SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The book publisher Penguin is printing more copies of George Orwell's dystopian classic "1984" in response to a sudden surge of demand.
On Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning the book was #1 on Amazon's computer-generated list of best-selling books.
[...] "We put through a 75,000 copy reprint this week. That is a substantial reprint and larger than our typical reprint for '1984,'" a Penguin spokesman told CNNMoney Tuesday evening.
[...] According to Nielsen BookScan, which measures most but not all book sales in the United States, "1984" sold 47,000 copies in print since Election Day in November. That is up from 36,000 copies over the same period the prior year.
When the submitter visited amazon.com, the book was ranked #3.
Additional coverage:
- Los Angeles Times
- The New York Times (may be pay-walled)
- 9News
- The Washington Post (owned by the founder of amazon.com)
- The Guardian
- The Man Who Invented the Science Fiction Paperback
Related stories:
Washington DC's Public Library Will Teach People How to Avoid the NSA
George Orwell's "1984" Telescreens are Here...
Traveling to Thailand? Don't Pack George Orwell's "1984"
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:22PM
Is there any explanation for the increase in sales of this particular book?
Could the recent new US administration have triggered this increased sales?
Perhaps the book has been added to the required reading list for incoming administration personnel as a policy roadmap?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ilsa on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:40PM
Could the recent new US administration have triggered this increased sales?
I think it's pretty safe that the answer to this is "Yes".
Trump hasn't been in office a week and he's already muzzling government agencies in order to control what information gets out to the public.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:44PM
The sales from last year were actually way higher than I would have expected. Of course, we've been headed in a bad direction for a while now.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:30PM
I agree, but I think it's an interesting reaction - I'd more equate Obama and Bush Jr's presidencies to the realization of 1984. The early days of Trump are looking more like Mussolini or Hitler's rise to power.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:58PM
Previous administrations may have been heading in that direction, but they had been doing it subtly.
Trump is about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face, and so suddenly people are starting to wake up. Of course, as usual, this comes too late. Kinda like the Brexit voters googling what it even means to leave the EU only after they voted to do so.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:12PM
I am not convinced that the ensembles "the people reading 1984" and "the people who voted for Trump" intersect a lot.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:32PM
Well, no. The analogy wasn't a perfect one-to-one. I was more aiming for everyone going, "Oh shit something's happening! I better find out what!" after said something has already happened.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday January 27 2017, @01:51AM
Google doesn't know how, or whether, someone voted. Some of those searches could have been done by Remain voters or people who didn't go to the polls. Your point stands though.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday January 26 2017, @10:34PM
It's not the surveillance, it's the "alternative facts" that Orwell so presciently came up with; "Doublespeak".
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday January 27 2017, @12:13AM
I remember when you had to read it in school: now kids graduate without having read it... Cause they can't bloody read!!!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday January 27 2017, @07:59PM
Well, it wasn;t required reading in my school in the 1960s. I read it because I'd enjoyed Animal Farm. Stopped reading it when I got to the part where rats were eating the guys's face.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 27 2017, @03:58AM
I feel like "alternative facts" have been with us for decades, probably centuries. Although, presidential staff invoking them by name is a bit in-your-face.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:09PM
Trump hasn't been in office a week and he's already muzzling government agencies in order to control what information gets out to the public.
Does he actually have different policy than the Obama administration [reason.com]?
The most immediate change was a sudden clampdown on unauthorized comments and interviews. The Obama administration made sure the word got out: The only people who talk to journalists are public affairs officers. In 2014, 38 national press organizations and transparency groups—including Investigative Reporters and Editors, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Poynter Institute—called on him to end "politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies."
"Over the past two decades, public agencies have increasingly prohibited staff from communicating with journalists unless they go through public affairs offices or through political appointees," the letter read. "We consider these restrictions a form of censorship—an attempt to control what the public is allowed to see and hear."
At least the press is less likely to go along with Trump on this than they apparently were with Obama.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:42PM
It is important to consider the entire context.
With Obama there was no reason to think anything was out of the ordinary. Trump has given us all kinds of reasons to think things are out of the ordinary. Trump spent his entire campaign and the post-election(?!?!) doubling down on falsehoods, many of them core to these agencies. We also have the experience of the Harper government in Canada going full-censor.
If you wait until things have already gone off the rails before kicking up a fuss, its too late. Canada showed us that -- entire libraries of scientific research were destroyed [vice.com] before anyone really had a handle on the scope of the problem.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:05PM
With Obama there was no reason to think anything was out of the ordinary. Trump has given us all kinds of reasons to think things are out of the ordinary.
Sorry, you just weren't paying attention the last eight years.
Trump spent his entire campaign and the post-election(?!?!) doubling down on falsehoods, many of them core to these agencies.
