Rich people do consider slot of things not their problem when in fact. It’s not just their problem is everyone’s problem. They are just in a better position to help versus less well off people who are just barely able to survive in this capitalist lifestyle we have developed

If you think things will get better and work for them to get better than the dream of a utopia will no longer be a dream but the present.

These are all the excuses that people use for why we can’t immediately fight climate change and I think that is crazy because they are literally man man concepts and we are in charge of everything we do. It is truly a Monet fueled world and if there was a possibility of monetary profits for such things like climate change. It would have already been done. Very sad but realistic concept.

This novel does show how trying to make things better alone is almost impossible even more impossible if you lack the skills needed to start the revolution. The revolutionists of today probably have not even begun to take shape or even began to really think about the future of this world and what we can do to fix where we are headed

If we look at a lot of dystopian works and compare the year they were made with major topics of that year you can definitely see the, ‘this is bad, we should fix this‘ moment. But no one every truly thinks that what occurs in a dystopian novel can occur in the real world. At least not yet. Things have not gotten that bad.

A good example of this is when people have a bad situation and they say, well it could be worse. Which is true but at the same time, nothing really is stopping your situation from getting to the point in the dystopian novel is it?

Fear is what most dystopias grow from. The fear of the governments power or the fear of our overuse of technology. Fear is something that all human feel and how we can relate. Dystopias use those fears to create a story with some real fears that may seem out of the box and impossible but there are very few things that are truly impossible in this world.

This is the most interesting thing to me about dystopias. The idea that even with the most ludicrous idea that there is some truth in the story. That there is some possibility that what is being told can come true. Especially when you look at some novels such as 1984 or even Hunger games. These are very fictional plots that have nonfictional concepts within them.

That is some very dark satire. Like a joke gone too far, a what if story that has some real possibilities occurring

This is very true. From climate change to retirement. The future is a mystery and you never know what hits you until the future is now the present.

This fear is very interesting because people fear it in so many different ways, some people fear what comes after, some people fear how they are going to go. The idea that going against the government will lead to death is a very powerful one indeed, keeps many people in check because above all else people value their own lives.

A world without the power of the government would be filled with actions of those with more power than other, groups would be formed and violence would run rampant.

Knowing the power they have over the masses, that one sentence they utter can be taken and misconstrued to fit another person's reason to fight. The power and authority they have seems a bit much for such a small group of people.

This is a top notch point. Trust between strangers is nonexistent. You never know what someone is gonna do, you never know when someone's last straw is. You may accidentally bump into them and that is it, they could fly off the handle off of that simple altercation alone. Time has proved time and time again that you never truly know what someone is capable of, you never know type of nefarious thoughts someone has about you until it is too late. Prudence has gotten humans this far, the distrust of others is founded, we have been shown time and time again what people are capable of.

This may be a plausible argument for why the government exists, to keep people in awe of the overwhelming power that is the government, it stops a good bit of transgressions that could occur due to human nature.

With or without government these are seen. This is apart of the nature of man. Want to work to get to the point that no one can touch them, that no one can look down on them and once they get comfortable, once they think no one can touch them--that is when it happens. This is the moment when the glory is taken and the reputation is tattered.

People do try harder when they know people are not expecting much. To break out of the box that someone placed you into, to prove their idea of you wrong, that is what gets a lot of people to work harder for improvement.

Does this actually happen? Does man ever get to the point where they see no other potential dangers around them? This usually a sign that someone is coming that will do what the others could not, getting comfortable in ones abilities and believing that you know everyone's skill set, is the cause of many downfalls. The truth is you never really know a person.

This brings up the conversation of not being able to see/understand others perspectives. This is a part of societies problems, not being able to place yourself in someone else's shoes because you assume that you are above them and have no need to understand them.

That makes sense, people can understand what is in their best interest over time through time and error but science is something that has to be observed, tested and collaborated on. There are so many facets of it, that it cannot simply be acquired over time.

This is very true society has gotten to the point that having a deficit in one area of life does not equal being the weakest person. Some people excel at other areas that have been more developed because of the advancements of society. If we never advanced past hunting and gathering than those smart enough to capture food with traps would not have been able to without the tools that were made.

To limit the chances of people fighting against the regim, they decided to limit their educational opportunities so that the populace can only know of one good place and that is the place where they are being oppressed the most. A bird born in a cage does not know it is being caged until it is set free. This is a similar concept to that.

Trying to maintain a fuzzy totalitarianism does seem like alot of work. It's like trying to keep a bridge that is missing a side up, its constant work. No relaxation for anyone involved.

They are only truly afraid of losing their standing in society, to become apart of the lower class is what keeps them up at night. They do not even consider those of the lower class as one of them, they consider them to be a different type of organism, one that must remain in place. Which is below them.

There are a plethora of commonalities between the different types of fascists, take away one portion of them and there are still commonalities, almost too many to count.

This makes it seem as if fascism is just words not fully put into action. Just a political standing that has a doctrine that it does not follow to a T.

