• WindyRebel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    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?

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      21 hours ago

      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”.

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        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.