I tend to agree. It’s marketing BS/spin, but not particularly reality-effacing/Orwellian. “We’ve never been stay the course” is Orwellian.
The Bush White House takes a back seat to nobody when it comes to Orwellian double speak. “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” “USA PATRIOT Act,” “Clear Skies Initiative,” “No Child Left Behind,” “Healthy Forests Initiative,” “Support the troops.” Doublespeak is one Bush’s signature characteristics.
Names that deliberately suggest something other than what the thing is are, in fact, Orwellian. Orwell’s real interest wasn’t surveillance or two-way telescreens, it was language. When lissener calls it “Orwellian” he means it’s a case of a group simply renaming something (an association for trial lawyers) something that it is not (an Association for Justice, which sounds like a league of super-heroes, not what it is - a specific club for a particular subgroup of a specific profession) soley for the purpose of creating a false impression.
It is a variation on the Big Lie approach. As duality72 points out, another Orwellian move is doublethink - pretending that history is something other than what it really is. The new Bush “oh, gosh, we never said stay the course” approach is a good example, and they’ve been caught doing thing sort of thing before. But that’s just another technique. The name game is still very, very Orwellian.
An example from 1984 would be the names Oceania gives its government ministries - the Ministry of Peace is for war, the Ministry of Love is for oppression and torture, the Ministry of Plenty for rationing, and the Ministry of Truth for spreading lies. Just renaming things what they are not. Like, you know, when trial lawyers whose main concern is personal profit call themselves the Association for Justice. It’s so Orwellian, they should name themselves all George.
Governments, corporations, interest groups and political parties have engaged in Orwellian language tricks for a long, long time - well, obviously, since that’s why Orwell was interested in it. But it’s sure on the upswing lately.
As pointed out by RickJay and others above, Dead, it’s quite explicitly, unambiguously, Orwellian. Out of curiosity, what does “Orwellian” mean to you?
Ah; I’d misapprehended the rather one-sided nature of ATLA, thinking they were a more general group of, y’know, trial lawyers. I understand what you meant by Orwellian, I just wasn’t seeing the duplicity there on the scale of some of Diogenes’ examples.
Forget 1984 and doublespeak. Pigs are running the place. That’s what makes it Orwellian.
The rest of your post makes this point, but I would like to reword your opening sentence to emphasize it:
Names that deliberately suggest exactly the opposite of what the thing is are, in fact, Orwellian.
And there’s an epidemic of it around these parts.
It slows down the lines at checkouts (and possibly for entrance at your zoo). Sadly, most of the stores in this area that used to ask for zip codes have went to asking for phone numbers now.
One such essay is Orwell’s Politics and the English Language, written in 1946.
From Jack Handy:
If I live in the Wild West days, instead of carrying a six-gun in my holster, I’d carry a soldering iron. That was if some smart-aleck cowboy said something like, “Hey look. He’s carrying a soldering iron!” and started laughing, and everybody else started laughing, I could just say, “That’s right, it’s a soldering iron. The soldering iron of justice.” Then everyone would get real quiet and ashamed, because they made fun of the soldering iron of justice, and I could probably hit them up for a free drink.
No, no, it’s the Humanitarian Organization for the Greatness of Society.
I think what you meant to say was, "It’s my impression that it slows down the lines . . . " or “Maybe it slows down the lines . . . ?” or something like that. Because it does not, in fact, slow down the line at all. It’s asked and answered while I’m entering other stuff into the register, or while the person is approaching the window, or whatever. But your answer is interesting in that it demonstrates that to some people, their assumptions hold the weight of absolute fact.
This is getting into a serious highjack here, sorry people…
lissener, I guess you missed the word possibly in my post regarding your situation? It would indicate the same thing as “maybe.” In fact, “maybe” is listed as the first definition in the dictionary I just checked. My advice would be to enhance your calm when reading others’ posts.
In regards to my situation, it definitely did slow down the lines as the checkout person was staring dumbly at a zip code input box instead of scanning items.
Sorry; I get this occasionally at the window–“that’s why we waited in line, because you were asking everybody for their zip codes?”–which of course slows the line down WAY more than asking for zip codes–so it rankles a bit.
No problem. I’ll confess that I generally give false information when asked for a zip code. I’m not sure why. When thought about rationally, stating your zip code really can’t hurt you. In fact, it would probably be in my best interest to give them the correct info in hopes that they would open a store closer to my home. I guess I see their asking for it as a mild intrusion to my privacy and I don’t want to encourage it.
As I mentioned before, it didn’t work, most of these stores are now asking for a phone number to which I tell them to get bent (although generally more politely, it’s not the clerk’s fault).
I will never, never understand this. It’s just your fucking zipcode, for christ’s sake; you share it with probably thousands of people. How, by any stretch of imagination, is it an intrustion into your privacy? Your zipcode has about as much to do with your privacy as–well, as something that has absolutely nothing to do with your privacy that I’m too distracted to come up with right now.
Sorry, but giving false information in such a situation is just childish.
I do not give a false Zip code, but I generally do not supply information to help with marketing. It is not a big deal and it is not a privacy, but I do not generally help with marketing. Strangely, I make exceptions for Zoos and Museums, so I would have given the Zip code too you, even though I will not give it to Radio Shack.
Jim
By giving them a zip code when they ask for one–false or not–you ARE encouraging it. If you want to discourage them, you should refuse to give any information.
You don’t have to. RS dropped the name and address requirement for purchases a few years ago. They only ask for it now for warranty information, returns and a few other situations which require it, the same as any other store.
I just used Radio Shack as an example. It is a national chain. I was not singling them out. I forgot they were one of the first ones to do this. It probably was in the back of my mind though.
Jim {What you work for them or something? 
}