“Plain clothed police” is a euphemism, and in other countries they are called “secret police”
Funny how powerful language can be. When I first read 1984 in my late teens/early 20s, I always thought that big chunk of the novel where Orwell discusses the use of language as a means of control was dry, boring and unrealistic.
It has become clear to me since, that it very well may have been his most prescient point.
the use of language as a means of control […] well may have been his most prescient point.
While I think Orwell’s “newspeak” was contrived, it did illustrate the point in strong relief as something unfamiliar… at least at first. But I don’t think he was predicting the future. Instead, I think he was warning the reader of what dangers are already with us.
Honestly, I think this has always been a thing. The spoken word is often inexact as a form of communication efficiency; if the other party has the same ideas in their head as you, pronouns, idioms, recalling past events, are all powerful ways to compress dialogue. However, that same inexactness leaves the door open for doublespeak, dogwhistles, and suggestion in place of fact. Language as a means of control is just in how you use it; the underlying mechanisms were always there.
I don’t think I implied it’s anything new. Nor was I trying to say he predicted the future per se. It’s been years since I’ve read it, but I don’t think the section was just about newspeak. I didn’t mind that stuff.
I recall there being a whole section where he kind of steps away from the narrative for a bit and basically writes an essay about controlling people through language. I just remember being like “lol yeah right, controlling thoughts with language? Impossible and boring… bring back Winston” when I was in my teens.
Reading it again as an adult, it didn’t particularly ring true to me at the time either. It wasn’t until I experienced 2015-now that I thought back to it and recognized how wrong I was.
My theory continues to stand:
If you want to legally threaten,kill and harm people because that’s your fetish, be a police officer.
If you’re really good at it you can even join the FBI or CIA. Hell you can become a judge if you REALLY want to ruin someone’s life with zero to no consequences
DEA is also a decent option for a violent antisocial menace.
I feel this goes beyond theory at this point, sadly.
Was that the original title? Because that’s not a revolver.
Edit: Ah the latter part is the subtitle, and it does say “revolver.” Good job, “journalist.”
It also says the man is prone and restrained where the image clearly shows he is lying in a supine and restrained position.
He’s also laying supine, not prone.
Oh shit and they didn’t even mention the thread count of his t-shirt. How can these journalists miss “the” real important details?
If they can’t get that simple distinction correct, what does that say about the rest of their reporting?
It’s a distinction without meaningful difference. Yes, a revolver is very different from a semi-auto pistol. Yay, congrats on being factually correct. Are they both lethal devices that can misfire/accidentally fire/easily be fired with a trigger pull? Because THAT is the point of the article.
If none of the facts need to be correct except that police pointed a gun at someone’s head, why read the other 2000+ words in the article?
Where did I say none of the facts need to be correct? Nowhere, that’s where.
The important stuff needs to be clear, but the type of gun is not nearly as important as the fact the guy was restrained on the ground with a gun (any type of gun) to his head. Other facts that are more important than the type of gun are what led up to the events, whether the guy was still armed but only restrained, the color of the individuals in question, etc. The type of gun is so far down the list of details that need to be correct that I wouldn’t even expect it to be mentioned other than “gun.”
Also, even more important is the fact the story had the correct type of gun, only the title (not written by the journalist) is incorrect.
If they get one “unimportant” fact wrong, then why should I trust the “important” facts?
Removed by mod
If a journalist can’t get the basic fact of revolver vs Glock right, what other basic facts have they misrepresented?
thats why factual accuracy in news stories is important, especially if the weapon in question is the articles thumbnail, making it the first thing many will notice
The journalist DID get the correct type of gun. The title is not written by the journalist and is the only place revolver is used.
And the way you say, “what other basic facts have they misrepresented” makes it seem like you think this was an intentional thing to skew the story. Only gun nerds will care about that detail, so the editor/copy person who actually wrote the headline likely did no research at all and just used what normal people think of as a generic term for a gun. The point is that the type of gun is not important. Just like if the person had said the officer was wearing a cotton shirt under his uniform when it was actually a poly-cotton blend, it’s not 100% accurate but it doesn’t change the point.
The journalist DID get the correct type of gun. The title is not written by the journalist and is the only place revolver is used.
It’s in the subtitle, and it was produced by the news organization alongside the article. It’s part of the article as released by the journalistic news outlet, it impacts the story, and it’s embarrassing
And the way you say, “what other basic facts have they misrepresented” makes it seem like you think this was an intentional thing to skew the stor
Nice assumption, don’t read shit into what other people say and you won’t get it wrong. My point wasn’t that it’s purposefully wrong at all, just that it is wrong, and an insanely basic thing to get wrong. Assume incompetence before malice, you know?
Only gun nerds will care about that detail
Lol, completely untrue. My wife has no idea about guns and her first comment was that the gun in the thumbnail wasn’t a revolver and she chuckled. It’s a really basic fact to fuck up
so the editor/copy person who actually wrote the headline likely did no research at all
Exactly? If the person doing the tag line for the article couldn’t be bothered to not make a basic error fixed with a 2s web search: why should you trust that the person who wrote the article did, or was checked properly?
The point is that the type of gun is not important
The point is that I learned in my journalism classes that missing basic facts like this erodes trust in you as a news source, for obvious reasons. Well, obvious to people with half a brain, anyway.
Just like if the person had said the officer was wearing a cotton shirt under his uniform when it was actually a poly-cotton blend, it’s not 100% accurate but it doesn’t change the point.
Absolutely not the same at all. What the office wore underneath his uniform is nether relevant nor in the thumbnail next to the article title. The type of gun is both of those things
Again, it’s a very simple concept: if the news source cannot be assed to do a basic fact check on their title when it’s blatantly false by their own thumbnail then they cannot be trusted to fact check jack shit
You complete me.
I don’t know what this person did, but that’s harrowing.
Even if he was accused of committing the most heinous crime, I don’t think this is an acceptable use of force on an already subdued suspect.
The police are to take you to jail and then court, not terrorise people.
No, neither do I.
