“In modern usage, the term “thought crime” is often used metaphorically to describe situations where individuals are penalised or ostracised for holding unapproved or unpopular opinions, or for expressing dissenting views.” - dr gpt
When a judge decides to convict someone of murder, we all know they might be wrong. The judge is not entitled to decide what objective reality is, he just decides how the judiciary system sees and treats the situation, as someone has to do it.
The same thing should be applied to fake news, which is sharing (dis)information with the false appearance of some verified news piece to influence people into making certain decisions.
Of course, there’s a big potential for censorship in how we treat fake news. So this treatment should follow clear objective criteria and be absolutely transparent.
I see ur point but just kinda sounds like censorship with extra steps. For example we have seen the american courts are racist, sexist, classist, unfair cesspools, its nessasary evil to maibtain civil order but i dont want those same standards applied to speach.
Also from a philosophical point of view free speach and the marketplace of ideas is the fundamental building block upon which democraticy itself is build.
In the context of trans people, anti trans rhetoric goes away beyond “unapproved” or “unpopular” though. It’s straight up non-factual pseudoscience at best. A lot of it is straight up lies and libel/slander. It does real, lasting harm. That’s not “thought crime” as you describe.
That exactly fits my definition. My definition says nothing about outcomes or if its true or not my definition is simply about expressing an opinion and you disliking it is proving me right.
Indeed, the whole point of my comment is that your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not. Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.
I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.
your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not.
My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.
Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.
Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less. And u taking offence is your choice and yoyr problem.
I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.
I wasnt aware that anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid, thanks for enlightening me. Seems kinda self centred to me but i would be stupid to disagree with on that point.
My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.
Only because The Party has no regard for the truth. If, in 1984, The Party were concerned with truth at all then thought crime would also be concerned with the truth. This is because the real definition of thought crime in the context of that story is any thought that isn’t approved by The Party.
But you’ve brought the phrase “thought crime” out if that context and into the real world. Here, truth matters.
Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less
Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you’d think otherwise.
anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid
That’s not why you’re stupid, it has nothing to do with me.
who is talking about thought crime? spreading fake news can be dangerous in a way that results in actual deaths.
“In modern usage, the term “thought crime” is often used metaphorically to describe situations where individuals are penalised or ostracised for holding unapproved or unpopular opinions, or for expressing dissenting views.” - dr gpt
Seems to fit pretry perfectly
thats different from fake news, still
Please define “fake news” and dont say news that isnt true because then u have to decide who chooses what is objective reality.
When a judge decides to convict someone of murder, we all know they might be wrong. The judge is not entitled to decide what objective reality is, he just decides how the judiciary system sees and treats the situation, as someone has to do it.
The same thing should be applied to fake news, which is sharing (dis)information with the false appearance of some verified news piece to influence people into making certain decisions.
Of course, there’s a big potential for censorship in how we treat fake news. So this treatment should follow clear objective criteria and be absolutely transparent.
I see ur point but just kinda sounds like censorship with extra steps. For example we have seen the american courts are racist, sexist, classist, unfair cesspools, its nessasary evil to maibtain civil order but i dont want those same standards applied to speach.
Also from a philosophical point of view free speach and the marketplace of ideas is the fundamental building block upon which democraticy itself is build.
Etc etc insert George Orwell quote here
transparency is precisely what can make regulations not be censorship, or I should hope so.
I disagree. The american court system is transparent but its still racist
i struggle to see how this problem transfers to fake news regulation
In the context of trans people, anti trans rhetoric goes away beyond “unapproved” or “unpopular” though. It’s straight up non-factual pseudoscience at best. A lot of it is straight up lies and libel/slander. It does real, lasting harm. That’s not “thought crime” as you describe.
That exactly fits my definition. My definition says nothing about outcomes or if its true or not my definition is simply about expressing an opinion and you disliking it is proving me right.
Indeed, the whole point of my comment is that your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not. Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.
I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.
My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.
Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less. And u taking offence is your choice and yoyr problem.
I wasnt aware that anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid, thanks for enlightening me. Seems kinda self centred to me but i would be stupid to disagree with on that point.
Only because The Party has no regard for the truth. If, in 1984, The Party were concerned with truth at all then thought crime would also be concerned with the truth. This is because the real definition of thought crime in the context of that story is any thought that isn’t approved by The Party.
But you’ve brought the phrase “thought crime” out if that context and into the real world. Here, truth matters.
Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you’d think otherwise.
That’s not why you’re stupid, it has nothing to do with me.