re: O Keefe Interview on Hannity tells me that we live in 1984

quote:

---

Try driving three blocks without seeing a church, temple, mosque or whatever else.

---

Has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. Nor is it related

quote:

---

What books are being banned?

---

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer For starters. I think "Little Women is under attack too

quote:

---

Who's opinion has been "crushed"?

---

Clown question, unless you're living under a rock

is O'Keefe coming up soon on Hannity (TV) or did I miss him. I caught a bit of it on radio.

The CSU guy on here (paddy something) is not impressing me with his grasp of this.

quote:

---

Bubba - if you can’t see the similarities e btwn banning a book, and selectively deleting videos, done in the interest of making sure that one political viewpoint and party are discussed and ultimately the “situation” of having a president elected that isn’t on your side, then you really suck worse as a literary critic than I thought. 

I was an English Major. We called that kind of thing a “theme.”

---

Then you were a shitty english major and either dropped out of your useless degree program or graduated with a pointless degree. This is the part i guess where you tell us all you changed your major to engineering or some shite.

Oh and the name's not "bubba", you fricking hick. The name's Fackler. Pandy Fackler.

Nope. English Major, emphasis in creative writing. Consequently, I understand dystopian literary themes. Another more popular culture example of such is the Hunger Games.

Went to law school, where I graduated near the top of my class, and am a lifelong lover of books, language and words.

Where I come from - Bubba is a term of endearment. Granted, it’s not a place where smart, important people live that write for a living or work for Google or who are smart enough to make decisions for us hicks. But at least, according to Willie Stark (speaking of literary devices used to express political and social commentary), Hick is also a compliment. I’ll go ahead and take it as one.

My fricking name is Wednesday.

quote:

---

don't believe i'm the only one who's right but i did read the two books in question and i'm sure as shite right about them. 

---

I know you think that but is it true? Wednesday has a different interpretation and you just called her an idiot because she doesn't think like you. That's a very prog thing to do.

I expect you to disagree. You seem pretty narcissistic.

quote:

---

I didn't say the "majority"

---

quote:

---

What i do know however is the city council voting 6 to 1 to remove them and that council was elected by a constituency that didn't give a shite. Now that's a fact. The people who elected these council members either supported there removal or they were indifferent to their existence.

---

Wow, you're all over the place. The majority elected them - but they don't give a shite. So it's both/maybe the will of the people, and also they don't care, which means the removal was tacitly supported by them. Or maybe they didn't. But they elected the people who did.

Brilliant, and of course, bullshite.

quote:

---

i don't fricking care enough to gooble the polling data.

---

Or maybe you did and didn't like the results.

quote:

---

A majority of Louisiana residents, both statewide and in metro New Orleans, oppose the removal or renaming of memorials and monuments to Confederate leaders, according to a poll conducted for WWL-TV and The Advocate.

---

LINK

quote:

---

And if you think they will be "permanently" tucked away

---

Being on someone's estate or in a tiny corner of the state IS tucked away. And again, they're currently sitting in a warehouse and there is no sign that they are going anywhere.

The funniest part is that your first comment was so condescending.

quote:

---

You need some new data. That shite you're quoting is old

---

It's 5 months older.

quote:

---

The poll, one in a series conducted by UNO’s Survey Research Center

---

frick you, dude.

quote:

---

The above link is a more recent "new orleans only" poll, not the state or surrounding parishes. And Orleans is the only parish that matters in all this shite. Those are their statues and they get to decide.

---

Read it again, professor. It' statewide AND local, independently, not combined.

quote:

---

And Orleans is the only parish that matters

---

Your opinion is not fact.

quote:

---

The above link is a more recent "new orleans only" poll, not the state or surrounding parishes.

---

and conducted by a bunch of college actifags from UNO, and included a much broader line of questioning.

quote:

---

Now that's "condescending".

---

I know. Totally unqualified condescension is funny.

quote:

---

People who say or believe we're living in orwellian times are lazy minded. They didn't read either book (1984 or a brave new world) and are simply repeating what others are saying.

---

Restricting people into being either a or b only (where a=didn't read the books, and b=repeating someone else's ideas) in instances like this is actually more lazy/simple-minded than what you're accusing others of. I don't know you well enough to know if this is intellectual dishonesty on your part or you yourself aren't capable of seeing option c and further (which doesn't take too much mental effort), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain at least one more option to you on the off chance you might see the light.

