7 ms·
This is a perfect example of why downvoting shouldn't exist. None of the things you think you saw in the OPs comment are there. He is expressing an opinion that
by zigzigzag 10y ago
This is a perfect example of why downvoting shouldn't exist. None of the things you think you saw in the OPs comment are there. He is expressing an opinion that is widely held, here is a good essay on the habit of anti-Trump people of crying wolf:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Trump's spat over crowd sizes is stupid, but reflects someone terminally thin-skinned rather than a cunning well thought out attempt at mind control.
Meanwhile, those of us who have read it will remember that 1984 dwells on hard-left totalitarianism and its habit of doing things like censorship, the desire for unitary thinking, interfering with disagreement by controlling the language and so on.
Your comment doesn't actually rebut anything about what the OP said, but does try to lower the visibility of his views (suppressing speech) and does attack an entire class of speech on the grounds of "divisiveness" and "destructiveness" (unitary thinking).
Trump is many things but hard-left is not one of them. Stupid phrasing today by his press guy aside, Trump's path to victory was built on a repudiation of 1984 style tactics:
• Language control: political correctness, where words and phrases are redefined or suppressed through taboo
• The 5-minutes hate: the establishment against Russia
• Loyalty to the party: in our world the closest equivalent to a vast unaccountable power structure would be called "Washington" or "the elite".
The parallels aren't perfect by any means; Trump loves surveillance just like Democrats do.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- RangerScience 10y agoI really like your comments here, but some of them leave me confused / unable to respond. What do you think I saw in the OP's comment? > doesn't actually rebut anything about what the OP said I mean, I wasn't trying to. I said that explicitly. > but does try to lower the visibility of his views > does attack an entire class of speech on the grounds of "divisiveness" and "destructiveness" (unitary thinking). I mean, yes? But it sounds like you're confusing divisiveness with disagreement. I wouldn't quite say that Mikeb85's comment is trolling, but it's getting close enough, and yeah, I'll attack that category of speech on those grounds. Your entire post is an excellent example of disagreement without divisiveness, and is constructive to the HN community.