Thoughtcrime

S

Sharp Phil

New member
Thoughtcrime Article <-- This is long, so I've linked to it online rather than posting it.

...Thoughtcrime in contemporary society began as "political correctness" and "multiculturalism." These are cultural movements that hold as their central tenets the notions that some terms, phrases, and lines of thought are intrinsically offensive and inappropriate for public discourse, and that history has traditionally been the exclusive domain of dead white European males whose injustices to all other cultures have been whitewashed (while the historical contributions of other cultures have been simultaneously omitted from the record), respectively. The scions of political correctness and multiculturalism took root in our schools and in our government, teaching our children and pushing through legislation that made it thoughtcrime to adhere to the old ways of the culturally insensitive, ethnocentric Anglos whose evil designs on power the movements were designed to foil. As these movements gained in influence and in converts, it became a cultural crime -- punishable by social censure -- to engage in politically incorrect language or ethnocentric attitudes. Thus, kicking and screaming, would those who adhered to traditional values be dragged into the brave new world advocated by political leftists (who are at the forefront of the establishment of thoughtcrime).

The movements became pervasive and their effects have been felt in all facets of contemporary life. Sexual harassment on the job was once considered to be demanding sexual favors from a coworker under threat of losing the job or opportunities for advancement. Now, one can be guilty of "sexual harassment" simply for complimenting a coworker on her appearance, hanging up a swimsuit calendar, or even looking to long (staring or "ogling") at someone. Colleges and universities, once bastions of free thought and the exchange of ideas, have become Orwellian prisons in which speech codes rule the day and students can be harassed, punished, and even expelled for using a forbidden word or advocating a politically incorrect concept in public or in a school paper. Government officials once paid lip-service to religious belief, but now all mention of religion (at least those religions popular with dead white Europeans) are being purged from the public square and any prayer or mention of one's god is considered offensive and potentially hateful.

Consider these few examples...
Click to expand...
 
It ceases to be Thoughtcrime when it extends into actions; especially actions against others.

For instance, one example given:

In late 2002, Senator Trent Lott effectively ended his political career when he praised 100-year-old Senator Strom Thurmond at the latter's 100th birthday party. "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him," he is reported to have said. "We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either." For these words, Lott was accused of racism (Thurmond ran on a segregationist platform during the presidential election in question). He apologized repeatedly, but was damaged political goods from that point on.
Click to expand...

In 2002 a Senator is saying his is still "proud" to have voted for somebody who ran on a segregationist platform? Sorry, the segregationists lost...blacks are human beings now. And you're surprised that he's damaged political goods afterwards? He wasn't damaged goods because he was a racist; he was damaged goods because as a prominent politician (or as a politician in general) his position would give him the ability to transform his racist views into actions against the citizens of the country. People decided they didn't want him in a position of power. That, or the party decided they didn't want him to represent them. This is democracy at work. Nobody is saying he can't sit at home and be racist all day...that would be enforcing Thoughtcrimes.

Interesting points on hate crime laws, though. And a few of your other examples (for instance, students being prohibited from holding prayer in public at a high school) were good. Overall, I think this whole "tyranny of the minority over the majority" thing is overblown...but that doesn't mean it never happens and when it does it needs to be addressed.
 
Now, one can be guilty of "sexual harassment" simply for complimenting a coworker on her appearance, hanging up a swimsuit calendar, or even looking to long (staring or "ogling") at someone.
Click to expand...

Thats right, one can. One shouldnt be a rude sexist jerk should one. Thats despite the fact that the statement in quotes is simplistic and made with an astonishing lack of knowledge as to how sex discrimination cases work.

The rest of the article is equally as simplistic. You want to attck "thoughtcrime", then at least do it in an intellectual fashion

WildisthereafullmoonaroundhereAlaska
 
Well, gosh, against an intellectual powerhouse like you, I wouldn't stand a chance. I imagine I'll have to let the article stand on its own.
 
I think I know what the point of the author is. He wants to call a spade a spade, or a fag a fag, but he doesn't want to be a bigot being called a bigot or to be a pervert being called a pervert.

He wants to have his cake and eat it, too, in other words, and the quoted article is a tantrum because we can't always have our cake and eat it.

Was that intellectual enough for you?
 
I have a huge problem with "hate crimes" legislation that punishes a perpetrator more severely if he was thinking the wrong things when he committed the crime.

However, not calling people ugly names or pinching your female co-worker's butt is not "political correctness", it's called "good manners". Too many folks today try to defend boorish behavior by accusing their critics of being "PC".
 
Now, one can be guilty of "sexual harassment" simply for complimenting a coworker on her appearance, hanging up a swimsuit calendar, or even looking to long (staring or "ogling") at someone.

