Bizarre misreading: @HillaryClinton thinks the lesson of Orwell's 1984 is that you should trust experts, leaders and the press pic.twitter.com/7rPbrq11fV
— JamesHeartfield (@JamesHeartfield) September 12, 2017
September 13, 2017
"@HillaryClinton thinks the lesson of Orwell's 1984 is that you should trust experts, leaders and the press."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
166 comments:
This makes me really question her sanity or her intelligence.
For all the good she's done, I say let her keep taking.
When I have to sleep under a comforter in August in Virginia (Virginia!) then it's hard to accept "experts" who tell me the I must "believe" in Global Warming. That seems more like five fingers than four.
I think this is part of the answer to "Why aren't I 50 points ahead...?"
Don't follow leaders. Watch the parking meters.
The most qualified candidate for president, ever!
The poor woman has descended into self parody.
Either that or she was too deep into the chardonnay when she proofed this little bit of ghostwriterly excess.
The more that I read about what's in her book, my thoughts go to wondering how long it will take before 90% of the population hates her fucking guts.
We didn't just dodge a bullet. We dodged a nuclear warhead.
mockturtle said...
This makes me really question her sanity or her intelligence.
Embrace the healing power of the word "and".
I think I see what Hillary is going for, but the language is so clunky that her meaning is obscured. Not that I agree with her point, but it would be made more clearly with this edit.
"Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism, etc,...and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered." This is what Donald Trump does with his bullying of anyone who disagrees with his version of reality: His goal is to discredit scientists, the press and responsible leaders.
Should I buy this book and go rummaging around for tidbits?
She literally Orwelled Orwell
She lost because of the woman she is.
Anybody that would get that interpretation would be a low grade retard dip.
Erm dbp.
Every time President Trump orders dessert, a horde of fact checkers descend insisiting I pay attention to all the lies.
Where are are Clinton's wifes fact checkers?
She is on the Today show now, She states that President Trump colluded with Russia. When pressed, she says she couldn't say that, she's waiting for the investigation.
But, concerning Clinton's wife? Yes, all that is needed is more cow bell.
Now she exposes the damage done to her as an idealist Baby Boomer from attendance at a college full of committed Marxist Revolutionaries that ruled Academia in the 1960s. Weak minded Hillary just swallowed their lies and she still regurgitates them as if that will get her an A and the coveted status as a powerful ruler. Everything she has done for 50 years has been to live out their lies.
That is the sympathy she begs for. But she still cannot find any truth among the doctrines of occult murder with which she has sought to empower herself.
How the Hell did her supporters allow her to write that?
It really says all there needs to be said.....
Should I buy this book and go rummaging around for tidbits?
If you're not already lighting your cigars with $10 bills, sure, why not?
Should I buy this book and go rummaging around for tidbits?
By the time you got to page 10, you and us, would be tired of the whole idea.
I sometimes think about what she, a leader and an expert, would've done in regards to Syria, Russia, and Iran. That alone is reason to rejoice at her losing.
The book "What Happened" will be followed by the book "What I Meant To Say".
I am Laslo.
She's an Experts Supremacist.
Should I buy this book and go rummaging around for tidbits?
No. Buying it only encourages more of the same. In any case, I predict that we'll all be sick and tired of it by Friday.
@Althouse, wait until it's on the one dollar remainder table. Should not take long.
Hillary Clinton is simply too banal to even be badly incorrect, much less evil. In the final analysis, she's the Paris Hilton of politics, famous only for being famous, nothing more, which is why what her mouth parses always ends up as meaningless gibberish.
"Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism...This is what the Soviets did...this is what happened in Nineteen Eighty-Four..."
And this is why a film maker was dragged out of his house at 3AM and jailed for a year.
Well there you go. I always suspected she was not all that bright. This confirms it.
Her book cover asks a question, and then answers it --
WHAT HAPPENED
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
"...she's the Paris Hilton of politics, famous only for being famous, nothing more, which is why what her mouth parses always ends up as meaningless gibberish."
I've seen that video where Paris Hilton's mouth 'parses'.
Don't want to see Hillary 'parse' that way, no.
I am Laslo.
"AllenS said...
The more that I read about what's in her book, my thoughts go to wondering how long it will take before 90% of the population hates her fucking guts."
I don't know how long that is, but I do know a minute later Hillary and her team will decide that she's "likeable enough."
This is what Donald Trump does with his bullying of anyone who disagrees with his version of reality: His goal is to discredit scientists, the press and responsible leaders.
No, that kind of bullying is the Progs' domain. They are still trying to bully us all into accepting their version of reality.
Original Mike is so right: We didn't just dodge a bullet. We dodged a nuclear warhead.
My minimal interest in that book is based on my professional interest in psychopathology and my avocational-history interest in treason.
