Why do liberals love 1984, but have brave new world?

I have never met anyone who hated Brave New World, even among the granola Ivy league folks I know
Why does /pol/ constantly feel the need to be in an outrage over dumb shit like this? You posted this thread with a specific answer already in your head based on the 1-dimensional liberal strawman you've constructed, you don't want a real discussion at all
This is why we want you faggots to stay on your containment board

Because most everyone is happy in bnw. Liberals really hate happy people.

Brave New World is the dystopia they are helping to actually produce while they think they are heroically fighting against the dystopia of 1984.

I wish I lived where you live. All the liberals I know get mad when media has one character who is openly conservative, even if that character is to contrast the predominantly liberal characters or even just as satire. If my brother read Brave New World he'd probably pop a vein.

It's not about left vs. right, it's more along the authoritarian vs. libertarian axis. 1984 is an authoritarian dystopia, Brave New World is a libertarian dystopia. Yes, the government in BNW mandates all sorts of things, but the point is they don't have to since the people would willingly do so anyway.

>the point is they don't have to since the people would willingly do so anyway

You could easily argue that it's the same case in 1984, since the Party brainwashes people from birth to rat out anyone regardless of personal bonds. And it's not like stragglers aren't noticed and dealt with in BNW.

Where do you live exactly because I couldn't think of a single place like that.

Well everyone knows BNW is a utopia anyway

Since when do liberals hate Brave New World? Also, what's up with the meme that everyone left of center is a "hedonist"? Seriously, have this dumb fucking thread on /pol/. It's like none of you morons actually crawl out of the dungeon to interact with someone who has a different perspective. Or if you do, you stick your heads in the sand as soon as they begin speaking. I have plenty of conservative friends & family members and none of them would make the ridiculous generalizations I'm reading in this thread. Get back to your containment board.

Only good post.

Liberal here. I love Brave New World. Would've loved it more if Huxley had considered the possibility of nuclear weapons in his dystopic setting.

the structures of control used in 1984 are based in terrorization of the masses while in BNW they are based in saturization of pleasure. We have found the second to be more efficient but our society uses a bit of both. Why do you think terrorism and mass attacks are becoming more normalised in our most peaceful era?

Brave new world connects to other, less fluffy realizations

>Also, what's up with the meme that everyone left of center is a "hedonist"?
It's not a meme, they either admit so themselves (either explicitly or implicitly) or they say they're not and then spend hours justifying the behavior of the average homosexual, or excuse bestiality, incest and so on.
Also, stop being ridiculous, the average liberal is far more sheltered and ignorant of the opposite stance than the average conservative.

BNW >>>> 1984

But Orwell's best stuff were his non-fiction.

Honestly? Kill yourself, you fucking faggot.

The older I get the more I wonder what the fuck Huxley's problem was. BNW represents a wonderful state of being far flung from the overtly chaotic manner of the universe - a cocoon; a bubble without violence of malice. Like the 90s.

Also, Brave New World's finer points are predicated a lot on scientific advancements, which is something a lot of liberals don't like to criticise (even if they consider some practices unethical). Politicians, like those espoused in 1984's authoritarian world, are fair game in comparison so I imagine it's an easier book to dig.

Ladies and Gentlemen, a prisoner who enjoys his cell.

>NW represents a wonderful state of being far flung from the overtly chaotic manner of the universe
The west deserves a nuclear holocaust.

>But Orwell's best stuff were his non-fiction.
True that.

The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman
Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from. the old Liberal Party. In addition to this
there is the horrible--the really disquieting--revalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the
impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. One day this summer I was riding through Letchworth when the bus stopped and two dreadful-looking old men got on to it. They were both about sixty, both very short, pink, and chubby, and both hatless. One of them was
obscenely bald, the other had long grey hair bobbed in the Lloyd George style. They were dressed in pistachio-coloured shirts and khaki shorts into which their huge bottoms were crammed so tightly that you could study every
dimple. Their appearance created a mild stir of horror on top of the bus. The man next to me, a commercial traveller I should say, glanced at me, at them, and back again at me, and murmured 'Socialists', as who should say, 'Red Indians'. He was probably right--the I.L.P. were holding their summer school at Letchworth. But the point is that to him, as an ordinary man, a crank meant a Socialist and a Socialist meant a crank. Any Socialist, he probably felt, could be counted on to have something eccentric about him. And some such notion seems to exist even among Socialists themselves. For instance, I have here a prospectus from another summer school which states its terms per week and then asks me to say 'whether my diet is ordinary or vegetarian'. They take it for granted, you see, that it is necessary to ask this question. This kind of thing is by itself sufficient to alienate plenty of decent people. And their instinct is perfectly sound, for the food-crank is by definition a person willing to cut himself off from human society in hopes of adding five years on to the life of his carcase; that is, a person but of touch with common humanity.

