Hitler in the 21st century

The reason people are talking about Hitler is because we don't consider the murder of 6 million people to be an 'inconvenience' worth saving the life of one child by any stretch of the imagination. While beaurocratic busy bodies attempting to justify their transport budget for the financial year is a fact of life. And the point is - that Hitler would not have loved it. At least - not in Europe where we celebrate multiculturalism, have a Europe wide alliance, and where a coup of Hitler's standards could not succeed. He might be able to get a seat by raving about immigration issues in a few countries hither and thither. If he stood up and said 'we need to exterminate the Muslims to save the children', he'd get the same kind of response tinpot dictators Anti-Islam Fundamentalists get when they say largely the same kind of thing. A few people agreeing with him, and the rest of the people telling him he's full of shit.Now - if he was in America instead, we might have a point. America would be much easier to radicalise - all he'd need is to win the election in a peaceful coup (no need to military coups for our modern tinpot dictator), have a couple of Reichstag fires and enough of the American people will agree to the killing of thousands of innocent people on the off chance that the nation those people belonged to happened to be possibly involved, or at least the nation might have secretly wished they were involved, or they are planning another Reichstag fire, and so killing thousands of people is justified then! Still, who'd believe that could happen?

I know, that's why I gave you my opinion on why I thought people are focussing on Hitler and not your point. Your exaggerated example was so exaggerated it drew people's attention elsewhere. Welcome to humanity, I'm afraid. I don't think there has been a civilization that didn't have this going on. Politicians being twats is not the same as Hitler being successful in a crude military coup.

Our excuse is that we're human: we are frightened and confused primates.It isn't a question of knowing better - we are perfectly capable of being aware of ourselves while simultaneously sabotaging ourselves. After a non definitive success in the election, Hitler consolidated his power by force, trying to get the army and the SA on his side. His political enemies were either arrested or murdered. In Hitler's translated words: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the German people. I gave the order to shoot the ringleaders in this treason...et it be known for all time to come that if anyone raises his hand to strike the State, then certain death is his lot.'It is this that I was referring to when I said Hitler would be unable to do this now - dozens of your opponents being 'sentenced' by your private army is sure to attract the kind of attention that propaganda is not likely to save. Yes - but less mandate than Hussein had...OK Hussein cheated. I think Hitler's majority beats almost every PM ever.Its funny how this subthread is so focussed on Hitler given how it started

FYI: I've worked in motor insurance, and my other half works in personal injury claims...I can tell you that pedestrians and cyclists are rarely held accountable in the same way a motor vehicle driver is. Legend is right in this - the driver of a vehicle is almost always held partially liable and can be sued (though it is rare for the police to prosecute if the pedestrian was being an idiot).The reasoning is that if a driver sees a pedestrian behaving like a reckless idiot, they should take that into consideration. As a general principle it is sound, but like all general principles, those people who find themselves having a specific ruling on it find it unfair.Example: A taxi driver was driving late at night when a drunk pedestrian ran into the road. The drunk pedestrian was not held accountable for 'drink-walking' - the taxi driver was held partially liable since he should have been aware of the hazard of drunk pedestrians and adjusted his driving appropriately. It is not fair because he may well have done that, but the fact that he hit the pedestrian is taken as evidence that he didn't adjust sufficiently. It seems fine as a general principle, but we cannot expect drivers to be perfect anymore than we can expect pedestrians to be.Incidentally, the pedestrian sued the taxi driver but the taxi driver was unable to sue the pedestrian.I consider it unfair because drivers are not given the level of training required to drive within the strict guidelines civil courts expect them to abide by. Ce'st la vie.

Neither are thought crimes. If you are aware of a serious crime and you do not alert the authorities of it, you can be considered an accessory. This is not just terrorism, but also includes things like child abuse. Anti-sadomasochistic sex site regulation is not a regulating a thought-crime, you can think sadomasochistic thoughts. As the newspeak dictionanary tells me:

quote:

---

To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime.

---

We are still free to think about crimes, think criticism against the government we are still free to think anything we like. Thoughtcrime remains science fiction.You raise some good points, don't get me wrong, but your hyperbole serves only weaken the power of your argument rather than strengthening it.

It is still not a thought-crime for the same reasons I brought up when we discussed this last year (Message 106). Just because the article you linked to asserts that it is a thoughtcrime, it still doesn't qualify. Doesn't stop it from being a stupid law though.

Yes they are. Downloading violent images or images that create a realistic depiction of violence is an action not a thought. I am thinking about an acted out sexually violent event between two consenting adults right now. Nobody actually gets hurts, but they certainly appear to be being violent with one another.I will not be arrested, and I cannot be charged for thinking about violent imagery. Indeed, talking about violent imagery and describing them to a large audience and causing them to think about violent imagery will not get me prosecuted. If it was thoughtcrime, this would be more than enough evidence that I was guilty.

