Tumgik
#newspeak
resisteverything · 1 year
Text
One time I heard a dude online compare new and obscure LGBT terminology to newspeak. This I think is one of the biggest examples I have seen of people with their whole chest ignoring the basic themes of 1984.
In 1984 the whole point of newspeak was that it shrinks. Ideas that could once be communicated now cannot. Everything is simplified as much as possible. You cannot explain complicated ideas of freedom or equality because the words no longer exist, or they don’t mean what they once did.
More specifically, there is canonically no word for “gay” in 1984. There are only two words for the entire spectrum of sexuality. “goodsex” and “sexcrime”. If you’re gay it’s the exact same as being a pedophile. And those are is the exact same as cheating on your wife, which is the exact same daring to fuck your wife just because you feel like it. Which is no different than literally any sex act that might offend big brother.
Do you see what’s happening? In 1984 can no longer ask someone of the same sex to fuck you because the word for gay sex is the exact same as the word for pedophile. And you can’t come out as gay because all you can say is that you did a criminal sex act, which means you cannot make a case for your rights either.
Inventing made up words to describe obscure things that previously lacked words would literally be a perfect remedy to newspeak. This language would counter every barrier to communicating the necessary concepts. Because it’s what literally every normal non-dystopian language does.
29K notes · View notes
rednblacksalamander · 9 months
Text
Tumblr media
A far-right oligarch like Elon Musk taking over one of the world's major communication networks and using it to rewrite Orwell's history is, to be perfectly honest…pretty Orwellian.
79 notes · View notes
polisciacademia · 1 year
Text
The curse of having read 1984 is that you will see some sort of very common internet/gen z language and you’re just like “oh that’s newspeak” and then you dissociate for several minutes thinking about how the meanings of words are changed in order to perpetuate the class system
204 notes · View notes
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
==
GLAAD are erasing same-sex attraction, by redefining "homosexual" to pretend it's "derogatory and offensive."
Yes, that GLAAD.
Tumblr media
You thought they were kidding. They're never kidding.
Tumblr media
These organizations are not what you think they are or what they used to be.
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." -- George Orwell, "Nineteen Eighty-Four"
31 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. 'The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.
—George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-four pt i, ch v (1949)
[Robert Scott Horton]
21 notes · View notes
nerds-yearbook · 11 months
Text
In 1984, telescreens offered entertainment and propaganda, while at the same time working as spy cams for the government so that all needed to be of one mind and on their best behavior for Big Brother was always watching. London was the chief city of Airstrip One, which was one the provinces of Oceania. The official language of Oceania was Newspeak, a form of politically correct inspired speech. The government continually rewrote history and news so that their opinion had never changed and everything lined up with their current world view and policies. Technically nothing was illegal, but the inhabitants lived in continual fear of the Thought Police. Many women who were especially loyal to the party joined the Anti-Sex league. Through propaganda, especially during the Two Minutes Hate, the masses were constantly reminded who their enemies were and were encouraged to express their hate. The world was in a continual state of war but who was enemy and ally kept changing between Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. The continual warfare helped justify hardships like the rationing of almost everything as well the importance to loyalty of ones nation. ("1884", Bk)
Tumblr media
21 notes · View notes
fuh-saw-t · 1 year
Text
Nothing in modern literature I think parallels the impressive absurdity that has emerged from the modern interpretations of 1984 and its key concepts. In my research on the novel over the last two years, the references and usage of quotations I've seen online, particularly in political commentary, have become more apparent; though what impresses me the most about these usages is that they seem to rely on the poster, speaker, and audience not reading the text to begin with nor understanding its messages.
1984, unlike perhaps any other non-religious text, appears to no longer be a novel, but rather a subjective concept that is used as a blanket-reference to anything disliked without requiring further analysis.
Honestly, I'd love to do a short series on this blog of people sending me examples of political or general 1984 references so I can pick them apart, because I really do love this novel and the interpretations applied to it online both worry and intrigue me. (Asks open.)