>tfw no noble savage gf

Nothing wrong with being a prisoner; free room and board, and you don't have to pay taxes.

liberals hate Brave New World?

Because it's horribly written and filled with horrible characters that don't have a single redeeming feature that makes them interesting. The ideas present in the book might hold some interesting commentary, but the book as a whole provides not a single moment of enjoyment.

not when you're a prisoner for life.

Hey you get free books in prison too. Its like my everyday except I don't have to work.

Thats sad.

1984 only appears to be easier for the liberal brain to comprehend.The world they advocate for is basically just 1984 if we're being honest.

Is it as sad as a sysphean life that we are all condemned to?

Yes. Don't try to justify yourself.

Justify myself? All you've offered are emotional anecdotes. Whose to say I wouldn't br happiest in prison, or that you live any better outside of it. Life is like one big prison, but we get to choose our own walls. I want one of mine to have a cell door, and is that so sad?

Yes.

Ok, how are you doing user?

Bad, but at least I'm not happy about it.

But how could you say you're bad if you were happy about something? Would it not be true that someone who is happy can be allowed their happiness regardless of our outside interpretation?

It is another user uses a democratic socialist's criticism of the left as his own
Lel

Sometimes you are happy when you shouldn't be. This is done to by outside sources often and deliberately.

But what does it mean to be happy when you shouldn't be? Who can be the arbiter of happiness but oneself?

Where are you getting this? I just hate the way huxley writes.

If you are fooled into happiest, when it is not in your best interest to be happy, you are not truly happy.

So you would say that true happiness is happiness when it is in your best interest, and that there is such a thing as false happiness?

Yes but not quite.

But then wouldn't it be so that being in prison is not only what makes me happiest, but also would be in my best interest; and being outside of prison may be dangerous, and wouldn't you then say this is some sort of false happiness, since somehow you have been fooled into thinking that it is better?

Being a prisoner is not in your interest long term. May as well just die, in fact death might be in your best interest

It's more like they're using 1984's means with Brave New World's ends in mind.

I think it's a bit of both

How can death possibly be in my best interest? And how could being a prisoner not be in my best interest in the long term? Death is something I naturally avoid, since its consequences are unknown to me. Since I can't possibly factor an unkown into my process of determining what is in my best interest, then I can never say it would be in my best interest. Of the first point, I already evinced in my previous post that prison contained all the amenities for me to be truly happy and therefore it is in my best interest.

What's the point of living in a cage when death is inevitable. If there is hope for escape you may as well just end it. Unless you want to delude and lull yourself into a false sense of happiness, becoming a bad joke, a parody of man.

But as I said before we are all living in cages we can only escape in death. But you shouldn't kill yourself, since you've been given this life you have an obligation to live it out. Its like a dog, running away from its master, you can't die until the universe is done with you.

And while we're at it you might as well live happily in the prison of life.

You make me sick. I don't think I can even see you as human.

Ad hominem

I don't care.

>decent people

>people on my side are better on average because of this sweeping baseless generalization
>the average liberal loves incest and bestiality and will bend over backwards to defend it
I really can't comprehend the level of mental gymnastics /pol/acks go through on a daily basis to come up with this shit

He was obviously quoting Gorge Orwell you moron

>they either admit so themselves (either explicitly or implicitly)
>Either admit to or act like hedonists
Were you planing on providing any sort of evidence for this belief or are we just supposed to be persuaded because you've said it again?

>spend hours justifying the behavior of the average homosexual, or excuse bestiality, incest
kek. did you compare homosexuality to bestiality and incest? Seriously, how many liberals have you encountered who support bestiality and incest? I've never met anyone in my entire life (outside of anonymous users on Veeky Forums) who endorse either of these behaviors. How can you think this? You sound like some psychotic evangelical preacher or something. Jesus, dude.

Most people I know are socially liberal (i.e. live an let live), and they wouldn't dream of defending bestiality or incest. Liberals have some of the dumbest people on earth, but they are far from representative.

>the average liberal loves incest and bestiality and will bend over backwards to defend it
Where did I say love? Are you illiterate? I said excuse, as in "there's nothing bad with them".
>kek. did you compare homosexuality to bestiality and incest?
No, I grouped together with the others as "hedonistic stuff that liberals make up excuses for" you too seem unable to read and understand a text.
>Seriously, how many liberals have you encountered who support bestiality and incest
Didn't say support either, I said make excuses for. And plenty of liberals I've met when pressed on the issue either makes excuses for bestiality.
live and let live is precisely the reason why so many of them defend bestiality and incest. I didn't say they all defend it.

Also, you guys are free to find me a liberal who doesn't defend hedonism when pressed on the issue. A liberal who actually has the balls to say "yes, the average lifestyle of a gay man is degenerate". Can't find it.

