George Orwell's 1984 and How Power Manufactures Truth
(openculture.com)63 points by colinprince 16 hours ago
63 points by colinprince 16 hours ago
I'm not sure if this quote takes into account mob rule. Take ethnic strife in Myanmar or in Africa or rural Mexico, etc. It's not governments doing it --it's mostly grass roots after a grievance is unaddressed and explodes.
Yeah, 1984 and its source material tend to reduce everything to monolithic dystopias, which indeed was relevant and happens when top down power bends truth. But maybe enough pent-up bottom up emotion can also override reason and decay truth the same way. It feels like the latter is also closer to a lot of the world today, we're seeing more chaotic competition for attention than some centrally planned dictation of truth.
That’s your interpretation from high school. The reality is it’s about information control, and an all powerful state was the most understandable model for Orwell.
Today, carefully crafted messages lead people to self-select propaganda. The stereotype of the MAGA uncle is the result of an appeal to fear, resentment and nostalgia.
>grievance is unaddressed and explodes
The grievance is also often created by the govt.
African fears and ethnic strife were invented out of whole cloth by colonial powers to divide and conquer the local populace. Myanmar I am less familiar with, but I believe that region has been under military junta rule for decades, and I believe religious tensions have been stoked by both the military rulers and armed insurgent revolutionary groups to rally support for their side.
I feel like there are different kinds of "truth": some of them easier than others to be manufactured, e.g. easier to manufacture hatred and war than peace (unless the country is already deep in it and not winning)?
Either is just as easy. There's just more to be gained manufacturing hatred and war than peace.
This comes in many forms. Political fundraising, pretense for holding onto/expanding power, greasing the cogs of the prison or military industrial complex, etc.
Peace benefits ordinary citizens, but that's not the concern of the white house right now...
Megadeth covered this in practically one stanza: “peace sells, but who’s buying?”
We keep doing somersaults over dead writers lengthy works when it’s the simple shit in front of our eyes. Including the festering pile of shit HN has become because of dang’s bullshit.
Don’t need Trump or Putin or Mao or Bibi or any other high powered asshole. The ones we have here are more than enough, and they’re no different than these high and mighty pricks.
A disclaimer: this "political" nature of everything is deeply baked into Western culture, going all the way back to pre-Xtian 'Western' (~ non-Indian) religion.
Things are a lot more subtlety in broadly "Indosphere" (or atleast its old version before all the rampage of Islam and Western colonization).
This "history" that you vomit out is actually not based on primary evidence, but has been shown to be a "projection" of this very obsession with power in Western academia.
Pollock for eg. is so deep down this hole that he even blames (in his Deep-Orientalism essay) Nazi genocides on them learning "power-politics" from Purva-Mimansa. Contrarily, the DharmaSastras actually prevent this very kind of elite-collusion that is characteristic of the occident, from current times all the way back to Greece.
So much for your retort (assuming this is typical for the Brown Anglo-Sahebs that man HN, who think destruction of India is the greatest gift to mankind).
It’s absolutely sad and heavily ironic that this book now gets slapped with trigger warnings[1] What in hell has happened to people?
How in hell is any adult supposed to read any book of consequence if routine things trigger them? Moreso for such an iconic book that criticizes crass authoritarianism.
[1]https://uk.news.yahoo.com/putting-trigger-warnings-george-or...
> George Orwell’s estate has been accused of attempting to censor 1984 by adding a “trigger warning” preface to a US edition of the dystopian novel.
> The new introductory essay describes the novel’s protagonist Winston Smith as “problematic” and warns modern readers may find his views on women “despicable”.
How is this different to something like the PEGI or ESRB labels? Because to the extent that I can tell, nohow, apart from being more verbose, although I wasn't able to find the actual text.
And how is an additive change censorship? Like that's a new one, even for me.
Why not? I expect they're already categorised to some extent - after all, how many straight men would want to read the ones where gay men are fucking each other and sucking each other's cocks and whatnot? - and this would just be an extended version of that.
(EDIT: after stepping away from the keyboard, I was struck by the question of how many men of any orientation would want to read erotic novels anyway! - when they could just load up private browsing mode and watch more videos of people doing their favourite nasty shit than they'd ever be able to muster the urge to view to completion. But my view is that the question was dumb enough as posed already without needing to think about it any more. But maybe there's more to unpack here, if anybody is so inclined, which I'm not - though I'll admit that I've instinctively taken a male perspective here, even though that was never specified. Apologies.)
I dunno man, I think if I went through a bout of suicidal thoughts for a few years, even attempted a few times, I might want to skip on media that features suicide for example. And the only way to do that is if you're given a heads up about it ahead of time.
This trigger warning stuff in my view is literally just content labels with some political coating on top. Reminds me to folks rediscovering vending machines in the form of overly complicated and brittle AI robotized fast food restaurants.
If the erotic novel you were reading suddenly included a whole bunch of the wrong type of erotica for your sexual preferences, you might be somewhat upset that you weren't warned in advance (which should be obvious: story tags have been a thing since Usenet).
It's pretty pathetic to include a scolding essay at the beginning of the book. Their sanctimonious drivel stands in total contrast to the work of a brilliant author that they feel the need to mar with the inclusion of their commentary. Nobody would ever read it if they didn't include it in a book that people actually care about.
Orwell was not a good writer. 1984 in particular is a slog. His work was mostly popular because it conformed to anti soviet narratives, so schools naturally added them to the curriculum to stamp out any communist sympathies. Now that the soviets are no longer a threat, it's not surprising that his work has gradually fallen out of fashion. Yet every pseudo rebellious edgelord thinks the ideological order of 1984 is being enacted because of progressive college kids and trigger warnings.