You are not being punished for thinking about it, otherwise my post above would be evidence of a crime - which it isn't. To view is a very different verb than to think. The law does not punish you for your thoughts, though. Only certain actions. Show me where in the law any actually existing police can do anything about it. Read the law. My talking to my audience about thinking about violent images is not a violent image under the act. This inconsistency demonstrates that it is not a thought crime. If it was a thoughtcrime, participating in consensual sexual acts that realistically portray an act that a reasonable person would believe cause serious injury to the anus would be just as illegal as it would be to possess an image of same as a non-participant.Since they are not, it is not the 'thought' of violent imagery that is being criminalised. The thing that is being criminalised is possession of images of said sexual acts in pornographic context as a non-participant, ie., extremely violent images (still or moving) that 'portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following”an act which threatens a person’s life, an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals, an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).' (for the purposes of sexual arousal) and is 'grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character'.It is just images that are being made illegal, not thoughts, not speaking about them to a public audience. Just the images themselves, more specifically "It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image."Not, "It is an offence for a person to think about extreme pornographic images".Looking at wiki for the reasons the government gave behind the law, I find the following:

1. 50,000 people signed a petitition to ban "extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification"
2. "the material may often cause serious physical and other harm to those involved in making it; in some cases the participants are clearly the victims of criminal offences"
3. "it is possible that such material may encourage or reinforce interest in violent and aberrant sexual activity to the detriment of society as a whole"
4. The children. "57% of all 9-19 year olds surveyed who use the Internet at least once a week had come into contact with pornography online": therefore a law might help prevent children coming into contact with particularly violent pornography.
   

No thought crime reasoning there. At best one of them seems to be justifying it as criminalizing the possession of something that might incite a crime. Criminal laws surrounding incitement are hardly thoughtcrimes.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No. The offence is possession of images. The definition of evidence is as per normal rules of evidence: Each law doesn't have its own set of evidence laws. Courts generally decide what is good evidence or not. If this was a thoughtcrime I'd be charged and the court would decide whether a written confession counts as evidence. Since writing about it must entail thinking about it, I cannot see how they would not accept it.Look out for the section that states 'it is an offence to think about extreme violent sexual situations'. I couldn't see it. Did you know that possession of cannabis causes nobody harm but still is illegal? Did you know that possession of a nuclear weapon is illegal even though possession causes nobody harm? Is nuclear weapon limitation a thoughtcrime? They must clearly use it as evidence that I am thinking about destroying the world. No it doesn't. Otherwise the example I gave would be clear evidence of thinking about committing a prohibited act. As it stands, the law doesn't say anything of the sort. It is in the Daily Mail maybe. But I have read the law over several times now, and nowhere is a person's thought a crime. The fact that the crime blatantly doesn't punish thought-crimes, only possession of certain images really scuppers your argument. But if you really insist that this is really about thought-crimes, and the law explicitly allows things which are clearly evidence of thought-crimes and that doesn't seem a little odd to you I don't think you are able to be reasoned with.Is making possessing child pornography illegal a thoughtcrime too? The quality of the reasons behind enacting the law is not relevant. That they are given reasons undercuts any claim you might have that this was put through to enshrine a highly specific thought-crime evidence related law whilst explicitly ignoring all other entirely valid methods for detecting thought-crime. Yes, that was a large factor. Well at least we're getting you to drop down to 'implication'. No the law implies that certain imagery can reinforce or change certain behaviours that we wish to avoid. It is a demonstrable fact that imagery can reinforce behaviour which is why Advertising, PR firms, and propaganists exist.The law implies that extreme pornography might reinforce extreme sexual practices (where extreme pornography does not mean 'a bit of s&m' but where extreme means that a reasonable person would believe that serious injury is being caused to sexual regions of the body with the intent of sexual arousal).The law further implies that rather than carrying out research into the matter, politicians adopted a 'better safe than sorry' approach. Thus, ultimately, the law implies that the politicians involved were a bunch of pandering pussies. But we knew that already.The law itself though, implications aside, is not banning crimethink.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

OK. There are many ways of demonstrating that one is thinking about violent sexual crimes. One can talk about it, sing about it, paint about it, write about it and provide significantly indisputable evidence that you are thinking about all manner of things. And yet, unless you make actual threats, you cannot be charged. In 1984 all of the above will get you arrested (though I think Proles are expected to think this way and are exempt) as well as thinking about other things which could be construed as anti-Party.But you insist that it is a thought-crime, and no matter the argument that demonstrates that thoughts are still perfectly legal you are unlikely to change your mind. To me, and the documented evidence supports, the crime is possession of images that parliament has judged to have a damaging effect on society: graphic images of extremely violent images promotes/reinforces sexual violence towards others esp women. Not thinking about it, but specifically images of it happening.Possession of nuclear weapons: Which you accept is a thoughtcrime by your definition: the possession clearly shows that you intend to harm, you said. Even if the possessor hasn't done any harm yet - the evidence is so clear they should be prosecuted before they can commit harm. Because they were thinking of causing harm - they were arrested. They were therefore arrested because of their thoughts, therefore...thoughtcrime.Thoughtcrime is like Winston Smith harbouring doubts about the Party's understanding of the truth and his heretical thoughts about how there is a reality independent of the Party. O'Brien comes along and tricks Winston into proving that he has having those thoughts (a verbal confession) so that he can be arrested.Thoughtcrime is like Jesus Christ who advises that adulterers are moral criminals (sinners) and that even thinking lustful thoughts about a woman not your wife is adultery. Christ is the most famous thought-police officer there is.I see nothing comparable happening in the extreme pornography law so it fails in my eyes to be anything near qualifying for a thoughtcrime.

