1984 Doublespeak and Newspeak

[steve_bank]

Orwellian Double Speak. In 1984 the govt controlled the vocabulary reducing it to the point that counter arguments became hard to frame.

We are seeing 1984 manifest with Trump and Putin.

Doublespeak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs and "servicing the target" for bombing),[1] in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth.

Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language.[2][3]

The word is comparable to George Orwell's Newspeak and Doublethink as used in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four, though the term Doublespeak does not appear there.[4]

Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate that is the setting of the 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell. In the novel, the Party created Newspeak[1]: 309  to meet the ideological requirements of Ingsoc (English Socialism) in Oceania. Newspeak is a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual's ability to think and articulate "subversive" concepts such as personal identity, self-expression and free will.[2] Such concepts are criminalized as thoughtcrime since they contradict the prevailing Ingsoc orthodoxy.[3][4]

In "The Principles of Newspeak", the appendix to the novel, Orwell explains that Newspeak follows most of the rules of English grammar, yet is a language characterised by a continually diminishing vocabulary; complete thoughts are reduced to simple terms of simplistic meaning. The political contractions of Newspeak—Ingsoc (English Socialism), Minitrue (Ministry of Truth), Miniplenty (Ministry of Plenty)—are described by Orwell as similar to real examples of German and Russian contractions in the 20th century. Like Nazi (Nationalsozialist), Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei), politburo (Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), Comintern (Communist International), kolkhoz (collective farm), and Komsomol (Young Communists' League), the contractions in Newspeak, often syllabic abbreviations, are supposed to have a political function already in virtue of their abbreviated structure itself: nice sounding and easily pronounceable, their purpose is to mask all ideological content from the speaker.[1]: 310–8 

The word "Newspeak" is sometimes used in contemporary political debate as an allegation that one tries to introduce new meanings of words to suit one's agenda.[5][6]

Doublethink is a process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in contravention to one's own memories or sense of reality.[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy.

George Orwell coined the term doublethink (as part of the fictional language of Newspeak) in his 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.[2] In the novel, its origins within the citizenry is unclear; while it could be partly a product of Big Brother's formal brainwashing programs,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink#cite_note-3 the novel explicitly shows people learning doublethink and Newspeak due to peer pressure and a desire to "fit in," or gain status within the Party—to be seen as a loyal Party Member. In the novel, for someone to even recognize—let alone mention—any contradiction within the context of the Party line is akin to blasphemy, and could subject that person to disciplinary action and the instant social disapproval of fellow Party Members.[citation needed]

Like many aspects of the dystopian societies reflected in Orwell's writings, Orwell considered doublethink to be a feature of Soviet-style totalitarianism.[3]

 

[Trausti]

Kinda like some want to redefine the word “woman.”

 

[Angry Floof]

Kinda like some want to redefine the word “woman.”

Non sequitur. You're referring to something that applies to individuals, and is their choice, and is none of your fucking business to begin with, and it hurts no one.

There's literally no harm that could possibly come to you or future generations or anyone due to some people calling themselves a woman. There's quite a lot of harm done and will continue to be done to society in general as long as we allow politicians, corporations, marketers, and media to dictate how we talk about issues and problems.

"Look at this wonderful story of how people came together to help someone in their community who didn't have access to healthcare (or to decent work with a living wage or any number of things) and paid her bills!"

How about: The only reason they had to help her is because we don't live in a society that wants to take care of people. Apparently, we just want to take care of corporations and the wealthy, who would lose nothing by paying more taxes. Oh, and we want to punish and marginalize trans people for no good reason.

 

[Jarhyn]

Kinda like some want to redefine the word “woman.”

Non sequitur. You're referring to something that applies to individuals, and is their choice, and is none of your fucking business to begin with, and it hurts no one.

There's literally no harm that could possibly come to you or future generations or anyone due to some people calling themselves a woman. There's quite a lot of harm done and will continue to be done to society in general as long as we allow politicians, corporations, marketers, and media to dictate how we talk about issues and problems.

"Look at this wonderful story of how people came together to help someone in their community who didn't have access to healthcare (or to decent work with a living wage or any number of things) and paid her bills!"

