Do Climate Change Denialists Deserve a Platform To Promote Their Ideas? What about White Supremacists?
In response to my post in which I discussed the futility of trying to convert climate change deniers using data and reason, frequent commenter MarcoPolo writes: You are quite right, there’s little point in discussing anything, with anyone, if you don’t care about their point of view or have formed a rigid set of opinions of your own.
This brings up a broad misconception that many people have about free speech and the pursuit of scientific truth. It’s especially important in today’s world, as supporters of fringe ideas like climate denial, white supremacy, the legitimate use of torture, ethnic cleansing, slavery, etc. seek a voice in public discourse equal to their opponents.
Staying with climate change as an example, there is no doubt that we actually do need to have conversations on the subject: What are its exact implications for our civilization? What are the most cost-effective ways of dealing with it? What should we do about “climate justice,” i.e., that the suffering it creates is predominantly felt by the poor, who, ironically, are the people who caused it least?
Climate deniers want equal time, in which to continue to sew doubt into a largely scientifically illiterate public that is easy prey for the mistaken belief that “the jury is out” on the legitimacy of the theory of human-caused global warming. It’s not.
The only effect this produces is further delaying the action that our society needs to take to protect itself from climate catastrophe. This, of course, is precisely what the fossil fuel industry wants: a few more decades in which to maintain and expand its position as the most profitable group in the history of humankind. As readers will note here, this isn’t mere conjecture on my part; ExxonMobil has spent (and appears to be still spending) a fortune funding sham think tanks and research organizations to raise doubt on the subject in the public mind.
Think of it this way. If I went back to the Trinity College physics department and told them that I wanted to deliver a paper to the student body on the machine I had invented that heats water without an external source of energy, they’d rightfully tell me to get lost. The biology department would have a similar response to my request for a platform to present my idea that cigarettes and high doses of radiation have a salubrious effect on health. The philosophy department wouldn’t be too happy to let me explain the ethical merits of the KKK or argue that slavery is acceptable in a civilized world.
In short, we do want conversations, but we really don’t want them in subject areas that are utterly devoid of moral and academic credibility.
Craig,
I fear it’s you who has a misconception about the meaning of “free speech”.
Speech isn’t “free’ if it has restrictions and a preconceived agenda.
” Free speech’ isn’t a precise term because humans aren’t perfect or precise creatures. The point you seem to ignore is freedom isn’t just the right of the speaker, but the right of the audience to listen without fear of censorship or unwarranted restriction.
Obviously, free speech has limitations, but in most advanced societies, those restrictions are very few and mostly concern physical safety and advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
“censorship” always implies that one group of “elevated'[ individuals are so superior to their fellow citizens they are entitled to determine what can be expressed or seen/heard.
You often display an amazing capacity for feeling superior to your fellow citizens. While it must be nice to always be so righteous and morally superior, I wonder if sometimes you realize how contemptuously, intolerantly and arrogantly you treat those you pretend to represent.
This is the trouble with all ‘crusaders’, in the end you represent only a small group of fellow ideologues, and start persecuting the very people you once claimed a desire to assist.
If white supremacists (especially dressed in antiquated uniforms) or flat earth believers, etc wish to non-violently advance their views, I’m all for their right to be laughed at for their folly.
(Unlike you, I’m not politically correct, I also include the extreme left, “black power”, Vegans etc).
As for science, well, it’s only been a few years since Eugenics and phrenology were considered serious sciences. Alchemy had a good long rum, as have any number of long disproved and forgotten ‘scientific truths’.
Only a decade ago you were castigating the evil oil industry as being on the verge of collapse due to “scientifically irrefutable ” peak oil ‘.
You raged with indignation against any who challenged M.King Hubert’s hockey stick as being the tools of evil oil companies. You claimed a ‘scientific consensus’ while demanding all opposing voices should be silenced !
Today, we live in an age of unprecedented oil surplus !
Now here you are again, demanding that another “scientific consensus” ( or to be more accurate your version of science and consensus) be accepted and all critics who don’t conform to your criteria be silenced !
As I say, I’m sure in your ardor it’s not your intention to advocate adopting totalitarian principles. I’m sure your comments are borne from sincere frustration.
Craig, There’s a time for activism, and a time for just letting opposition fizzle out from it’s own inherent weaknesses.
Never-mind how inaccurate or absurd is the opposition, our first duty is to be as knowledgeable, fair-minded and accurate as wecan be when advancing our ideas and beliefs.
President Trump thrives on controversy and encourages his opposition to be as outrageous as himself. The advantage he skillfully manipulates is occasionally being rational and insightful. In contrast, his opposition never credits his more insightful moves, which discredits them far more with public opinionsince it was they who claimed to occupy the high ground.
