Thought Police?

Great Debates
21

That’s fine. Sounds like a plan.

Another question - do you think there is a distinction between a person who just has “bad thoughts” (thoughts that you find offensive) but yet somehow do not act on these thoughts (i.e. mind their own business, say “I don’t think it’s right, but live and let live”) and a person who has offensive thoughts, and acts on them?

I know this is an obvious question, naturally. But do you level the same amount of energetic anger and frustration towards the person who thinks incorrectly, yet does nothing, compared to the person who actually acts out on their incorrect beliefs?

What about a person who disapproves of something, but even goes so far as to vote FOR (or in some way support) the thing they disapprove of? (For instance - I disapprove of gambling - I think it’s depressing and a total waste of time. I wonder why the hell anyone would do it. But yet a few years ago I voted FOR gambling in the state where I live, because I felt it would be unfair to deprive so many people of jobs.) What if a person (and I believe this is possible) personally disapproves of, say, homosexuality, but would vote FOR legalization of gay marriage, because, “what they hell, live and let live, if it makes them happy”? What would your viewpoint be on such a person?

(Just killing time here with all these questions!)

22

At this stage of this particular debate, I make very little distinction between the two. Because we’re talking about the status quo, and inaction in support of the status quo is exactly what needs to be overcome.

As it is, the status quo is supported by a culture of thought. That culture must be changed. So in this specific instance, inaction and regressive “opinion” is as much a part of the problem as negative action.

I’m not saying anyone who’s not a gay activist is a bad person. I’m saying that the status quo draws its strength from the belief that it’s a reflection of the majority’s wishes. Wishes, not actions.

23

Sorry; didn’t respond to your third question.

The person you describe is what I’m hoping for: a person who understands that his opinions should not be legislated into another person’s life.

I don’t “approve” of abortion, but I support a woman’s right to make that decision for herself. The prochoice movement is not asking anyone to say “Woohoo! One less mouth to feed!” They’re just trying to keep the debate focused on who’s really involved here: only the individual woman in question. (Please don’t let’s start a debate based on my simplistic rendering of the abortion issue.)

24

yosemitebabe, I think I’ve been down this road once before, so I may be repeating myself.

Here’s my point of view.

Is there anything wrong with Person A believing “privately” that (for example) homosexuality is a sin?

If they are thinking privately, how do you know that’s what they are thinking? It must be because they are communicating their ideas to other people. Therefore they are spreading their beliefs. This may encourage other people that share the same belief. They can tell their friends “Well I’m not the only one that thinks this way.”

Does Person A have a legal right to believe that homosexuality is a sin? Of course. Do I think it’s a good thing that they have such beliefs? No. If I heard them expressing those beliefs, would I attempt to debate the issue with them (assuming I was in my GD frame of mind?) Yes.

Of course there is a distinction between the person that says “I don’t like homosexuals, but I won’t bother them” and the person that says “I don’t like homosexuals so I’ll go get my buddies and beat one up this week-end.” That doesn’t mean that the former person should be encouraged to be allowed to think that way.

The person that disapproves of homosexuality, yet votes for legalization of gay marriage? I would wonder what form their disapproval takes. Does this mean if they had a child that was gay they would tell the child “I disapprove of your lifestyle?” That if they saw a movie depicting homosexuality they would tell their friends “don’t go see that movie?” You seem to present an idealized person that harbors certain prejudices, yet those prejudices are never revealed by their actions. I personally have never met someone that fits that description.

25

They may, they may not. They may (when pressed) say, “Well, I don’t approve of it, but live and let live.” And they may rarely talk about their opinion, unless pressed. I do not see such a person as being too harmful. And that’s the kind of person I’m talking about.

So would I! And I have. It’s natural to want to understand why a person would believe that, and debate it with them (if possible.)

I agree with you there, the only thing that bugs me a little is the word “allowed to think that way”. Who is “allowing”? It’s not a matter of “allowing” - the person thinks that way, they do not need to be “allowed” to think that way. (Just being nit-picky there.) Naturally, they should not be encouraged to think that way. Yikes.