Should I buy this book and go rummaging around for tidbits?
Someone has already done that.
https://twitter.com/katereadsbks/status/907662831822110720
When Hillary read Animal Farm she thought the pigs were the good guys.
Most of the modern democrat-progressive-socialist/communist community are all for totalitarianism, the crushing of free thought, the squelching of all unapproved discussion, the twisting of truth by a hack press on behalf of their money lords(D).
The fact that the media have not delved into Hillary's failures and major debacles at State and her private server corruption is proof.
Here's one:
NEW YORK — Hillary Clinton was so frustrated about the infamous scandal surrounding her use of a private email server that she was “tempted” to construct voodoo dolls in the images of “certain members” of the news media and Congress, and then “stick them full of pins.”
"... bullying of anyone who disagrees with his version of reality ..."
A classic example of projection
If I remember correctly, I was in the eighth grade when I read 1984. The message I got from it was not trust and obey authority. I guess you have to go to a very expensive college in order to tease that out of the text.
I'm really enjoying all these different excerpts from her book. And I got to say it's making me really happy that she's not president. Scary as it is, Trump is better
@Gahrie wins the thread.
The most qualified candidate for president, ever!
For being Senator and Secretary of State. James Buchanan was also a Senator and Secretary of State. As James Buchanan had also been an Ambassador and member of the House of Representatives, it might be said that James Buchanan was more qualified than Hillary.
And by consensus James Buchanan is one of our worst Presidents.
His goal is to discredit scientists
They're not doing science. Climate science is a social organization.
Shouldn't the people who want, no, need, to be President ought to at least gain a Cliffs Notes understanding of the books they gloss over in order to curry favor?
You know, books about ideas, human nature and political power?
silly me; I thought the lesson of 1984 was that if follow people that say you should trust experts, leaders and the press... then the future is Hillary's shoe stomping in the face of a basket of deplorables , for ever.
Should I buy this book and go rummaging around for tidbits?
Wait six months.
By then you can pick up a copy at Goodwill for a $1.50.
"And by consensus James Buchanan is one of our worst Presidents."
But was he married to a previous President of the USA?
Schadenfreude can be overindulged, like anything else. Time to flush Hillary and move on.
Ann - sure, I would enjoy it if you were to buy the book and wade through it for us. We do seem to enjoy these Thrash Crooked Hillary blog posts. Figure out a way to fund the book) like maybe us buying through your Amazon portal, or maybe a tip jar). And I will chip in.
Typical elitist mentality. Possibly olde world mentality.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Hillary is finally coming to Wisconsin -- to promote her book. For $145 you can join her and a gaggle of losers at the Riverside Theater.
Seems the only thing worse than reading the book or listening to Hillary talk about the book would be being forced to listen to all 14 hours of the audio version read by Hillary herself.
@Rusty, more like six weeks.
A boomer is saying we're supposed to trust authority?
Lolololol
What happened to don't trust anyone over 30?
Once she got handles of power....
What's interesting about what Clinton wrote, regardless of whether she's misinterpreting Orwell or not, is that she apparently thinks "mistrust in our leaders" is just as bad as "questioning logic and reason" and "mistrust in ourselves".
That indicates an ideology on her part that's downright scary.
The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exact the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.
Sorry Hillary, Orwell was describing the state invading our private thoughts in order to correct them in accordance with the Party line by use of force in punishment and torture. Orwell certainly was not talking about fostering doubts about the establishment view.
I previously linked to the following video in reference to the state inflicting actual punishment on those who failed to follow PC dogma, from gender perception to global warming.
"Do you remember writing in your diary [what an ominous opening line!] 'Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four'?"
"...And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?"
Ann, read some of the bizarre excerpts from her book here (especially the one where a mother hauls her daughter, who is guilty of the sin of not voting for Hillary, in front of Her Highness and demands that her daughter apologize. The chastened young woman does - but Hillary ain't having it! No absolution for you, wicked girl!
https://twitter.com/katereadsbks/status/907662831822110720
I definitely want to read the book now - but I refuse to buy it. I'll take it out from the library.
@Althouse, wait until it's on the one dollar remainder table. Should not take long.
I second this. Don't validate the advance she was paid. These will be available for pennies a piece in a few months.
Seems the only thing worse than reading the book or listening to Hillary talk about the book would be being forced to listen to all 14 hours of the audio version read by Hillary herself."
That would be almost as bad as the rat in the cage in Rm. 101.
"Should I buy this book and go rummaging around for tidbits?"
No
Please, no.
""What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
It's frightening the way this woman seems to prevaricate, confuse, dissemble, mis-state and lie even as a matter of unconscious instinct. But even more frightening how close she came to being POTUS.
Whew!
""Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism, etc,...and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered." This is what Donald Trump does with his bullying of anyone who disagrees with his version of reality: His goal is to discredit scientists, the press and responsible leaders."