Thats right, one can. One shouldnt be a rude sexist jerk should one. Thats despite the fact that the statement in quotes is simplistic and made with an astonishing lack of knowledge as to how sex discrimination cases work.
Click to expand...

I have to ask you to expound on this statement. I have read reports on sexual harassment and I think that yes, there are definite cases of sexual harassment where someone is being harassed. But where does one draw the line when it is ACTUALLY sexual harassment?

I have had a nice lady communicate to me that I looked nice on a couple of occasions. Does this make me feel uncomfortable? No, considering she is a 60+ year old lady. But if this were reversed and I complimented a 20+ something staff person that she looked nice today, she could say I sexually harassed her, just because she felt uncomfortbale. Even if I said it in the most polite and unsexual way, how is this justified? Believe me, I agree there are your definite lurkers out there who would make a comment and definitely be thinking more than they are saying about the female, but what about the unassuming employee who is just complimenting someone? Does this nice, polite, average Joe then have to be labeled the sexual lurker in the office building?

I am still undecided on how exactly I feel about most of these thought crimes. Granted they can be used to stop the potential stalker, but then can be used to fire the unassuming happily married, father of 3 who made a meaningless comment to another employee.

I think this has the definite potential (rather it already is) to be a slippery slope...where one day it is ok to say something to one employee because they take it as a compliment, but the next day, Marge, who's pissed because you wont let her leave early, can say you sexually harassed her the day before. Who does the prove of this harassment lie with...the accused or
the "uncomfortable one"
 
I think it boils down to the fact that, too many people are sue happy. No matter what you say or do you can be sued for it nowadays.
 
On Sexual Harrassment and thoughtcrimes

Because I work for the Federal Government, I am required to attend a certain number of 'sexual harrassment' classes (sounds like a how-to course doesn't it:D ). The short version is that sexual harrassment is whatever the acuser says it is. Even the most innocent of comments, glances, or (GOD FORBID) touches can be sexual harrassment.

Thoughtcrimes: I believe the original poster was alluding to the slippery slope between the 'political correctness' of today and the Orwellian 'Thought Police/thoughtcrimes' as portrayed in the book 1984. My personal favorite comment on the whole thing of political correctness is "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." I do not know who made that statement, but I find it both accurately descriptive and hilarious. :D
 
Marko Kloos: Thanks for saying it more politely than I did.

As for "hate crimes", it isn't the same as a "thought crime", whatever that is. It goes to the the reason a crime was committed. Sentences are determined by aggravating or mitigating factors, and sometimes those factors, before the days of "hate crimes", were things like whether it was committed simply for profit. That is as much a thought motivation as hate is.

The theory behind hate crimes, as I understand it, is that they are committed with the intent or at least the effect of intimidating a class of people. This means that the negative effect on society is greater when a hate crime is committed than when the same crime is motivated by issues between the parties to the crime only.

The theory is not that when a hate crime is committed someone's delicate sensitivities are prodded. Go ahead, call me a fag. You're the one who then looks like an idiot ("you" being the general public, not you in particular, Mr. Kloos).

Due to my stalking situation, I felt, for the safety of those at my workplace, it was my duty to notify the company owner and my boss. It was not possible to do this without informing them of my sexual preference.

Neither seemed to care. My boss now, on rare occasion, makes a good-natured jab at my sexual orientation, and it does not bother me at all. It's as if he's trying to reassure me that it's a non-issue.

The point of all this is that reasonable people can work around such issues if they approach it properly. The way it's done here, I consider it banter and not any form of harassment.

But then, I have what a former boss called "f-you competence". People hiring me tend to be in deep engineering dung, and are relying on me to get them out. That tends to keep the focus on the job at hand rather than the personal characteristics of the person doing the job.

The workplace, I was always taught, is where you go to exchange your capabilities for money. It isn't a nightclub or a church social, meaning it isn't a place to scout around for a sexual partner of any sort. If you are violating that wall of separation, it will be obvious and you will be risking an accusation of sexual harassment. If you are not violating that wall of separation, it will be obvious, and a simple compliment on someone's choice of clothing will be seen as just that. In other words, your reputation for behavior at work will follow you.
 
The workplace, I was always taught, is where you go to exchange your capabilities for money. It isn't a nightclub or a church social, meaning it isn't a place to scout around for a sexual partner of any sort. If you are violating that wall of separation, it will be obvious and you will be risking an accusation of sexual harassment. If you are not violating that wall of separation, it will be obvious, and a simple compliment on someone's choice of clothing will be seen as just that. In other words, your reputation for behavior at work will follow you.
Click to expand...

Great statement...I think that is a great way to look at it, even though it is extremely difficult to maintain a simple work relationship with someone you spend 40 hours a week with.
 