44 notes · View notes
biarritzzz · 9 months
Text
Words that, if I come across them in an article, means I will stop reading and disregard it entirely:
queer (if you use that word, I immediately know you're not homosexual and that you're a poseur and a moron)
white supremacy (the biggest reversal of reality in woke discourse, it informs me that the writer has a narrow perspective or is a liar who wants their own ethnic group to dominate)
sex work (it's called prostitution, I oppose newspeak)
trans woman or trans man (another newspeak; you are an idiot for catering to a delusion when the words man and woman already exist)
racism (aka native Europeans are evil and my convenient punching bag to release my frustrations and insecurities while I ignore real discrimination from ethnic groups that are deemed untouchable in woke circles)
intersectionality (aka I'm an insufferable cunt who lectures everybody but especially white women on their supposed 'privilege' and who perceives everything through a 'privilege' vs 'marginalized' lens but fails to grasp that what matters above all else is biological sex)
LGBTQIA+ (aka I hate being clear about homosexuality and I hate the fact that homosexuality is real as opposed to made up bullshit)
islamophobia (being afraid of islam is not irrational, it's a perfectly normal reaction to an insanely violent and dangerous ideology)
fatphobia (aka I'm an obese ugly woman who is mad that people don't find me attractive so I need to guilt-trip them into objectifying me while I continue to thirst over conventionally attractive thin people)
community (that stupid word comes directly from Anglo countries and is used to pretend a group of people is all chummy with each other when it couldn't be further from the truth)
mental health (if there a word I would love to never hear again it's this one. Yes, it's normal to not be happy all the time, yes we all have bad days, no it doesn't mean you have a ''disorder' if you are feeling a bit down)
6 notes · View notes
theexodvs · 8 months
Text
If you use the term "partner" to discuss a person with whom you are in a relationship, you are sending the message that you either disdain human sexual dimorphism or the institution of marriage.
So I disdain your opinions.
6 notes · View notes
chrasilla · 2 years
Text
The Party in 1984 might preach bullshit but Newspeak is kinda ingenious. screw adjectives. im feeling doubleplussuperfuckingtired today.
54 notes · View notes
coentinim · 6 months
Text
I once started using "vv much" as a short for very very much but then I read "Year 1984" and stopped😭
3 notes · View notes
By: The Editorial Board
Published: Dec 19, 2022
Parodists have it rough these days, since so much of modern life and culture resembles the Babylon Bee. The latest evidence is that Stanford University administrators in May published an index of forbidden words to be eliminated from the school’s websites and computer code, and provided inclusive replacements to help re-educate the benighted.
Call yourself an “American”? Please don’t. Better to say “U.S. citizen,” per the bias hunters, lest you slight the rest of the Americas. “Immigrant” is also out, with “person who has immigrated” as the approved alternative. It’s the iron law of academic writing: Why use one word when four will do?
You can’t “master” your subject at Stanford any longer; in case you hadn’t heard, the school instructs that “historically, masters enslaved people.” And don’t dare design a “blind study,” which “unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.” Blind studies are good and useful, but never mind; “masked study” is to be preferred. Follow the science.
“Gangbusters” is banned because the index says it “invokes the notion of police action against ‘gangs’ in a positive light, which may have racial undertones.” Not to beat a dead horse (a phrase that the index says “normalizes violence against animals”), but you used to have to get a graduate degree in the humanities to write something that stupid.
The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is a “multi-phase” project of Stanford’s IT leaders. The list took “18 months of collaboration with stakeholder groups” to produce, the university tells us. We can’t imagine what’s next, except that it will surely involve more make-work for more administrators, whose proliferation has driven much of the rise in college tuition and student debt. For 16,937 students, Stanford lists 2,288 faculty and 15,750 administrative staff.
The list was prefaced with (to use another forbidden word) a trigger warning: “This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace.”
Evidently it was all too much for some at the school to handle. On Monday, after the index came to light on social media, Stanford hid it from public view. Without a password, you wouldn’t know that “stupid” made the list.
[Via: https://archive.ph/YJWo7]
--
New edition of Newspeak has dropped: https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf
==
The people who accuse others of “fragility” want to tell you what words you should use.
“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.“
-- “Syme”, Nineteen Eighty-Four
If you think language is “harmful” then you don’t belong in a University.
