Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

2 + 2 = 5

7 replies

WombOfOnesOwn · 04/08/2020 17:48

www.facebook.com/TheEarlofGrey9/posts/696884627707267

Upon being told that trans activism's central tenet, TWAW, is functionally equivalent to saying 2+2=5, something funny happened: the TRAs and postmodernists agreed.

And proceeded to issue tweet upon tweet of sophistry purporting that in specific cases (usually ones where 2 doesn't actually stand for the integer 2), 2+2 really does equal 5, and that the benighted masses have no hope of understanding trans ideology until they can grasp it.

Well, when I started talking about how Orwellian this movement was, nearly 10 years ago, I have to say I didn't think they'd go quite this far.

Some choice Orwell quotes, the first from his non-fiction, the latter two from 1984:

"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. ... The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened" – well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs."


"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?"


“Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.’

He paused for a few moments, as though to allow what he had been saying to sink in.

‘Do you remember,’ he went on, ‘writing in your diary, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four”?’

‘Yes,’ said Winston.

O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’

‘Four.’

‘And if the party says that it is not four but five–then how many?’

‘Four.’

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston’s body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O’Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

‘How many fingers, Winston?’

‘Four.’

The needle went up to sixty.

‘How many fingers, Winston?’

‘Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!’


If there was ever any doubt that this is about control and causing people to reject their own ability to understand morality and the world, this should dispell it. The TRAs are on the side of 2+2=5, and many good liberals are happy to applaud the sophistry required to make such a conclusion because they feel proud of being clever enough to do the appropriate doublethink.

OP posts:
OhHolyJesus · 04/08/2020 17:52

I saw this briefly and thought it was some sort of silly joke or trick as it was 2(.5) + 2(.5)=5. Someone was trying to make out that it was 2+2=5 as the .5 was hidden or something. I don't pay much attention to this as it makes no sense, was just some numpty thinking they looked clever when really they are just helping others to see how ridiculous it all is.

SetYourselfOnFire · 04/08/2020 18:04

Yup. I'm broken. I've been reading these tweets and just... is this part of their 'demoralize them with lies until they give up' plot? I guess it worked.

BTW one good tweet I came across:
twitter.com/IzaTabaro/status/1290429708694441985

2+2=5 was a real slogan used in the USSR, as described in a Eugene Lyons' 1938 book "Assignment in Utopia." I bet Orwell knew this.

highame · 04/08/2020 18:04

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3985497-Wheels-coming-off-the-wagon

I think this is relating to the same thing. It must now be in the wokerati constitution. We live in interesting times

DialSquare · 04/08/2020 18:24

I genuinely think it's desperation. They know this is getting out to the general public and people are waking up to it. They're throwing any nonsense out there as ammunition hoping they'll capture people to their side but it won't work on the majority.

Delphinium20 · 04/08/2020 18:43

Give that machine word problem to a class of 11-year olds cause they understand fractions and decimals. They can solve it. They will write the problem as 2.5+2.5=5. Or 2 1/2+2 1/2=5. They will NOT write it as 2+2=4.

How can these "adults" function in society?SMH.

TheRealMcKenna · 04/08/2020 18:51

James Lindsay’s original ‘woke mini’ on the subject about a month ago didn’t even mention TWAW.

Ironically, I always used to use the example of 2.4 +2.4 = 4.8 when emphasising to GCSE chemistry (and A Level) students the importance of calculating to one more significant figure than you want the final answer to be accurate to. In logarithmic calculations such as pH, a difference of 0.1 is extremely important.

2 + 2 = 5
CuriousaboutSamphire · 04/08/2020 19:36

FFS! A Master's thesis on how words, and numbers, are only ciphers. They have no meaning unless we all agree their definitions.

2+2 could = Pigs in clover, if we all agreed that is the correct definition.

But every single child knows that! You hear them giggling away becuase they have replaced a single word in a nursery rhyme - baa baa (what comes next these days?) sheep have you any milk? cue all toddlers falling over themselves laughing!

I despair!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page