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.
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.