Just like Obama in early 2009. They were just different falsehoods back then. A key difference is that the press isn't going to give Trump a free pass like it did Obama. There is remarkably little Trump worship in the press. Meanwhile back in 2008, the press was head over heels in love with Obama.
If you wait until things have already gone off the rails before kicking up a fuss, its too late. Canada showed us that -- entire libraries of scientific research were destroyed before anyone really had a handle on the scope of the problem.
And yet Canada survived.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:10PM
Simply repeating your bullshit does not make it any more true than it was the first time you said it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:18PM
Simply repeating your bullshit does not make it any more true than it was the first time you said it.
So you're saying I should back it with some facts? Well, we already have the fact that the Obama administration did the same thing and that for better or worse, the current actions of the Trump administration seem to be standard procedure and not particularly alarming the last time they happened.
Second, Obama demonstrated [soylentnews.org] that he was going to be a duplicitous president back after he won the Democrat convention in 2008.
I gave Obama a chance until he "triangulated to the center" by voting for the amendment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [wikipedia.org] (FISA) in 2008 to allow for mass surveillance. When you promise something important to get nominated (such as a stand against mass surveillance) and immediately betray that trust after you get what you want, then what other betrayals are you up to?
So there was reason to think Obama wouldn't be a great president even in 2008, IF you were paying attention. Instead, I find that with the context, it's interesting just how similar Obama and Trump really are. But then, voting for someone because of vague promises that you want to hear or because they're not someone else, tends to lead to the same sort of personalities in power.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:23PM
Well, we already have the fact that the Obama administration did the same thing and that for better or worse, the current actions of the Trump administration seem to be standard procedure and not particularly alarming the last time they happened.
Whoops, I thought this was part of the story about Trump freezing certain actions of the EPA. In support of my assertion that the Trump action is very similar to previous administrations (at least at present!), we have this story [nytimes.com].
Longtime employees at three of the agencies — including some career environmental regulators who conceded that they remained worried about what President Trump might do on policy matters — said such orders were not much different from those delivered by the Obama administration as it shifted policies from the departing White House of George W. Bush. They called reactions to the agency memos overblown. On Wednesday, Douglas Ericksen, a spokesman for the E.P.A., said that grants had been only briefly frozen for review, and that they would be restarted by Friday.
“I’ve lived through many transitions, and I don’t think this is a story,” said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter. “I don’t think it’s fair to call it a gag order. This is standard practice. And the move with regard to the grants, when a new administration comes in, you run things by them before you update the website.”
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:56AM
LOL @ "said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2017, @06:10AM
LOL @ "said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter."
So? Is it somehow incorrect what was said?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:33AM
So. It is somehow ironic what was said.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:36PM
> Second, Obama demonstrated that he was going to be a duplicitous president back after he won the Democrat convention in 2008.
Wah! Obama wasn't 100% to your liking. So he's a total science-denying hypocrite.
We all know you love your climate change denialism like it was your mother's milk.
Its obvious you are more than happy to endorse EPA muzzling because it fits your agenda.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2017, @06:25AM
Wah! Obama wasn't 100% to your liking. So he's a total science-denying hypocrite.
Backing mass surveillance of innocent people shouldn't be to your liking either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:42AM
Simply repeating your bullshit does not make it any more true than it was the first time you said it.
So you're saying I should back it with some facts?
No, the original AC was saying that simply repeating your bullshit does not make it any more true. Do we need to tell you one more time?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2017, @02:22PM
Or are you saying that true things become not true because I post about them? Did reality change itself so that Obama didn't vote for FISA after he said he wouldn't? Or how about his most epic of lies, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it". Now that I mentioned it, did I retcon it into nonexistence?
Or perhaps in your post-factual world, it no longer matters what is true?
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:07PM
They're not falsehoods. They are merely "alternate facts".
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 27 2017, @01:41AM
You say "out of the ordinary".
And, that is why Trump was elected. The voters were quite tired of the ordinary corruption in Washington. The past several administrations have been so very ordinary, and so very corrupt. The voters are hoping for something out of the ordinary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:25AM
Yes. Extraordinary levels of corruption and incompetence!
Yay!
Vote for Trump, what do you have to lose?
Turns out, everything.
Actually they voted for trump because of racial anxiety.
Number #1 predictor of support for Trump - fear of a brown country.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 27 2017, @02:52PM
Yeah, because Hillary is brown, and all the women at her conventions were black or brown, and everywhere she went, she was mobbed by loyal black worshippers and - and you're so full of shit your eyes are turning brown. Well, that puts you on the road to being part of a brown nation!!
http://downtrend.com/71superb/top-ten-examples-of-hillary-clintons-racism-the-media-chooses-to-ignore [downtrend.com]
#1 – In 1974, after Bill Clinton lost his bid for a Senate seat, Hillary lashed out at campaign manager Paul Fray calling him a, “f*cking Jew bastard!” This outburst was witnessed and confirmed by 3 people, so it definitely happened.