Well, I know someone - my mom. She has a fair mind, but she’s from South Dakota, and not a spring chicken. She’s from the old school, and retains some old-fashioned ideas. She will say that she doesn’t exactly approve of homosexuality, but her heart breaks for the unkindness exacted against gay people. She’s seen gay-themed films and not freaked out. She is an old stick-in-the mud and doesn’t enjoy too many contemporary films. But I cannot see her singling out an otherwise “acceptable” film for disapproval because it has a gay theme to it. As far as having gay kids - we all are straight, and she is way past child bearing age. If she had any grandchildren who were gay, I know she’d love them and not let them feel like crap. She’d say it’s unChristian to do otherwise.

And responding to lissener who wrote:

DING DING DING DING!!! We have a winner here! That’s what I’ve been thinking as well! I do believe it is possible for a person to personally not approve of something (like me and gambling, lissener and abortion, my mom and homosexuality) and STILL not try to enforce their opinions and beliefs on others. It does not always follow that a person always acts out on their personal opinions - fair-mindedness may override some belief they hold, because they see The Big Picture.

26

I"m with you, Yosemite.
Not to mention the fact that, by bashing them over the head repeatedly for disagreeing or thinking “wrong” (Saint Zero disapproving privately of homosexuality), you’re not going to change them-you may have an opposite effect. You may turn them against you even MORE.
Do unto others…yada yada yada…
That’s the thing abouyt an OPINION…it cannot be right or wrong, I believe.
So, while I disagree with Saint Zero, I’m not going to scream at him, and tell him what a horrible person he is.
He has to answer to himself, not me or anyone else.
For me to do so, I would be no better than someone like David Duke.
Remember-tolerance goes BOTH ways. Yeah, it’s a bitch, but there’s the rub.
The Constitution doesn’t say that only those who think “correctly” have a right to speak, does it?

27

Although I will agree that one’s thoughts and opinions are perfectlh legitimate under any circumstance, there is something we often forget in theoretical discussions such as these: People do not live in a vacuum.

You think it, eventually you will influence someone in some way. As lissener said, working towards eradicating those thoughts, without infringing on someone’s basic human rights, is a noble cause (and hoping they won’t breed just ain’t good enough :D). A parent teaches a child, a friend influences a friend, a teacher teaches a student, etc. If you have those thoughts, despite having every right to have them, eventually they will leak out and influence others’ thoughts.

Just MHO.

Esprix

28

But he didn’t. He stated publicly that homosexuals are immoral, and that he disapproves of it, as if it’s his to disapprove of somehow.

I would have a hard time hanging out much with people who think I am immoral. If they think I am immoral, what other bad things do they think of me, and to what extent are they willing to go to make me “moral”?

29

pldennison paraphrasing St. Zero:

But he didn’t. He stated publicly that homosexuals are immoral, and that he disapproves of it, as if it’s his to
disapprove of somehow.

If St. Zero wants to approve or diapprove of homosexuality, that’s his business.

What I worry about is his picking one particular commandment out of the OT and calling homosexuals immoral while there are some 599 that HE ignores yet would make him just as immoral as he claims I am.

He sits there, claiming homosexuals are immoral all the while eating cheeseburgers, eating shell fish, wearing the color red, wearing garments made of two different types of fabrics, etc.

Now, I admit, I have no first hand knowledge of what St. Zero’s habits are. For all I know he MAY keep the commandants to the letter. But I’m willing to be he doesn’t and like many other Xians, he’s a hypocrite for labeling one group of people immoral while they themselves go on breaking those same self commandants.

30

A lot of this debate seems to center around a person’s right to think ‘wrong’ thoughts.

I don’t think the forest is being seen for the trees.

What’s a “wrong thought?” Who is the arbiter? What’s a thought that we must all “fight to eradicate,” a sentiment I keep hearing?