This is very true, true freedom is never full gained there is always something in the shadows trying to over take freedom.

The narrator is basically calling fascism a diet totalitarianism. Its not strong enough to be of its own but it is not weak enough to not be noticed.

This depicts him as a man with a way of words and less of a political figure. It makes him seem as if he did not have any real goal except to acquire more power and he used his skill with words to get him that through politics.

That is an interesting idea on Italian fascism. The idea that it was not as controlling as totalitarian due to the fact that the philosophical weakness that it is constructed from.

This is a very particular word choice, the narrator is essentially saying, yeah Nazism will return but not in the form that is most easily recognizable by the people. To me this brings up the idea that Nazism will evolve, evolve to point that the roots are still the same recognizable but the tree that sprouts will be something not easily recognizable.

This is true, holding things in for a long period of time is not good, not mentally nor physically. Eventually what you are holding in will practically demand to be let out.

The description of Mussolini built him up so high, made him seem like one of the loudest voices in their fight. They read his speeches in school, learned all about him and what he stood for. Only to meet him in person and here those three simple sentences and that was it. Makes sense why people say, 'never meet your heroes'.

I can understand how this happen, civilization is born from women. Yet civilization treats women like a side note, as if they were never that important in the first place. The disdain women feel towards society makes sense when you consider how women are seen/treated.

Having to find who you are without your family is something that everyone has to do in order to see who they really are.

Love does not need to have a direct straighforward meaning, love to one person might be the affection they feel for a loved one or the love they feel for their favorite food. Just as every person has different characteristics, every person has different definitions of love and what it means to them.

There are two very differing contrasts, one is a love that anyone can receive while the other is saying not everyone deserves this niceness in the world. Throughout this work freud has essentially been building this idea, that men are filled with aggression, use women as sexual objects and that in the end not all of them deserve love, this is a turn of events I was not expecting

People are working not because they choose to but because of other obligations that require them to. Work to pay the bills which will thus allow you to sleep comfortably at night or work to eat. These are concepts heavily engraved into current society.

This is interesting to consider. Neither parties are turly staying with each other because they want to but because they find their needs being met by staying in the situation. The woman staying so her and her children will be protected and the man staying for a 'sexual object'. Is Freud implying that men only care for sex and that is the one motivation they have in life?

Freud seems to be very untrusting of other people, even neighbors and friends, this just makes you wonder who did he actually trust to not take part in the human aggressiveness that men all have?

This reminds me of the saying keep your friend's close and your enemy closer

This is an interesting take, the idea that men are inherently aggressive and are just waiting for the opportunity to take what they consider is theirs is a very dark concept and makes a person consider how they can truly be safe in the world.

I do not quite understand this take on the majority versus the minority. The minority may bask in the advantages provided by the majority but the minority is still just that, the minority. They have no solid standing of power and usually have to rely on the majorities grace to still receive the few advantages provided.

To change who you are to fit into a society built on rules not directly for you is saddening, yes you are able to fit in more easily but what about your true self? What is left if you are even willing to change who you are and what you mean to yourself just to fit into society?

to divert or modify into a culturally higher or socially more acceptable activity

Everyone's idea of freedom is different, the personality of the individual is what decides what true freedom means to them and in a society ran by rules, freedom is not always obtainable.

In this day, money gets people the easy life. The police are meant to be inhibitory factors in crimes but a lot of times they only escalate them. The law is there for a reason but when people are shown so many times that it only applies to those less fortunate, less people are going to want to follow it.

This is true, whenever the minority fight against the majority, whether it is because of social injustice or even just a difference of idea on how things should be done, there will always be disagreements. And for most human arguments things do eventually get violent even if only for a moment.

These are the things that humans glorify the most about themselves, knowing that no other organism has created and done as much is a interesting sense of pride.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, what one person may see is drop dead gorgeous another person might say, 'meh it could be better'. We place value on such things that truly have no defined meaning.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, what one person may see is drop dead gorgeous another person might say, 'meh it could be better'. We place value on such things that truly have no defined meaning.

Humans have essentially dominated the planet to the point that they can decide what animals they would like to hunt into extinction versus the animals they would like to raise in their homes with their family.

These are human inventions created to make man feel as if they have overcome the obstacle of nature. Being able to move across water or even flying in airplanes is not a feat that just any organism can do, eagles can fly with their wings and fish can swim their fins. Humans have given themselves the ability to do all of that, but at what cost?

This honestly a matter of perspective. For example for terminally ill people who decide that they would rather end it themselves than to suffer much longer versus the people who around them that would prefer if they fought more/harder to get better. Every one has a perspective on the matter of life and how it should end.

This is a very interesting idea, the concept that if this technology was not created then I would not need this technology to stay connected. It just brings up the question, is technology bringing us closer or moving us farther apart?

It actually means a lot, comparing the present to the past human society has advanced so well but there has never been a time to sit and reflect on that because humans are always looking towards the future, looking towards their next big discovery.