#2 – As First Lady, Hillary called young black men “super-predators” indicating that she thought all young black males were violent criminals. She also said, “We have to bring them to heel,” like young blacks are the same as dogs. Despite thinking this was incredibly racist, blacks still support Hillary.
#3 – While serving in the US Senate, Hillary tried to make a joke that disparaged a civil rights icon and demeaned all people from India. “I love this quote. It’s from Mahatma Gandhi. He ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr. Gandhi, do you still go to the gas station?” asked Clinton.
#4 – In 2005 Hillary said, “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants.” She also, as a Senator, voted to construct a wall between the US and Mexico. Considering the main “proof” of Trump’s racism is that he opposes illegal immigration and wants to build a wall, isn’t it odd that Hillary gets off for having said the same thing?
#5 – During the 2008 democratic primaries Hillary Clinton’s campaign started the “birther” rumors, questioning Obama’s US citizenship. They even circulated the now famous picture of Obama in full Muslim garb. Somehow Trump’s campaign to get Obama to release his birth certificate is racist, but Hillary’s role in starting the birther movement is not.
#6 – Also during the 2008 presidential race, Hillary’s husband Bill said this of Obama: “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Hillary didn’t say this one but her husband did and she certainly never disavowed it.
#7 – Shortly after announcing her candidacy, Hillary said “all lives matter” in a black church. I don’t think this one is racist, but lefties, black activists, and Hillary herself all do, so it makes the list. Plus as is the case with most of this stuff, if Trump had said it liberals would freak the hell out.
#8 – In November of 2015, Hillary called people in this country illegally “illegal aliens.” Trump is a racist when he says “illegal aliens,” why isn’t Hillary?
#9 – In April of this year, Hillary joined NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio on stage at a democratic fundraiser for a scripted joke about how lazy black people are. The two liberals made reference to “colored people’s time” which is a super-racist way of saying black people are chronically tardy and lethargic.
#10 – April was a great month for Hillary’s racism, as she also made a comment disparaging Native Americans. She said she had experience dealing with wild men when they “get off the reservation.” In essence she said Native Americans are savages who must be segregated from the rest of society.
As a bonus:
#11 – On a black radio show, Hillary pandered to black voters by claiming she always carries hot sauce in her purse. It was racist when Donald Trump pandered Hispanics by eating a taco bowl, but not racist when Hillary pandered blacks. How does that work?
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:46PM
Well.... shit. How did this not get more press coverage?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:02PM
I don't think you'll find many Obama apologists around here, generally it seems most people dislike him as being another Tool of the system. What's your point here? Don't worry about it because a previous tool did it, but he was considered "progressive" so you think we give it a pass? You need to Red Pill yourself quick, you're stuck in a dream world of bias and propaganda, this comment of yours is perfect evidence. Instead of condemning the stupid shit Trump is doing you prefer to lash out at your progressive "enemies" like a pouty child saying "but he took my toy first!".
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:09PM
You are probably right about khallow trying to pull a tu quoque fallacy, he has a history of that sort of shallow reasoning.
But there is value to putting trump's actions in historical context. As long we don't cherry-pick the context in a partisan way. At a minimum it helps to refine the argument against trump when you acknowledge the ways he takes what was considered normal and amps it up to abnormal.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:02PM
You are probably right about khallow trying to pull a tu quoque fallacy, he has a history of that sort of shallow reasoning.
But there is value to putting trump's actions in historical context. As long we don't cherry-pick the context in a partisan way. At a minimum it helps to refine the argument against trump when you acknowledge the ways he takes what was considered normal and amps it up to abnormal.
Thank you for your back-handed support. My point was not merely to say "But Bus^H^H^HObama did it too!", but to point out that this appears to be a routine practice of the transition of power, not "muzzling". Yes, let's worry about things when they become "abnormal" or worse (illegal, immoral, destructive, etc). But let's also keep in mind that a candidate like Trump, who ran on an anti-establishment platform which includes some degree of government reduction, is going to be abnormal by the choice of the voters who supported him.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:58PM
Trump? Have you paid attention to progressives lately? They think it's a how-to guide.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:15PM
We really need to do away with the labels, the whole partisan thing is just part of the puppet show. Democrats are no longer "progressive" by a long shot, Republicans from fifty years ago were more progressive than these well dressed snakes. How about we call out all the nasty shit done by either side and stop comparing it to "them" like that is some sort of valid excuse. I doubt you are trying to defend Trump's actions here, but that is one of the subtle effects of such comparisons whether you intend it or not.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:23PM
Nah, I'm not defending him. More comparing him to something far more on the nose.