The issue pendulum swings...for a long time it was perfectly acceptable and unactionable by the employee if the boss wanted to take a feel every so often. Then the whole sexual harassment issue came about around 10-15 years ago. The issue has been in the definition stages. It is apparent it has been taken to the extreme to destroy innocent peoples lives and careers. I think the pendulum is on the swing back making the definition more conservative than it has been. It will end up where it should with safeguards in place to avoid punishing the innocent and rewarding the false claim.

This happened with child molestation/abuse too. Twenty years ago when the pendulum was in full swing if a child coached by a disgruntled parent made unsubstantiated claims the child was believed and the suspect was quickly convicted without regard for evidence against the accused, because 'kids don't lie about these things'. This has since gone to the wayside because we all know kids will lie about anything especially if their mother or father coaches them. Now the burden is heavier, juries look at the evidence closer and prosecutors/police investigate more throughly before charging a suspect, as it should be.
 
That original article is just an example of trying to decredit a way of thinking by taking it to an absurd extreme. It shows a true misunderstanding of real issues and a lack of ability to understand degrees of relevence.
 
Hate crimes are completely ridiculous. How in the world do you reconcile the right of the KKK to have a march, and yet extend punishment for someone who assaults a black man because they share the views of the KKK.

Hate crime legislation is policing thought plain and simple. It can be dressed up in all sorts of ways, but its simply giving an extra slap to people whose ideas we find distasteful.

Like or not, people still have a right to be racists, bigots, homophobes, and every other name you can think of. The minute we start deciding that some ideas shouldn't be legal, we are all in trouble because there will come a time when your ideas are simply too dangerous to be permitted.
 
In 2002 a Senator is saying his is still "proud" to have voted for somebody who ran on a segregationist platform?
Click to expand...
Two years later, another Senator couldn't "think of a single moment" in the nation's history when fellow Senator and former Klansman Robert Byrd "would not have been a valuable asset to this country." Needless to say, no complaints were heard.

On April 1, 2004, on the floor of the United States Senate, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd said the following about Senator Robert Byrd, who’d just cast his 17,000th roll call vote: “I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation’s 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country.
Click to expand...
 
hate crimes laws = discrimination

The problem with any Hate Crime legislation is it gives a higher status to a protected group. If I am with a friend who is black or gay and we get jumped and robbed, because of hate crime legislation the assault on me is not as serious because I am white and strait. The crime also has a potentially much longer sentence and is viewed as a federal crime. Conservatives and Libertarians should soundly reject the notion of hate crimes. The fact that race baiters Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson helped push hate crimes legislation through should tell you all you need to know about the subject. The evidence of the nature of hate crimes suffices to point to the obvious that those handed harsher punishment for hate crimes will invariably be white men and heterosexuals. If prosecution for hate crimes is available and a white-on-black crime perpetrator cannot be charged with a hate crime, rabble rouser Al Sharpton, with his incendiary speech, will see to it that justice is served.
 
Hate crimes are completely ridiculous. How in the world do you reconcile the right of the KKK to have a march, and yet extend punishment for someone who assaults a black man because they share the views of the KKK.
Click to expand...

Disclaimer: I am not a fan of hate crime laws.

However, it can be logically argued that "hate crimes" cause more harm than normal crimes, and thus should be punished more harshly. Say I murder my wife. There is one victim of the crime, the person murdered. However, say I drag a black man behind my truck for a few miles for the purpose of intimidating the black community. Now, there is one direct and obvious victim...the guy behind my truck. But there are other victims too, as what I've done essentially amounts to a direct threat of violence against anybody else of that race in that community. Basically there's a difference between murder and murder with the intent to terrorize a community, and between vandalism and vandalism with the intent to terrorize a community.

Now, if I thought this was a standard that could be applied evenly and fairly, I might be able to get on board (though as others have said, I'm still hesitant to punish people for their thoughts during a crime). But you can pretty much guarantee it will be applied in cases where no such threats were intended, and will not be applied in cases where such threats were most definitely intended (minority-on-majority crimes being just a small subset of these).
 
Juan Carlos,

I do not have a strong opinion either way about hate crime legislation snce I do not feel I have a very strong grasp of the legalities or social implications of it yet.

But, in your scenerio there would also be possible true provocation that would have implications. If you killed your wife because of the fact she was abusive menatlly and physically, she was trying to take your kids from you, or other reason there is actually true life issues between the two parties. You would not be likely to have these same problems with anyone else since the reasons for the deed were interpersonal. The motive was based on a strong relationship bond and a history together.

If you just go out and kill someone that you do not even know for reason such as race, religion, sexual identity, etc there is not likely to be any interpersonal reasons for the attack since most hate crimes are stranger on stranger crimes. In these cases you are very likely do committ the same crime againa and again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top