'Unalive'
Dear quantum field I've awoken into a nightmare!
To the point with some soft conclusions - https://aeon.co/ideas/trigger-warnings-dont-help-people-cope...
Now that’s some intellectually dishonest sophistry.
The study on coping approaches shows how avoidance leads to maladaptive outcomes, but it also says that exposure in itself isn’t helpful either.
What is helpful is learning how to process and express your emotions, but the study does not address whether english class is the place to be taught good coping strategies (because it’s not, obviously.)
I can only find references to this in very conservative medias, used to lying and creating narratives out of thin air all the time. So don't get on your high horses. Those same "journals" are perfectly fine with Trump's unprecedented wave of censorship and state violence.
You should probably read 1984 again, Orwell wasn't concerned by "trigger warnings". He was afraid of an authoritarian force creating and maintaining an alternate reality they can change on a whim, to manufacture consent for whatever they want to do. Like how Trump said he would be "the most peaceful president ever" but now screams about how Tehran should be evacuated, to presumably level it to the ground. Or how he said he would take care of the economy, utterly destroyed it and now claims it's doing better than ever.
Truth is a function of Trust. The more you trust the source the greater the risk of being manipulated; especially under the influence of confirmation bias; of course there’s also repetition.
The gist of my theory (?) is, it’s not about power but trust. For example, Power often lacks transparency and completeness. We see it happen often enough, and yet many ppl still - for reasons I can’t explain - continue to trust the Power. If a mate did the same, you’d leave them, no questions asked.
You can't. This is the very reason the scientific method exists.
The idea that "power manufactures truth" sounds profound but it's ultimately a truism, and a somewhat unhelpful one due to the imprecise language of power and truth. Anyone who's worked at a small business with an authoritarian owner can attest to the distortion effect of authority. People trip over themselves to ensure such a personality remains placated. But truth, in any meaningful sense of the word, is something beyond the grasp of any single authority. Powerful elites may have sway over the narrative, but eventually the truth catches up with them, and that's when history starts moving again. The 2008 recession is a great example. Most financial authorities maintained that real estate was solid. Orwell's vision vastly oversells the true power of authoritarian states. At the end of the day, if you cannot keep a baseline number of the population satisfied, they will rebel in ways that will eventually undermine the status quo. It may not take the form of a full blown civil war, but people have a way of expressing their interests. For example, the birth rate is dropping in many countries. Increasingly, people do not see having children as viable. And for good reason. That undermines the present society. The upper classes need a working class to maintain their position.
> we now all hear culture warriors describe reality in highly slanted, politically-charged, and often thought-terminating ways all day long. Everywhere we look, someone is ready to tell us that two plus two make five
"Men can get pregnant"
And that is the articles point.
But they won't say Democrats. Or the young kids controlling Kamala Harris.
It's 1984, academia and the Left can't say that.
The people chose Trump over 1984, they fought back.
As the article says "Trump’s America bears little superficial resemblance"
Can HN read the article or just off topically repeat what the bureau is telling them?
The Orwellian part may be “men” and “women” changing from sex categories to gender ones, more specifically the ‘Newspeak‘ conflation of sex and gender into a single concept such that for some people it has become difficult to discuss them separately: “Not only can Trans men become pregnant, they can do so while being biologically male, too”.
(Not attempting to debate Trans, only pointing out the 1984 type changes to how people must now think about sex and gender to avoid ‘finding themselves accused of crime-think and a trip to Room 101’ /s)
"The Internet of Beefs" https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/01/16/the-internet-of-beefs/
I find it a little disappointing that they are reducing it to Trump. The left has its own version of “Newspeak” thanks to political correctness and DEI efforts. I guess in the end people in power or who want to get in power will promote vocabularies that support their cause and discourage use of words that don’t support them.
I feel more and more we are slowly moving into a future between 1984 and Brave New World.
I think it’s largely liberals who tone police the dirtbag left, like when they were calling Bernie Sanders sexist for something that I never heard articulated well, but was when he was running in the primary against Hilary Clinton. I’m convinced that the whole identity politics wave is controlled opposition from establishment powers in both the liberal and conservative wings of the two-team uniparty system.
Power manufactures 'truth' [memes] because the source of power is everybody's collective actions, and that has to be farmed in various ways through a consent manufacturing process. Change what people believe and you change their actions. Change their actions and you change the nature of the beast-machine they form, upon which oligarchy attempts to ride. Magick goes much deeper than parlor tricks of optics, or spooky hocuspocus spiritual bullshit. It is in use everyday by various institutions, and most who use magick don't even realize it.
Examples:
-The beliefs you hold about the world and others, much which was shaped by childhood media;
-When Bush tells you Iraq has WMDs;
-When the car commercial comes on, showing you a scenic vista and for a moment you forget yourself;
-When you believe X, but the commenters in article comment sections sway the opposite (bots);
to name a small handful. Sounds too far fetched?
Here is the machine magicians program for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo_e0EvEZn8
Do you see the zone in this machine, where magick can exist? It's the zone where you experience #FF00FF as magenta (if you're not colorblind). People really see what they expect to see, not what is there in front of them unless they really spend some effort!
What do they want to see? They want to see what you set them up to want to see.
I'm reminded of this famous quote from the Nuremberg Diary, and the casualness of how it seems to have been stated:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Diary