And progressive is an accurate term still, though liberal isn't. Progressive just means moving forward, it says nothing about the direction you're facing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:09PM
From Wikipedia
In America, progressivism began as a social movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and grew into a political movement, in what was known as the Progressive Era. While the term "American progressives" represent a range of diverse political pressure groups (not always united), some American progressives rejected Social Darwinism, believing that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated, and believed that government could be a tool for change.[16] American President Theodore Roosevelt of the US Republican Party and later the US Progressive Party declared that he "always believed that wise progressivism and wise conservatism go hand in hand".[17] American President Woodrow Wilson was also a member of the American progressive movement within the Democratic Party.
The term "progressive" has some very clear definitions which today's Democrats do not fit. It is the political party that changes, not the terms themselves. Sure they can try claiming to be progressive and slowly redefine what that means, but I'm sure conservatives don't appreciate the rabid liberal nutjobs who equate conservative with racist. This "post truth" situation we're in feels more like people applying their emotional opinions to whatever current term is in use, thus diluting the actual meanings of words. Dictionaries are now going to have to have a new section "definition as used by: insert various groups here". So progressive as viewed by the politically liberal types, politically conservative types, objective observers as used by Fox news, as used by MSNBC, etc.
Personally I like to have words mean specific things, and this application of definitions based on each little worldview bubble is part of the "fake news post truth" problem. Emotional language used to twist facts around, George Carlin could probably have duplicated his "shellshock" bit about how we used to call it "bullshit" then it changed to "propaganda" but now its being reinvented in a way as "fake news" or "post truth". It is actually a brilliant tactic that makes propaganda even more effective. People will still be emotionally sucked in to stories that confirm their own world view, and will more easily dismiss contrary information as "fake news" without actually doing any checks to find out what is fake and what is real.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 26 2017, @11:23PM
I agree. Welcome to the world created by whatever you'd care to call those who religiously vote D. Anything they dislike, they simply redefine [blogspot.com]. Marriage, racism, equality, liberalism, progressive, harassment, peaceful protest, feminism, nationalism, illness, disability... Definitions have been their exclusive bitch for quite some time now.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:16PM
I recently have come across these two videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c [youtube.com]
https://www.c-span.org/video/?317048-1/liberals-media [c-span.org]
They are very interesting in he pretty much nails what is going on today. Back in 2007 and in 2013.
'Progressives' are not 'evil' or 'wrong'. They are misled and told it is OK to be mediocre. Once you pick that path you are OK with picking a side that does evil things. You have to. It is statistically impossible not to. If you have a group that does not discriminate against anything and has a 'meh whatever' attitude. Picking an opinion means you are discriminating. Discrimination is the same thing as racism in a progressives/Liberal view. At some point you will pick bad choices. You must. You do not have the proper tools to not pick bad choices, remember you do not discriminate. If you have a chocolate ice cream cone and cone made out of dog shit. You will never pick the dog shit one? Why not? Because you discriminated against dogs and their natural acts you racist nazi pig?! Its still dog shit no matter how many names you call me. This 'meh' attitude is leading to them pretty much ceding control of all governors and legislatures to the republicans. They do not bother to vote except sometimes every 4 years for the president. Whoever happens to come up for re-election that year has a shot at winning as a democrat seat.
For republicans Trump winning was a 'hey the dude actually pulled it off'! If Hillary had won it would have been 'well fuck more of the same,.... I guess'. Liberals on the other hand have been *blindsided* because of where they get their information. The news was feeding to them for the past 40+ years that republicans are evil incarnate (hint, they are not they are just people too). Whereas the news republicans were listening to was 'it is sorta close dudes get out and vote'. People on the net were showing the thumb on the scales of the polls. Yet no one on the Liberal side cared because the polls were telling them what they wanted. They doubled down on it. If anyone dared to say 'hey do these guys have something valid to say?' they were ostracized and fired. People rarely want to admit they are wrong. Which is also part of a liberal mindset. 'I am not wrong it is someone elses fault'. Most people do not react nicely when you prove them to be wrong. They will seek out things that revalidate them being the good guy and on the side of justice and right. Many will even go so far as to outright lie to keep their ego in check. So they continue to think their choice of information is a good source. Even though one currently sitting president continuously calls them out on lies and outright fabrications on a weekly basis. They couldn't even get thorough an inauguration without trying to use pictures that did not tell the story. That was an easy peasy story too. Show up take some pictures 'president sworn in'. Done. They turned it around and tried to fill in yet another narrative. Yet people want to say he is the bad guy. Where do they get the idea he is a bad guy? From their news sources who cant even show the right pictures on an easy story.