You're correct in painting the dystopia of 1984 as a more starkly controlling place where books are burned and the population is oppressed through poverty, fear & intimidation. You're also correct in identifying the oppression of people in Brave New World being a function of their being drugged and having their base instincts being fed to the point their capacity to care was erodes.

I'd even agree with you that our society is more closely conforming to the Brave New World type of dystopia, wherein we are increasingly drugged/medicated and encouraged to indulge in the creature comforts of consumerism while trusting that the corporations & government have our best interests in mind.

What you're not seeming to understand is that ostensible reasons behind decisions are not always the truest reasons. Here's a seemingly unrelated, but actually very relevant example to establish context (if you have any desire to understand who is running things and why there is an erosion of certain long held values, why social discord is unnecessarily on the rise between factions of our society, etc... but that's a topic for many other threads):

The ostensible reason the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was passed was to stabilize the monetary system and protect citizens from abuses by the powerful banks. The actual reason it passed was that the wealthiest bankers (the Morgans, Rothschilds, Warburgs, Rockefellers, etc.) anticipated actual reform, secretly met on Jekyll Island, off of Georgia, and planned how they could secretly pass what appeared to be reform, but what actually enriched them even further and created barriers to competition. This isn't even controversial and many of the members of this group openly admitted it once they had a secure hold on power. Side note: If you find this interesting, but don't have time to read G. Edward Griffin's book about this topic, The Creature from Jekyll Island, this not quite 2 hour youtube video by the author is well worth a listen:
LINK

In the context of Brave New World, there was an actual belief by the characters in the book that the system in place was actually for the good of the people and happiness-- if superficial-- was an important component of the stable society. The system in 1984 is, of course, more overtly about control, and happiness is irrelevant. In the case of our society, what people like Wednesday are suggesting is that our government and corporations are ostensibly trying to engineer society to be one of peace and happiness, and equality for all, while attempting to foist Brave New World dystopia on our head. But further, to the extent that people aren't falling in line like sheep, those in control are resorting to oblique strategies to incite an emotional response from the population that allows them to implement 1984-like tools to crush their opposition. So, there's plenty of 1984 style poverty, fear & intimidation to dish out to enemies of the people in power. That's the crux of the point you're missing... it's not either/or; it really is both/and at a meaningful level.

It starts with the promise of making things better for everyone regardless of political allegiance (a lie by those in power, though believed perhaps by some); the dystopia is pushed upon society with the veneer of happiness for those who play by the rules; the dystopia loses that veneer of pleasantness for those who don't conform.

A couple of quick examples off the top of my head that to varying degrees illustrate some of these concerns: 1) A kid makes what might've been a bonehead comment on social media a couple years ago... he just had his offer to Harvard rescinded. 2) There are possibly hundreds of anecdotes of mistreatment of people for wearing a MAGA hat or showing support for Trump in a variety of contexts. 3) The labeling of opponents of progressive ideology, like Jordan Peterson & Ben Shapiro, as Nazis (as allegedly noted in Google documentation from the Project Veritas piece that just came out). 4) The de-monetizing of various conservatives and platforms which allow them free speach (to inflict poverty upon them). I'm sure others can cite better examples than me, and there is some nuance to some of these cases, but, at a minimum, these exaples all touch on a primarily leftist desire to abuse power to crush enemies and shape society in dubious ways.

If you don't see the close parallels into this type of pressure and attacks on individuals for non-conformity to progressivism with the concept of the thought police from 1984, then I question your intelligence or your motives. Right now, the Left and the big money that drives them (briefly alluded to in The Fed example above) are acting through proxies (academia, media, big tech companies, etc). But it seems like a matter of time before politicians (probably Democrat, but I don't rule out Republicans as many of them are bought off in one way or another) look to enact legislation that codifies some of these ideas in a way to directly take those reins and legally impinge upon the freedom of citizens... So, social scoring like in China, the thought police of 1984 and possibly a Matrix like dystopia (death or banishment) for those who don't agree with the Brave New World dystopia they're trying to force feed all of us is far from the lazy thinking you initially suggested.