Keep this kind of stuff in the Pit. It doesn’t belong in the debate forums.
Sorry. I should have stopped with “Well said.”
Quote me when I called the deniers fascists or withdraw this baseless accusation.
BTW we had this conversation before many times, denier is an appropriate term to use, that you use a peculiar definition to equate it with holocaust deniers is your own fault. And finally that specific former politician was an idiot.
So “denier” is, but “warmist” isn’t?
I just want to address this one. Stoltenberg explained what he meant in plain Norwegian (Tale på Rådshusplassen i Oslo - regjeringen.no). Translated to English (Tale på Rådshusplassen i Oslo - regjeringen.no):
Isn’t Global Warming Denier and AGW Subscriber part of established language use, while “Warmist” is a politically motivated attempt to launch a new term on account of a political agenda? Much like Black was established language use and African American was a politically motivated attempt to launch a new term on account of a political agenda.
Isn’t therefore your and Blake’s position aptly labeled Political Correctness?
I’m not sure why you’d label my position as Political Correctness, as I don’t begrudge anyone the use of such terms; I don’t have a problem with “denier” or “warmist” – or, for that matter, “subscriber”.
We had a previous conversation on the topic, that you choose to ignore what was said is telling, suffice to say, even a link to a science reporter showed how a term like warmist is not really insulting, but it betrays and advertises the ignorance of the one that is using that term.
As I mentioned then, and based on what scientists and reporters of science see it, we have proponents of AGW (like Dr. Jones at CRU) Skeptics (like Lindsen) and then we have deniers that ignore and/or deny the science itself (Lord -not of the house of lords- Monkton) or warmists that do not use science or refer to it when adopting alarmist positions. (Many examples on mainstream media)
That you can not tell the difference is not my problem.
Well let me rephrase: “isn’t it no more, no less aptly labeled PC as any other term that ever got labeled that way?”
I mean it’s a valid point isn’t it, even it was mostly joking. Why do we have a dedicated word for “leftish” word relabeling that apparently doesn’t apply to “homocide-bomber”, “pro-life” and “Warmist”?
(Question not necessarily directed at you, but rather to RaleighRally and other victims of the tyranny of PC)
I simply don’t see why either side should get to declare a term off-limits. If one side bristles at “denier” and the other bristles at “warmist”, then I’m just as happy to keep allowing both – and, in the alternative, would say that anyone who wants to ban the term of their choice should let the other side do likewise.
I don’t see that either side in any debate should have a monopoly on setting the terms.
I’ll answer, though: do we have a word for “whatever you do, how about you apply it to both sides?” You mentioned the idea of someone saying “Don’t call me Black; we prefer African-American” – and, okay, let’s say that’s “leftish” Political Correctness; what should we call it when a rightish type says “Don’t call me White; we prefer European-American” – or if a guy like me says, “How about both of you can use whichever terms you please?”
We’ve tried culturally-discriminatory immigration policies in America in the past, and in hindsight that was always a bad idea ; and we’ve tried culturally-neutral immigration policies, and in hindsight that was always a good idea. Why go backward now?
I think you are misunderstanding, many that I know do not bristle at the warmist term, but they just look sadly on the one misapplying the term, as it is often the case the term is wrongly applied to scientists.
As the scientist reporter you choose to ignore pointed out, the reality is that the ones attempting to change the terms to apply to climate scientists are doing with the attempt to mislead others.
When the term denier is applied it is because the one that is getting it is denying the science, climate change skeptics that are involved in science can be counted with one’s fingers nowadays, deniers now make the majority of the ones trying to defame the science and the policies that will have to be employed to deal with the issue of AGW. As I mentioned before, a warmist clearly is the one that also does ignore science on the way to post alarmist screeds, attempting to change the terms to suit your ideology is not a good idea. Scientists that accept the evidence of AGW are proponents, not warmists.
If you want to split hairs, I’m of course game; let’s say Blake merely looks sadly on those who apply the term “denier” to him, and so wants the same treatment as anyone who looks sadly rather than bristles at similar use of “warmist”. I’d of course treat both sides the same by allowing both terms; I’d of course allow either term to be off-limits so long as both are.
