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 t

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.