-- That's an over charitable interpretation of what she's saying. She's saying, the rubes are too stupid to even know when you're being tortured. Surrender thinking to their betters.
“The best books... are those that tell you what you know already.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Posting more of Clintons writing is just cruel piling on.
Every point worth making has been made.
"How the Hell did her supporters allow her to write that?"
-- Because they think they're not the pigs on Animal Farm, but that their the oppressed trying to stop the pigs.
What a bizarre misreading of what Hillary wrote. She is saying you should trust empirical evidence, not just believe what somebody says.
Didn't anyone among the team of Ivy League educated professionals who edited this book have the guts to say, "Mrs. Clinton, have you everread ,1984?"
Ann Althouse said...Should I buy this book and go rummaging around for tidbits?
You should not buy the book. If you want to read it and/or rummage around for tidbits you should borrow someone else's copy, check a copy (in ebook format if you like) from the library, or steal a copy (in ebook format, from a website).
Don't give politicians money for their stupid books. It only encourages them.
[I would guess there are enough people going through the book for tidbits that you can probably draft off of others' posts, but I understand you may disagree with the majority of other posters about what makes a blog-able tidbit.]
"NEW YORK — Hillary Clinton was so frustrated about the infamous scandal surrounding her use of a private email server that she was “tempted” to construct voodoo dolls in the images of “certain members” of the news media and Congress, and then “stick them full of pins.”"
... No way. That... that's... Really?
The media carried her water, but it wasn't enough.
Freder Frederson said...
What a bizarre misreading of what Hillary wrote. She is saying you should trust empirical evidence, not just believe what somebody says.
Nope.
Hillary is talking about trusting and believing "exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves."
In other words, the establishment party line. The only thing Clinton left out was the "or else."
Freder Frederson said...What a bizarre misreading of what Hillary wrote. She is saying you should trust empirical evidence, not just believe what somebody says.
No; you're misreading. She says we ought to trust the CORRECT people--"our leaders, the press," certain experts, and ourselves. She's just quibbling over who should administer the perception-altering shocks, not over whether they should be given. By implying that not enough people trusted "ourselves," of course, she's also calling people who didn't side with her/vote for her more weak-willed (or stupid) than people who did.
So it's a 2fer: people should trust leaders, experts, and the press but only the GOOD leaders, experts, and press--GOOD being defined as agreeing w/and supporting Hillary, naturally--and anyone who doesn't end up agreeing with Hillary/her side is by definition too weak or to stupid to understand objective reality and trust in their own understanding thereof.
How many genders are there?
"Two."
BZZZZZZT!
How many genders are there?
In Texas they say, "All hat, no steer" to describe cowboy dilettantes.
When it comes to Democrat politician authors, it should be: "All advance, no royalties."
Having reflected on Hillary's assertion that the message of 1984 is "respect authority" I have a few more thoughts.
1) She is a fool.
2) I suspect she has never actually read the book.
3) She is surrounded by sycophants who are afraid to give her advice. An actual friend would have told her that passage would lead to her being ridiculed. Oh, and the message of 1984 is not "respect authority."
4) Someone who surrounds themselves with sycophantic yes people are always insecure and untalented leaders who should never be given an ounce of authority over anything of any importance whatsoever.
She is saying you should trust empirical evidence, not just believe what somebody says.
And you think that is the lesson from 1984 too, don't you?
The book is boring. If you fancy therapeutic schadenfreude go for it.
Mockturtle and Original Mike have said it all. Interesting that Hillary refers generically to "the press", but presumably she only intends to refer to that section of the press that fulfils the mission so pithily described by Iowahawk in his famous tweet about the duty of the press being to cover stories with a pillow, until they stop moving.
@Mike beat me to it.
Here's what the scientists believe. Funny how inconsistent it is with the leftie narrative.
The really dirty secret is that Hillary Clinton is not all that bright. She has an adequate conventional intelligence for her social and educational cohort, but has never been original or especially insightful. The cone of protection she has placed around herself for decades is good evidence of this. As are the two terrible campaigns she ran for president. They were as much a failure of intellect as a failure of personality.
Most people take away from 1984 that we should be careful about investing too much power in government; Clinton thinks that we just need to find the right people to invest all the power in.
She is saying you should trust empirical evidence, not just believe what somebody says
She is not saying that. That's you, editing her text until it makes sense.
She is stating that Winston Smith was tortured to make him doubt authority.
David said: "She has an adequate conventional intelligence for her social and educational cohort, but has never been original or especially insightful"
I think the same is true of Obama. I don't recall him ever saying anything that wasn't standard PC boilerplate.
The elites are just repeating their dull clichés and catchphrases back and forth at each other and nodding at each others' wisdom. They are angry and baffled because the proles outside their golden circle don't accept their superior intelligence and moral goodness.
