1984 Has Arrived

Democrats have turned into the thought police, are rewriting history, and are self appointing themselves as censors. If we don't stop this nonsense it will be too late. Stop the wokeness.

George Orwell, to whom the Thought Police (a term he invented in Nineteen Eighty-Four) have yet to apply themselves, wrote in that very novel of a Britain in which “every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

We have arrived at our own endless present, or Year Zero, where the record, historical and otherwise, is readily falsified. Its rules are designed to prevent what that arrogant and self-regarding minority who feel obliged to police and alter the thoughts of the rest of us consider the ultimate crime: giving offence. Most of us have spent our lives encountering things that could, if we wallowed in self-regard, offend us deeply. We were trained to ignore them and get on with life. Now, suddenly, we cannot be trusted to do that.

Therefore books, art, films and television programmes must be censored or suppressed, statues taken down as though the lives they commemorate never happened, streets and buildings renamed to eradicate thought criminals. Like Pol Pot, that minority feels a moral duty to erase the past to attain Year Zero. Sadly for us, their main qualifications are an overbearing self-righteousness, a profound ignorance of history and a deep misunderstanding of the idea of liberty that few of us share.




https://www.yahoo.com/news/george-orwell-chilling-prediction-come-070000175.html

 

It turned out to be a pretty good "how to" book for the Democrats.

 

They're so good at it that they memory hole their last bullshit for something new.

"Trump Russia"! Forget that. "Devil's Triangle! Rapist!" Forget that. "MAGA Country in a polar vortex! Free Bubba!" Forget that. "Covidgonnakilleveryone!" Forget that. "MAGA attacked Pelosi!" Forget that.

 

It seems like from the types of things you are mentioning, I can think of numerous examples on both sides. I am not saying that to justify it one way or another but I think you would have to gave more information on when it is a problem and when it is not.

For example here are the 50 most banned books in America. I haven't gone through the list but is it your contention that democrats support banning more of these books than republicans?

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-50-most-banned-books-in-america/

You mentioned thought police but when banning courses in schools that students want to take, is that not a form of censorship? Do you think government should take a role in banning courses especially at the college level? Do we have examples of democrats banning courses in school? I think there are examples of students protesting speakers appearing on their campuses but I have never heard of a governor not permitting it or crafting law to stop them from coming.

 

"Banned?"

This is a silly comparison. School Districts "ban" certain works because of age appropriateness. I doubt there was a single book in my High School library that had the "F" word in it. It would have been "banned" I guess.

Trying to make this sort of comparison shows to me that your not serious about the discussion.

 

Precisely. It is not "banning" it is curatorship. Schools should have the best books. Not trash like "Lawn Boy."

 

Who decides what the best books are? Everyone has a different opinion.

So, for example, what about classic books? I've heard that Lewis Carol's Alice in Wonderland is a banned book. At least it appears in the banned book section of my eBook reader tablet. Therefore old classics are not free of controversy.

Some people want what they read at school in their day. But many books are outmoded and inappropriate for this day and age.

And censorship isn't new. They've been at it for generations! I've heard that entire novels, works of art, and media have been banned or rewritten to take out unfortunate uses of situations, racial degradation, etc.

Think about it.

 

You just changed the word from Banning to Curatorship but who is the curator? It sounds like you support the banning of those books do you know why each one is banned? How is a book determined to be "BEST"? I read books on a daily basis but I could not tell you what the best books are. The best books for me may not be the best books for you. That certainly applies to our children too.

I skimmed through that list and to be honest I have not read any of those books but I looked at the synopsis of some and they seem tame enough. This is the first one on the list. Would you ban this book? It is based on a real life story.


"The children's book is based on the real-life story of two male chinstrap penguins, Roy and Silo, who formed a bond at the Central Park Zoo in New York City. After zookeepers saw the pair trying to hatch a rock as if it were an egg, they gave the penguin couple their own egg. Roy and Silo subsequently raised the chick, Tango, as their own."

 

It has not even come close unless you want a mass movie release of the book.

 

I did not know this before I just googled it but Huckleberry Finn was banned 1 year after it was release in 1885. According to google "Since its publication in 1884, the book has caused controversy starting in 1885 when it was banned in Concord (MA) as “trash and suitable only for the slums.”'. Seems like a pretty elitist reason for banning the book.

