[rt4mn]

1984 was published in 1949. It is partially science fiction. Tricorders are not literally the same as cell phones, either, but if you ignore the parrelels you are doing a disservice to the important role and lessons of good sci-fi.

The thing I tell most people is that we currently live under more surveillance then folks in 1984. "You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." nowadays your movement is not safe even in darkness.

We would be even more screwed then folks living in that fictional regime if we backslide away from rights based democratic rule of law.

[matai_kolila]

I couldn’t disagree more strongly; the fact that you can write this and not worry for the rest of your life about being killed is the whole point.

I urge you to reread 1984, and focus on how people who broke the rules were treated. People weren’t deplatformed or cancelled, they were murdered.

[rt4mn]

I do worry about being killed by the government. I worry about everything related to government abuse of power and surveillance. I wear my tinfoil with with pride, thank you very much.

On a more serious note (in case it was not clear that I was being facetious), you are absolute correct that an important theme (and, arguably, the primary / key message) of 1984 is to highlight the horror and dangers of a totalitarian government, and to push back against the very, very pressing danger of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

But one of the great things about sci-fi / dystopian / utopian fiction is that it lets us look at a potential future, ask ourselves if thats a world we want to live in, and if its not, we can think about what it might take for us to go down that path, and what steps we should take if we want to avoid it.

You are right to point out that we dont live an a totalitarian surveillance state run by elites without respect for the rule of law. But my point is that we could, and that we currently do live in a surveillance state. It just happens to be a democratic surveillance state run by elected representatives of the people with a strong culture of respect of the rule of law. But its a surveillance state nevertheless.

I wont suggest you re-read 1984, but I would suggest taking a look at this opinion piece by Pussy Riot's Nadya Tolokonnikova: https://www.nytimesn7cgmftshazwhfgzm37qxb44r64ytbb2dj3x62d2l... (or i guess https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/opinion/navalny-russia.ht..., but I suggest the onion link)

Or at least the last paragraph: "Our president has only just recently had the law changed so that he can stay in power until 2036, but his program of repression didn’t start out this blatantly. These things happen in pieces, bit by bit, small acts. And each one may even seem relatively benign at first, perhaps bad, but not fatal. You get angry, maybe you speak out, but you get on with your life. The promise of our democracy was chipped away in pieces, one by one: corrupt cronies appointed, presidential orders issued, actions taken, laws passed, votes rigged. It happens slowly, intermittently; sometimes we couldn’t see how steadily. Autocracy crept in, like the coward it is."

Persistent mass surveillance is not mentioned. Abusive government surveillance tends to fly under the radar. But one of the lessons of 1984 is that you ignore it at your peril.

[matai_kolila]

I don't disagree or agree with what you've written generally here, but specifically speaking 1984 is not a reflection of current reality for Americans, and you seem to agree with that.

That's an important point, and I think there are a lot of folks who would try to disagree. There are people in this very comment thread that believe 1984 is not a work of fiction, and that's silly. Those are the people I'm disagreeing with.

I'm not really interested in generic, "society is falling apart" conversations, as every society ever has been saying that about different things, and yes they even followed up with, "No but for us it's real!"

[rt4mn]

> specifically speaking 1984 is not a reflection of current reality for Americans, and you seem to agree with that

Of course 1984 is not a reflection of current reality. it was not a reflection of current reality back when it was written. Science fiction is not a fun-house mirror reflecting back a warped version of the present, its a kaleidoscope looking into the future.

I have not seen anyone in this thread say "1984 is totally real and not a work of fiction", or confusing that world with reality. I've only seen people using the novel as it was intended to be used (as a rhetorical and persuasive tool) and pointing out: "There are a number of very real parallels between the world we live in and the world of 1984, and the number of parallels is increasing. This is a giant blinking warning light, and we should change course"

> I'm not really interested in generic, "society is falling apart" conversations, as every society ever has been saying that about different things, and yes they even followed up with, "No but for us it's real!"

I sympathize with your lack of interest in that conversation, its not a fun one, but its important and your rational for avoiding it is flawed. True, very society every has had its doomsayers, and they were very often wrong. But a lot of them were right, too. Progress is not inevitable. Societal backsliding has happened many times throughout the course of human history, and democratic / rule of law backsliding has happened a lot in very, very recent history. Back when that opinion piece I linked too was written, the new york times had reporters based in russia. Now they don't.