In a free society of equal citizens, no one needs an elite to decide what we can or can’t hear, in fact it’s an insult to the principles of a free society.
“The truth will out ” is an old saying, and accurate. maybe not your truth, or my truth, but subjected to the process of time THE truth will be recognized and triumph.
“Craig, There’s a time for activism, and a time for just letting opposition fizzle out from it’s own inherent weaknesses.”
a) Every person of conscience recognizes that the time for activism is now. Only idiots believe that the phase “the truth will out” (wherever that came from) should preclude their expressing their outrage as to what’s happening in the U.S. Please don’t denigrate our readers like that.
b) After nine years of your confusing “it’s” for “its,” which happens at least once in nearly every one of your comments (and you purport to be an attorney? Really?), do you mind looking this up so I don’t have to correct your writing continually when I quote it in my posts?
Craig,
Hmmm,… do you really believe “every person of conscience ” subscribes to your particular ideological/political agenda ?
I guess that leaves the rest of us mere mortals and the vast “unenlightened ” public, classed as “idiots”.
(We even have a different spelling from the pedantically righteous grammatical puritans !
Actually, three ” its ” exist, [ its’, it’s and its]. unfortunately, spellcheck often auto-corrects without noticing the context.
Interestingly, 10 years ago during an international legal conference, the Chief Justice of the UK, Lord Woolf, concurred with his fellow Chiefs from Canada, Australia and NZ, who were anxious to encourage plain speaking and reduce the overuse of pedantic grammar in legal proceedings.
The example they adopted was from the famous US Justice William Rehnquist, who more than 20 years earlier advocated the “its ” became accepted as interchangeable.
George Bernard Shaw wrote:
“If Readers have prejudices, that’s the writing world we live in. We must decide how to navigate it. We can’t please all the Readers all the time and we shouldn’t try. but we don’t get to create our Readers in our own image, either. We don’t get to tell them what to value or enjoy. We can write in a way true to our own voice and our own ideas of beauty and substance, and we can hope that some readers appreciate it. But, even when we aim to serve the narrowest cross section of Readers, we’re still working for the Readers we have. We should be grateful that we have them.” ).
The phrase “Truth will out”, appears in the writings of William Shakespeare, in particular, The Merchant of Venice.
In the US the phrase has appeared in many famous speeches, including such luminaries as Clarence Darrow, (Scopes trial) President John Adams, Martin Luther King Jnr, and Ed Morrow.
Okay, back to the main point of your post.
If you feel you must be permanently “actively outraged ” , I guess that’s your business, but the vast majority of folk, lacking your stamina, seem to find such an attitude too exhausting and prefer allowing most irritations to just fizzle out.
Personally, I find simply listening politely and allowing others to rant. Once the speaker has vented his spleen, he often becomes more receptive to reason and moderation.
Hey, I have no problem with “activism” . My problem is with those who assume they alone possess the “truth” and claim their particular viewpoint must be the only valid path for “persons of conscience” !
My concern is when you claim to represent others without any basis except your own opinion.
As I say, maybe it’s (short for “it is” ; Oxford Dictionary ):) my Australian upbringing that cautions me to observe those who take themselves too seriously, risk having no one else take them seriously !
You may not agree, but yes, I believe that every person of conscience subscribes to certain basic principles as they apply in our world today, e.g., eschewing environmental destruction for profit, preventing the rolling back of hard-won gains on civil/human rights, etc.
Am I “permanently outraged?” I wouldn’t call it that, but I’m deeply committed to making the world a better place. You’re going to have a tough time convincing me (or anyone) that that’s a bad thing.
Craig,
The problem you have is separating your particular political/ideological convictions from a few vague generalized principles.
You use these generalities to claim support by others for your particular agenda.
While i admire your desire to make the world a better place, (I believe you are sincere) desire alone doesn’t make you right, or your ideas valid. I just find it a little arrogant to believe anyone who dissents form your point of view an idiot or not a “person of good conscience”.
I don’t see how supporting things like censorship makes the world a better place, but then the devil is always in the detail 🙂
Sadly, history is littered with those who believed they were “making the world a better place’! Reality shows the oppisite to be true.
I found a “Yon It” living in Long Beach, CA. His (or her) family members would collectively be the Its. If they had a dog, it would be the Its’ dog.
It is raining, isn’t it? …There are two uses of the word ‘it’ in that sentence. The its’ positions are the beginning and end.
Pretty niche application.
Yikes. I would change my name. I grimace every time I see someone use “its’.”
🙂