>A liberal who actually has the balls to say "yes, the average lifestyle of a gay man is degenerate". Can't find it.
Okay, I'll bite. Let's have a conversation about this. How would you characterize the "average lifestyle" of a gay man and what specifically do you find to be degenerate?

What is degenerate about? Because people told you it is? Because it says so in a dusty old tome? Because you personally dont like it? Because "muh white children"?

It's not a matter of how I characterize it, it's a matter of what it is. High partner count, high rates of mental illnesses and drug addictions/use, widespread extreme fetishes and so on.
>stirner

>le stirner memes

kys reddit fag

You seem to confuse hedonism with "not living as a puritan conforming to my exact values." Nobody but you alt-right cunts refers to other lifestyles as degenerate.

>You seem to confuse hedonism with "not living as a puritan conforming to my exact values."
No I dont', I'm not a puritan in the first place nor I have a problem with people with different but compatible values.
>you alt-right
I'm not alt-right, although I sympathize with them. They're far too populist and, in general, modernist for me.
>refers to other lifestyles as degenerate
I don't refer to "other lifestyles" as degenerate, just the ones which fall under hedonism or other negative frameworks. Among these we can find the lifestyle of the average homosexual in the west.

>degeneracy is an objective quality
Holy shit you guys are delusional.

>High partner count, high rates of mental illnesses and drug addictions/use, widespread extreme fetishes and so on.
None of the gay men and women I know fit these categories. You have the same impression of gay people as a 70 year old Baptist preacher would. Go outside.

That's really dumb. The only way to argue that 1984s message is anything other than liberal is to argue that it is radically leftist. Orwell was never even close to being a conservative, and the only reason you might think that would be because the popular understanding of the book was distorted during the Cold War for ideological reasons.

>It's not a matter of how I characterize it, it's a matter of what it is.
Actually, it is a matter of how YOU characterize it because "degenerate" is a value judgement. The fact that you don't realize is a pretty big red flag (that you are a moron).

>high partner count
>high rates of mental illness
>drug addiction
>extreme fetishes

Do you have a problem with homosexuality? Or just things that you perceive to be related to homosexuality? Also, suffering from mental illness is not "degenerate". There was no moral choice made to be mentally ill. Did it ever occur to you that some of these things directly stem from the way that people like you dehumanize and marginalize them? (And lump them in with people who fuck animals and relatives.)

Hypothetical: Married gay couple, not addicted to drugs, sane, sex in missionary position. Any problems with this?

>Holy shit you guys are delusional.
>moral realism is delusional despite being a well accepted stance (in fact the most common one) among philosophers who study meta-ethics
Yes, user, you're very smart.
>None of the gay men and women I know fit these categories.
>Go outside
user, do you always base your opinions of physical reality on personal anecdotes or are you a moron just when it comes to this subject?

The harsh truth

>Actually, it is a matter of how YOU characterize it because "degenerate" is a value judgement
And? Values are objective, in fact I disagree with the fact-value distinction in the first place.
>Do you have a problem with homosexuality?
As in, is homosexuality per se immoral? No, it's inferior to heterosexuality, sure, but it's not immoral per se.
>Married gay couple, not addicted to drugs, sane, sex in missionary position. Any problems with this?
Yeah, I think fag marriage is an absurdity. But let's rephrase it as a "monogamous couple". No, not a problem, in fact if every gay was like that I wouldn't care at all about the subject. Also, what's with the missionary position? Who cares in what position they have sex?

There is no purely rational way to justify being against incest as such (rather than for contingent empirical reasons) without simply making "incest is wrong" or something similar a first principle in your reasoning.

So it makes sense that liberals, insofar as they are committed to a certain sort of free-thinking enlightenment rationality, would occasionally come to the conclusion that incest in itself is ok. I have never seen anyone provide an argument against incest itself (rather than arguments related to genetic disorders or to power dynamics that make consent impossible) other than "it's icky."

Conservatives who made the slippery slope argument about being permissive about homosexual sex acts were right in some sense, because the same reasoning that says, "you can't condemn homosexuality just because it grosses you out," would also say the same thing about incest (and potentially bestiality).

>There is no purely rational way to justify being against incest
There is, you can't find one because your moral system is based on autistic things like utility.

>And? Values are objective, in fact I disagree with the fact-value distinction in the first place.
Okay. Describe why sexual promiscuity is objectively degenerate.

>No, it's inferior to heterosexuality, sure, but it's not immoral per se.
How so? (By which I mean, how is homosexuality inferior?)

>Also, what's with the missionary position? Who cares in what position they have sex?
You mentioned fetishes. Obviously, you care what other people do in the bedroom. That's why I mentioned it.