This past year most of the big media corps decided to go with 'the dude is literally an unpopular hitler' no real proof in that, just feels. Feels lets you feed your confirmation bias. That harsh mistress is what Scott Adams has been talking about for the past year. Scott has been talking about how persuasion maters and confirmation bias is the doorway. It was not Trumps policies that won him the election. He is actually interesting to watch and see. Hillary comes off cringey and fake to a lot of people. The Hitler 'narrative' they push is an old one they have pushed since Nixon. The unpopular one is a new angle for them as it worked during Obama. But they are not 'wrong this time' oh no they got it 100% right this time, right? Remember you are not wrong it is someone elses fault. The method the left usually uses in politics is framing specifically boxing. They by the use of debate trick their opponents into taking extreme positions. Trump stole their power and took on the extreme position by default. Then as a he lays out in all of his books, he negotiates to the middle. Their usual trick did not work because he was not playing the same game. They have resorted to simple name calling because they are not well practiced at any other trick.
Also they managed to make FoxNews actually seem like the rational ones. Not because FoxNews got better. They stayed about the same terrible news source they are. They made their news sources so much worse.
So it is no surprise that 1984 is becoming more popular. It speaks directly to how the media is the mouthpiece of the totalitarian government. Would anyone, who has a brain, say that is true of the Trump presidency? It also speaks to the Liberals favorite weapon. Using 'rightspeak'. When a word loses its power and becomes unpopular you change the meaning and move the cheese. Take for example a good one from the last election. Deplorable. Hillary was trying to use it to create a negative label. However, her branding is not good enough to create a 'meme'. The other side literally picked it up and used it against her. Another one you even used. The word progressive. Liberal became a pejorative. So they moved the cheese and tried to pretend it was someone else being mean (again they are not wrong it is some elses fault) and they made up a new word that sounds like they are doing something. When it is really the same old car with a new coat of paint.
Honestly, 'A Brave New World' would be a better choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:24PM
Discrimination is the same as eating an ass cream cone. Yeah sure. Any lame bullshit to prove your point.
The rest of your post is OK but progressives have some sane beliefs. They just don't have good or effective leaders. They were given Her. The Party seems to be realizing the mistake and putting Bernie front and center at the confirmation hearings. Too late, that guy is too old to be President.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @11:46PM
> ...feeding to them for the past 40+ years that republicans are evil incarnate (hint, they are not they are just people too).
Late to the party, just wanted to say that Cheney was evil incarnate.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 27 2017, @01:50AM
Well, yeah, but, Cheney is a neocon. Maybe you slept through that whole usurpation of the Republican party by the neoconservatives?
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:34PM
Keep in mind that the "progressives" in the US really arn't. The only reason they are even considered "the left" is cause "the right" is so much farther right. In any other democratic country, the democrats have more in common with that countries right than left.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @10:15PM
There is no need to keep this in mind because, in every political discussion on the internet, somebody from Europe (probably a Brit) happily regurgitates it for us.
But here's the thing: The USA, at least for the moment, is where the most political power resides, so they determine where the middle is. The proper phrasing that you are looking for is "Most democracies' dominant political parties are left and far-left of the USA".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @02:54AM
And now they're arresting journalists covering the coronation riots.
Godwin's law in action. Trump is the new Hitler.
Arrest all your critics and put them in prison.
How quaint.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:43PM
For all we know, it could be on the required reading list of quite a few colleges this semester. Classes kicked off, what, probably two, two and a half weeks ago? That's about the right amount of time to get around to getting books if they're not covered day one, right? I recall waiting about that long before ordering Philosophy of Right for one of my philosophy classes back in the day, and it wasn't covered until mid semester. But I probably would have ordered it day one if I could have afforded it.
I know a college professor who teaches English. He's putting a dystopian spin on all his classes this semester. Even said he would have covered Nineteen Eighty-Four if he could have figured out how to fit it into the syllabus. That was for introductory English classes. I'd imagine higher level classes that can cover whatever-feels-good could dedicate an entire semester to that, no problem.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:11PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:28PM
If he really did write that exact sentence, he didn't follow it. You can cut quite a few words out of it to obtain: "If possible, always cut a word out." Indeed, a closer look shows that "if possible" is tautological, so it gets: "Always cut a word out."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by zugedneb on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:50PM
people dont weep in hard situation, they weep afterwards.
i think this is the same phenomenon.
Trump will couse less global harm then any president, and people know this, but the preassure comes to surface now.
by and large, the bush and obama was more reason for this type of litterature, but maybe people see them as more legit authority, so this "clown" is making them nervous?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 5, Touché) by FatPhil on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:29PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:14PM
Is there any explanation for the increase in sales of this particular book?
Trump has bought a ton of copies and sent them to all his newly-appointed officials with a note just saying RTFM, guys!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:26PM
do 8 grams of dried mushrooms today, like meee
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:27PM
you wouldn't be posting if you had done that -- not within the past 8 to 12 hours!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:55PM
Nah it worked pretty gud and I would recommend it to anybody. Effects last closer to 4 hours and you can comment @ ShroomNews at any time.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:27PM
Dystopias are supposed to be absurd, extreme takes on reality, and never really happen. That said, until very recently, I felt like Fahrenheit 451 was so much better a model for how things were going: a populace so wrapped up in their infinite blankets of entertainment and modern conveniences that they lose sight of both the people around them and the state of the world at large. The book burning was really kinda ancillary to that.
