Orwellian politics

[Redfish]

Thanks Fish, I couldn't have made my point more concretely than you just did.

not sure what your point was, but you are welcome.

 

[hadit]

George Orwell famously warned us of those who would control our thoughts by controlling the words we use. I thought it might be interesting to track efforts to do this in modern politics.

I'll start with the shenanigans around the word "access". It's a popular euphemism for describing poverty, often combined with the equally dubious usage of "denied". Rather than saying that a family can't afford decent housing, they might say that they are "denied access" to adequate housing. Being "denied access" seems to simply mean that they can't afford something, but it has connotations that prompt people to think about the issue differently. Which is the point.

They prefer "access" to "buy" or "afford" because they want to promote the idea that the goods and services in question aren't things you buy, but rather things you are granted "access" to. The usage of "denied" reinforces this stealth assumption by further suggesting that the goods and services in question are, by right, owed to the person in question. They want to equate not being able to afford something with being "denied" a right.

What other orwellian word games have you noticed lately?

Exactly. They did the same thing with birth control.

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

No it means that states really did prohibit access to birth control. and it continues
Pharmacists In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

 

[80zephyr]

Orwell understood who the bad guys were in his books. They were the left. Here are a few of his quotes to understand what he thought:

So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.


Liberal: a power worshipper without power.


George Orwell


All the liberals reading these quotes should consider the consequences of their current actions. Do they REALLY want a world that resembles the world in the book 1984? If not, why do they persist in creating it?

Mark

 

[Scorpion]

Orwell understood who the bad guys were in his books. They were the left. Here are a few of his quotes to understand what he thought:

So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.


Liberal: a power worshipper without power.


George Orwell


All the liberals reading these quotes should consider the consequences of their current actions. Do they REALLY want a world that resembles the world in the book 1984? If not, why do they persist in creating it?

Mark

I have an old chum from Jr High who beleive we are headed for the dystopia of A Handmaids Tale.
Seriously........

 

[JakeStarkey]

George Orwell famously warned us of those who would control our thoughts by controlling the words we use. I thought it might be interesting to track efforts to do this in modern politics.

I'll start with the shenanigans around the word "access". It's a popular euphemism for describing poverty, often combined with the equally dubious usage of "denied". Rather than saying that a family can't afford decent housing, they might say that they are "denied access" to adequate housing. Being "denied access" seems to simply mean that they can't afford something, but it has connotations that prompt people to think about the issue differently. Which is the point.

They prefer "access" to "buy" or "afford" because they want to promote the idea that the goods and services in question aren't things you buy, but rather things you are granted "access" to. The usage of "denied" reinforces this stealth assumption by further suggesting that the goods and services in question are, by right, owed to the person in question. They want to equate not being able to afford something with being "denied" a right.

What other orwellian word games have you noticed lately?

Exactly. They did the same thing with birth control.

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

No it means that states really did prohibit access to birth control. and it continues
Pharmacists In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

 

[bendog]

Exactly. They did the same thing with birth control.

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

No it means that states really did prohibit access to birth control. and it continues
Pharmacists In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

It's a waste of time, but hadit an Fish disprove dblack's OP. It was a provocative thought and original post though.

 

[hadit]

Exactly. They did the same thing with birth control.

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

No it means that states really did prohibit access to birth control. and it continues
Pharmacists In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

Words mean things. If I deny you access to something, that means you can't get it. For example, if I deny you access to air, you're going to die. If I refuse to sell you a bottle of compressed air, you can still access air. In this case, literally a different pharmacist working a different shift at the same pharmacy can fill the prescription, or the pharmacy across the street can fill it. In either case, the woman is not denied access to birth control, she is merely inconvenienced because one pharmacist won't sell it to her. As I said, does a barber deny me access to a haircut because he doesn't want to give me the cut I want?

 

[hadit]

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

No it means that states really did prohibit access to birth control. and it continues
Pharmacists In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

It's a waste of time, but hadit an Fish disprove dblack's OP. It was a provocative thought and original post though.

Words either mean things or they don't.

 

[Mac1958]

This tactic has been has been a fabulous success of the PC zealots for a couple of generations now.

Control the words and you control the conversation. They figured that out a long time ago.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Framing is the art of structuring an argumentation. Define words and terms then frame the argument.

All sides do it.

 

[dblack]

I think dblack just misunderstands what Orwell was about ..

How so?

I think you have a kernel of truth here. In the past election we had the altR and Putin and Wikileaks marching in lock step to push facts, some of which were/are outright lies. The left is less obvious, but we had a socialist running behind the democrats political infrastructure.

But to answer your question, Orwell was about totalitaraian states controlling their citizens reality. There is no free press. The state controls all information. And individuals exist for the state's benefit, and the justification for that is creating harmony in the collective. That's fundamentally different from "denied access to decent housing." Dems would be using code speak to say more affluent people not only have nicer houses, but safer neighborhoods, less police profiling and better schools.

As a conservative I'd agree those are problems, but I'd differ solutions, but that's not really relevant to your question. I just don't want some loser Alt R Trumbpot griping I'm for big government, when in fact the Orange Cretin is blowing up deficits even with rising employment and slow growth.

None of which is really relevant to the topic. Orwell discussed language manipulation as a danger outside the context of his dystopian novels and I'm invoking those ideas to provoke discussion. Don't see any misunderstanding.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. They did the same thing with birth control.

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

No it means that states really did prohibit access to birth control. and it continues
Pharmacists In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

So, if a grocer refuses to sell someone a gallon of milk (perhaps because they're in a bad mood, or maybe because the grocery store closed thirty minutes ago, the reason is irrelevant) have they've "denied a person access" to milk?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, people were denied access to birth control.