>all of my opinions are objective facts and degeneracy as a value is objective
You're gonna have to back this shit up laddie

dis

Not that guy, but if values are objective, then if you say "it's degenerate" and I say "it isn't degenerate" is it both degenerate and not degenerate? Or is it degenerate FOR you and not degenerate FOR me, in which case it is in fact a matter of how YOU (and I) characterize it.

Or did you mean to say: "my values are objective"? Because if that's the case I just cannot accept that principle, and so I'll get everyone who agrees with me together and you can get everyone who agrees with you together and we'll try to kill each other and whoever is left can say that their values are objective since there will be no one to disagree.

>Okay. Describe why sexual promiscuity is objectively degenerate.
Being highly promiscous requires you to behave towards your sexual partner in a way that is purely interested in obtaining pleasure, you don't really have a time to develop a bond between the two of you which would make the both of you grow and become better people. In other words, a high partner count requires you to behave hedonistically, hedonism is wrong because pleasure isn't the ultimate good, pleasure is just a proper accident of following virtue.
>How so?
Well, I'm an atheist so I take a teleonomical rather than teleological approach to studying morality. Still, fertility is clearly one of the point of sex and homosexual sex is necessarily sterile, in other words, it can not - by definition - pursue every feature of sex.
>You mentioned fetishes
Fucking doggystyle is one thing, eating feces is another. We can agree on that, I hope.
Do you agree that objective moral facts exist in the first place? Because if you don't, I won't even try to argue that a specific thing is objectively morally wrong.
Same as above.

Insofar as I have a coherent moral system, I would say its centered more around freedom than utility (Kant, Hegel, and so on).

But I'm curious, what principle would you start with to arrive rationally at "incest is wrong," other than "if something seems icky to me (or even to most people), its wrong"?

>and so I'll get everyone who agrees with me together and you can get everyone who agrees with you together and we'll try to kill each other and whoever is left can say that their values are objective since there will be no one to disagree.

slippery wet dog poop on the stairs
slippery wet dog poop in my hair
slippery wet dog poop on the grill
slippery wet dog poop what a thrill

following the how so explanation. Since it can not practice every virtue of sex, and heterosexual sex can (at least in theory of course), homosexual sex is inferior to heterosexual thing in the same way that a tool that can do A, B and C is inferior to one that can do A, B and C as well as the other one but it can also do D (provided of course a,b, c, and d are all positive things)

>But I'm curious, what principle would you start with to arrive rationally at "incest is wrong"
In virtue ethics, roles, the feature of roles and so on are fundamental to understand how to behave in a morall correct way. If you can show that incest violates the feature of roles, say family roles, you can show that incest is immoral. As you can guess, this isn't something I can explain in a few sentences, it's quite a long thing, virtue ethics are a far more laborious deal than utilitarianism or deontology.

This completes this

first good post

kek. great post. I think he meant something like "objective moral principles exist outside of what is culturally or subjectively defined". The problem is, he probably believes himself to have the true moral judgement on any act (because otherwise he would change his belief to match what is true). So yeah, it seems he did mean something like "my moral values are objective".

>Being highly promiscous requires you to behave towards your sexual partner in a way that is purely interested in obtaining pleasure, you don't really have a time to develop a bond between the two of you which would make the both of you grow and become better people. In other words, a high partner count requires you to behave hedonistically, hedonism is wrong because pleasure isn't the ultimate good, pleasure is just a proper accident of following virtue.
It amazes me that you don't realize this argument is completely circular. You assume, from the start, that "virtue" (in this case a substitute for "chastity" or "monogamy") is the ultimate good. Your argument already presupposes that the moral judgement is true.

>Still, fertility is clearly one of the point of sex and homosexual sex is necessarily sterile, in other words, it can not - by definition - pursue every feature of sex.
You mean reproduction, not sex. Is oral sex between a monogamous heterosexual couple "inferior" as well?

>Fucking doggystyle is one thing, eating feces is another. We can agree on that, I hope.
Yes, we are in full agreement.

Meant to quote.

>It amazes me that you don't realize this argument is completely circular.
It's not, user, the formal structure of that argument is a deduction, and deductions aren't circular. Now the premises are found through abduction rather than deduction, but adbuctions aren't circular either.
>virtue" (in this case a substitute for "chastity" or "monogamy"
No, virtue isn't used in that sense. Pursuing virtues would lead you to monogamy but monogamy isn't a virtue in and of itself.
>You mean reproduction, not sex.
Reproduction is a crucial feature of sex, that's why I phrased it like that.
>Is oral sex between a monogamous heterosexual couple "inferior" as well?
Sure. Again, not immoral per se, just inferior to the full act.

>The problem is, he probably believes himself to have the true moral judgement on any act
Nice strawman, by the way. When have I behaved so uncharitably towards you that you feel the need to do it to me?
No, I don't have the true moral judgment of any act, I'm not all-knowing.

Which is probably why people don't refer to then nearly as often