>> ^shuac:

Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.
If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?
Here they are. Get ready.
1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.


Your argument is a little lazy don't you think?

How exactly do you figure slavery, rape and genocide are OK when following a list of values demanding that you not steal, murder or commit adultery? I think it takes some rather impressive abuse of language and meanings to claim slavery, rape and genocide are cool while theft, adultery and murder are not.

>> ^shuac:

Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.
If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?
Here they are. Get ready.
1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.


Damn. I covet my neighbours ass pretty hard. Guess i'm going to hell.

Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.

If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?

Here they are. Get ready.

1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.

A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.

>>
^marbles:
He's mischaracterizing George Orwell's views on technology.


Moreover, I would argue that 1984 was *not* about technology at all. Items like the Telescreen were just narrative devices.


>>
^ZappaDanMan:

Anyone else notice that in 1984, there is no mention of religion?


That's because the world of 1984 was modeled on contemporary Stalinist USSR, where religion was very much suppressed.

Orwell wrote about the perils of Stalinism in 1984. If the printing press hadn't been invented when he wrote, he would have been a philosopher in the forum.
And children should be monitored by their parents until their old enough to vote.
Fuck this guy for using Orwell to make a buck.

>> ^marbles:

He's mischaracterizing George Orwell's views on technology.
http://revieworld.info/?p=3
George Orwell gives no evidence anywhere against his aversion to technology that he has discussed in his novel. On the contrary, his opinion is presumably neutral throughout the narration of 1984. However, his imaginations (not everything is his imagination!) portend not a very socially desirable use of technology. It is not even neutral technology. The telescreen is best being used as a propaganda machine. The microphones are used to pry upon personal conversations. There are other sophisticated gadgets to put an end to individual freedom. Since Oceania is always on war against some state or the other, such a society will make a feverish innovation in technologies.


That's an interesting read, thanks for that. I'm always looking for new perspectives on 1984; I've read it so many times.

Anyone else notice that in 1984, there is no mention of religion? Apparently that form of mind control is obsolete
Now let's all drink some victory gin and kill some proles.

He's mischaracterizing George Orwell's views on technology.

http://revieworld.info/?p=3
George Orwell gives no evidence anywhere against his aversion to technology that he has discussed in his novel. On the contrary, his opinion is presumably neutral throughout the narration of 1984. However, his imaginations (not everything is his imagination!) portend not a very socially desirable use of technology. It is not even neutral technology. The telescreen is best being used as a propaganda machine. The microphones are used to pry upon personal conversations. There are other sophisticated gadgets to put an end to individual freedom. Since Oceania is always on war against some state or the other, such a society will make a feverish innovation in technologies.

I'm very confused. Let me get this straight...

You're gonna blame the repeal of Glass-Steagall (a law that REGULATED financial markets) on Barney Frank who voted AGAINST the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which is the legislation that repealed Glass-Steagall?! You do realize you're basically making effectively a socialist argument, right?! You're saying the repeal of Glass-Steagall was intended to help the poor, but it didn't. Glass-Steagall is fundamentally socialist, so you're saying repealing it hurt the economy?!

Other than the fact you got the critical detail of Frank voting against Gramm-Leach-Bliley wrong, I completely agree with you.

In respect that job reports have been disappointing, you didn't address what every objective report about the stimulus bill says it created jobs, and those jobs did go to lower and middle class people. There's a disappointment it didn't do more than it ended up doing, but it DID create/save jobs in the short run, that's undeniable. Extension of unemployment benefits helped the poor and middle class. I could go on and on. You're seriously gonna fight this point?! Ridiculous.

Every company Obama visited and showed as a good example folded, huh? Let's see some proof. I want to see everyone of these companies, and what happened to them. You don't get to throw idiotic statements like this out without proof and expect not get called out on it. You're full of crap on that.

Oh, so if the jobs went to people you blanket don't like, it didn't do any good? LOL! Nevermind they're poor and middle class jobs, those very people you said weren't helped. I don't blame you. Those fat cat teachers and other civil servants, robbing the country blind with their gross underpay and what not! BTW, state employees are not all union members. There are in many states laws against state employees unionizing. Minor detail really...