I just don’t see that a “scientist reporter” gets to set the terms of debate any more than Blake, or you, or anyone else. If the “science reporter” in question has an agenda – either as warmist or proponent or skeptic or denier or something else entirely – then he’ll of course gravitate toward terminology that he thinks casts his side in the best light, and casts the other side in the worst light. Why let anyone on either side have a monopoly on doing that?
And I’m sure folks on the other side would write just as deftly about why your side is the one in denial, such that you’re clearly trying to change the terms to suit your ideology – and I want to hear both such arguments; I don’t want to pre-judge the issue by giving either side a monopoly on that advantage; you’re trying to likewise settle the question of Who Is A Skeptic Involved In Science by limiting it to a “counted with one’s fingers” definition right off the bat, and I figure debate should be a heck of a lot more open-ended.
Why use referendums at all about single issues? According to your logic, people can always find a party that matches their opinion and vote for them in the general election instead.:rolleyes:
I think immigration is a perfect issue to a referendum. Because it is not a typical left/right-issue as explained here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14021831&postcount=34
No that’s not really what I said was it? After the end of slavery and the end of segregation it was agreed upon that black people certainly didnt want to be called “Nigger” by white people and some prefered “African-American”, thus “Nigger” was declared verboten and for awhile it looked like “African-American” would be the word of choice, but it ended up being the official designation and the one prefered in polite company.
Now some conservatives feels that this and some other related changes in acceptable and preferred language use merit a special term: “political correctness”. That’s on account of all those terms relating to the norm of tolerance, and also most of the conservatives who subscribe to PC dont like using those new words. They feel constrained by having to say e.g. “African American” when in the same room as some black guy they dont know.
But reality is that language and words are changed all the time by various interests groups, some who could be called right-wing, some left-wing.
“Homocide-bomber”, “pro-life”, “extremist islamist”, “islamofascist” , “dhimmitude”, “warmist” - “Counter-Jihadist” rather than “Islamophobe” - etc are examples of the former. But the term political correctness is only applied to the latter.
I submit that “Political Correctness” should be used to refer to all politically loaded terms that have been coined or changed in order to forward a certain agenda. Or not be used at all!
Would you therefore submit that “Political Correctness” should refer both to those who bristle at – excuse me, look sadly on – such use of the term “warmist” as well as those who likewise react to such use of the term “denier”, as soon as either side insists on shutting down debate by claiming that such use necessarily betrays ignorance?
Ban guns.
Also, Norwegian politicians should not ignore opinion polls regarding important matters like the population.
Because there is ignorance and then there is an attempt of pushing an ignorant point.
That science reporter had words against Al Gore for exaggerating points in his documentaries, and as he reports on what the science is, he is only showing what the experts on the field and academics are dealing with, and as NewScientist and others can tell you, there are lots of deniers out there, not skeptics. Science reporter Peter Hatfield (Potholer54 in Youtube) had it with the deniers when they hanged on the fake “climategate” scandal, (an scandal that only continues to exist among people that not only are denying the science but they also deny that the evidence shows that there was no scandal, like Breivik) but to show how that specific item of claiming that the term warmist should be allowed if denier is, you only need to give us a cite showing how often that term is being used from a group of academics or scientists using the term warmist for the proponents of AGW, otherwise it is clear that you are pulling an equivalence that exists only on denialist sites,
Pushing an item like that only demonstrates ignorance.
My preferred option is to stop using the term whatsoever.
If I cant get that I’ll support everyone calling any language use they dont approve of on political grounds “Political Correctness”.
Someone insisting that “warmist” refers strictly to people who accept AGW a priori on faith alone - henceforth from where you’re standing he’s being “politically correct”. Someone claiming that everyone who subscribes to AGW is aptly called “warmist”, well he’s trying to impose “political correctness” on GIGObuster.
(Sorry if I got the exact positions wrong, I haven’t followed the whole line of argument)