I read the twitter thread and sure enough, Hillary people showed up to assert that the passage was being "misread." Except for one fellow who, paraphrased, laughed at the thought of knuckle dragging, ill-educated Trump voters trying to explain 1984 to liberals.
Which is, of course, how you get more Trump.
I'd like to read William Jefferson Clinton's version of "What Happened." (Maybe.)
You can be sure that there are many among the deplorable who will always show five fingers to Hillary. They may take two and a half tries to get to five, but they will get there.
The woman is a legend in her own small mind.
Just make shit up. That's what Hillary did.
Hillary: "These people were looking for Absolut[ion] that I just couldn't give"... having drank it all.
Buy the book? Yes, but not at full price. There will be free or very cheap copies available soon.
But DO obtain a copy. This may be the most unintentionally illuminating and fascinating political memoir ever written. It seems to peer directly into a grotesque and complex soul.
I don't exactly understand how it could have been written. Was it a very talented ghost writer, able to communicate so much between the lines of what was actually written? Or just someone afraid to tell Hillary "No"?
How did it survive editing? Did the editors hate Hillary, and provide her with enough rope not only to hang herself, but macrame her own shroud?
Now, that is alarming - and revealing.
This is just pathetic. I have seen several other glaring OMGisms from the book. I am striving to forget them.
Don't buy the book. We all need to move on. There is no point to this any more. When she was a candidate we had to pay attention. Now we don't.
I was just getting to the point at which I could feel a little compassion and empathy for her, and now she's messed it all up with the Best Little Old Me I Can Be book tour. It's excruciating, but we are no longer forced to participate. Out of kindness and human decency, I suggest everyone should stop gazing at the wreckage and drive on to the intended destination. She's ancient history.
"The message of 1984 is not "respect authority."
Also:
The London Underground is not a political movement.
The central tent of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself."
These are all mistakes. I looked them up.
--A Fish Called Wanda
Apparently, Hilary is real life Otto.
The discussion of 1984 is just decorative fluff, designed to puff up the prose and make it look less banal than it is. Anyone's guess whether Hillary! actually wrote it -- it's the kind of dumb mistake you see all the time in blog posts where someone is misusing a classic text to support a political agenda.
Proves (if further proof were necessary) that Hillary!'s latest doorstop of a book is not worth the time to read or blog about.
#HillaryReadsTheClassics
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: Four children who ought to be in a public school get lost due to the inattentiveness of an old white man, and help a symbol of the patriarchy to cause global warming
The Lord of the Rings: A group of males holding stolen property destroy the best chance to bring a unified government to Middle Earth
"Except for one fellow who, paraphrased, laughed at the thought of knuckle dragging, ill-educated Trump voters trying to explain 1984 to liberals."
Was the fellow's name Freder?
This is now the most shocking thing about her.
Why do y'all think this is an unusual interpretation? her basket of morons followers likely all believe some version of this.
That is an incredible misreading. No one who read the manuscript alerted her before the book was published?
“How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read” by Pierre Bayard is available at Amazon.
AA once said:
"See, whatever happens can be said to have happened for the reason you've already reasoned is the reason for whatever happens to have happened."
Makes sense to me.
"Ann, read some of the bizarre excerpts from her book here (especially the one where a mother hauls her daughter, who is guilty of the sin of not voting for Hillary, in front of Her Highness and demands that her daughter apologize. The chastened young woman does - but Hillary ain't having it! No absolution for you, wicked girl!"
I saw that story but found it below my standard for bloggable. If that's as juicy as it gets, I'm really bored.
BTW, I think Hillary claims to have considered yelling at the daughter but then decided to keep her thoughts to herself. In that form, it's just another example of Hillary blaming people. Some people abstained from voting. Personally, I respect abstention. But this is a subject I've already blogged, including in the context of Democrats thinking they're entitled to certain blocs of votes (even when their candidate is bad).
"You should not buy the book. If you want to read it and/or rummage around for tidbits you should borrow someone else's copy, check a copy (in ebook format if you like) from the library, or steal a copy (in ebook format, from a website)."
I absolutely need an ebook. I'm not doing that thing of photographing pages, and I need the search function on this one, for sure.
"“How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read” by Pierre Bayard is available at Amazon. "
This is a book I have in my Kindle. Haven't read it (all) yet.
"“How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read” by Pierre Bayard is available at Amazon. "
This is a book I have in my Kindle. Haven't read it (all) yet.
Having not yet completely read it, have you read enough of it to be able to discuss having not read it completely?
Do you want to know why Hillary isn't going away, read this --
LINK TEXT
If she were not such a deplorable creature, the delusion shown here would stir me to sympathy.
I think the same is true of Obama. I don't recall him ever saying anything that wasn't standard PC boilerplate.
