Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

'We are free to choose between the pro-big business party on the right and the pro-big business party on the right at the ballot box. We have all the freedom we could ask for. Stop whining, you dirty, ungrateful communist. We are free. Keep repeating: we are free.'   Share:  
Thrust of argument: Ben Debney writes a comical set of definitions of 'modern newspeak' including this hilarious item: 'Hate, n.

Actual meaning: Criticism.

Usage: When I pointed out to the Muslim he was a backwards savage who subscribed to a religion fundamentally at odds with a civilised society while denying it was racist to establish a false binary between a heavily racialised concept of a national way of life and a religious belief system in the face of elementary logic demonstrating that it is, he reacted with a colossal amount of hate'.
Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Also at the extreme end of the hilarity scale is this one: 'Communist (1), n.

Actual meaning: Independent thinker.

Usage: If you think for yourself, the communists win.'

 

I WOULD TRADE NOW ON:
bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 552.50 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 465.90 centrica AT APPROX 144.80 g4s AT APPROX 252.60 gkn AT APPROX 300.80 glencore AT APPROX 349.00 m&s AT APPROX 310.60 morrison AT APPROX 211.80 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 832.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 597.00

THIS IS NOT TRADING ADVICE. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: Perhaps the biggest problem with people who do sincerely in their (to them) 'rational' mind give the excuse above regarding their racism, and I would give Jonathan Friedland and Nick Cohen as examples of Guardian writers whom that definition of 'Hate' beautifully satirises, is their inability to see that there is anything wrong to address at all, in their ideas and behaviour. Unification: Feynman gives us a possible way to face this problem head-on, through a metaphor he gives when summing up the problems at NASA which caused the Challenger disaster, in his opinion.

The interviewer asks 'was this an accident that did not have to happen?'

Feynman says 'Yes it was. It was an accident that we had many many warnings that there was something wrong and that it might sooner or later go off. The warnings were disregarded'.

Interviewer: 'Disregarded out of incompetence, out of a faulty system, out of bad judgment, out of - for what reason?'

Feynman: 'I had some difficulty with that. I kind of imagine that something like a child that runs in the road and the parent is very upset and says it's very dangerous and the child comes back and says but nothing happened, and he runs out in the road again, several times, and the parent keeps saying it's dangerous and nothing happens. If the child's view that nothing happens is a clue that there was nothing going to happen, that's going to be an accident.'

Feynman says that NASA's management were like the child and the engineers were like the parent.

The interviewer asks who should be blamed and Feynman explains that blame may not really be a productive road and that the key question to answer is 'how do you educate the child?'
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 17:23:58 on 9/9/2017

Related points:

References:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/21/modern-newspeak-dictionary/

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.