But now, this "Even well demonstrated facts are free to be contested by the state" mode of the Trump administration starts to evoke minitru, and the explicit reathorization of torture by the head of state invokes miniluv. There aren't going to be thought police, but there's shades of 1984 I thought I'd never see for being too absurd.
(Score: 5, Funny) by quacking duck on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:47PM
Sane people: "The Onion's satire of Republican politicians is so outrageous, if they went any further they'd be sued for libel!"
2016 Republicans: "Hold my beer and watch this"
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:54PM
Poe's Law at work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law [wikipedia.org]
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:52PM
That's been de rigeur for presidents since George W. Bush. Dick Cheney openly bragged on national television how he ordered torture. Obama blew smoke up our ass for 8 years about a recovery that never happened and police state surveillance that he not only didn't stop, but expanded. We've been in upside-down world since then, spiraling in in ever tighter gyres.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:06PM
And here we have the class of idiot that allows the situation.
One who cannot distinguish between "Selectively picks metrics to make themselves sound better, and taking subjectivity too far" and "Overtly willing to accept completely made up facts when presented by the right party, repeatedly, and without question."
What galls me is that republicans have strayed so far from reality-based perspectives that the former isn't enough to justify themselves anymore. Like... say what you want about the WMDs in Iraq being bullshit(I have plenty), they really did have sources they overtrusted. Now, it's "Make up a story. We're done"
It's fucking horrifying. What's wrong with your brain?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:52PM
say what you want about the WMDs in Iraq being bullshit(I have plenty), they really did have sources they overtrusted.
I upvoted you. But that point is too generous. The Bush administration did more than overtrust, they willfully played games with the intelligence to support their predetermined conclusion. Much like trump seems to be doing with respect to the russian attacks on our electoral process. Choosing the low-confidence intelligence over the high-confidence intelligence just because the former supports his agenda.
Thirteen years ago, the intelligence community concluded in a 93-page classified document used to justify the invasion of Iraq that it lacked "specific information" on "many key aspects" of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.
But that's not what top Bush administration officials said during their campaign to sell the war to the American public. Those officials, citing the same classified document, asserted with no uncertainty that Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, concealing a vast chemical and biological weapons arsenal, and posing an immediate and grave threat to US national security.
Congress eventually concluded that the Bush administration had "overstated" its dire warnings about the Iraqi threat, and that the administration's claims about Iraq's WMD program were "not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting."
...
https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion [vice.com]
(there is a lot more worth reading at that link)
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:03PM
Yeah, well, they had one primary on-the-ground intelligence source and it was an exiled dissident.
They had some satellite imagery that showed construction they couldn't explain.
Divorced of all other context, that's a kind of very weak evidence. Were it the the only evidence of any kind, positive or negative, it'd raise questions.
What made it completely and utterly shitty was that this weak evidence was used to override a team of chemical weapons experts, on the ground in the country, under third party direction, with substantial inspection permissions(though not as much as the Bush administration demanded) saying that it wasn't possible. And so in that, you can see the kind of selectivity that makes the former category pretty damn shitty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:52PM
He literally forgot to shrooms.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 26 2017, @10:54PM
I'm not sure if you're directing that at me, or at Trump and those who take him at his word. For the sake of comity I'll assume it's the latter; if not you can clarify and we can revisit the subject of who's an idiot.
Honestly it's facile to lay out narrative like it comprises discrete strata, that are clearly defined, qualitatively, quantumly different. In terms of statecraft and politics, which is what we're talking about here, it's all narrative, and how successful you are at getting your narrative accepted by the most people. It's a conceit of so many who live within partisan realities that their narrative is based purely on fact, while their opponents dwell in a realm of fantasy. They're both mistaken. There is much myth-making going on on both sides.
I have liked to think that progressives are less credulous than others, but checking in on HuffingtonPost and other outlets since the election I am not so sure anymore. It's embarrassing to see them reduced to drooling mouthbreathers, too.
