I guess you'd have to define what you mean by thoughtcrime, because for me it connotes a science fictionally, Orwellian scenario in which you are not allowed to harbor private thoughts. I have occasionally racist thoughts that show up like uninvited knockers at my front door, and I shoo them away. But I also took the time to weigh the for-and-against that followed 'The Bell Curve'.Xan wrote:I guess for me the question is whether somebody can simply be wrong, or whether that person has to be guilty of thoughtcrime and debate completely shut down.
So the actual correctness of the particular claims are still beside the point.
Charles Murray, obviously, is not silently thinking his racist thoughts, or we wouldn't know about it. He has published it, and continues to put out his theories despite the critical reviews. That's fine. He hasn't committed any crimes, hasn't called for violence, not even close. But he has written and said enough to warrant being on that list. Should he be on a separate list with a milder title that doesn't include the word "Hate"? Perhaps. It's not my list. It's not a perfect fit, nor is this a perfect world. He's certainly in my "book" of pseudoscience racists.
Should the debate be "completely shut down"? I refer you to what I said early on in this thread -- and now I can't find it!!! -- was there a server hiccup?
I wrote that the SPLC is one thing, but can't be held responsible for the morons who rioted at Middlebury. I wrote please don't lump me in with those Social Justice Warriors. I wrote that David Duke should be allowed to speak at universities as long as he is invited, and he should be protected going to and coming from that speech. Same for Murray.
Please, someone tell me that you saw this post. I saw it go through after I submitted it, and now I am unable to find it. Posted in other thread?
In any case, that's what I wrote, and that's how I feel.
I just don't know what to do with the word "thoughtcrime."
---
Edited: -->Changed 'help responsible' to held responsible.