George Orwell as Captain Obvious

[Baruch Menachem]

I have believed in the quotation below forever. Sloppy thinking leads to sloppy writing. Incoherent prose is the result of incoherent thoughts.

This is from an essay by Jonah Goldberg.

Orwell argued that bad thinking and bad language are, in the parlance of today's twelve-step culture, mutual enablers. "A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, but then fail all the more completely because he drinks," Orwell noted by way of illustration. The English language "becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

This was especially true in the realm of political speech. He noted in his brilliant 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language" that "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." The "transfer of populations" or the "elimination of unreliable elements" were, for example, what people say when they really mean, "I believe in killing my opponents when I can get good results by doing so."

Words have meaning, and transferring meaning by words to places it does not belong, or covering up meaning in polysyllabic mush makes me doubt you.

You want to sell an idea, you need to be clear, direct and complete.

 

[JenyEliza]

Yeah, like "undocumented immigrant" for "ILLEGAL ALIEN".

Yeah. Words have meaning. Careful how you package them if you want to sell your idea.

That whole "undocumented" thing has sold pretty freaking well so far.....hasn't it?

When was the last time we rounded up and DEPORTED (per US Federal law) ILLEGALS?

Oh yeah...we can't, they're "undocumented".

 

[Baruch Menachem]

thought crime is now very old fashioned, as Helen Thomas can attest.

 

[Madeline]

Polysyllabic mush is a symptom of crappy reasoning, I agree. The principle of Keep It Simple Stupid works for writing just as it does anything else.

 

[Oddball]

I have believed in the quotation below forever. Sloppy thinking leads to sloppy writing. Incoherent prose is the result of incoherent thoughts.

This is from an essay by Jonah Goldberg.

Orwell argued that bad thinking and bad language are, in the parlance of today's twelve-step culture, mutual enablers. "A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, but then fail all the more completely because he drinks," Orwell noted by way of illustration. The English language "becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

This was especially true in the realm of political speech. He noted in his brilliant 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language" that "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." The "transfer of populations" or the "elimination of unreliable elements" were, for example, what people say when they really mean, "I believe in killing my opponents when I can get good results by doing so."

Words have meaning, and transferring meaning by words to places it does not belong, or covering up meaning in polysyllabic mush makes me doubt you.

You want to sell an idea, you need to be clear, direct and complete.

Rand said many of the same things, with different words.

Somewhere, in the great metaphysical soup somewhere, they're both looking down at both the District of Criminals and the American lamestream media and having a great big laugh.

 

[boedicca]

I have believed in the quotation below forever. Sloppy thinking leads to sloppy writing. Incoherent prose is the result of incoherent thoughts.

This is from an essay by Jonah Goldberg.

Orwell argued that bad thinking and bad language are, in the parlance of today's twelve-step culture, mutual enablers. "A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, but then fail all the more completely because he drinks," Orwell noted by way of illustration. The English language "becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

This was especially true in the realm of political speech. He noted in his brilliant 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language" that "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." The "transfer of populations" or the "elimination of unreliable elements" were, for example, what people say when they really mean, "I believe in killing my opponents when I can get good results by doing so."

Words have meaning, and transferring meaning by words to places it does not belong, or covering up meaning in polysyllabic mush makes me doubt you.

You want to sell an idea, you need to be clear, direct and complete.

Rand said many of the same things, with different words.

Somewhere, in the great metaphysical soup somewhere, they're both looking down at both the District of Criminals and the American lamestream media and having a great big laugh.

And no doubt each smoking a cigarette, one of them hand rolled.

 

[midcan5]

[Another piece of blather that should be Discussion or Politics and not Writing.]


Using Jonah Goldberg in a piece about clear thinking is like using Jack the Ripper as an example of the proper respect and treatment of women. Goldberg is a dishonest fool at best, but possibly just plain stupid.


"Jonah Goldberg has to be one of the most idiotic revisionists of modern times. Any person even vaguely familiar with Fascism knows it is of the Right and not the left. I will grant that extremists seem to meet in a circle as in the end dictators dictate but if you can't tell the difference between political ideologies you should stay home."

Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Facism' Brings Historical Revisionism to Comical New Heights | | AlterNet

"But despite Goldberg's protestations and caveats, "Liberal Fascism" is indeed a remarkably silly work that's jam-packed with the same sloppy logic and dodgy research that we've come to expect from today's conservative pundit class. On page 2, for instance, Goldberg admits that he doesn't really know how to define fascism and that "not even the professionals have figured out what exactly fascism is." But as anyone who's followed Goldberg's career can tell you, lacking knowledge on any given subject in no way impedes him from writing over 400 pages on it. Indeed, not providing a concrete definition of fascism is essential to his case, since it allows him to define fascism however he pleases. Goldberg puts this conceit to good use throughout the book, as everyone from the French revolutionaries to Teddy Roosevelt-era Progressives to the New Dealers to communists to the '60s New Left to Hillary Clinton is linked with fascism at one point or another. By the end of the book, Goldberg comes off as a lonely, belligerent drunk who shouts obscenities at people leaving his local 7-11."


"Michael Tomasky has posted a review of Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.” I would like to publicly thank Tomasky for his efforts, since I certainly wasn’t going to read the book. Some might find such a stance close-minded, I consider it an issue of basic pragmatism. I don’t like spending my limited free time reading every bit of intellectually dishonest garbage that is put out. Jon Stewart had an interview with Jonah Goldberg on The Daily Show. I posted the this comment at reddit in the wake of watching the interview. A slightly shorter version and modified version is given below.

Michael Tomasky’s Critique of Liberal Fascism Esoteric Dissertations from a One-Track Mind


Jackboots and Whole Foods | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[Baruch Menachem]

So, how does the fact that Goldberg wrote it change the veracity of what he wrote?

Is any of what he said false? How? Does mushy writing show evidence of clear thinking? Is the use of euphemisms a sign of honesty?

 

[Oddball]

[Another piece of blather that should be Discussion or Politics and not Writing.]


Using Jonah Goldberg in a piece about clear thinking is like using Jack the Ripper as an example of the proper respect and treatment of women. Goldberg is a dishonest fool at best, but possibly just plain stupid.

prattleprattleyammeryammerdreckdreck....

You have zero room to maneuver for judgment of others, viz. the "dishonest fool at best, but possibly just plain stupid" department, Skippy.

 

[midcan5]

So, how does the fact that Goldberg wrote it change the veracity of what he wrote?....

That question is too easy. Would you believe a criminal, a child, a murderer just because they say so? Having read Goldberg, he is smart, but a dishonest hack. Read the reviews. If you don't, then you too fall into the category of the naive who believe because it fits the narrative in your head but has no relation to reality. See first youtube.

You have zero room to maneuver for judgment of others, viz. the "dishonest fool at best, but possibly just plain stupid" department, Skippy.

The usual empty attack on the poster and the usual purposeful ignorance of the information posted. Have you ever read anything or are you simply a one line robot? You have never added a single thought or intelligent comment to any thread. I asked before for a contrary example, still none.


More info for those who ideas are founded in fact.

Orcinus


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DVUTYQm2TM]YouTube - Dissecting Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" P.2[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE1hrZSuZKw]YouTube - Jonah Goldberg Is A Liar Or Just Hates Facts[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP9DxDnu9sU]YouTube - Jonah Goldberg and Liberal Fascism[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

You?!?....Yammering about purposeful ignorance and personal attacks?!?!?

What has been your whole line of diatribe about Goldberg here been, fruitcake?

Personal attacks....Oh, to laugh!

 

[midcan5]

You?!?....Yammering about purposeful ignorance and personal attacks?!?!?

What has been your whole line of diatribe about Goldberg here been, fruitcake?

I'm sorry you can only counter with the same nonsense over and over again, it is your MO, but if you had taken a bit of time, the attacks on Goldberg were substantiated in the links.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

So, how does the fact that Goldberg wrote it change the veracity of what he wrote?....

That question is too easy. Would you believe a criminal, a child, a murderer just because they say so? Having read Goldberg, he is smart, but a dishonest hack. Read the reviews. If you don't, then you too fall into the category of the naive who believe because it fits the narrative in your head but has no relation to reality. See first youtube.

Goldberg (I'm Guessing) detests Orewell's politics. But he recognizes the truth when he sees it. No matter who says it.

It really does not matter who tells the truth, but that the truth be told.
The basis of this thread is that perverting the language is dishonest because it takes the sting from real evil; giving it a pass, and equates honest disagreement with crime.

In order to be convincing, you need to use language honestly.

Do you have a problem with that concept?