How about: The only reason they had to help her is because we don't live in a society that wants to take care of people. Apparently, we just want to take care of corporations and the wealthy, who would lose nothing by paying more taxes. Oh, and we want to punish and marginalize trans people for no good reason.

In many regards, it is doublethink on display here, as the original gripe seems to be an intent to use NewSpeak to make it impossible to address concepts of social identity free of revelations of genital identity and then reverse the accusations.

 

[steve_bank]

I thought it would be appropriate to bring up 1984 and language given the propaganda environment.

I think it applies to culture.

Conservatives complained that the word marriage normally used to put a stamp of approval on a hetero relationship was redefined to include gay relationships. A new word could have been coined like 'gayridge', but expanding the meaning of marriage gives legitimacy.

Controlling the vocabulary controls thought.

Sometime back the DOD began using the term 'kinetic action'. Instead of an attack dropping bombs, it is a kinetic action. Post WWII the Dept Of War became the Dept Of Defense.

Doublethink, newspwek, and doublespeak abound everywhere.

Language is becoming reduced to simplistic expressions.

 

[Metaphor]

Non sequitur. You're referring to something that applies to individuals, and is their choice, and is none of your fucking business to begin with, and it hurts no one.

Of course it hurts people. The men who want the word 'woman' to apply to them also want access to single-sex spaces that have been created for women.

Of course, for the definition of 'woman' to be changed, the gender cultists need to come up with a non-circular definition of 'woman', and I've never seen them do that.

 

[Metaphor]

Kinda like some want to redefine the word “woman.”

Non sequitur. You're referring to something that applies to individuals, and is their choice, and is none of your fucking business to begin with, and it hurts no one.

There's literally no harm that could possibly come to you or future generations or anyone due to some people calling themselves a woman. There's quite a lot of harm done and will continue to be done to society in general as long as we allow politicians, corporations, marketers, and media to dictate how we talk about issues and problems.

"Look at this wonderful story of how people came together to help someone in their community who didn't have access to healthcare (or to decent work with a living wage or any number of things) and paid her bills!"

How about: The only reason they had to help her is because we don't live in a society that wants to take care of people. Apparently, we just want to take care of corporations and the wealthy, who would lose nothing by paying more taxes. Oh, and we want to punish and marginalize trans people for no good reason.

In many regards, it is doublethink on display here, as the original gripe seems to be an intent to use NewSpeak to make it impossible to address concepts of social identity free of revelations of genital identity and then reverse the accusations.

Genitals don't have identities.

 

[Angry Floof]

Non sequitur. You're referring to something that applies to individuals, and is their choice, and is none of your fucking business to begin with, and it hurts no one.

Of course it hurts people. The men who want the word 'woman' to apply to them also want access to single-sex spaces that have been created for women.

Of course, for the definition of 'woman' to be changed, the gender cultists need to come up with a non-circular definition of 'woman', and I've never seen them do that.

Still not causing harm. There's more danger of Republicans sneaking into a women's room and molesting other people than a trans woman. A trans man going into a men's room is in more danger of being bothered by someone in a public rest room. You really took that dog whistle and ran with it.

Try to recognize and value your own humanity. Then you might be able to recognize and value others outside of your in-group. You'll also be doing your cardiovascular system a favor.

 

[Metaphor]

Non sequitur. You're referring to something that applies to individuals, and is their choice, and is none of your fucking business to begin with, and it hurts no one.

Of course it hurts people. The men who want the word 'woman' to apply to them also want access to single-sex spaces that have been created for women.

Of course, for the definition of 'woman' to be changed, the gender cultists need to come up with a non-circular definition of 'woman', and I've never seen them do that.

Still not causing harm. There's more danger of Republicans sneaking into a women's room and molesting other people than a trans woman.

Trans women are men. They cause harm every time they go into a woman's space and pretend to be women. They cause harm every time they compete as if they were women in women's sports. They cause harm every time they demand others participate in their fantasies. And because trans women are men, they are as likely to be sexual offenders as any other man.

A trans man going into a men's room is in more danger of being bothered by someone in a public rest room. You really took that dog whistle and ran with it.

A trans man is a woman, and men are not excessively harmed by women showing up in their restrooms, although it is quite distasteful. Women, however, have their psychological and physical safety compromised every time a man shows up in their space.