This is exactly my point! When Europeans set out to discover new land they did not expect to find another group of people living calm relaxed lives. The Europeans created a society based off of work and no leisure time, the people whose land they discovered lived a life of leisure time. They farmed what they had to and built what they had too, they never splurged on extravagance and gave themselves things with no real value to them. The Europeans most likely saw that life and became incredibly jealous or even sad at the live they could have lived without all the restrictions they placed on themselves.

Suffering is a natural process it occurs to everyone atleast once in their lives, what differentiates people is how they let the suffering impact them and what they decide to do with their thoughts.

Alot of human problems come from the reality that we are not going to be here forever and then people question what are they going to do with their lives. Life can be seen as too short to some but too long to others and the many different reflections of this can be seen in the conflicts between people. Also in how they live their lives.

Exploitation is essentially using another persons/group of people's lack of knowledge against them. For example in a workplace, if no one shares their pay or their benefits no one knows that they are being treated unfairly and not receiving their just dues, simply because of a policy created by those exploiting people that tells workers to not tell that type of information.

We live in a society, where those that need help have to fight tooth and nail to get it. In medicine an ambulance drive is $1700, older people who need long term care have to have slaved their whole lives just to get one person to do the bare minimum for them. This is in great contrast to other societies that do take care of the sick and elderly with the upmost of care because at the end of the day regardless of where a person is in life or in groups we are all people. It's sad that America does not remember that basic fact.

Groups within job fields is definitely true, like even in college certain professors of a department will say certain things about another department, just because they are apart of different departments but they till technically have the same job. It is a very intriguing concept seen within academia.

Cultural imperialism can be seen practically everywhere, where there are two groups, one with the power and the other one without, it can be visibly seen when the group without the power tries to speak up. An example of this would be during the Black Live Matter Protests when polices officers would just shoot into crowds of African Americans who were unarmed, they used their power(even though they were not the majority) to take control and overpower another group because of their standings within society.

Violence just for being apart of a group is seen very often, especially in groups that have less money and outside to fight back.

Violence is something many people can say they have been subjected to just because of a particular social group they are in, from Xenophobia to Homophobia, people's fear of certain groups leads to an irrational reaction that a lot of times ends of with the marginalized group being injured(both mentally and physically).

The paragraph starting with, " The presence of any of these five conditions is sufficient-" Is a very nice paragraph tat explains how a person can be apart of a group but is still marginalized in that group due to the intertwining of that group and another group is apart of. You may be a white male but because you are a gay white male you do not receive all the benefits of being a white male, this acknowledgement of the prejudices in every persons group really showcases the ludicrous rules some groups use to ostracize others.

"-is motivated by fear or hatred of those groups" People are scared of what they cannot understand, the relations between two people have nothing do with you, should not instill fear but yet it does? There is no particular reason that stands out for racist or homophobic people, just a fear of something they cannot and do not try to understand.

Distinct categories never really work because in life there is always a grey area, someone who has all but ne characteristic of a group, would that exclude them from the group and if so, where does that leave them?

The Marxist concept of exploitation does leave large groups out, for example women get paid half as much as men for the same job and if you are an African American woman that percentage is even less. D

America moves and grows off of money, without the working class to do the jobs that the rich refuse, nothing would occur. No work would be done, no food on the shelves. This can already be seen in current times especially with the stress from the pandemic.

Groups can be seen as early as childhood, little kids sitting closer to the people they identify more with or even with people starting a new job, the new hires are more likely to sit together because everyone else has been there for longer and newbies feel more comfortable together.

Social groups do not define a person, they do affect a person a lot more when growing up but as a person get older they fine their own social groups and are more easliy able to find out who they are.

This is true, when meeting a new person or even just seeing them from afar, certain social groups are just more easily recognizable. For instance no one looks at a person and automatically knows they are in a certain job field but when you look at a person of color, that person is automatically placed into a social group, just off of site alone.

When looking at someone's life. just by knowing the type of social groups they are apart of you can relate to them more(like people who have the same religious background) or even have more in depth conversations about things you both have encountered based solely off of a social group. Social groups do not completely describe and tell exactly who a person is but they do help with their experiences in life. Also in what they are surrounded by.

"-because of the everyday practices of a well-intentioned liberal society" This quote makes me think of the psychological question, does the end justify the means. This made me think of that because in the beginning someone could have a really good idea on how to better society and what that would mean for the people but in the process of pursuing that goal they leave their morals/empathy at a junction in the path they took.

"-led to fruitless disputes about whose oppression is more fundamental or more grave" This is a conversation people have all the time, that provides nothing to anyone. People argue over who is being held back the most but there is no reason to argue over who is more oppressed, if anything we should acknowledge everyone's problems and work together to solve them, cause comparing problems to see who gets it worse helps no one.

I agree there is not definitive definition of oppression but I can say that every person's perspective on it is most likely different from others, what I may see as oppressive someone else from a different background may not see it that way.