Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the buy-used-and-pay-cash dept.

CNN Money reports:

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:

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"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:22PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:22PM (#458977) Journal

    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?

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by ilsa on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:40PM

    by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:40PM (#458983)

    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

      by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:44PM (#458986)

      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

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:30PM (#459013)

      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

        by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:58PM (#459021)

        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

          by bob_super (1357) on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:12PM (#459065)

          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

            by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:32PM (#459113)

            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

          by butthurt (6141) on Friday January 27 2017, @01:51AM (#459259) Journal

          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

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday January 26 2017, @10:34PM (#459187) Homepage Journal

        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

          by Gaaark (41) on Friday January 27 2017, @12:13AM (#459222) Journal

          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

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday January 27 2017, @07:59PM (#459677) Homepage Journal

            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

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 27 2017, @03:58AM (#459301)

          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

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:09PM (#459027) Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:42PM (#459043)

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:05PM (#459095) Journal

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:10PM (#459100)

            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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:18PM (#459144) Journal

              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

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:23PM (#459148) Journal

                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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:56AM (#459261)

                  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

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @06:10AM (#459334) Journal

                    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

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:33AM (#460190)

                      So. It is somehow ironic what was said.

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:36PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:36PM (#459157)

                > 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

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @06:25AM (#459335) Journal

                  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

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:42AM (#459378)

                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

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @02:22PM (#459457) Journal
                  I've since provided more supporting evidence. I got this asserting things without supporting evidence problem figured out.

                  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

          by captain normal (2205) on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:07PM (#459096)

          They're not falsehoods. They are merely "alternate facts".

          --
          When life isn't going right, go left.
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 27 2017, @01:41AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @01:41AM (#459251) Journal

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:25AM (#459314)

            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

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @02:52PM (#459479) Journal

              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

        by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:46PM (#459045)

        Well.... shit. How did this not get more press coverage?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:02PM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:02PM (#459059)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:09PM (#459064)

          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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:02PM (#459134) Journal

            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

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:58PM (#459056) Homepage Journal

      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

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:15PM (#459067)

        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

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:23PM (#459072) Homepage Journal

          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

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:09PM (#459099)

            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

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday January 26 2017, @11:23PM (#459203) Homepage Journal

              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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:16PM (#459102)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:24PM (#459108)

          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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @11:46PM (#459210)

          > ...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

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @01:50AM (#459257) Journal

            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

        by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:34PM (#459115)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @10:15PM (#459177)

          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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @02:54AM (#459280)

      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

    by dyingtolive (952) on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:43PM (#458985)

    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

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:11PM (#459005) Homepage
      As long as you don't mind the dialect/age of the language, Eric Arthur Blair is a superb wordsmith, there shouldn't ever be any issue including one of his works on an English language syllabus. Whilst he wasn't the originator of the more famous quote, he did a set of rules rather like Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's that less was more when it came to writing - "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out". Here's a nice little read on Orwell's rules, including the most important final one: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/07/george-orwell-writing
      --
      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:28PM (#459037)

        "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out"

        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

    by zugedneb (4556) on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:50PM (#458992)

    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

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday January 26 2017, @05:29PM (#459012) Homepage
      Yeah, you're right. Trump is way more Animal Farm.
      --
      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

    by theluggage (1797) on Thursday January 26 2017, @06:14PM (#459029)

    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!