I've noticed that too. Don't have a link, but I was really struck by that when he was talking to the crew of the ISS in a school.
I honestly don't expect a politician to have a Oberg style style conversation with astronauts, but you'd think he could do better than reading haltingly from a teleprompter.
Here's an example of authoritarian right-wing types trying to keep folks in the dark:
‘Earth is flat,’ pro-Erdogan youth leader argues
"Except for one fellow who, paraphrased, laughed at the thought of knuckle dragging, ill-educated Trump voters trying to explain 1984 to liberals."
Was the fellow's name Freder?
Ha!
If she were not such a deplorable creature, the delusion shown here would stir me to sympathy.
I think she's actually irredeemable, which is worse.
Right, sunsong, because that has everything to do with Americans and this subject in particular.
You are a parody.
Were her editors and publisher out to sabotage her? I imagine that got into the book in early 2017 when "1984" was a thing on the Left, but it was demented then and hasn't aged well, since. In the modern age of computerized typesetting and all, it could have been pulled out.
Although, based on her 25+ years in national public life, if one were to summarize her philosophy of governing it would include that "lies are to be believed as long as it is me, my government, my lapdog media, and my paid experts lying to you." So, I actually think this is her deeply held belief, and she misreads Orwell because to her that must be what he meant.
@Frederson:She is saying you should trust empirical evidence, not just believe what somebody says.
I think you should reread 1984. The Party had scientists, they made weapons, and their science was carefully limited by the Party to involve only what the Party deemed they should study, and within those limits they were as skeptical and empirical as any science, and for anything other than their immediate work they had Ingsoc.
Orwell would laugh if you suggested to him that science would fight the Party. In no totalitarian country did science save anyone.
"No one who read the manuscript alerted her before the book was published?"
-- They might have. You know, just like people told her to go to Wisconsin.
"Were her editors and publisher out to sabotage her?"
-- She's a victim of surrounding herself with people who think they're smarter than everyone else.
You're saying Erdogan is right wing?
David
The really dirty secret is that Hillary Clinton is not all that bright. She has an adequate conventional intelligence for her social and educational cohort, but has never been original or especially insightful.
Actually, Hillary is pretty bright. She was also a National Merit finalist during her senior year. IIRC, that is for the top one half of one percent of test-takers. As Obama might have said,that is bright enough. By that measure, Hilary is also brighter than me- and brighter than Obama.
If Obama had been a Merit Finalist or a National Achievement Scholar [consolation prize for bright black students who couldn't make Merit Finalist], rest assured the public would have been so informed.Repeatedly.
Your second assertion, that she tended towards the conventional and that "has never been original or especially insightful," is more on the mark.
Her political change from high school to college- from Goldwater Girl in an affluent Chicago suburb to acolyte of Saul Alinsky at an elite leftist college- suggests to me that Hillary lacked a consistent inner core of beliefs and instead adopted the conventional wisdom of where she was.
I have never listened any more than 30 seconds to a Hillary speech, but I have read that more than other speakers, she tends to use polysyllabic words. That suggests to me that instead of following the Toastmasters' advice of memorizing main points and riffing off those points- which will tend towards simpler vocabulary- Hillary memorized speeches wholesale. Bright enough to memorize long speeches but not trusting her spontaneity, resulting in her coming off as rather mechanical.
She's either really that dumb, or the person who wrote it is.
So you are saying that she was brighter when she was a "Goldwater Girl"? Makes sense to me.
Those of us who rely on our education and own ability to interpret facts and logic are known as "deniers." Only those in power have access to empirical facts, and correct interpretation. This is all Hilary is saying. Once you believe it, then you can believe, like Freder, that to mistrust authority is to mistrust empirical facts.
Who knew though that each Tweet lands like an EMP into liberal land. That Tweeting is the same as torture by electric shock? I am sure it feels that way to people suffering so from the cognitive dissonance of proclaiming complete trust in the "experts" and seeing that trust tested so by the election.
But Mark Jones won the thread in my book
The more I hear about this book, the more I am convinced that that meeting between Bill and DJT before he ran went something like this: "Don, you gotta stop her!"
I can't wait for Ritmo to come by later and tell us how Trump is the real Stalin.
tim in vermont
So you are saying that she was brighter when she was a "Goldwater Girl"? Makes sense to me.
No. She was just as bright as a Goldwater Girl as she was as an Alinsky fan. I am saying that there was no there there- apologies to Gertrude Stein- with Hillary. Like a political chameleon, she adopted the beliefs of the environment where she was. As she gave a Commencement speech at Wellesley, she was successful in adapting to her new environment. That she so readily changed indicates to me that she had no core beliefs- sounds rather like Bill, doesn't it?
Hey, if we can't trust our rulers, who can we trust?
