I feel, particularly with bullying, if one is going to expand the diagnostic spectrum then they must do the same with treatments. If we must say that a child who has accidentally tripped a friend is a bully he should not be treated the same way a bully of the old definition was punished. We'd be better off creating a new label then trying to apply an old one linked with negative stigma to every single person in the world.

I feel that it is a bit sacrilegious to lighten the meaning of a word intended to honor a God of Fear. Hail Phobos.

And to do so would be an act of bullying, which causes trauma, which restarts the cycle. This is a ridiculous issue that should not logically exist.

This is not a good state for a society to reside in.

That is a problem. By this logic a toaster could be a bully if an individual felt victimized because their toast was burnt.

I feel this is a mistake.

An interesting point. Why do you humans feel the need to make things worse, instead of better?

Is it just creation? The world is full of labels already, does the age of the label alter its effect on the recipient?

Newspeak.

Sounds like a problem.

It's harder to pretend to be normal than to pretend to be crazy.

Could this indicate that politics would be better off without parties, and instead having each politician judged and elected individually on their own merits.

So, which is more dangerous?

This is a good point. Is this contributed to by the tendency of facts to be disputed if they are not specific. This causes people to add more words to their facts to avoid misinterpretation. Whereas lies only have to promote a concept and don't need to be recited exactly.

It also seems to build off old beliefs, thus making it harder to differentiate as false. Like saying "Either the sky is blue or moonlight gives you cancer." You can not say the statement is false, but only one of the statements is true. This would make it easier for the brain to associate both statements as true when recalling them.

Reminds me of the Ministry of Truth.

Is it correct to say "anymore", or to say they never really mattered to begin with?

The main point of the essay I feel.

Commenting on the tendency of humans to treat animals with more respect and care then Humans which they perceive to be beneath them.

As if this were a novelty.

Defies gender roles. Men are usually seen as the physically stronger gender and would be caused to carry the load of firewood instead of the women.

noun noun: harrow; plural noun: harrows 1. an implement consisting of a heavy frame set with teeth or tines that is dragged over plowed land to break up clods, remove weeds, and cover seed.

As defined by Google.

Reference to a bible verse: Deuteronomy 22:10 "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together."

This is perhaps connected to the earlier point about only men being mourners in the marketplace.

A human capacity to ignore that which defies our rose tinted views.

They create a powerful enemy and scapegoat, despite logic showing the impossibility of these beliefs.

He is making the point that the only way the situation could be worse is by the influence of Hitler.

It could be a product of the times, or it could be a symbolic point, showing that none of these men are worried that they may in the future be bothered by any possibility of a death brought on by cigarettes.

But not his son?

This brings forth the idea that to the superior party, giving away scraps is the same whether it is given to a human or a beast. But the human will more easily forsake an pride or hesitance to the giver to be fed than the beast.

Another interesting aspect is that the Arab man did not eat the bread, he stored it. This could mean that he was not hungry, and would eat it later, or it could mean that he was intending on feeding someone else, perhaps a family member. The fact that Orwell did not dwell on the matter is to further the point that the lower class is invisible to the higher class.

This is to emphasize the differences between the common practices here (Marrakech) and the common practices of places like America, where it is common to bury the dead 6 feet under in rectangular holes. This shows the difference of "caring" people are willing to allow themselves to give to send off their friends. In western culture, where the civilized masters have an abundance of wealth and time they can care about how deep the hole is and how even its shape is, but here, where everyone is poor and need every second of work they can get to survive, they can barely spare the time to dump the corpse in a ditch. The talk of "dried-up, lumpy earth" could also have a symbolic meaning, saying something along the lines of "in comparison to western culture, where death is usually associated with rain and seen as an uncommon occurrence, here death is a very dry affair. Perhaps there has been so much of death there is no rain left to fall, Or maybe these deaths are so insignificant they do not even deserve the rains send off."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bier

This contrasts with the somewhat normalized practice of making things resembling coffins for our pets when they die.

This essay is written slightly differently than most essays I'm used to. I can see this in how much easier to read it is compared to most essays I've read. This is very much in the style of Orwell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvXU3vzHq8E

As opposed to a regular ton.

Because they're at the top.

Very Nazi-ish.