Why researching Quotes on the internet is a quagmire

[MrFaustian]

Quotes Itself are great you can take a great mind or powerful leader/revolutionary of the past and contextualize the meaning for a modern day scenario or to simply emphasize a point in a debate or discussion.

The trouble these days with quotes is you need to go to the text where the quote was originally said or to explain thought initially as there is so much misinformation and fabricated rubbish on the internet and even with modernised theory in philosophy and political writings to begin with.

For example many years ago I would see nationalists, capitalists or classic liberals arguing with marxists or communists and quote Lenin ''The best way to control the opposition is lead it ourselves''

Lenin actually never said this though in theory the fabricated quote can be used as subversion is a powerful tool against an ideological enemy but did he ever say it no. Lenin was more a man of action than deep thinker i highly doubt it would of been in his Consciousness as he achieved power quickly after the slaughter of the Russian royal family and accumulating funding from a mass spree of bank robberies and financial support from crowd funding from his ethnic group and support from certain powerful oligarchs outside of Russia and by that point he had already suppressed opposition from other communist/socialist groups and nationalists by that point. It would of been natural for an idealist to seek destruction of enemies more so than have to think about subverting them.

I see people use the Churchill one mainly classical liberals and capitalists ''The Fascists or the future will call themselves anti fascists''

I do not even know how to begin with this one as the quote itself makes no sense as an anti fascist can not be a fascist. It can certainly can be authoritarian but if you have anti fascist beliefs you are against the natural order to begin with as communists and anti fascists believe in equality and egalitarianism both in the removal of class and the deconstruction of race culture and religion to begin with (modern times anyway) Did Churchill ever say this quote in any writing or speech - no he never did.

Always best to check your quotes from an original text or ask someone where they got quotes from when a discussion is ongoing just saying

I see so many people use quotes and even myself still make the mistake of quoting a misinformed or fabricated quote as there are so many of them out there on the internet

it can rubbish your original critique or make you look stupid if you don't read the original writings to begin with

 

[quietfem]

quotes are written by a person, but its how it sticks in ones mind to use it to make one a better person or thinker.

 

[MrFaustian]

quotes are written by a person, but its how it sticks in ones mind to use it to make one a better person or thinker.

Yes I agree quotes are great to use. I just saying so many are not actually real quotes on the internet they are fabricated or made up by a person to shape a defensive or critique of someone. As the examples I used above

for example mr Y said this '' quote '' but that said person in history never said it. The person created or fabricated it to shape what he thought they would say to try and make his case sound better. Then it cycles and other people copy that argument until it becomes misinformation or mass fabrication

It's similar when people use authority as an argument as well I am a doctor or professor I don't have to prove my point to you. 'I am just right' which is weak.

 

[WickedPerdition]

Quotes Itself are great you can take a great mind or powerful leader/revolutionary of the past and contextualize the meaning for a modern day scenario or to simply emphasize a point in a debate or discussion.

The trouble these days with quotes is you need to go to the text where the quote was originally said or to explain thought initially as there is so much misinformation and fabricated rubbish on the internet and even with modernised theory in philosophy and political writings to begin with.

For example many years ago I would see nationalists, capitalists or classic liberals arguing with marxists or communists and quote Lenin ''The best way to control the opposition is lead it ourselves''

Lenin actually never said this though in theory the fabricated quote can be used as subversion is a powerful tool against an ideological enemy but did he ever say it no. Lenin was more a man of action than deep thinker i highly doubt it would of been in his Consciousness as he achieved power quickly after the slaughter of the Russian royal family and accumulating funding from a mass spree of bank robberies and financial support from crowd funding from his ethnic group and support from certain powerful oligarchs outside of Russia and by that point he had already suppressed opposition from other communist/socialist groups and nationalists by that point. It would of been natural for an idealist to seek destruction of enemies more so than have to think about subverting them.

I see people use the Churchill one mainly classical liberals and capitalists ''The Fascists or the future will call themselves anti fascists''

I do not even know how to begin with this one as the quote itself makes no sense as an anti fascist can not be a fascist. It can certainly can be authoritarian but if you have anti fascist beliefs you are against the natural order to begin with as communists and anti fascists believe in equality and egalitarianism both in the removal of class and the deconstruction of race culture and religion to begin with (modern times anyway) Did Churchill ever say this quote in any writing or speech - no he never did.