So you're talking about "real Socialist" countries, not the fake ones I described. Are they more left than us? YES! You then mentioned we've gone "too far to the left" and the pendulum swing of a correction is coming to smite us! Are you suggesting the UK, France, and Britain were smited by the wrath of the free market gods for being too socialist? How have they managed to avoid the smite?!

As to the US education system today. First off, I'm glad you agree with me that universal public education system did coincide with the rise of the US as an economic superpower. You do at least seem to understand attacking that point is pretty pointless. But that also means you lost the argument. We had undeniably the world's best education system during that time, and it was a socialistic program in nature. Do we have the best education system now without question? No. What changed? Not the public mandate. Not the fact it's still mostly gov't operated. That's the same. Therefore, it's undeniable that you can have a top notch gov't run public education system.

Need more proof?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

What do you notice about the countries with the best education systems? Oh wonder of wonders, virtually all of them have gov't operated public education systems! How do so many evil socialist programs work so well?! Hmmm, maybe it's because sometimes, socialist ideas work the best, and maybe you should open your mind a little, look at specific things, look at data objectively, and apply socialist or capitalist solutions, whichever work the best? I know that's apparently revolutionary for you, but it's called "effective problem solving".

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people.
Of course not all of them are corrupt – just most of the ones in political office. However, that is more endemic of being a politician than a leftist as the GOP is corrupt to the core too. I’m sure on some level even the corrupt political leftists believe they ‘care’ and are ‘helping’. But their method of helping is a poison pill destined to kill the supposed beneficiary. For example… Barney Frank thought he was helping the poor by pushing to repeal Glass-Steagall. In Frank’s fuzz-filled brain, he helped the poor get “uffodubble howsing”. But the result of his policies speak for themselves. The poor were NOT ‘helped’, and the nation’s financial stability was ruined by leftist plans for making banks give out loans to people who could not afford them. The left’s method of ‘help’ almost universally manifests in the form of inefficient, expensive, wasteful, freedom-killing big government programs which inevitably crash, burn, and make things worse than any leftist ever DREAMED life was like without their ‘help’.
Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...
That’s why every month the US has “unexpectedly high” unemployment figures. It’s why every job report for the last 3 years has been ‘disappointing’. It’s why every company Obama visited on the stump as a ‘shining example’ for jobs has folded. There are multiple reports that prove Obama’s stimulus money has gone almost entirely to labor unions, or state governments (and thence, THEIR unions) who supported him. In short, like a typical Chicago thug, he used the stimulus as political payola “walkin’ round money”. Jobs for the middle class & poor? Maybe 1 for every million bucks.
Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false.
I’m talking REAL left government – socialism. History has proven that leftist political philosophy’s ultimate end is wealth concentration at the top of government with the ‘people’ in utter poverty such as Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, et al. What you are talking about are not really socialist governments. They are capitalist with socialist programs IN it (sort of the mirror image of China’s “socialist with capitalist programs”). The US ever since FDR has not been so much a ‘capitalist’ society as much as it is just another European-style capitalist with social program left-leaning government. The New Deal, the Great Society, and so many other leftist programs have routinely and regularly siphoned wealth from the middle class and used it to conduct failed social experiments. For the last 20 years or so, the US has gone further and further left in terms of spending and economic policy.
For example….universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age.
Like all socialist systems, it starts well but ends badly. Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm"? Look at the US education system today and tell me it is “working wonderfully”. It is one of the most expensive in the world, while at the same time one of the least effective. Universal education is great. PUBLIC universal education? Not so much – and mostly BECAUSE it is a ‘socialist’ program. Open up a voucher system and let people choose the school, which will increase competition and lower costs.
Now - I don’t disagree with the underlying premise of your position. A pure capitalist freedom isn’t good either. Freedom is the best choice, tempered with a distant set of standards. I don’t have a problem with government mandating universal education, or even with it establishing some basic, simple standards. However, the pendulum has swung too far in the ‘socialist’ direction, and we are due for a correction. However, the people who benefit from the social system (government & unions) are responding as predicted to pullback, and would rather blow up the system than give up their power and money. Such is the end result of socialism, alas.
The founding fathers had it right. It is best to leave such matters at the state level where the people have more control and there is more accountability. The federal government should serve as ONLY a place where people can go to redress grievances (abuses). Central systems are fine when they are distant, have little power, and serve as little more than a final authority to appeal to, or as a repository of advised (but not REQUIRED) standards. The ‘system’ should be about 5% centralized and 95% local. Right now the US is more like a ‘45% federal, 55% local’ government and it is coming apart at the seams.

