Indeed, the whole point of my comment is that your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not. Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.
I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.
In the context of trans people, anti trans rhetoric goes away beyond “unapproved” or “unpopular” though. It’s straight up non-factual pseudoscience at best. A lot of it is straight up lies and libel/slander. It does real, lasting harm. That’s not “thought crime” as you describe.
Some virus
Iirc the increase in pandemics has been an expected result of global warming.
For my money, there are three existential threats to the human species. You’ve already listed two: global warming and nuclear war. IMO the third is microplastics (although PFAS could be combined with microplastics to make a category I think we could reasonably call “forever chemicals”)
Only because The Party has no regard for the truth. If, in 1984, The Party were concerned with truth at all then thought crime would also be concerned with the truth. This is because the real definition of thought crime in the context of that story is any thought that isn’t approved by The Party.
But you’ve brought the phrase “thought crime” out if that context and into the real world. Here, truth matters.
Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you’d think otherwise.
That’s not why you’re stupid, it has nothing to do with me.