Always best to check your quotes from an original text or ask someone where they got quotes from when a discussion is ongoing just saying

I see so many people use quotes and even myself still make the mistake of quoting a misinformed or fabricated quote as there are so many of them out there on the internet

it can rubbish your original critique or make you look stupid if you don't read the original writings to begin with

You cannot be accused of misquoting if you do not cite your source or reference of the quote.
We know that quotes attributed to prominent politicians and authors in the past have often been adapted and changed for convenience.
Some quotes are very thought-provoking and are a pleasure to read. Some quotes are plainly banal and not worth reading. Witness the plethora of examples posted in the chat rooms, for instance.
I do agree with you that the internet is a quagmire (for the researching) of quotes nowadays, probably because everyone is quoting everybody else in order to argue their case (as we often do in Forums). When people begin to paraphrase what someone else has said then it becomes a bit messy because they are then trying to put their version of events across rather than that of the author.
Hamlet said, "Brevity is the soul of wit", I believe. Or, was it Shakespeare?

 

[Dong]

Last I heard this was. just, still a free country. This means that one may, within the law, say what one thinks.
There is no need to be bonded to the past, to past words or letters...one should feel free to use whatever words one chooses and should they alter some ancient sayings/words then so what?
The update may improve them!
We don't need to lean on past wordsmiths!
Avoid the cliche'

 

[WickedPerdition]

Avoid the cliche'

Not that I wish to pick your brain, but going forward, in today's world; it's a win-win situation to quote clichés, and it simply is what it is.

 

[Wojcik]

Quotes, especially ones from historical figures, take Orwell for example, can accommodate anyone's narrative and ideology.

 

[MrFaustian]

Quotes, especially ones from historical figures, take Orwell for example, can accommodate anyone's narrative and ideology.

I read Orwell's 1984 a long time ago

Where would Orwell stand today in your view? he believed in democratic socialism

He certainly predicted the totalitarianism of today but so many others like Adorno did also who would critique social trends.

None of them could of predicted the sheer power that big tech and corporations would have over censorship and engineering society and how there monopolies have become more powerful than the state or nation itself in that regard. I wonder where they would stand on neo liberalism and globalism today?

 

[Wojcik]

I read Orwell's 1984 a long time ago

Where would Orwell stand today in your view? he believed in democratic socialism

He certainly predicted the totalitarianism of today but so many other likes Adorno who would critique social trends did also

None of them could of predicted the sheer power that big tech and corporations would have over censorship and engineering society and how there monopolies have become more powerful than the state or nation itself in that regard. I wonder where they would stand on neo liberalism and globalism today?

I think he would have been horrified to witness the state that his political ideology, and how it's being torn apart, used and exploited by the neo-cons.

He sure did predict totalitarianism, and a system of government that would eventually, slowly but surely, strip away the freedoms and liberties of the people. Like many people have mentioned before about 1984, that it was never supposed to be a manual, and more of a warning as to what can happen if ideology is radicalised and implemented into a modern society.

Traditional liberals do not recognise the type of liberalism that is being presented to them. I do think some may have predicted the possibility of new found technology being used and exploited by these large corporations, with unlimited amounts of power and wealth, who have power over government and entire nations.

And now that we're faced with a pandemic. A pandemic which is being controlled by those totalitarian type governments that Orwell did warn us about. This is the new norm now. A norm that has been challenged by very little resistance or questioning by the public.

 

[Dong]

!!And now that we're faced with a pandemic. A pandemic which is being controlled by those totalitarian type governments that Orwell did warn us about. This is the new norm now. A norm that has been challenged by very little resistance or questioning by the public.!!

And who, but governments, could possibly manage/organise a world-wide pandemic?

 

[Bad_Influence]

Who else is in a position to manage it? Who would you prefer to manage it?
Yet again it’s all too easy to criticise those who have to make the big decisions when you can sit back in your armchair and not have to make those choices.
Mistakes have been made, no doubt, but there is no blueprint for this situation. Whatever any gov’t did it would’ve criticised by one group or another, to keep everyone is impossible, especially with so many ill-informed or just blinkered people around.

