Is this phrase still taboo? I just posted re “those denying climate change.” Is this a violation of standards? I remember seeing a debate here, but I don’t know how it ended.
I don’t believe it was ever taboo. I believe the question was recently raised in ATMB, but can’t find the thread at the moment.
It could, like just about any other adjective, be used pejoratively and threaten to cross a line, but in general it is an often accurate and apt description of someone who denies (or refuses to learn) basic science.
Found it: Mods, you are playing their ignorant game if “climate change deniers” is offlimits.
Note that stemmed from a mod comment in a different thread. The last moderator statement in the ATMB thread was post 64 (out of 134):
(note that since the nested-quote deniers had their way, this may not be an exact capture of Fenris’ text)
“often accurate and apt” … perhaps, depending on how you get to define “often”.
More often it’s an oversimplification and designed to lump everyone on one side together. If race were a factor in it it would be down-right evil.
“Climate change deniers” had never been proscribed. Just to confirm, one thread tomndebb told a couple of posters to stop using the term in a particular argument. There was no broader ruling.
So something completely different would be downright evil? That’s amazing.
It is a lazy way to stack the deck. You get to lump anyone who would dare challenge your argument into the same group as the slack jawed yokels, flat earthers, and troglodytes.
[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
…in general it is an often accurate and apt description of someone who denies (or refuses to learn) basic science.
[/QUOTE]
Generally when I see it used I see a commentator or poster who is using it to deflect criticism of their statements or using it to intentionally get under the skin of those they know to have a differing opinion.
I have no problem with it being used when discussing the actions of individuals or specific groups, but tune out pretty much anyone that trots it out in their OP or first rebuttal as a catch-all for anyone who has a differing opinion.
Cool. I’ll try to use it…um…gently.
Did you posted right before that other thread disappeared from GD? No, I do not think it was removed because of your post, but because it is likely that the OP was a sock.
The tread had “climate change” on the title and it disappeared after someone bumped the thread with a link to a documentary that can only be described as “Son of the great climate swindle” and just as bad as the original, and then you or someone with a similar name posted a reply.
If that poster was not you, then never-mind, but I wondered what happened to that thread.
Yes, “often.” There are zero absolutes, Kelvin.
There are direct parallels to calling someone a creationist. There are, of course, people whose primary and secondary education is so lacking that their questions about evolution give them the appearance of someone who is rejecting the basic science. There are also people who have a grasp on the science, but who ask questions about its mechanisms, implications, or functioning. It would be wrong to call these people creationists.
Similarly, there are people out there who lack sufficient elementary or high school science classes to follow a discussion and understand the basic underpinnings of climate science (or even the fundamentals of how the scientific community works). They aren’t denying the science per se, they just never paid attention to it and have legitimate questions. There are also people who have a grasp on the science, but who ask questions about its mechanisms, implications, or functioning. It would be wrong to call these people deniers. Heck, I work in the field and am constantly calling colleagues’ work into question–in fact, they hire me to tear their work apart before publishing. Rhythmdvl the denier? No, of course not.[sup]*[/sup]
But the vast majority of people who pretend at “just asking questions” or latch on to some quip they heard at a cocktail party in hopes that it somehow tears down climate science? People who repeatedly fail at minimal comprehension—yet are not clinically retarded? People with the quixotic belief that they’re not dead wrong, but are actually ‘daring to challenge’ what they deliberately avoid understanding? Yes, deniers. Absolutely no different from the waves of zealots that stream through here, bold enough to ‘dare to challenge’ evolutionary theory and are beamingly proud of their ignorance.
I too would find ‘creationist’ a somewhat repugnant label. I too would find being called a ‘denier’ repugnant, distasteful and embarrassing—the implications are identical, save which scientific theory they’re rejecting.
[sup]*I also built that fence out there by hand. But do they call me Rhythmdvl the Fence Builder? No. But…[/sup]
I think you nailed it pretty well.
It’s not so completely dif as you suggest. The main dif is politics.
Grouping people by their opinions and grouping people by the colour of their skin are, in fact, completely dif.
If a person denies that climate change is occurring, then they are, as a simple matter of fact, climate-change deniers. Now, obviously, this is repugnant to anyone who’s educated themselves in the least on the topic, but I fail to see how it could possibly be insulting to the deniers themselves: Logically, they should find it no more repugnant than being called unicorn-deniers or leprechaun-deniers.
Quite a few folks awknowledge human caused climate change but don’t attribute as much of it to CO2 as many would like us to believe. This group would be insulted if the inference was strictly co2 related.
A range of opinions on one subject all of which you disagree with does not make them the same.
Observing certain behaviours that very often have skin colour in common doesn’t make one racist … or does it, I can never remember the “rules”.
Connecting disliking a point of view and disliking a race is beyond ridiculous and I’ll leave it at that.
I have a dream that one day we’ll live in a nation where we will not be judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character… though now that I think about it they are pretty similar.
I don’t like the phrase because it often means “You’re an idiot if you don’t believe I’m better at predicting an uncertain future than you are”. If it were only applied to the morons who disregard all of the science I wouldn’t mind, but it’s also applied to anyone who disagrees with some particular interpretation of the evidence.
if you use the words denier, linuistically correct as it may be, as the central point of your discussion, then you’re clearly saying you don’t want a debate.
That’s why I respond with “deluded”, it also does not foster debate but it is also linguistically correct.