Judge Doomsayers like me based on the specific doom we forsee, not on the fact that we are doomspeaking. (and now I promise I'm done editing, even for spelling, since thats gotten me hooked two bloody revisions ago)

[matai_kolila]

> Telescreen, newspeak, mass surveillance, perpetual war, "officials" acting as if what they are saying now is always what they said, etc. It's almost easier to list the things that we don't have in common.

> The thing I tell most people is that we currently live under more surveillance then folks in 1984.

> In ~20 years you'll see how silly you are for welcoming totalitarianism. You won't care until it effects you.

Three examples from this thread (one by you) of folks claiming "1984 is totally real and not a work of fiction", at least to the degree of what I originally said (you're misconstruing what I wrote for rhetorical value, but if you look at what I actually claimed, these quotes fit).

There are not "a number of very real parallels between the world we live in and the world of 1984", this is a misremembering of the content of the novel. You don't get to just hand select a few things from the novel and say, "Look, 1984!" in the same way you don't get to cite "well the humans in Lord of the Rings breathed air so it's the same as today!"

For example, without the critical, "or else you die" consequences of misbehavior in the 1984 novel, none of the "scary" things in the novel carry anything remotely approaching the weight or meaningfulness.

[pessimizer]

> Three examples from this thread (one by you) of folks claiming "1984 is totally real and not a work of fiction",

I'm not sure that you can accuse anyone of misconstruing anything unless you can find this quote in another comment, or anything resembling it.

[rt4mn]

> (you're misconstruing what I wrote for rhetorical value, but if you look at what I actually claimed, these quotes fit).

Your right, I am! Aint rhetoric grand? Its such a powerful tool, and 1984 was such a sublime and impactful example of rhetoric that more then 70 years later its still being routinely invoked to create discussion just like this one.

Although I guess I would say "deliberately exaggerating" rather then "misconstruing", but that's being too nitpicky right out the gate. being nitpicky should come in the middle of the comment, like so:

> what I originally said

was "It's nothing at all like how we live today". Which would be a valid criticism in the lord of the rings example, since it is fundamentally a work of fantasy. but not so with 1984. There are a number of incredibly striking parallels, some of which you helpfully highlighted.

> You don't get to just hand select a few things from the novel and say, "Look, 1984!" in the same way you don't get to cite "well the humans in Lord of the Rings breathed air so it's the same as today!"

I do actually get to do just that, depending on what those things are. Although I would look silly if did the lord of the rings thing. Everyone knows they breathe Aether.

But as I said, the whole point of 1984 was to be a warning about the dangers of a world where totalitarianism wins. 1984 was a rhetorical tool. Taking a few things from the novel and highlighting the similarities in an effort to convince others of the potential danger of a all powerful government is pretty much exactly the function it was written to serve.

> without the critical, "or else you die" consequences of misbehavior in the 1984 novel, none of the "scary" things in the novel carry anything remotely approaching the weight or meaningfulness.

I am going to assume you dont mean this part literally and are exaggerating for effect (or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you) because I don't think you mean to say that making comparisons between 1984 and modern life would not be apt unless the US government had an active policy of killing people for dissenting speech/writing/thought-crime.

I think what you are trying to say is that the harsh brutality of 1984 is so distant from modern reality in the US, that any rhetorical arguments analogizing to it is de-facto excessive hyperbole?

I disagree, and to highlight why, let me ask two questions. first, as you say, in the novel:

> Keeping a diary is punishable by death (that's the premise of the entire story), it's kind of silly to compare that with our lives today.

But in Orwells time the UK (where he lived and where the novel takes place) did not punish people with death sentences and torture for writing "down with the king" in their private diaries. In your mind, would making comparisons between the status quo of the UK in 1948 when the book was published and the future world imagined by orwell have been apt?

To further clarify this question, what, In your view, would the status quo of civil rights and the rule of law need to be for a comparison to 1984 need to be to be apt? that is tosay, on the spectrum between "government punishes you with a fine, after a fair trial, for not paying taxes" and "government openly admits it kills people for thought crime" do we have to fall?

If I'm entirly off base, and you do think that making comparisons between 1984 and modern life would not be apt unless the US government had an active policy of killing people for dissenting speech/writing/thought-crime, then I would gently remind you again that the purpuse of 1984 was to serve as a rhetorical warning, and that a warning sign that you cant see until the danger is right on top of you is utterly useless.