I think Bill had core beliefs. Remember the scene in Bull Durham where Crash waxed eloquent on his core beliefs?
"I believe in blow jobs, I believe that a woman, no matter what she believes in her pretty little head, about her "accomplishments" (Juanita Broadrick wanted to talk about her cute little business fer God's sake!), or her worth as an intellect, is nothing more than self-transporting vagina with a locking mechanism that just needs a little of the strength of a man to open. I believe that the more power I get, the more pussy I get, because, you know what? Trump was right, when you are president, they let you grab 'em by the pussy."
He has core beliefs, just not any that are generally regarded as positive.
Top half of 1 percent means that in a given town, there are likely hundreds of people just as smart, in a large city, thousands. Until she writes her "If I did it" book, where she is honest, there is no way to judge her intelligence. You can't really judge the intelligence of a liar who would never trust you with the truth, ever.
Calls to punish global warming skepticism as a criminal offense have surged in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma,
Yes, how many fingers do you see now, Mr Skeptic!?!
The goal to make you mistrust your own senses. That Hillary! doesn't get this is fucking amazing to me.
You know what a "core feature of authoritarianism" is? A demand that one trust the government and not question the opinions of your betters, the elect, at the top.
It is literally the opposite of what she claims. Once you don't trust your own observations, you are a vessel for anyone else's.
Should I buy this book and go rummaging around for tidbits?
Should you -- or anyone -- give her a single dime? No.
Besides, you can get the comedy for free, as in this example.
On the negative side, this is written word, not spoken word and certainly not off the cuff remarks. There was thought put into this and it sounded proper each time it was reviewed. There is really no argument for "that's not what she meant." If that's not what she meant, then it only leads to a handful of conclusions, all of them bad: "she's a terrible writer," "her thinking is muddled," "she is ignorant of what she speaks," etc.
On the positive side, there is a strong likelihood that she didn't write it. Furthermore, if she reviewed it she was probably already on her third glass of wine while watching an episode of NCIS. The nonsense in there about her and Bill having a healthy relationship is absurd so it is not like the person who wrote it knew anything about Hillary anyway.
That is not a misreading. That is a correct reading. She is saying Trump attempts to define reality by ignoring what experts say. Thus creating his own reality, which is then believed by his followers.
Of course, Hillary and Obama did the same. It's called spin. The problem is when spin becomes authoritarian and denies logic or reason and sows mistrust toward - say - scientists whose job it is to present facts in an unbiased way.
The fact that Trump lies is not in question. He does a lot. The key is does it matter? In some cases yes in some cases no. It has not reached the level of Orwell's 1984. Either did the lies or Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan.
you should trust experts, leaders and the press
This what the NPR ladies who buy her book want to read, so it's all good.
There's nothing in there about "trusting" anyone, let alone whichever knowledgeable people you resent. If anything, Trump is the authority here. People assume he values credibility, as any normal person given that much power would do. It's the fact that he doesn't, the fact that he lies at will, blatantly, obviously, reflexively, that makes him dangerous. Would you feel creeped out by the FAA chair being a pathological liar? OH well, these planes crashed but I will lie about why. Or the head of DHS? Were you not creeped out when Hillary lied about the circumstances surrounding Ben Ghazi? How about the head of the FBI or the Joint Chiefs? Would you like having a local police chief that lied? Unarmed civilians killed but he lied about the causes? And when found out blew you off?
You people are simply so reflexively partisan and contrarian that you're anti-reality. You're doing the impossible and actually making Hillary's point for her.
Fucked up.
Hillary: "The goal is to make you question logic and reason and sow mistrust."
Toothless Revolutionary: "There's nothing in there about 'trusting' anyone."
Genius. Just genius.
The irony if that rant is Clinton did lie about why people were killed.
Oh so I see, John Nowak. For you mistrust is a natural social state and not being able to use logic or reason is just how things should be.
Well isn't that just dandy.
How paranoid a society are you agitating for? How unstable do you want the country to be before you figure out whether or not it can remain a constitutional republic?
Just how much lying to the people are you trying to promote? These people work for us. Sounds like you want employees you can't trust.
Shocking fun fact: Not everyone throws their own mind and will out the window when they choose to trust the things and people that are accountable to them. That's what accountability's all about. Talk about genius.
>Oh so I see, John Nowak. For you mistrust is a natural social state and not being able to use logic or reason is just how things should be.
Why yes, that follows logically. And reasonably.
If "Logic" tells you that "sowing mistrust" is not about "trust."
That's some first class "Logic" and "Reason" right there: a brain so twisted up that it can't read a paragraph and recognize the nouns in it.
I don't how you get the interpretation "trust the people in power" from a scene where the people in power torture one of the few honest men left into admitting 2+2=5.
Is there a lie by Trump as stunning as the Ben Ghazi lie? And what are these lies that are told reflexively and at will? There must be many many of them since it is said that he lies constantly.