Can you support this statement? And yet we are still permitted to think about them all. So, erm, you're wrong. So the law assumes you are thinking about causing harm, thus it is a thoughtcrime.If it isn't a thoughtcrime neither is the law under debate. The only difference is that the images do not represent an undisputed threat, but a potential threat. I agree that we shouldn't make laws on such dubious terms, but doing so does not render it a thoughtcrime. Well the problem is lack of evidence or rather: contradictory reports on this phenomenon. On the one hand, we know that viewing violent media affects the brain in way that would seem to promote violent behaviour. Though another study (can't find it right now) indicates that US States which were slowest to connect to the internet tended towards higher increases in rape reports. Not really. On the one hand Jesus punishes you for your thoughts not your deeds - since Jesus can read your mind and he doesn't go on to disclaim those that didn't intend to do anything about it. On the other hand the UK law punishes you for possessing images that might statistically increase the number of sexually violent acts being committed in society.

So you can't support that thinking about something is a crime and that for some reason they decided to make something else a crime, which is represents the only admissible bit of evidence for a crime they haven't actually defined. And yet I can provide cast iron proof that I was thinking of anything you like and I cannot be arrested for said thoughts. You haven't read 1984 have you? They cannot read people's thoughts. They in fact use evidence to infer if someone is a thought criminal and on that basis they try and manipulate the thoughtcriminal into exposing themselves with indisputable proof.That's why O'Brien wasted a bunch of time subtly manipulating Winston into plucking up the courage to ask about O'Brien's resistance to The Party and why O'Brien managed to get Winston to say he would throw a glass of acid in a child's face if it would help the cause of defeating Big Brother...even if Winston would never know how or why it would help the cause.They needed evidence he was a thoughtcriminal because the thoughts themselves were criminal. They needed to garner enough evidence so that they could demonstrate to Winston that he was a thoughtcriminal as part of his reconditioning. Their original pieces of evidences, subtle body-language clues and usage of certain language wouldn't be good enough. That doesn't really make much sense. Sending an unsolicited letter to a governmental body praising terrorist activity in one fashion or another will likely be construed as a terrorist threat. Imagine if a gay man received a letter praising the murder of some local gay man, it would be construed as a threat then too.Here I am though, admitting that I am currently thinking of various reasons why the attacks might be construed as a 'good thing', and I'm leaving an extremely easy to follow trail as to my identity. Feel free to notify your local police station.And besides, 'glorifying terrorism' is also a criminal offence. How is goading an over-zealous anti-terrorist government going to demonstrate anything useful?I'd be happy to write to my MP about the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, specifically the parts pertaining to violent sexual imagery - if I thought it'd be any use. I won't be arrested for thinking about said imagery even if I confess to doing so in the letter. Can you support this statement? I have seen nothing of the sort according to law-makers. Don't just refer me to the law again. Refer me to the law-makers' justifications/assumptions for the law.

Legend, I can believe that you might be able to talk and write about a subject without thinking about it for a moment, but for most people that isn't possible If you can find a crime wherein any reasonable evidence that you are thinking about a subject would enable you to be prosecuted you have a thought-crime.I've seen plenty of reactionary laws, knee-jerk laws, Draconian laws, disproportionate criminalisations, authoritarian laws and the like. I don't think I've seen any thoughtcrimes in this country. Now, it has nothing to do with thoughts, it has to do with the manner in which threats are made. If you don't understand that sending a gay man a letter about how you support the killing of a different local gay man would be construed as a death threat - with nobody accusing the sender of criminal thoughts, then I'm not sure a conversation with you is possible. Right, simply admitting that I am committing a 'thoughtcrime' isn't good enough to get me prosecuted for thoughtcrime. Just to be sure you want to me to commit two different offences? Is all incitement a thought-crime?No, it isn't a thought-crime when they ban glorifying terrorism- it is curtailing freedom of expression. And nowhere did any of those justifications state anything about 'dry-runs' or assumptions that possession leads directly to criminal acts. Whether or not you 'demolished' the arguments is irrelevant. No it doesn't. It clearly attests that the law-makers were spurred into a knee-jerk reaction, but it does not attest that the law-makers assume that possessing these images means you are going to rape anyone.