Cool, so you understand that the problem isn’t the cellphone itself but the content on the cellphone. Content that could be regulated, if a society has the political will to institute such regulations. Political will that would be generated by understanding the issues with such content. An understanding that can be gained with a good education.

Glad we agree.

Exactly.

This is just somebody blaming the problems created by poor education on cell phones. Again. Just like they blamed the TV. And radio. And comic books. And dime novels. And music. And dancing…

There are a lot of good answers already but I want to add that this changes the situation for any Hispanic people swept up by ICE. If officials feel like they can connect a person to the cartels in any way whatsoever, that individual can now be accused of being a terrorist. This changes the legal process they face, and that’s not good news for them. It’ll be easier to send the person to Gitmo. It’ll be harder to fight for that person’s freedom. They’ll likely be tortured, and anything they say can be used as pretense for further aggression by the Trump administration, both domestically and foreign.

Sounds like your friend is making assumptions about the correlation between their mental/emotional state and dopamine levels. It’s a superficially reasonable assumption, but given the interplay between hormones and brain chemistry it’s seems possible to me that dopamine levels simply have nothing to do with it and the issue is wholly to do with hormones.

I would be interested in reading any studies that support what your friend is saying. But minus evidence I have to think that your friend is l drawing incorrect conclusions about what would cause the phenomenon they’re experiencing.

My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.

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.

Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less

Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you’d think otherwise.

anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid

That’s not why you’re stupid, it has nothing to do with me.

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.

Steinmeier: “Elon is a threat to European democracy”

Elon: “No, you are!”

Here’s the richest man in the world, but he still can’t buy better comebacks.

You just know this is going to give Trump some serious death penalty envy.

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”)