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people.

Of course not all of them are corrupt – just most of the ones in political office. However, that is more endemic of being a politician than a leftist as the GOP is corrupt to the core too. I’m sure on some level even the corrupt political leftists believe they ‘care’ and are ‘helping’. But their method of helping is a poison pill destined to kill the supposed beneficiary. For example… Barney Frank thought he was helping the poor by pushing to repeal Glass-Steagall. In Frank’s fuzz-filled brain, he helped the poor get “uffodubble howsing”. But the result of his policies speak for themselves. The poor were NOT ‘helped’, and the nation’s financial stability was ruined by leftist plans for making banks give out loans to people who could not afford them. The left’s method of ‘help’ almost universally manifests in the form of inefficient, expensive, wasteful, freedom-killing big government programs which inevitably crash, burn, and make things worse than any leftist ever DREAMED life was like without their ‘help’.

Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...

That’s why every month the US has “unexpectedly high” unemployment figures. It’s why every job report for the last 3 years has been ‘disappointing’. It’s why every company Obama visited on the stump as a ‘shining example’ for jobs has folded. There are multiple reports that prove Obama’s stimulus money has gone almost entirely to labor unions, or state governments (and thence, THEIR unions) who supported him. In short, like a typical Chicago thug, he used the stimulus as political payola “walkin’ round money”. Jobs for the middle class & poor? Maybe 1 for every million bucks.

Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false.

I’m talking REAL left government – socialism. History has proven that leftist political philosophy’s ultimate end is wealth concentration at the top of government with the ‘people’ in utter poverty such as Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, et al. What you are talking about are not really socialist governments. They are capitalist with socialist programs IN it (sort of the mirror image of China’s “socialist with capitalist programs”). The US ever since FDR has not been so much a ‘capitalist’ society as much as it is just another European-style capitalist with social program left-leaning government. The New Deal, the Great Society, and so many other leftist programs have routinely and regularly siphoned wealth from the middle class and used it to conduct failed social experiments. For the last 20 years or so, the US has gone further and further left in terms of spending and economic policy.

For example….universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age.

Like all socialist systems, it starts well but ends badly. Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm"? Look at the US education system today and tell me it is “working wonderfully”. It is one of the most expensive in the world, while at the same time one of the least effective. Universal education is great. PUBLIC universal education? Not so much – and mostly BECAUSE it is a ‘socialist’ program. Open up a voucher system and let people choose the school, which will increase competition and lower costs.

Now - I don’t disagree with the underlying premise of your position. A pure capitalist freedom isn’t good either. Freedom is the best choice, tempered with a distant set of standards. I don’t have a problem with government mandating universal education, or even with it establishing some basic, simple standards. However, the pendulum has swung too far in the ‘socialist’ direction, and we are due for a correction. However, the people who benefit from the social system (government & unions) are responding as predicted to pullback, and would rather blow up the system than give up their power and money. Such is the end result of socialism, alas.

The founding fathers had it right. It is best to leave such matters at the state level where the people have more control and there is more accountability. The federal government should serve as ONLY a place where people can go to redress grievances (abuses). Central systems are fine when they are distant, have little power, and serve as little more than a final authority to appeal to, or as a repository of advised (but not REQUIRED) standards. The ‘system’ should be about 5% centralized and 95% local. Right now the US is more like a ‘45% federal, 55% local’ government and it is coming apart at the seams.

>> ^soulmonarch:

You can choose to say the 'magic words', but obviously your mind isn't convinced, so you still aren't saved by it.


