Your first link is to proposed legislation in California. O NOES! Is California going to make it illegal to disbelieve in global warming? Er, no. The proposed law—you can go and read it; it isn’t very long; the actual legislative content is section 3, which is three short paragraphs—has the following effect: If a business engages in “unfair competition, as defined in Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code” (it turns out this basically means false advertising), and except that the existing state of the law stops it being prosecuted because the offence was too long ago, then the Attorney General is allowed to prosecute it anyway.
I don’t know whether that’s a good idea, but it isn’t anywhere near making it illegal to disbelieve in global warming. It removes one kinda-arbitrary limitation on the circumstances under which businesses can be prosecuted if they lie about global warming for financial gain.
Your second link is similar, except that it doesn’t involve making anything illegal that wasn’t illegal before; the DoJ is considering bringing a civil action (under already-existing law, since the DoJ doesn’t get to make laws) against the fossil fuel industry for, once again, lying about global warming for financial gain.
Here: brainwashing. Do you like this word better?
“Brainwashing” is just as dishonestly bulshitty as “crimethink”, and again so far as I can tell if either term applies here it would apply to (e.g.) pretty much everything that happens in high school science lessons.
We’re not talking about making new laws. We’re talking about taking very wide and flexible existing laws and applying them to particular targets, ones to which they weren’t applied before. The goal, of course, is intimidation and lawfare since the chances of a successful prosecution are slim. The costs of defending, on the other hand, are large.
“Lying for financial gain” is a very imprecise accusation. Your corner chip shop might have a sign which says “Best chips in town!” which is lying for financial gain. Or take non-profits which tend to publish, let’s be polite and say “biased” reports which are, again, lying for financial gain.
You point was that no one suggested going after denialists/sceptics with legal tools and weapons. This is not true.
Your point was that no one suggested going after denialists/sceptics with legal tools and weapons. This is not true.
It also is not my point. There are four major differences between what is suggested by your bloviation about “crimethink” and the reality:
“Crimethink” means you aren’t allowed to think certain things. At most, proposals like the ones you linked to dishonest descriptions of[1] are trying to say you’re not allowed to say certain things.
“Crimethink” is aimed at individuals. At most, proposals like the ones you linked to dishonest descriptions of[1] are trying to say that businesses are not allowed to say certain things.
“Crimethink” applies universally; a good citizen of Airstrip One was never supposed to contemplate the possibility that the Party might be wrong. Proposals like the ones you linked to dishonest descriptions of[1] are concerned only with what businesses are allowed to do in their advertising and similar activities.
“Crimethink” was dealt with by torture, electrical brain-zapping, and other such means of brute-force thought control. Proposals like the ones you linked to dishonest descriptions of[1] would lead at most to the same sort of sanction imposed in other cases of false advertising: businesses found guilty (let me remind you that neither proposal involves any sort of new offences) would get fined.
[1] Actually, the second one was OK. The first one, however, was total bullshit.
“Lying for financial gain” is a very imprecise accusation.
Sure. None the less, there is plenty that it unambiguously doesn’t cover. Including, for instance, “disbelieving in global warming”.
Please stay on topic. This subthread is about your claim that “No one is suggesting that it should be illegal”
A claim I made because you were talking about “crimethink”. And, btw, what was that you were saying elsewhere about other people wanting to set the rules of discourse? I’m sorry if you would prefer me to be forbidden to mention anything not explicit in the particular comment I’m replying to, but I don’t see any reason why I should be.
Are you implying that [...]
No. (Duh.) But I am saying that a law that forbids businesses to say things X for purposes Y in circumstances Z is not the same as a law that forbids individuals to think X.
Your first link is to proposed legislation in California. O NOES! Is California going to make it illegal to disbelieve in global warming? Er, no. The proposed law—you can go and read it; it isn’t very long; the actual legislative content is section 3, which is three short paragraphs—has the following effect: If a business engages in “unfair competition, as defined in Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code” (it turns out this basically means false advertising), and except that the existing state of the law stops it being prosecuted because the offence was too long ago, then the Attorney General is allowed to prosecute it anyway.
I don’t know whether that’s a good idea, but it isn’t anywhere near making it illegal to disbelieve in global warming. It removes one kinda-arbitrary limitation on the circumstances under which businesses can be prosecuted if they lie about global warming for financial gain.
Your second link is similar, except that it doesn’t involve making anything illegal that wasn’t illegal before; the DoJ is considering bringing a civil action (under already-existing law, since the DoJ doesn’t get to make laws) against the fossil fuel industry for, once again, lying about global warming for financial gain.
“Brainwashing” is just as dishonestly bulshitty as “crimethink”, and again so far as I can tell if either term applies here it would apply to (e.g.) pretty much everything that happens in high school science lessons.
Let me quote you yourself, with some emphasis:
We’re not talking about making new laws. We’re talking about taking very wide and flexible existing laws and applying them to particular targets, ones to which they weren’t applied before. The goal, of course, is intimidation and lawfare since the chances of a successful prosecution are slim. The costs of defending, on the other hand, are large.
“Lying for financial gain” is a very imprecise accusation. Your corner chip shop might have a sign which says “Best chips in town!” which is lying for financial gain. Or take non-profits which tend to publish, let’s be polite and say “biased” reports which are, again, lying for financial gain.
You point was that no one suggested going after denialists/sceptics with legal tools and weapons. This is not true.
It also is not my point. There are four major differences between what is suggested by your bloviation about “crimethink” and the reality:
“Crimethink” means you aren’t allowed to think certain things. At most, proposals like the ones you linked to dishonest descriptions of[1] are trying to say you’re not allowed to say certain things.
“Crimethink” is aimed at individuals. At most, proposals like the ones you linked to dishonest descriptions of[1] are trying to say that businesses are not allowed to say certain things.
“Crimethink” applies universally; a good citizen of Airstrip One was never supposed to contemplate the possibility that the Party might be wrong. Proposals like the ones you linked to dishonest descriptions of[1] are concerned only with what businesses are allowed to do in their advertising and similar activities.
“Crimethink” was dealt with by torture, electrical brain-zapping, and other such means of brute-force thought control. Proposals like the ones you linked to dishonest descriptions of[1] would lead at most to the same sort of sanction imposed in other cases of false advertising: businesses found guilty (let me remind you that neither proposal involves any sort of new offences) would get fined.
[1] Actually, the second one was OK. The first one, however, was total bullshit.
Sure. None the less, there is plenty that it unambiguously doesn’t cover. Including, for instance, “disbelieving in global warming”.
Please stay on topic. This subthread is about your claim that “No one is suggesting that it should be illegal”
Are you implying that you can disbelieve all you want deep in your heart but as soon as you open your mouth you’re fair game?
A claim I made because you were talking about “crimethink”. And, btw, what was that you were saying elsewhere about other people wanting to set the rules of discourse? I’m sorry if you would prefer me to be forbidden to mention anything not explicit in the particular comment I’m replying to, but I don’t see any reason why I should be.
No. (Duh.) But I am saying that a law that forbids businesses to say things X for purposes Y in circumstances Z is not the same as a law that forbids individuals to think X.