That's some first class "Logic" and "Reason" right there: a brain so twisted up that it can't read a paragraph and recognize the nouns in it.
Well it can interpret whether the conclusions in it make any sense. Which I suppose is what upsets you more than anything.
Is there a lie by Trump as stunning as the Ben Ghazi lie? And what are these lies that are told reflexively and at will? There must be many many of them since it is said that he lies constantly.
Put it to you this way, Michael. He lies more often than you naturally evoke nausea in normal human beings. It's just what comes you douchebags. Naturally.
>Well it can interpret whether the conclusions in it make any sense.
If it decides that phrase "sowing mistrust" means "I'd sure like a hamburger sandwich and some french fried potatoes," no, it can't "interpret whether the conclusions in it make any sense."
Can you address Matthew Sablan's point? Use that "Logic and Reason" to explain how O'Brien was trustworthy.
TTR
Ah, your boyfriend beat you up again!! Dude, he will be back. He remembers who pays the bills. You should chill, really. He will be back to slap you around.
And thanks for listing a dozen or so of his constant lies. Kiss your boyfriend. Make up.
Clinton can be shamed into admitting the truth. Trump cannot.
Trump will only tell the truth if it becomes politically impossible for him to lie any longer.
If it decides that phrase "sowing mistrust" means "I'd sure like a hamburger sandwich and some french fried potatoes," no, it can't "interpret whether the conclusions in it make any sense."
That's not a reasonable interpretation. That's a nonsense interpretation.
Lemme guess - you're another engineer who lacks understanding of human behavior and thinks that singular, mathematically precise solutions follow from any idea, rather than a range of possible solutions. Amiright?
>That's not a reasonable interpretation. That's a nonsense interpretation.
Exactly. And it's all you've got.
I have a little different reading of this.
The first three sentences ending with "...the torturer...delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered", about half of the paragraph, seem to me to be exactly right. The whole point of the exercise is, "I am Boss. I tell you what to do, what to say, and what to think."
The fourth sentence ("The goal is to make you question logic and reason...") is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow. The goal is to make you obedient. It doesn't matter what you think so long as you obey. And "the people we need to rely on" in an authoritarian society ("...our leaders, the press, experts...") are indistinguishable from that boss. They will tell you to do and say and think what the Boss tells you to do and say and think. Because they, too, are under the Boss.
The last sentence is really the guffawer, the side-slapper, the belly-buster. "For Trump, as with so much he does, it's about simple dominance."
Let's stipulate Trump is a bully. But there are limits to his power, and he knows it. He has not jailed anyone for opposing him. He has not suspended habeas corpus. He has not cancelled elections or "dissolved" Congress or "uncooperative" courts. Like any other president ("punch back twice as hard"), he can talk, but his powers are limited. He respects those limitations, as he should.
So, it's not a misreading of 1984. It's a misreading of an America which did not choose to make Hillary "Boss".
Exactly. And it's all you've got.
I know you are but what am I?
>I know you are but what am I?
Good job! I knew you'd reach your level eventually.
Perhaps, in time, you'll be able to read a paragraph correctly.
Clinton can be shamed into admitting the truth.
Your evidence for this is?
sowing mistrust in our leaders and the press... - HRC
There's nothing in there about "trusting" anyone, let alone whichever knowledgeable people you resent.
Yes, we all resent people who are in positions of authority and they are only in those positions because they are better than us! The system is infallible!!! TTR, one day he's a Chamber of Commerce Republican advocating for more cheap labor, and the next, he's a Calvinist lecturing us on how when the elites are pissing on our back, it's not our place to question whether it is the rain they have been telling us it is.
TTR is so bourgeois, it's sort of really funny. "Never question authority deplorables! You are not good enough! Your brain is inadequate to the task! You are to be ruled by us, your betters!"
I remember when TTR defended Clinton's mishandling of classified information and clear violation of the laws as written by asking if we were qualified to comment, since we weren't lawyers. Even Comey admitted that she broke the law, he let her off because he claimed that she, as Secretary of Fucking State!, didn't know she was breaking the law and had no way to know what is classified or why. That is "elite" thinking that we are not supposed to question. It is no problem that a woman, the SoS, who is in line for the presidency, has so little understanding of how it all works.
It is also amusing to me that TTR defended Clinton's destruction of records of meeting with Russians in State Department burn bags, clearly illegal in any case, when, to rub it in, those Russians had given her millions of dollars. Political appointees at the FBI say it's OK, it's OK.
But that's why we will never be as elite as TTR.
It is Hillary who sowed the mistrust with her lies and her destruction of not only federal records, illegal in itself, but her destruction of evidence under subpoena. Not a new tactic on her part, BTW, it goes all the way back to the Clinton administration when she withheld evidence. But Hillary gets to abide by "alternative law."