Where Trump has arrived seems to me to be a natural progression of the discursive shearing that has been going on for several decades. When the official narrative of how things are going differs too much from reality for too long, a critical loss of credibility occurs and the invisible social contract that keeps everybody going to work and paying their taxes and obeying the law begins to shear and shred. We have arrived at the moment in which the elites no longer pretend to care or play by the rules and feel completely empowered to say whatever they feel like without consequences. Trump is only bumping that up a notch. The only thing he has going for him at the moment is that enough people still believe that he's gonna go after the elites. When realization sinks in that he's only scamming them like every one of his predecessors, we're going to be in for one doozy of a time.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:29PM
Where Trump has arrived seems to me to be a natural progression of the discursive shearing that has been going on for several decades. When the official narrative of how things are going differs too much from reality for too long, a critical loss of credibility occurs and the invisible social contract that keeps everybody going to work and paying their taxes and obeying the law begins to shear and shred. We have arrived at the moment
Missing from your analysis is the collapse of conservative media into an orbit around foxnews and the limbaugh crew. Conservatives are demonstrably less omnivorous in their media consumption than liberals. [alternet.org] They've coalesced into an echo chamber that deliberately misrepresents reality because outrage makes money. [vox.com] Karl Rove himself said that solutions are no longer the result of studying reality. [wikipedia.org]
You think Trump is the result of people believing their own eyes over the lies of the elite. Trump is the result of them believing the lies of the elite over their own eyes.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:37PM
Obama blew smoke up our ass for 8 years about a recovery that never happened...On one hand we have statements that are supported by data. The Economy Is Better — Why Don’t Voters Believe It? [fivethirtyeight.com]
On the other hand, we have the Whitehouse Press Secretary lying about things for which there is photographic proof of falsehood. White House Press Secretary Defends False Statements About Inauguration Crowds [motherjones.com]
Enough with the false equivalency already!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 26 2017, @10:18PM
Ah yes. Data. Because there's no way to lie with data, is there? Let's not count labor force participation rates, let's only count people who have recently filed for unemployment. Let's not talk about real incomes, which have been on an uninterrupted slide for 40 years, let's talk about how great the Dow Jones is doing. Nah, you're right. You got me. Data never lies, and what the country's feeling is all in their heads, right? All you gotta do is convince them how delusional they are, and how it is really, truly wonderful to have the .0001% siphon off all the productivity gains of the last several decades, to, what, squirrel it away in secret accounts in the Caymans and wash it through lots of shell companies so they don't pay any taxes on it?
It is not false equivalency at all to point out that Obama did nothing to help out the middle class, and he did nothing to rein in the police state. If you still buy the story that Democrats and Republicans are different, you really need to step outside your bubble. The country is not tearing itself to pieces because everything's going GREAT!
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:24PM
I'm not so sure about that. We already have:
- The NSA monitoring all of the US communications networks for anything they deem suspicious past and present. This is the culmination of the Total Information Awareness project that started back in 2001 or so, and has been continuing in various levels of secrecy ever since (and TIA was also the result of some stuff that the Clinton administration was up to like Echelon).
- The FBI as well as local police forces can and do send in undercover cops to spy on political and religious organizations, including those with no intentions of criminal activity.
- A press that quite happily does the bidding of whoever is in political power at any given moment. Even the ones that are supposedly slanted towards the other party. And as of last Friday, journalists are being arrested and charged with crimes if they report something the administration doesn't like.
The only thing missing would be bounties to turn in your friends and neighbors if they start saying the wrong thing.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:02PM
You mean: See Something, Say Something
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by lgw on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:15PM
Not the same. But that's just the thing - we no longer need a network of informers turning in their neighbors and relatives. With every phone call being recorded and keyword-indexed, every email added to the DB, everyone's web browsing monitored, there's just no point in the informants.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:54PM
The informants are useful for 2 major reasons:
1. To keep people from speaking and organizing in person. Including in an unorganized fashion: Bob complains about government policy at the bar on Thursday night, Friday he no longer has a job and for some reason can't get another one in his field, that kind of thing.
2. To create an endless supply of enemies that have to be located, imprisoned, and tortured. Which justifies spending even more on surveillance, prisons, and torture. It is vitally important that the enemy never be completely defeated, and informants turning people in on false information that can never be disproven is a good way of keeping a good supply of enemies.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by lgw on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:57PM
Even China no longer needs informants to achieve these goals. Theoretically you can keep things voice-only and fly under the radar, but that's increasingly alien to young people.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by zugedneb on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:44PM
we should be happy for teh technologycal advances and look forward to brighter future, even if we are not alive then...
but instead there is this strange sliding...
people seem to be in worse mood for every new day...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:55PM
They're being incited by a media run by the Establishment, who seem to think that if they can drive the proles to fighting each other to collapse they can blithely skip off to private islands and bunkers and never worry that the chickens will come home to roost.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:18PM
yes...
i have been modded troll for statements with similar content though.
especially in connection to the owners of a lot of the media.
but then a gain, who am i to troll(lol)...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:14PM
We are already living in a dystopia.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:07PM
that shuld be the background noise.
we should be happy whith the knowledge that give that shit.
as example Google Earth has made me a better man.
playing mobas and mmo has made me a better man.
the advances in transportation made me more happy.
the advances in robotics made me more happy, though somewhat worried for the unrest that comes woth loss of jobs.
the advances in medicine made me more happy.
the advances in kosmology adn astronomy made me more happy.
wtf guys, there is more in the workd thatn the deeds of humans.
stagnation is not solely the fault of the government.
stagnation need soil to grow in, and that dystopian soil i in your heads.
maybe, dystopia is neede, since evolution eliminated all the overly happy people, blinded by their joy, so to speak...
but there is a limit?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:14PM
Check zugnub's posting history.
