Hillary Clinton: Moral of "1984" is "trust your leaders".

[Lumpy]

Quoted from “What Happened”: (emphasis mine)

“Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism. This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.

:smack:

I can say this has given me something new to think about: namely the possibility that Hillary Clinton sincerely believes that the poor benighted masses are too stupid and gullible to think for themselves, and that it is the noble calling of the experts and leaders to [del]herd[/del] guide the public toward the “correct” policy.

[Llama_Llogophile]

Interesting that you chose not to italic the first 12 and last 4 of that sentence.

[Czarcasm]

How the fuck did you make that conclusion from reading that paragraph??
Try reading it again, and note that there are others mentioned:

The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves.

She mentions leaders, yes-but she also mentions the press, experts who rely on evidence AND ourselves in that very same sentence.

[somepumpkin]

@Lumpy

Quoted from “What Happened”: (emphasis mine)
:smack:

I can say this has given me something new to think about: namely the possibility that Hillary Clinton sincerely believes that the poor benighted masses are too stupid and gullible to think for themselves, and that it is the noble calling of the experts and leaders to [del]herd[/del] guide the public toward the “correct” policy.

You haven’t noticed? People **are **pretty stupid.

I am not agreeing or siding with HC, just pointing out the glaringly obvious.

[Lightnin]

Yes, this particularly egregious deliberate misreading is really making the rounds of Reddit and the various social media. What’s particularly bad about it is not only is it taking one paragraph out of context, but that one also has to ignore almost half of that paragraph to draw that conclusion.

It’s actually pretty pathetic.

[Czarcasm]

Talking point-Fail.
Did they give you anything else to bitch about, Lumpy?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Llama_Llogophile

Interesting that you chose not to italic the first 12 and last 4 of that sentence.

And that the OP provides no link to the source of his ire.

I have an inkling of what the moral of this thread is going to be, I think.

[Evan_Drake]

Regardless of all that, a more interesting concept is that the old girl thinks the authorities of '1984’ sought to sow mistrust to the authorities of ‘1984’.

[Czarcasm]

Don’t you just love it when they repeat the talking points without even bothering to read to see if said points have any connection whatsoever to reality? Your “point” is just as invalid as the OP’s, and for the very same reason.

[Richard_Parker]

@Evan_Drake

Regardless of all that, a more interesting concept is that the old girl thinks the authorities of '1984’ sought to sow mistrust to the authorities of ‘1984’.

Or, and I’m just spitballing here, maybe your hatred of women is sort of coloring your interpretation of their words?

[VinylTurnip]

@Czarcasm

How the fuck did you make that conclusion from reading that paragraph??

I’d like to think that someone shocked his balls with a cattle prod until he agreed with that interpretation. It probably isn’t true, but it’s fitting, and such an incredibly satisfying image.

[Czarcasm]

On the other hand, this does reinforce the theory that some right wingers actually believe that “Trolling Democrats” is their main purpose here.

[Lumpy]

@somepumpkin

You haven’t noticed? People **are **pretty stupid.

Then why do we have democracy at all, instead of having the Enlightened Ones tell us what to do (or else)?

@Snowboarder_Bo

And that the OP provides no link to the source of his ire.

Amazon Books currently does not have text previews of “What Happened” available, so I’m presuming that the (multiple) second party quotes are accurate. Her (or her ghost writer’s) words speak for themselves, regardless of who is publicizing them.

[Okrahoma]

How is that a misreading? Can you explain, in Orwell’s 1984, which “experts”, which “press” and which “leaders” was the disinformation program designed to make the citizens mistrust? Same with the Stalin-era Russia - which “experts”, which “press” and which “leaders” was Stalin’s alteration of reality designed to make the citizenry mistrust?

[somepumpkin]

@Lumpy

Then why do we have democracy at all, instead of having the Enlightened Ones tell us what to do (or else)?
<snip>

Well, because it’s probably the better of the two choices you’ve presented. I still stand by my people-being-stupid comment, regardless of how you want to rule/legislate/govern.

[Ravenman]

Let’s imagine that Hillary said, “Nothing is more important than our health – we should establish a relationship of trust with our qualified physicians who use science to help us lead longer, healthier lives.”

Lumpy’s response: “OMG Hilllary endorsed Dr. Mengele!”

[Czarcasm]

@Okrahoma

How is that a misreading? Can you explain, in Orwell’s 1984, which “experts”, which “press” and which “leaders” was the disinformation program designed to make the citizens mistrust? Same with the Stalin-era Russia - which “experts”, which “press” and which “leaders” was Stalin’s alteration of reality designed to make the citizenry mistrust?

That would be “all those not already controlled by the government, especially any from outside the country”, dipshit.

[Richard_Parker]

@Okrahoma

How is that a misreading? Can you explain, in Orwell’s 1984, which “experts”, which “press” and which “leaders” was the disinformation program designed to make the citizens mistrust? Same with the Stalin-era Russia - which “experts”, which “press” and which “leaders” was Stalin’s alteration of reality designed to make the citizenry mistrust?

In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. … Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.

From the known fascist sycophant, Hannah Arendt.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Lumpy

the poor benighted masses are too stupid and gullible to think for themselves

Isn’t the election of Trump strong enough evidence of that?

@Lightnin

not only is it taking one paragraph out of context, but that one also has to ignore almost half of that paragraph to draw that conclusion.

It’s actually pretty pathetic.

That’s how he reads the Second Amendment, too. Don’t act so surprised.

[Okrahoma]

@Czarcasm

That would be “all those not already controlled by the government, especially any from outside the country”, dipshit.

Neither in Stalin’s Russia nor in 1984 were there any “experts”, “press” or “leaders” accessible to the citizenry that were not controlled by the government, much less from outside the country. Were you aware of that?