Well, IIRC even moderators before came to report in other threads that the use of “AGW denier” was kosher as even scientific organizations are realizing that they are encountering the same “logic” as creationists apply to biologists.
But it seems that something has changed in this message board:
As scientific organizations and even skeptics do not mind the term, it seems odd to jump to justify a censorship that only few of them demand.
And I do think the reason is simple, most of the skeptical scientists do realize it is **dumb ** what some followers attempt to do: to claim that proponents are just calling them like “holocaust deniers” :rolleyes:, because that is precisely the boiler plate point they what to make, it is an effort to avoid a term that fits and is proper.
One more point: As the Aji points in the thread with his taunts that I’m not calling him that in his face, it is clear that even he understands that I’m not calling him a denier in the thread, that he is embracing the ones that show a total disregard for the evidence is not my problem. And he is still calling the proponents of AGW deluded.
Missed the edit, I’m saying there “that is precisely the boiler plate point that they **want **to make,”
The attempt to equate “global warming denial” with “holocaust denial” has been noticed before even in this message board and in many other places, it was not mentioned specifically in that thread, but the past efforts shown here and in other places shows that this is precisely why some are complaining about the use of “denier”, IIRC that was branded a silly attempt at equating terms, but somehow this is forgotten.
Well if that is the case I would not mind, but this is still odd when I do remember that even moderators did put down the ones that were making hay of their pretended offensiveness at attempting to claim that the denier term is only used for very nefarious insults.
It is not, as even the luminaries of the skeptical team do not shy away from the use of the term, it does refer to the reality that almost all scientific results have to be denied to make their points work.
The two of you were getting increasingly personal. I took away the favored insults of each of you so that you would spend at least half as much time presenting serious arguments as you did thwacking each other with inflated pig bladders–at least through the end of that thread.
Well, the thing is I did not imagine that until recently it was the way the “cookie was crumbling” . It was until very recently that the idea of some contrarians to soil their opponents by claiming that “denier” is an insult should be dismissed, in the case of the not lamented to be banned PopTech, the moderators told him that it was really silly to make “denier” an insult, no matter how much he stomped his feet.
Just to keep this discussion in ATMB and out of the thread in question:
The point of the Mod ruling had nothing to do with the general meaning or use of the words in question. They were prohibited in that thread because they were being used as epithets to ratchet up the personal nature of the feud.
No ruling has been yet issued regarding the use of those words in other threads.
As a separate note, anyone who employs the word “creatard” toward any poster outside The BBQ Pit will be Warned for direct personal insult.
“Argue the issue, not the poster.” That’s how we roll here on many issues, especially in Great Debates. It’s not supposed to be a personal slanging match, though there are other places besides GD where you can do that.
Could you clarify that a bit–you’re post could also be read to sound as if you’re inclined towards a somewhat expanded view of T&D’s “in that thread” limitation.
While this matter is being debated in moderator-land for posterity’s sake, it is my humble opinion that:
Denialism is an accurate and useful term to describe positions that 1) fall way outside overwhelming scientific or historic consensus, and 2) rely on willful ignorance of evidence and conspiracy theorizing.
I’m not sure there could be any description as accurate as “denialist” for a person who denies in the face of massive scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS, or waves off graphic evidence of major declines in infectious disease following the advent of vaccination.
“Denialist” may have a pejorative air to it, but it seems ridiculous to me to ban accurate characterizations because of the possibility of hurt feelings. “Pro-abortion” is a term I find grossly inaccurate and a distortion of my beliefs, but I can’t see banning that one either.
The ruling on “denier” (and “deluded”) applied only to that thread. “Attack the argument, not the poster” is a good general guideline that we rely on in GD.
I don’t care about the word “denier” that much, apparently it makes people who use it incredibly happy.
I’ll repeat, however, what I said on the thread and it is that such a term is not good for debating, even if we accepted it was 100% true. It is pejorative, even if true. Pejorative terms are frowned upon in any rational debate, even if true.
This whole “it’s true so I’ll use it” doesn’t hold up in real life or debating. Do you tell your people on the street “dude, you’re ugly” because it’s true?