He's literally a nazi.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:53PM
The most shocking this is the reveal of the actual identity of the "enemy of the state", the target of the "2-minute" hate: I never would have guessed that it would be Hilary Clinton!!! Double-plus Good, help us unremember.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:18PM
What I find amusing is that two months after the election, when Hillary is no longer relevant, not running for office, we hear "Hillary" continue to be the deflection cry used by those who have no real rebuttal argument to make about the current administration's policies going forward.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:58PM
It doesn't end until Hillary For Prison! That's what the crowds want, nay, demand! Trump! Fuck!
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:53PM
I have read the book a few times over the years. First when I was young and then later again at university. My impression at youth was how right it was (evil government etc etc) and as I grew older how over-rated and misunderstood it was. People focus to much on the whole surveillance society -- big brother bit and forget that it is in essence an anti-soviet book. A book by an author paid for by the CIA in its culture cold war between the west and soviet Russia. Which makes the surveillance society angle even funnier. Orwell's later, and in my opinion much better, books Animal Farm makes the anti-soviet connection more obvious.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:20PM
A book by an author paid for by the CIA in its culture cold war between the west and soviet Russia.
If true, that's one of the best uses of spook money ever.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:03PM
Seems unlikely. The CIA did fund the first movie adaptations of both books. But they also made significant changes to the stories to fit the CIA's desired narrative. [spyculture.com] You can read (most of) the CIA's file on Orwell here. [spyculture.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 27 2017, @06:58AM
You do know that Orwell was a socialist? Went to Spain during the civil war, saw and took part in a libertarian socialist paradise and then the Stalinists showed up and next thing he was sneaking out of Spain so as not to be killed in the totalitarian purge. On arriving back in the UK the government kept him under pretty heavy surveillance.
The lesson he learned wasn't to be anti-socialist but to be anti-authoritarian.
In the 20th century, it was the socialist revolutions that got hijacked by the authoritarians, now it's the democratic west. Note that Trumps power base is the usual socialist/communist base, the unemployed/under employed/working class people who feel (rightly) that the powers that be are ignoring them and worse. It's the usual authoritarian playbook, a mixture of left (support the working class) and right (nationalism, law and order, xenophobia)
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:33PM
Let me acquaint you with modern Newspeak.
Alternative Facts --> Lies
Go through proper channels --> Turn yourself in and go to prison
"Work Together" and "Cooperate" --> Do what government tells you and say it was your idea
Golden Key --> Backdoor to defeat security
Secure Encryption with a Golden Key --> Insecure System with Backdoor
Traitor --> Whistleblower
Parallel Construction --> Conspiracy of prosecutors and law enforcement to commit perjury by lying to the court and the defense about what their evidence actually is.
"Don't worry, you'll be well taken care of" --> You're gonna die
"Shelter in place" --> Stay off the roads so that the rich and powerful people can escape to safety.
Citizens --> Slaves to the 1%.
Piracy --> File-Sharing
Hacker --> Cracker or Script Kiddy
Geo-restrictions --> Geographical Discrimination
White-Washing --> Acceptable Racism
Lobbying --> Political Prostitution, Corruption
Corporate Partnership --> Agreed Monopoly
Intellectual Property -->Imaginary Property
IP Theft --> Idea Infringement
Cyber Terrorist --> Anyone In Disagreement
Copyright Enforcer --> Extortion Specialist
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:54PM
Shrooms --> Do Them
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:51PM
> Shrooms --> Do Them
Uh, no. I do Diet Coke and that's enough.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:59PM
I just want you, @DannyB, to feel great. Dew The Shrooms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:30PM
Every now and then is pretty fun, I admit. Also a good excuse to clean up the house and get everything spic and span. Makes the experience more positive. A wise woman once told me that clutter attracts negative energy. It's true. Extra nice if it's springtime in the air and the windows are open.
Classical and jazz music are very good for setting also.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:23AM
Surely I am not the only one who sees this list and thinks - Hey! That happens in a company!
There is nothing modern about Newspeak. It is just another sign of the corporate influence in American politics.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Friday January 27 2017, @01:14AM
https://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-books-Amazon/zgbs/books [amazon.com]
As I write this:
1984 is #1
Brave New World is #11
Fahrenheit 451 is #19
I must admit I am changing my reading habits; recent conversations reminded me that I've been meaning to read Starship Troopers (not as popular currently, ranked 7,929 in books).
(Score: 2) by snufu on Friday January 27 2017, @01:45AM
The authors will soon be contacted by the Ministry of Love for enhanced conversation.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday January 27 2017, @03:25AM
"The Man Who Invented the Science Fiction Paperback [soylentnews.org]" should have been under "related stories" or might perhaps have better been omitted.