My dude, there’s a monumental difference between the “retroactive thought crime” committed by someone who gets cancelled over a past instance of being racist, homophobic, transphobic, a sexual abuser, or whatever other heinous/bigoted act, and the “retroactive thought crime” committed by someone who puts a pride flag on their desk.
Yes. Context is different, but by definition it is not. Both are persecution of retroactive thought crimes. It’s just one is a justifiable case (cancellation of celebs) and another is not (pride flag).
If you still disagree then how else do you exactly define a retroactive thought crime?
Yes. Context is different, but by definition it is not.
Are you for real? Like, do you actually believe this? To be clear, it looks like you’re equating the federal government violating first amendment rights to the court of public opinion cancelling someone. Is that really what you’re trying to do here, or am I missing something?
Also I’d actually advise against using the term “retroactive thought crime” at all in this case, because there’s no reason to invent new words for something we already have really fucking good words for, which, again, is “first amendment rights violation”.
What is the difference? I mean can you create a definition that doesn’t say “I like this thing and dislike that thing” to differentiate them? Because I can’t.
My dude, there’s a monumental difference between the “retroactive thought crime” committed by someone who gets cancelled over a past instance of being racist, homophobic, transphobic, a sexual abuser, or whatever other heinous/bigoted act, and the “retroactive thought crime” committed by someone who puts a pride flag on their desk.
Yes. Context is different, but by definition it is not. Both are persecution of retroactive thought crimes. It’s just one is a justifiable case (cancellation of celebs) and another is not (pride flag).
If you still disagree then how else do you exactly define a retroactive thought crime?
Are you for real? Like, do you actually believe this? To be clear, it looks like you’re equating the federal government violating first amendment rights to the court of public opinion cancelling someone. Is that really what you’re trying to do here, or am I missing something?
Also I’d actually advise against using the term “retroactive thought crime” at all in this case, because there’s no reason to invent new words for something we already have really fucking good words for, which, again, is “first amendment rights violation”.
You know what? I latched onto a single thing and misinterpreted what was being said.
You’re absolutely right. This is about the first amendment and the context is very different. I’m sorry.
Let’s definitely put the pressure where it’s deserved—this shit, weaponized administration.
What is the difference? I mean can you create a definition that doesn’t say “I like this thing and dislike that thing” to differentiate them? Because I can’t.
One’s a first amendment violation
Maybe you should reread it and quote which parts of it cover this?
It’s been explained elsewhere in the thread, feel free to read some of the other replies