@soulmonarch
I agree with the logic of thisbut I have to ask how you, as a Christian, don't find this remark kind of .. disturbing? It reminds me of one of the more grueling aspects of George Orwells "1984", namely how you're not only forced to comply, and forced to accept as unchangeable all the lies and distortions of "The Party", they are not happy with you lying, you have to actually believe it.. So for instance, in one scene Winston Smith is subjected to torture, and the interrogator shows him 3 fingers and asks how many it is, and then how many it is if the Party says its 5. The natural thing for Winston is to answer correctly "three", or to lie and say "five" to avoid torture. But his interrogator calmly explains to him that lying or playing stupid wont work. Eventually he gives up and says "I dont know!" "Better", says the interrogator.


If you genuinely think that I wont be "saved" unless I actually believe in something I really cant make myself believe, and I cant even lie and pretend to believe.. Don't you find that unsettling? What does that really tell you about Christianity?, about God?

Boy, Goebbels and Orwell would shudder.

>> ^Lodurr:

There's no social commentary in their racist jokes. Cartman calling people "jew" is social commentary because it reflects more on Cartman than on actual jews. Gabriel Iglesias' racist gift basket (see link in comment above) is social commentary. Even Michael Richards' "he's a nigger" episode had more social commentary than calling one race lazy and worthless. There isn't even a hint of truth in it. Latinos, as a group, are the hardest working people I've ever known, and most of them hardly sleep because they have multiple jobs.
A big part of the problem is that they're picking on a country with serious economic problems. It's easy for the French not to take offense at French jokes because they've been doing pretty well for the past thousand years. It was only a few hundred years ago that most Mexicans lived and worked as a systematically oppressed lower class, and they still have far to go to have a modern standard of living for the majority of their population.
Poking fun at a disadvantaged group when you're part of an advantaged one is always tasteless. Fuck these lazy talentless hacks and fuck the BBC for funding them.


South Park as social commentary... Right up there with Twain, Orwell and Oscar Wilde, isn't it?

Top Gear's characters routinely make fun of everyone and everything, it's the entire set-up of their characters and is meant to be as much of a 'commentary' as is Southpark. To suggest that of every group in the world they've already made fun of, the Mexicans should be off limits because they can't take it strikes me as more racist than Top Gear's even handed assaults on everything. And I shouldn't need to point out that SoutPark's assaults on everything go at least 5 steps further past 'good taste' than Top Gear ever does.

(response to blanco) I'm not trying to editorialize. His link to politics was tenuous and confused. He wasn't coherent in the way that Joe Stack or Tim McVeigh were, which leads me to believe this wasn't calculated to have some kind of meaningful effect on the world. I can't imagine this person could even function in society or keep a job, unless he is just really really really bad at expressing himself in print.

Although he used some of the terminology of the right, he didn't seem to have a firm grasp of these politics. If you look at his favorite books, they come from vastly different parts of the ideological spectrum - Hitler, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Plato and Orwell. Left right and libertarian extremism are all represented here along with dystopic science fiction fearful of that kind of extremism. If he weren't so clearly insane, I'd think this were some kind of dark trolling.

Remember Frank Luntz? The Dark Lord of Semantics? ... he'd likely appreciate that title.
Very smart man; focuses on the inherent emotion of words with little regard to their information content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
(nice discussion about Orwell in that article, actually)


I was actually thinkings about similar things earlier this week; what do you think about this...

Q. Why can't liberals sell ideas as well as conservatives right now?

A. Smarter liberals oppose or are critical of using deceptive, emotionally manipulating words to sell their ideas, and don't as often fall in line with talking points that use this tactic. This is possibly due to a recognition that transparency is required when you want government influencing society. OR may simply be due to liberalism being tied to empathy.
Smarter conservatives are not as concerned about transparency or educating people on the issue; they have re-learned that directing the power of emotion is much more efficient and effective, and can be essentially mined from focus groups and applied broadly.


Q. What should liberals do to better sell their ideas?

A. Seek professional help; be concise, and go with humor and sincerity 9 times out of 10 (think John Stewart, but rapid online focus-grouping things for lameness). And once there is a message convince other liberal leaders of the value of that message with your survey/focus-group data and just REPEAT IT, don't expound on things and go all John Kerry, just FOCUS ON THE MESSAGE. Don't make bumper stickers; keep cool and stay classy.

Shooting an Elephant
by George Orwell
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/887/