 

[Angry Floof]

Non sequitur. You're referring to something that applies to individuals, and is their choice, and is none of your fucking business to begin with, and it hurts no one.

Of course it hurts people. The men who want the word 'woman' to apply to them also want access to single-sex spaces that have been created for women.

Of course, for the definition of 'woman' to be changed, the gender cultists need to come up with a non-circular definition of 'woman', and I've never seen them do that.

Still not causing harm. There's more danger of Republicans sneaking into a women's room and molesting other people than a trans woman.

Trans women are men. They cause harm every time they go into a woman's space and pretend to be women. They cause harm every time they compete as if they were women in women's sports. They cause harm every time they demand others participate in their fantasies. And because trans women are men, they are as likely to be sexual offenders as any other man.

A trans man going into a men's room is in more danger of being bothered by someone in a public rest room. You really took that dog whistle and ran with it.

A trans man is a woman, and men are not excessively harmed by women showing up in their restrooms, although it is quite distasteful. Women, however, have their psychological and physical safety compromised every time a man shows up in their space.

Trans people are human beings. You should ask more women than what you find in a white supremacist group how they feel about trans women. The majority of us do not feel threatened.

If a man dresses up like a woman to go into ladies rooms for the purpose of violence or sex crimes, then that is not a trans woman. (In fact, that sounds exactly like something we'd hear about a Republican congressman doing.)

If you come to find your value and worth as a human being, you might be able to see the value and worth in trans people and lighten up on them and your cardiovascular system.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sometime back the DOD began using the term 'kinetic action'. Instead of an attack dropping bombs, it is a kinetic action.

Kinetic Actions are distinct from Orbital Jewish Space Laser attacks. It would include dropping bombs, but also dropping non-explosive shells. Or putting non-nuclear crowbars on the tips of our missiles and having those come in at reentry velocity.
But distinct from energy based weapons using sound or light, or cyber attacks with no moving parts, or psyops.

It's not doublespeak, it's taxonomy. Tech advances and so do our options.

And i would not classify 'Dept. of Defense' as doublespeak. You still think of guys in uniform with guns. Just now, waiting for the Other Guy to start the fight...(Maybe leaning out, chin-forward, saying 'I dare you, sissy!' under their breath.).

Doublespeak would be if they made it part of the state department, called it something like Under-Bureau of Final Diplomatic Options (From the aphorism that was is failed diplomacy).
Or the General Retirement Coordination Agency, since so much procurement seems connected to post-service careers...

 

[steve_bank]

One of the best modern examples is the change from illegal immigrants to undocumented immigrants implying a legal immigration status or if not legal 'not illegal'..

 

[Keith&Co.]

One of the best modern examples is the change from illegal immigrants to undocumented immigrants implying a legal immigration status or if not legal 'not illegal'..

Is that language trying to change minds or language trying to catch up wiht minds that have already changed?
I think the change reflects a desire that already exists, in decriminalizing human life in dire straits.

 

[Jarhyn]

One of the best modern examples is the change from illegal immigrants to undocumented immigrants implying a legal immigration status or if not legal 'not illegal'..

I disagree. It is recognition that a "person" cannot be "illegal".

It is a tightening of language.
Immigrant is a subset of "person types"
A immigrant can be undocumented.
Being undocumented is an illegal act.
An illegal act doesn't make the person themselves "illegal".
This means that at best you get to "Immigrant who has committed illegal acts".

I get that it can be tempting to shorten that, but to do it the way you wish hadn't been corrected is to label the person themselves illegal lexically, inappropriately.

Undocumented immigrant implies illegal acts, without labeling the person "illegal", so it just works better in the structure of ideas without uttering apparent falsehoods.

Personally, I'm gonna be a stickler on this because of how strongly I feel against people casually labelling the existence of others as "illegal".

You still have the words. It's not like someone insisting there are no common words that ever may be acceptable so as to politely and simply recognize someone's core social gender identity without speaking of their genitals.

You can still point out the illegality of the acts of immigrants. The words are still available to you for that. Undocumented Immigrants whose undocumented status is an illegal act.

Illegally Undocumented Immigrants.
Immigrants Acting Illegally.
Illegally Acting Immigrants.