I know there is controversy surrounding the book now for it use of the "N" word but I did not realize it was originally banned so long ago. For the record I do not support the banning of historical books for using the "N" word just as I do not support the destruction of confederate statues. Even banning things like old children cartoons seem strange to me.

 

Speaking of Orwell, check out the movie "Mr. Jones". Fair warning- definitely NOT suitable for children.

 

Guess you don't watch the news much, do you?

 

The concept of "rewriting history" being bad depends upon the idea that history as it is written now is flawless and accurate.

History is a story we tell ourselves, and like all stories, the authors enjoy some creative and editorial control. You'll get a different history depending upon who you talk to, because history does not tend to be objective. A lot of history is dependent upon perspective.

For example, if you asked an Islamic Fundamentalist about the history of the Middle East, you're going to hear a story that involves a lot of meddling, exploitation, and imperialism by the west than you will if you listen to a westerner tell you the same history. The Islamic Fundamentalist will gloss over the response to it by terrorists and condemn the west and the westerner will gloss over the role western nations played in bringing it about, even if indirectly, and condemn the terrorists. Which is true?

Both.

 

Isn't Florida the state that appointed a magistrate whose purpose is to allow only approved reading material?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-shelves-read-more-at.608503/#post-1074049939

 

I guess it's pretty pathetic that the conservatives couldn't do anything to stop it, even with them winning control of parts of the government, and at times controlling all three branches over the past 20 years.

 

Didn’t know DeSantis was a “liberal”

 

I love how the sane generation that grew up listening to David Bowie, Freddy Mercury and Marilyn Manson now think that one book in a library will turn kids gay

 

Makes you wonder...

They must think homosexuality is so appealing, that they can't even let their kids know it exists.

 

Why specifically Democrats? This article is from a British newspaper so is primarily focused on UK examples and that also means that it isn't quite as mired in the left vs right divisions and hatred of current American politics. There is little direct reference to left or right and some of the examples relate to social-conservative morality based censorship.

Regardless, the article is over dramatic and focuses on a selected subset of extreme examples (unsurprisingly, as that is what draws readers and thus makes money). The removal of statues or renaming of streets isn't censorship of history, it is largely about not blindly celebrating someone or something that wasn't as exclusively positive. If anything, that is expanding on history from the narrow propaganda about historical figures and events to a wider view encompassing the good, bad and indifferent equally. Ironically, one of the examples in the article relates to a book about the British Empire having difficulty being published because it didn't present colonialism as entirely negative, so much of this is literally the same kind of thing but pushing from opposite ends.

Nothing here is being censored in anything like the 1984 Though Police context. Companies are free to not publish particular books or show repeats of particular films or TV shows for whatever reason they want but others can choose to show them and they are all available to people who do want to see them. Similarly, the rights-owners and publishers of books are perfectly entitled to edit new editions of those books (which is what retriggered this topic), just as writers are perfectly entitled to choose to self-censor (or not) their books when they're first written. Equally, other rights-owners and writers are free to republish or create their own books, retaining or adding the kind of terms or concepts others are removing.

Actual censorship was much more common and restrictive in the past compared to today. Books, films and TV faced much more restrictive rules and much stronger punishment for stepping outside of them. If anything, it is the softening of formal regulation and censorship that means more creators, publishers and broadcasters are having to make their own decisions on appropriate content, and much more in the public eye that the old censors would.

 

Ummmmmmmmmmm, the truth is ALL states and schools have approved reading material. It's never been anything goes. Isn't it the left who are vandalizing statues and taking them down and wanting to cancel people?

 

Ummmmmmmmmmm, the truth is ALL states and schools have approved reading material. It's never been anything goes. Isn't it the left who are vandalizing statues and taking them down and wanting to cancel people?

 

Well, it does talk a lot about statues and cancel culture. That's not coming from the right.

 

Oh, so now everyone does it. Yea right.
Canceling started with excommunication. So if the lefts doing it, it was inspired by the right.
Labeling politicians rhinos is a form of cancelation by Trump supporters.

 

I didn’t know Desantis was a woke democrat.

 

You know, scratch a homophobe and uncover a person insecure about their own sexuality.