 

[Wojcik]

!!And now that we're faced with a pandemic. A pandemic which is being controlled by those totalitarian type governments that Orwell did warn us about. This is the new norm now. A norm that has been challenged by very little resistance or questioning by the public.!!

And who, but governments, could possibly manage/organise a world-wide pandemic?

Well Dong, you bring up a very good point. We keep hearing language such as global government, or a one world government. The lack of transparency will always bring up questions. Is there more to what they're letting on? Is the pandemic not as severe as the experts once predicted? We're told that governments have been taking advice from the experts on pandemics, and then acting upon that advice.

 

[Dong]

Governments to manage a pandemic? Well, when one looks at Brazil, America, India and even here in the UK one has to wonder!
Perhaps we should not be quite so bitter about their performances, for we have the example of Sweden where all is normal and apparently going swimmingly. and then Brazil, with over 100,000 dead. The ability of Corona to surprise us seems endless.
How can you plan for, predict, what this virus will come up with next?

 

[Wojcik]

Who else is in a position to manage it? Who would you prefer to manage it?
Yet again it’s all too easy to criticise those who have to make the big decisions when you can sit back in your armchair and not have to make those choices.
Mistakes have been made, no doubt, but there is no blueprint for this situation. Whatever any gov’t did it would’ve criticised by one group or another, to keep everyone is impossible, especially with so many ill-informed or just blinkered people around.

You do make some very good points. I think no matter what the outcome, the government were in a tough spot. Boris Johnson was hesitant to implement the lockdown, as the expert advice of Professor Neil Ferguson, who predicted half a million deaths in the UK in a very short amount of time. So even though any government would be scrutinised and criticised for their actions in dealing with any type of situation, which should be welcomed as it's healthy for democracy and general debate, i don't hold the government personally accountable. I may criticise some of the actions taken and explain why i think they're wrong, but that's something i would hope that other people do if they also think something's wrong.

 

[Wojcik]

Governments to manage a pandemic? Well, when one looks at Brazil, America, India and even here in the UK one has to wonder!
Perhaps we should not be quite so bitter about their performances, for we have the example of Sweden where all is normal and apparently going swimmingly. and then Brazil, with over 100,000 dead. The ability of Corona to surprise us seems endless.
How can you plan for, predict, what this virus will come up with next?

Sweden decided to go with the controversial herd immunity route.

 

[Dong]

Sweden decided to go with the controversial herd immunity route.

And so will we all, until a vaccine is discovered. We though will be more drawn out because of lockdowns and social distancing.

 

[Wojcik]

And so will we all, until a vaccine is discovered. We though will be more drawn out because of lockdowns and social distancing.

I hope so. Everyone seems to be a lot more organised than we once were. Gyms and shops have a workable system to keep people safe now. Before they were running around like headless chickens because no one knew what was going to happen. I think the lockdowns and social distancing have affected people, both physically and mentally. So the easing of the lockdowns were so important.

 

[MrFaustian]

Who else is in a position to manage it? Who would you prefer to manage it?
Yet again it’s all too easy to criticise those who have to make the big decisions when you can sit back in your armchair and not have to make those choices.
Mistakes have been made, no doubt, but there is no blueprint for this situation. Whatever any gov’t did it would’ve criticised by one group or another, to keep everyone is impossible, especially with so many ill-informed or just blinkered people around.

The trouble is you don't have strong men in positions of power in my opinion politicians are just puppets for the banks and corporations so keeping the borders open was in the interest for global capital more than the welfare of the citizens

It wouldn't of been much different if labour was in charge either the politicians would of acted on what was best for the economy by keeping the borders open instead of the welfare of the people

It's why you need strong leaders in powerful positions if you don't have that you will always get mismanagement of a crisis.

You don't get strong assertive leaders in a social or liberal democracy just end up with puppets.

 

[Bad_Influence]

Funnily enough the economy is also quite important to the welfare of the people.

 

[MrFaustian]

Funnily enough the economy is also quite important to the welfare of the people.

leaving the borders open isn't not when they had information on the spread in china months before they closed the airports down for example

money over safety and health in my view which is horrific mismanagement