It's still shitty, when getting documentation is such a shitty, stupid game to play, but at that point, society seems to agree that's the right of it. I'll disagree on that, and do what I can about that disagreement as I may, when I may, which is "not anything yet right this minute".

 

[Bomb#20]

In many regards, it is doublethink on display here, as the original gripe seems to be an intent to use NewSpeak to make it impossible to address concepts of social identity free of revelations of genital identity and then reverse the accusations.

Genitals don't have identities.

Once again, Jarhyn's obsession with genitals comes to the fore, as well as his utter delusion that recognising somebody's sex (something that happens every single time someone is 'misgendered') requires esoteric powers.

"The fact that society believes the man who says he is a woman rather than the woman who says he's not is proof that society knows which is the man and which is the woman."

 

[TSwizzle]

One of the best modern examples is the change from illegal immigrants to undocumented immigrants implying a legal immigration status or if not legal 'not illegal'..

Indeed, and a bank robbery is an undocumented withdrawal.

Here in California, homeless drug addicts and mental patients are referred to as "unhoused" or some such nonsense.

Oh, and from global warming to climate change to climate emergency. Utter bollocks.

 

[Jarhyn]

Kinda like some want to redefine the word “woman.”

Non sequitur. You're referring to something that applies to individuals, and is their choice, and is none of your fucking business to begin with, and it hurts no one.

There's literally no harm that could possibly come to you or future generations or anyone due to some people calling themselves a woman. There's quite a lot of harm done and will continue to be done to society in general as long as we allow politicians, corporations, marketers, and media to dictate how we talk about issues and problems.

"Look at this wonderful story of how people came together to help someone in their community who didn't have access to healthcare (or to decent work with a living wage or any number of things) and paid her bills!"

How about: The only reason they had to help her is because we don't live in a society that wants to take care of people. Apparently, we just want to take care of corporations and the wealthy, who would lose nothing by paying more taxes. Oh, and we want to punish and marginalize trans people for no good reason.

In many regards, it is doublethink on display here, as the original gripe seems to be an intent to use NewSpeak to make it impossible to address concepts of social identity free of revelations of genital identity and then reverse the accusations.

Genitals don't have identities.

Once again, Jarhyn's obsession with genitals comes to the fore, as well as his utter delusion that recognising somebody's sex (something that happens every single time someone is 'misgendered') requires esoteric powers.

So, this is a dishonest straw-manning of my views on gender versus genitals.

I am in no way obsessed with what genitals people have. That you seem so obsessed that you must embed your (flawed) observations on genitals onto daily conversation is the issue.

The doublespeak is in trying to flip that issue around.

It is not that I believe ascertaining genitals requires esoteric powers, furthermore. It's that I believe making attempts to guess what genitals people have is rude; prying; invasion of privacy just as much as ascertaining what your neighbour is watching at midnight through their bedroom window is, while something attainable, exceedingly rude.

I don't care about anyone's genitals except that they be shaped as the owner of them may please; and that the people around me not make casual assumptions about what is in my nor anyone else's pants except as they may actively and vocally invite of their clear consent.

Now are you going to stamp up and down and insist that you aren't going to discuss it with me, despite having sought me out to comment, with your dishonest straw-manning of my views?

 

[Emily Lake]

There's more danger of Republicans sneaking into a women's room and molesting other people than a trans woman.

Why do you believe this to be true?

Or perhaps, let's back it up a bit. What do you believe the term "transwoman" encompasses, in terms of outward presentation, hormones, surgeries, social behavior, and sexual behavior?

 

[Emily Lake]

Trans people are human beings. You should ask more women than what you find in a white supremacist group how they feel about trans women.

That majority of us are most assuredly NOT white supremacists, and your attempt to cast women as being synonymous with rapists if they object to having people with penises gain access to their spaces as an entitlement is fallacious.

 

[TomC]

Or perhaps, let's back it up a bit. What do you believe the term "transwoman" encompasses, in terms of outward presentation, hormones, surgeries, social behavior, and sexual behavior?

This is a huge part of the problem. The word "trans" isn't well defined.

According to California law, Tubbs qualifies as trans. A woman. That's why they are in a facility for females.
I would use the pronoun "he" referring to Tubbs, but it would be politically incorrect to do so. So I won't.
Tom