General Discussion

TheKentuckian

(25,038 posts)

16. I think you increasingly like to grab words, redefine them, and operate from the perspective

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:48 PM

Feb 2013

that only acknowledges and accepts the new definitions which ignores the commonly held ones while generally restraining yourself from sharing the new definition, it just must be divined and accepted from the new context.

If asked for one of your definitions, the request is ignored though often responded to, often with a pitch for circumstantial principles (aka oxymoron), riddles, and passionate arguments for a privileged position of the status quo (aka if it is what is happening, less harm is created both now and in the future by maintaining it than changing it) based on nothing.

I consider these re-definitions Orwellian, I do not believe it is intentional but it still is what it is.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

26 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Which one is Orwellian? [View all] patrice Feb 2013 OP

Hum! If 'Responsible collaborative empirical analysis and evaluation' is applied before it goes down freshwest Feb 2013 #1

Good point. But I am assuming that that is part of our responsibility, i.e. to create the political patrice Feb 2013 #2

OMGawd, I'm not ready for that on an empty tummy. But in passing, and I will try to work on it; freshwest Feb 2013 #4

BTW, did you see the World drought projection maps posted here earlier this week? patrice Feb 2013 #3

TPTB aren't ignoring it. Check their actions to see what's up. freshwest Feb 2013 #5

My guess is about everything thing we see on an international scale IS about those drought maps patrice Feb 2013 #12

I suspect their push for global etc. comes from this. Anyone unwilling to change, won't make it. freshwest Feb 2013 #13

Thank you, freshwest! You help me get balance. It's so hard to describe how I'm not patrice Feb 2013 #14

neither BainsBane Feb 2013 #6

If Orwell wasn't writing about something extracted from human experience, inferred like lots of patrice Feb 2013 #8

no, it means I see no relation BainsBane Feb 2013 #9

That's okay, nevermind. nt patrice Feb 2013 #11

(IMO) BainsBane is correct Motown_Johnny Feb 2013 #15

You have a right to IMO & so do I that is unless I am an unperson & you are a fascist. FOUR fingers! patrice Feb 2013 #19

So, you're only for collaboration that agrees with you? Why is that NOT fascism? Please tell me. nt patrice Feb 2013 #20

. Motown_Johnny Feb 2013 #21

The traits that you quote, in bold type above, can also be the same traits of ANY patrice Feb 2013 #25

False dichotomy. You'll get a lot of passes on this I think. Glassunion Feb 2013 #7

Facts always are what they are or they would not be facts. They can, however, be viewed from patrice Feb 2013 #10

I think you increasingly like to grab words, redefine them, and operate from the perspective TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #16

Make of it what you will. & Accord to me the same right to make of it all what I will. FOUR fingers. patrice Feb 2013 #17

And if you can't do that, perhaps you should consider explaining why your aren't a fascist. nt patrice Feb 2013 #18

1. Fascist doesn't mean failure to accept random definitions knitted out of thin air and pretending TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #22

We agree about more than you realize, except for disrespect, the hallmark of fascism. FOUR fingers. patrice Feb 2013 #24

This thread and another come to mind with this same word. TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #26

Neither. nt bemildred Feb 2013 #23