreadings of 1984. The worst are the people who get it but then use it as some sort of ideological playbook.
#14843583
I hate the Shillbag, but what she seems to be saying is that the book's narrative is very critical of the government to a point of non-reality. This for a reader creates mistrust for the government unnecessarily. In the end what I gather from the quote, she says this is counterproductive.

I actually agree with her to a large degree. Although modern "progressivism" that she believes in, ironically, is exactly that, 2+2=5. Not as dystopian as in the book. But nevertheless ideologically driven fanaticism and cruel non-sense.
#14843649
Europeans just shipped 1 million of migrants into their continent with open arms. Americans are not the only ones who were doped into nonsense.

On top of that Macron was elected in France and Germans are on their way to reelect Markel. It seems only the Brits have some sort of sense left in Europe, atm.
#14843655
The Immortal Goon wrote:In fairness, this is exactly the same mistake that conservatives make when attempting to force the writings of a revolutionary socialist that fought in a Trotskyist militia to break capitalism into an endorsement of Ann Coulter.

The Poum was not a Trotskyist milita. It was formed from ex-Trotskyists who broke decisively with Trotsky to unite with Bukharinists.
#14843711
Rich wrote:The Poum was not a Trotskyist milita. It was formed from ex-Trotskyists who broke decisively with Trotsky to unite with Bukharinists.


If you're feeling sad feelings about me calling you out on the last shitty argument that you had to completely give up on, that's how your precious victim feels are oriented.

If you actually want to debate the conception of Trotskyis and Andres Nin, then I must point out that I'm not going to let you whine about how sad you are. Same as always.

So back to irrelevance until you can't hold your blubbering in any longer.

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]