I will grant you there are some ideas that are almost universal in their wrong-ness. Advocating the physical harm of innocent people (The Holocaust comes to mind); subjucating people based on their skin color; pedophilia; etc. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people, through debate and experience, have come to an almost universally unified stance against these things.

In many cases, they attempt to attack people for harboring views that differ from this univerally accepted opinion, and perhaps it is reaching to do such a thing when people aren’t acting on those differing views. (Germany allows virtually no references to Nazism, for example.)

Other subjects have far less unity of opinion. Some have recognized that others will have different views than them on these subjects (homosexuality and abortion immediately spring to mind) and they try to ram their opinion down other’s throats. Others have taken a (to me more sensible), personal approach. My viewpoints on this subject will affect me and mine, and I will live and let live with others who feel differently.

For some, that seems to be unacceptible. These people must be changed. Or shunned, if they refuse to change. They are unenlightened, because they do not feel similarly to the group that wants to see change.

I think that is logically incorrect, and morally wrong.

With some in this group, for example, Saint Zero’s relatively moderate and personal reservations about homosexuality connect him indirectly to what happened to Matthew Shepherd.

Hold those who attacked Shepherd accountable for what happened to Shepherd, I say.

31

The lawsuit I mentioned is being brought not simply against the guards outside the Aryan Nation compound, but against their leadership, for the expressed purpose of bankrupting the Aryan Nation and thus preventing them from holding and expressing their incorrect thoughts.

The group legislating morality in this case is the Southern Poverty Law Center (I had the name wrong in my previous post). It is not a question of tolerance or agreeing to disagree. The SPLC has decided that a group holding a certain set of beliefs should not be allowed to exist, and are using the apparatus of the court system to eradicate them.

Please note (again) that white supremacy is IMO a silly and misguided set of beliefs. The situation is similar, however, to a gay rights organization bringing suit against (say) the Mormon church for teaching that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

32

So in your universe, the only thing neonazis ever did was “hold and express thoughts”? I wanna live where you live. Besides, if that’s all they’re being accused of, the ACLU will ride in and help them. (To clarify, I personally think members of the Aryan Nation should be made into lampshades, but I’m a card carrying member of the ACLU and would support them 100% if they took the case of a white supremecist group charged with nothing more than expressing an unpopular opinion. Just as I would never advocate against a homophobe being allowed to express his medieval opinion. I’ll just shout him down and continue to try to convince society at large that his beliefs should be marginalized and discredited, and I’ll support any court case against a homophobe who tried to legislate his religious beliefs.)

The key phrase being “using the apparatus of the court system,” as opposed to (say) bombs. Do you see the court action as a terrorist tactic? Let the court decide. Hopefully it won’t be any more corrupt than any other court, and some resolution may be reached. If the charges are baseless, the White Supremecists will win their case. It won’t be the first time.

. . . So you’re saying that the situation is similar to a nonexistant event that you thought up all by yourself? I don’t see the parallel.

33

Um, wrong. In the sense of being incorrect. As far as I’m concerned it’s about my right to tell you that I think your thoughts are wrong. When I told (here we go again) a homophobe that he had no right to think me immoral, I meant it in the same sense as someone who says: “You have no right to tell me what to do.” Well of course I have a right to tell you what to do, don’t I? I have a right to tell you to go jump off a bridge, right? Geez, say “You have no right to tell me what to do” here, a phrase you’ve probably heard a thousand times, and it’ll turn into a three-page flame war about the Constitutional definition of the word “right.”

No one, at any point in this debate, is challenging the Constitution right of free speech, or of free association even–gather all your homophobe friends in the basement of your church, for all I care. But if you march with that group, I have a right to a counter march. I even have a right to shout “You’re wrong about me!” Publish your homophobia, and I have a right to respond in kind. I even have a right to include the phrase “you’re wrong” in my response. Are you suggesting that including that phrase is treading on anyone’s rights?

