Paz on 24/2/2007 at 17:38
You're right, it is a broad definition. I think this is by necessity - Orwell begins with a critique of nationalism in the more traditional sense, but expands this when it becomes clear that the "condition" he is discussing can encompass all manner of life. It still makes a certain sense to refer to this as "nationalism," as the same one-eyed behaviour can be seen in vociferous supporters of football/musicians/films and numerous other minutiae.
In relation to a nation (rhyming couplets ahoy), however, it is perhaps most powerful.
Anyway, I think it's an absolutely outstanding piece of writing. I would suggest that anyone who takes the time to read it will come away with a richer understanding of the motives behind contemporary interaction at all levels: global, national and personal. It should also provoke serious introspection, as we all inevitably suffer from the nationalist affliction to some degree.
The importance is to recognise this in ourselves and others and take (or attempt to take) the appropriate steps.
Another thing which struck me after reading it recently is this: where are the writers offering this kind of clarity in the modern world? Orwell is obviously a bit of a one-off, but there must be more recent thoughts which at least can come close. Are they all hidden in obscure political/philosophical university publications or something? Someone was saying these things in 1945. Where are the someones saying it in 2007?
Apostolus on 26/2/2007 at 01:17
Quote Posted by Fringe
I was about to say, "Yeah, thank god I reported all those Catholic priests as child molesters on general principle" -- but then I realized that, given that there actually is a problem with the Catholic church hierarchy and child molestation, even that would be granting the original post too much legitimacy.
Everyone one wants it both ways. Thats the point, Fringe. Though there really wasnt much more of a point in this post, other than a community knee-jerk curb check.
Check-a-roo.
Aerothorn on 26/2/2007 at 01:57
what
D'Juhn Keep on 27/2/2007 at 14:06
Quote Posted by Apostolus
Everyone one wants it both ways. Thats the point, Fringe. Though there really wasnt much more of a point in this post, other than a community knee-jerk curb check.
Check-a-roo.
I've read this through 5 times and I think he's saying he's bisexual :confused:
Rug Burn Junky on 27/2/2007 at 16:26
I thought he was trying to prove that "child molesters come from all walks of life" in order to eventually gain acceptance for his own predilection towards child porn.
henke on 27/2/2007 at 17:32
Quote Posted by Vigil
He didn't exactly volunteer this information, he was outed by the male prostitute he'd been hiring regularly for 3 years, who also indicated Haggard was fond of meth.
It's ok tho, he got (
http://www.avclub.com/content/node/58568) cured! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :rolleyes:
Moi Dix Mois on 27/2/2007 at 18:33
Have you read the comments on that article?
Quote:
[...]Then I found out Mr. Perfect likes to pee his pants, and wanted me to do it with him. I gave it some thought, decided it was harmless, and that I was willing to try it. It's taken some getting used to, but I'm actually starting to enjoy peeing my pants. More importantly, I get off on the fact that he gets off on it so much. It's been seven months, and we are still completely retarded for each other.
Well, he said it.
Am I a bigot now?
Rivux on 2/3/2007 at 08:41
More to the point: were any of the individuals involved a hot, bi chick? Because you totally have my attention, then.
Vigil on 2/3/2007 at 10:29
Quote Posted by Moi Dix Mois
Have you read the comments on that article?
...
Well, he said it.
Am I a bigot now?
1.) It's a syndicated sex advice column, not an one-off article about Ted Haggard.
2.) The letter you quoted was written by a woman, and not in response to the news mentioned at the top of the column.
So I don't know, do bigots have poor reading skills?