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

No it means that states really did prohibit access to birth control. and it continues
Pharmacists In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

So, if a grocer refuses to sell someone a gallon of milk (perhaps because they're in a bad mood, or maybe because the grocery store closed thirty minutes ago, the reason is irrelevant) have they've "denied a person access" to milk?

Yes, right at that moment.

The law is clear that if you provide a public service you better provide the damn service to everyone.

 

[dblack]

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

No it means that states really did prohibit access to birth control. and it continues
Pharmacists In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

So, if a grocer refuses to sell someone a gallon of milk (perhaps because they're in a bad mood, or maybe because the grocery store closed thirty minutes ago, the reason is irrelevant) have they've "denied a person access" to milk?

Yes, right at that moment.

The law is clear that if you provide a public service you better provide the damn service to everyone.

I'm not talking about laws. Just the language. Would you say someone is being "denied access" if they simply can't afford the thing they want?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No it means that states really did prohibit access to birth control. and it continues
Pharmacists In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

So, if a grocer refuses to sell someone a gallon of milk (perhaps because they're in a bad mood, or maybe because the grocery store closed thirty minutes ago, the reason is irrelevant) have they've "denied a person access" to milk?

Yes, right at that moment.

The law is clear that if you provide a public service you better provide the damn service to everyone.

I'm not talking about laws. Just the language. Would you say someone is being "denied access" if they simply can't afford the thing they want?

The law prevails, bud. You are framing the language to get an answer you like, but that answer must include the context of the action.

 

[dblack]

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

So, if a grocer refuses to sell someone a gallon of milk (perhaps because they're in a bad mood, or maybe because the grocery store closed thirty minutes ago, the reason is irrelevant) have they've "denied a person access" to milk?

Yes, right at that moment.

The law is clear that if you provide a public service you better provide the damn service to everyone.

I'm not talking about laws. Just the language. Would you say someone is being "denied access" if they simply can't afford the thing they want?

The law prevails, bud.

Bored?

Do you ever take off your troll hat and have a genuine discussion?

 

[JakeStarkey]

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

So, if a grocer refuses to sell someone a gallon of milk (perhaps because they're in a bad mood, or maybe because the grocery store closed thirty minutes ago, the reason is irrelevant) have they've "denied a person access" to milk?

Yes, right at that moment.

The law is clear that if you provide a public service you better provide the damn service to everyone.

I'm not talking about laws. Just the language. Would you say someone is being "denied access" if they simply can't afford the thing they want?

The law prevails, bud.

Bored?

Do you ever take off your troll hat and have a genuine discussion?

dlbakc is rekt feg.

Your example has to be within the context of reality. If you sell milk at the local market, you will indeed sell it to me, or face consequences. You can tell me if I come to you privately next door to go to hell you are not going to sell or give your milk to me.

Consequences.

 

[hadit]

As is illustrated in the OP, that means society didn't want to buy birth control for people who could easily buy a box of condoms.

No it means that states really did prohibit access to birth control. and it continues
Pharmacists In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

So, if a grocer refuses to sell someone a gallon of milk (perhaps because they're in a bad mood, or maybe because the grocery store closed thirty minutes ago, the reason is irrelevant) have they've "denied a person access" to milk?

Yes, right at that moment.

The law is clear that if you provide a public service you better provide the damn service to everyone.

But that's not what we've been talking about. No one is talking about "denying women access to birth control AT THE MOMENT", are they? We've been talking about denying women access to birth control, period, which is what some are trying to insinuate this law does. In fact, it does no such thing, it merely allows a pharmacist to opt out of selling something. A woman may be inconvenienced, but is not in fact "being denied access to birth control". We can talk about the pros and cons of public accommodation laws, but it is a false premise to argue that this particular law denies women access to birth control. It does not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the law excludes women from receiving birth control at the point of contact that is a public service outlet serving all women normal medical and health concerns, then, yes, she is being denied her civil liberty. No one's personal belief about birth control should have any influence on whether a woman is served at the point of public service contact.

If the pharmacy maintains one person on shift who can provide that service that does not accrue any notable disadvantage to the customer in terms of time or publicity, then I could support such a law.

 

[dblack]

No it means that states really did prohibit access to birth control. and it continues
Pharmacists In Kansas Can Now Deny Women Access To Birth Control

Words mean things, and that headline is false. The law states that individual pharmacists can refuse to fill individual prescriptions. They cannot deny a woman access to birth control, because all she has to do is walk across the street to another pharmacy. Could I say that a barbershop is denying me access to a haircut because the barber doesn't do the style I want?

False argumentation by the far right.

If the pharmacist says 'no', then that pharmacist has denied a person access to birth control.

The law needs to be challenged in court, and pharmacists must be challenged in court.

So, if a grocer refuses to sell someone a gallon of milk (perhaps because they're in a bad mood, or maybe because the grocery store closed thirty minutes ago, the reason is irrelevant) have they've "denied a person access" to milk?

Yes, right at that moment.

The law is clear that if you provide a public service you better provide the damn service to everyone.

But that's not what we've been talking about. No one is talking about "denying women access to birth control AT THE MOMENT", are they? We've been talking about denying women access to birth control, period, which is what some are trying to insinuate this law does. In fact, it does no such thing, it merely allows a pharmacist to opt out of selling something. A woman may be inconvenienced, but is not in fact "being denied access to birth control". We can talk about the pros and cons of public accommodation laws, but it is a false premise to argue that this particular law denies women access to birth control. It does not.

False premise? From Fakey?? Whodathunkit?