When you come up with something better on Trump than "I disagree with him so he is a liar," you let me know.
Perhaps, in time, you'll be able to read a paragraph correctly.
Perhaps, in time, you'll learn to come up with an idea that stands on its own merits - instead of just for the sake of being a hyper-contrarian partisan douchebag.
TTR, one day he's a Chamber of Commerce Republican advocating for more cheap labor, and the next, he's a Calvinist lecturing us on how when the elites are pissing on our back, it's not our place to question whether it is the rain they have been telling us it is.
You really hate the idea of context so much that it's funny.
Show me on the doll where the English teacher touched you.
TTR is so bourgeois, it's sort of really funny. "Never question authority deplorables! You are not good enough! Your brain is inadequate to the task! You are to be ruled by us, your betters!"
"Respect us no matter how stupid we act!" is not really a convincing plea. Neither is "Respect our intelligence no matter how stupid we act!" What authority have "your peeps" earned? They just have a sense of entitlement, and no position for it. It's pretty bizarre that you think having, not only no responsibility - but a sense of pride! in that lack of responsibility - entitles you to be taken seriously.
I remember when TTR defended Clinton's mishandling of classified information and clear violation of the laws as written by asking if we were qualified to comment, since we weren't lawyers.
No you don't. It's another one of your imagined memories.
Even Comey admitted that she broke the law,
No he didn't.
he let her off because he claimed that she, as Secretary of Fucking State!, didn't know she was breaking the law and had no way to know what is classified or why.
No. He said intentionality was a part of the statute and no prosecutor could prove she intended for the information to come into the wrong hands. I realize laws mean nothing to you, but that is why no one would hire you to defend their case, prosecute, or write the laws.
That is "elite" thinking that we are not supposed to question.
You like questions? Awesome! Here's a question: Why is the moon made of green cheese?
Question!
Here's another one: Why can't you turn your penis inside out?
Question! A great question!
Only an elite would turn down the awesome opportunity to answer such a kick-ass, earth-shaking question.
When you come up with something better on Trump than "I disagree with him so he is a liar," you let me know.
Trump is a proven liar. Largest inaugural ever? On day #1 of the presidency? Like a Baghdad Bob he sends out Spicer to do his lying? All for his bloated ego? You're a fucking twisted loon if you think that wacko has anything resembling a healthy relationship with the truth. The truth, in his mind, is whatever makes him feel/look good. That's the nature of his disease. He's a delusional narcissist. Frederick Douglas was coming to meet him? We kill as many of our own citizens as Russia does? Barack Obama was born in Kenya? He's in love with notoriety and will say anything to gain it. You hate Hillary Clinton so much that you can't admit the obvious about King Douchebag. By that standard, you will defend Charles Manson. You live in a bottomless rabbit hole.
Oh God ! Ritmo is loose.
Good night all.
Go call your wet-nursemaid, Michael K! She'll make it all better!
>Perhaps, in time, you'll learn to come up with an idea that stands on its own merits - instead of just for the sake of being a hyper-contrarian partisan douchebag.
Says the guy who can't read a paragraph. What a joke you are.
"TTR is so bourgeois, it's sort of really funny. "Never question authority deplorables! You are not good enough! Your brain is inadequate to the task! You are to be ruled by us, your betters!"
Yep. "Revolutionary," my ass. He is fighting tooth and nail for Big Mommy Government and resisting any challenge to the status quo. And he thinks minorities are so hopelessly stupid they can't even get a picture ID for themselves, and have to be coddled and babied.
>And he thinks minorities are so hopelessly stupid they can't even get a picture ID for themselves, and have to be coddled and babied.
Perhaps he's projecting? Being subnormal himself, he assumes most people are equally incapable.
The goal is to make you obedient. It doesn't matter what you think so long as you obey.
NOOOOOOOOOO!
you are so, TERRIBLY wrong!
O'Brian specifically says that he wants what is inside your head. It is not enough for you to be gotten/forced/trained to obey. The Gestapo and KGB got false confessions all the time. The Party wants you to BELIEVE. Don't say two and two make five because you are afraid of Room 101. Say two and two make five, because when the Party says five, you look at four and see five.
Remember the modern version with Picard. THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS! But for the Cardassian breaking him (though he is rescued in the nick of time), making him say "five" is just the surface. As Jean-Luc tells the girl afterwards, at the end, he thought he really saw five!
>O'Brian specifically says that he wants what is inside your head.
Right, most specifically with "Our commandment is 'Thou Art.'"
Is it more likely that she interpreted the book that way or that someone else wrote her book, and she never gave the manuscript a close reading? I suspect it might be the latter. I find it difficult to believe that Clinton could get it *that* wrong. Seems like the mistake of a very young person.
Post a Comment