“He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.”
George Orwell, 1984
Yes. Facecrime.
The 1984 Orwell novel is a “How to Manual,” for the party of the criminally insane.
For people who love George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)and “1984”, a great read that mordantly brings to life every situation in “1984” is Simon Sebag Montefiore’s “Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar”, a book written so well and reads so easily, you can’t put the book down. A rarity for a history piece.
Everything Orwell describes was of course actually a fact of life for about seventy years in Soviet Russia—- with the most capriciously fatal potential outcome.
The press is now running with a video of a boy saying some rude thing to a woman about rape not being rape if she enjoys it. Now, they all say they don’t know if the boy is even at Covington (his clothes sport a large “B”, and Covington’s mascot is not Baptain Bovington, so the jury is still out), or what he meant, or the context, or anything. But it’s being used to yet again smear the Covington boys, I suppose in the hopes of salvaging something of an agenda or reputation Anyone think this sounds an awful lot like how people used to talk about Jews or Blacks back in the day? One does it, they’re all guilty, no other facts needed.
Anyone think this sounds an awful lot like how people used to talk about Jews or Blacks back in the day? One does it, they’re all guilty, no other facts needed.
Or women in too-short skirts and too-high heels, for that matter.
“Or women in too-short skirts and too-high heels, for that matter.”
I’ve noticed that comeback quite a bit, especially given how much of the justification for the kids at Covington being ripped apart is based on ‘look what they were wearing.’ That and, of course, the color of their skin.
The whole, “the probably deserved it” combined with the self-serving “we couldn’t stop ourselves, we was TRIGGERED!” thing. Interesting time. There’s probably a reall, viciously good satire/black comedy to be made of all this. But it’d have to be disguised as science fiction.
HATCRIME: Not that many boys were wearing red MAGA caps when one looks at long shots of the boys. There were other red caps with a “C”.
“C” for Covington. The press would have one believe that the majority were wearing MAGA ball caps.
SMILECRIME: smiles and laughter are not necessarily responses to humor. They can signal friendship, viewing something or someone that is appealing like a baby, fear, shock or surprise, uncomfort with a situation, an attempt to defuse a threatening situation and other emotions.
I read somewhere that the MAGA hats were freebie souvenirs that some of the boys picked up after the March for Life.
You all are extremely incorrect. I would challenge you all to a debate but its not worth my time.
“I would challenge you all to a debate but its not worth my time.”
On that, I suspect the feeling is mutual.
I read somewhere that the MAGA hats were freebie souvenirs that some of the boys picked up after the March for Life.
Sounds likely, especially since Trump did rather well for MfL.
An atheist comes onto TAC? Why? If you as an atheist disbelieve in God’s existence, then why does what we say bother you so much that you have to declare, “I would challenge you all to a debate but its not worth my time?” It sounds like you’re quite insecure (and more than a tad arrogant).
“I would challenge you all to a debate but its not worth my time.” Time and space are two dimensions of creation necessary for the universe to exist after the Big Bang. Creation must have a “Creator” to exist. The atheist must have a “Creator” to exist.
The young men are minor citizens. It is incumbent upon an adult to behave in accordance with his citizenship as an adult and to provide for the minor citizens, good will for the common good, the corporal and spiritual works of mercy and any moral and uplifting wisdom. This is the bottom line for adults. Minor young men need the time and space to mature. Time and space were denied to the young men. Criminal accusations, slander, character assassination and assault were heaped on these young men.