==
Update: https://archive.ph/Vz2UH
‘Immigrants,’ ‘Americans’ Respond to Stanford
Stanford’s Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative suggests “non-citizen” as a more inclusive replacement for “immigrant” (“The Stanford Guide to Acceptable Words,” Review & Outlook, Dec. 20). There are 22.5 million naturalized citizens in the U.S., all of them immigrants or their children. I am one of them, as is Stanford’s current president and many others on the Stanford campus. When will our employer apologize for this grossly offensive nativism?
Prof. Walter Scheidel Stanford University Stanford, Calif.
As an immigrant from Communist China and an American by choice, I found Stanford University’s index of forbidden words, which includes “American” and “immigrant,” insulting and divisive.
One of the happiest days in my life was Sept. 18, 2013, when I became an American. At the citizenship ceremony, 50 immigrants represented 47 countries of origin. On the surface, we couldn’t have been more different, with various skin colors and ages and speaking diverse languages. But from that day on, we all became Americans, united by one national identity and a shared destiny.
It is unacceptable and un-American for woke administrators at Stanford University to act like Chinese Communist Party censors and feel entitled to tell us what we can’t say and how we should identify ourselves. Rather than fostering an inclusive environment, their censorship belittles our experiences.
Helen Raleigh Durango, Colo.
Stanford’s publication of language (and thought) guidelines is a great service to alumni and potential donors, who may mistakenly believe that the institution they fondly remember, or believe they know based on being courted by fundraisers, is the same one that exists today. The defining characteristic of a university has never been its name, its history of teaching and research or its campus and buildings, but the ideals it upholds. Many of these are under attack.
Lee Wright Marlborough, Mass.
In light of the trend to force people to speak in a certain way, I have decided that the only person who can give meaning to my words is me. If I say a word and someone tells me I can’t say it because of an obscure connotation I have neither considered nor meant to impart, the problem lies not with me, but with the person whose mind instantly jumps to that connotation. Perhaps such people should think different thoughts.
Kevin McCarthy Los Angeles
12 notes · View notes
blogquantumreality · 2 years
Text
Let's Talk about "Unalive"
This use of euphemistic negation is weirdly reminiscent of the way Newspeak uses similar methods to reduce the word-stock of the English language (e.g. replacing "bad" with "ungood") and in doing so, reduce the creative ability of the speaker or writer to choose words that best express a given concept.
It's especially ironic that people resort to these sorts of constructions in a self-imposed artificial constraint on language in Tiktok videos, given that Tiktok has documented connections to China - a country well known for its pervasive censorship.
17 notes · View notes
1984-daily · 1 year
Text
Syme had fallen silent for a moment, and with the handle of his spoon was tracing patterns in the puddle of stew. The voice from the other table quacked rapidly on, easily audible in spite of the surrounding din.
“There is a word in Newspeak,” said Syme. “I don’t know whether you know it:
duckspeak,
to quack like a duck.
It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse; applied to someone you agree with, it is praise.”
Tumblr media
"Quhzk... it's what the duck says!"
3 notes · View notes
ship-of-foolzz · 11 months
Text
Something I don't like... which probably isn't sinister, but in future hindsight maybe, is the fact that platforms like YouTube and Instagram have stopped showing us how old something is in terms of years and dates, they're now doing it in weeks or months.
Maybe I'm just being mad, but that strikes me as them being deliberately vague about the procession of history, and makes it a lot more difficult (for ideot people like myself) to contextualise when thinks were said....
E.g. if I see a post from Feb 2020, I know that's from the very beginning of the pandemic, and I have some context for that. On the other hand, if I see a post from 166 weeks ago, that makes it a lot more tricky for me to envision it in my head.
Sorry for being maths-y about it.. I just thought it was worthy of note.
2 notes · View notes
toscanoirriverente · 1 year
Link
While the Cambridge Dictionary’s primary definition for “woman” remains “an adult female human being,” a second definition refers to “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.” Similarly, the British reference guide defines “man” as “an adult male human being” and also “an adult who lives and identifies as male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”  
Tumblr media
4 notes · View notes