4 ms·

>Thoughtcrime? The other user is just asking how to encourage people to be nicer in a specific circumstance, not seeking to literally criminalize things.

stcredzero 9y ago
not seeking to literally criminalize things. You don't have to have legal support to create an environment of oppression and toxicity. If one's goal is solely focused on suppression of a certain kind of thinking, then it's doomed to fail. It's like not thinking about white elephants, writ large. It's the Streisand effect. It's far better to focus on positive goals. Build bridges between people. Encourage what you want to see more of. If one is considering thought policing, then it's a sign that something has failed.
- wyattpeak 9y ago
  This is such a broad interpretation of thought policing as to be absurd. By your definition obligatory anger-management or even general counselling would seem to be thought policing. You can demonstrably control particular types of thought, that's pretty much the basis of clinical psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory - which you're describing - is a specific, immediate, psychological effect. It doesn't imply that thoughts can't be suppressed on a longer scale.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    This is such a broad interpretation of thought policing as to be absurd. No, your interpretation of it is absurd. The key is, are you trying to coerce people to hide their true thoughts, because you just want to control them? Anger Management should be something that is entered into consensually, because all parties know it's to their benefit. You can demonstrably control particular types of thought, that's pretty much the basis of clinical psychology. Sure. But suppressing others against their will for the sake of political power is immoral. I don't see that as a proper aim of clinical psychology, and the above context certainly wasn't what I was thinking about.

stcredzero 9y ago

not seeking to literally criminalize things. You don't have to have legal support to create an environment of oppression and toxicity. If one's goal is solely focused on suppression of a certain kind of thinking, then it's doomed to fail. It's like not thinking about white elephants, writ large. It's the Streisand effect. It's far better to focus on positive goals. Build bridges between people. Encourage what you want to see more of. If one is considering thought policing, then it's a sign that something has failed.

wyattpeak 9y ago
This is such a broad interpretation of thought policing as to be absurd. By your definition obligatory anger-management or even general counselling would seem to be thought policing. You can demonstrably control particular types of thought, that's pretty much the basis of clinical psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory - which you're describing - is a specific, immediate, psychological effect. It doesn't imply that thoughts can't be suppressed on a longer scale.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  This is such a broad interpretation of thought policing as to be absurd. No, your interpretation of it is absurd. The key is, are you trying to coerce people to hide their true thoughts, because you just want to control them? Anger Management should be something that is entered into consensually, because all parties know it's to their benefit. You can demonstrably control particular types of thought, that's pretty much the basis of clinical psychology. Sure. But suppressing others against their will for the sake of political power is immoral. I don't see that as a proper aim of clinical psychology, and the above context certainly wasn't what I was thinking about.