This will always be open to debate. No one is suggesting that any one act of violence can explicitly be traced to a smoking gun of a cultural catalyst. But it’s my opinion that a culture that systemically devalues and dehumanizes a particular group of people is more likely to spawn incidents of violence against that group. Again, feel free to disagree. And again, I’d never legislate against it. I believe that the way our media portrays women adds to a culture that devalues them. I won’t go so far as to say playboy=rape, and I don’t think criminalizing pornography or legislating hollywood content is any kind of solution. But I think we as members of a society need to do a better job of looking in the mirror and acknowledging our own individual responsibility for the culture we’re a part of. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that a culture doesn’t reflect its indiviual members?

Yes, of course, in the legal sense, I entirely agree. But those kids thought they were right to do what they did. They believed they lived in a country in which fags deserved to die. Obviously that’s a twisted exaggeration of the culture they do live in, but the source of their twisted conviction does exist in this culture. And I will continue to fight to live in a culture that does not marginalize and devalue fellow human beings who are outside of the mainstream “norm.”

If an individual’s thoughts and opinions can be seen to be a “vote” toward the makeup of their culture, I will continue to campaign to change those votes: I will continue to try to change the way some people think. Let them try to change the way I think.

34

No one said you dont’ have a right to counter march.
But it doesn’t make you holier than thou.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. And some of them are shitty.

35

Holier than thou! Religious moralists! Assholes!

:lissener wipes tears of laughter from his eyes:

Oh, my, Guinastastia, that was the funniest three-way pun (not to mention the most transparently hypocrical bullshit) I’ve possibly ever encountered. (I get it, I get it! defending yourself against arrogant bible thumpers/holier than thou! Oh, my, that’s rich! Truly, a master of irony.) Thanks so much for your valuable addition to the debate. Pick up your prize on the way out.

36

Um…okay…not that it was meant as a pun.

:rolleyes:

Anyhoo, my point is: don’t like people being intolerant to you? Don’t be intolerant to them?
Yeah, I agree, I don’t like SZ’s opinion anymore than you do, but, at the same time, I’m not going to tell him he’s an evil fiend that will burn in hell, etc etc…
I mean, come ON! YOu don’t like his opinion? Well, he didn’t ram it down anyone’s throat, did he? HE just said his piece and that’s that. Simple, straightforward.
In this world, no one has to like or approve of ANYTHING.
I can disaprove of string cheese if I chose to do so.
As long as I’m not hurting anyone, what gives?

I mean, I see your point, but it’s not likely you’re going to change his views, so let it go.

This reminds me of when the KKK came to Pittsburgh and people were throwing rocks at them when they marched. To me, that was so stupid-all it did was give them the publicity and attention they wanted. It would’ve been so much better if everyone stayed home. If they didn’t have an audience, they’d just leave.
Instead, it made headlines…

37

[Edited at Poster’s request. --Gaudere]
[Edited by Gaudere on 08-31-2000 at 01:00 AM]

38

Ohymygod. I honestly thought this thread was in the Pit when I wrote the last thread. Please accept my apologies for (twice in one day!) crossing the line between GD and the Pit. While I was typing, I was thinking to myself, “That’s what she gets for slumming in the Pit.”

Please remove the previous post, David B and/or Gaudere, if that’s appropriate. I promise to keep my head if I return to this thread.

Geez, I didn’t mean to become so high maintenance . . .

39

I’m trying to work out what in the heck you are referring to.

There is a case on going by the Southern Poverty Law Center vs the Ayran (snicker) Nation. In this case, it’s a civil suit, wherein the guards at the compound chased and shot at a black kid and his mom. There has already been a criminal trial, where two of the three were convicted and sentanced. The third is on the run. now this is the civil trial, which if Dees’ is successful, will bankrupt the Ayran Nations.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/aryantrial000830.html

Now, I don’t see where there is anyone policing thoughts here. This is a civil trial. They actually committed the crimes involved. Actions have spoken already.

40

Um… Huh? Didn’t I make it clear I think violence in any case is stupid?

Doesn’t seem to be the case. In any even, I won’t be responding further to this thread, except to say keep the slander of me to a low level.