[jessupjonesjnr87]

Is it still illegal to deny 9/11?

[mikema63]

@Kaiserschmarrn We should have, oh well hindsite is 20/20

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Why so coy, @mikema63? As with climate change, I'd recommend criminalising actions. Just make it illegal to vote for anybody that you consider dangerous.

[mikema63]

It's hardly necessary, the system is very resilient and will survive this rather embarrassing episode just fine in the end.

I'm less interested in jailing stupid people than the ones who take advantage of them. The stupid will all ways exist.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Trump is not and has never been a threat to the democratic system. That threat actually emanates from the left with its attempts to overturn elections and referenda and also criminalise ever more speech.

[Saeko]

Well, you are a stalinist.

As far as I'm concerned, it would be insane to give anybody the authority to decide what is denial and what isn't, and the slippery slope, once we start establishing scientific facts in courts, is much more dangerous than somebody expressing an opinion, whether it is stupid or not. I would also dispute that what "deniers" in the west say is responsible for the lack of global action on climate change which presumably is the rationale of calling their speech "dangerously stupid" or "a crime against humanity".

I'm again struck by how superficial this is. If people were really concerned about climate change, then surely they would criminalise actions rather than speech. How about we make it a crime against humanity for any person to engage in activities that jeopardise the Paris agreement? Now that would at least be interesting.

Yes, heaven forbid the legal process should ever have to deal with facts.

[Saeko]

It's hardly necessary, the system is very resilient and will survive this rather embarrassing episode just fine in the end.

I'm less interested in jailing stupid people than the ones who take advantage of them. The stupid will all ways exist.

An optimist at heart.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Mike is the optometrist of my heart.

While I agree with Potemkin in principle that what some of them are denying ends up being so dangerous we should perhaps criminalize that particular denial (because of the objective and real-world effects of such denial), the possibility of opening up scientific facts to criminalization of their denial is not very wise given our political climate.

In any event, I don't see this case going beyond dismissal by the judge.

[Sivad]

It really is astounding how naive people are about science. Science is a flawed and limited human institution. The most that can be said for science is that it's the best we can do, it's not an oracle. I guess people need an oracle though, that's probably why every society and culture in history has given full credence and authority to some priesthood or other, and for the uninitiated science satisfies that need.

We really shouldn't legally persecute prosecute heretics deniers of scientific orthodoxy consensus, it never ends well and history usually sides with the heretics.

Show me a 97% consensus in a theoretical science and I'll show you groupthink, politics, bullshit, and rampant assholism.

[Saeko]

It really is astounding how naive people are about science.

It's naive to think that other people are as naive as you think they are.

Science is a flawed and limited human institution.

And therefore useless.

The most that can be said for science is that it's the best we can do, it's not an oracle.

Sometimes the best we can do is good enough.

I guess people need an oracle though, that's probably why every society and culture in history has given full credence and authority to some priesthood or other, and for the uninitiated science satisfies that need.

I'll believe scientists are priests when they start diddling little boys.

We really shouldn't legally persecute prosecute heretics deniers of scientific orthodoxy consensus, it never ends well and history usually sides with the heretics.

Nobody remembers the countless heretics that history didn't side with.

Show me a 97% consensus in a theoretical science and I'll show you groupthink, politics, bullshit, and rampant assholism.

Conspiracy theorists tend to see conspiracies everywhere, big deal.

[Sivad]

That's the standard response you get from people that don't know dick about the history or philosophy of science.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

It really is astounding how naive people are about science. Science is a flawed and limited human institution. The most that can be said for science is that it's the best we can do, it's not an oracle. I guess people need an oracle though, that's probably why every society and culture in history has given full credence and authority to some priesthood or other, and for the uninitiated science satisfies that need.

We really shouldn't legally persecute prosecute heretics deniers of scientific orthodoxy consensus, it never ends well and history usually sides with the heretics.

Show me a 97% consensus in a theoretical science and I'll show you groupthink, politics, bullshit, and rampant assholism.

I know your post isn't directed at me, but I'm not one for diminishing the avenues of scientific inquiry. However, I am categorically in support of measures taken against individuals, both private and public, particularly those in business, whose denial of climate change is leading to potential catastrophic effects for our planet. I'm not a liberal humanist so I don't categorically support freedom of speech when it endangers civilization and the future of the human species. Essentially, material existence takes precedence over lofty ideals of personal freedom.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You should support criminalising action then, @Bulaba Jones, not speech which may or may not contribute to those dangerous effects. Making speech illegal in this case does nothing to prevent people from just continuing to virtue signal without doing anything substantial.

--------------------------------------------

I'd like to see some (truly) progressive suggestions from the left. Let's say we give every person a CO2 budget and the richer you are the smaller it is. If you go beyond you go to prison for crimes against humanity. In other words, let's introduce some stakes!

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

@Kaiserschmarrn I specifically said I am against people who not only deny climate change, but whose denial of climate change has real-world effects (I thought it was obvious I was talking about how their actions are contributing to real-world conditions).

I'd rather see all energy industries nationalized, corporate executives either shot in the head or sent to reeducation camps to learn the concept of doing actual work, and (the) national government(s) work on directly limiting hydrocarbon emissions as much as possible.

[Potemkin]

Is it time to do the same thing to ideology that was done with religion and seperate ideology from the state?

I don't see how that is possible, @foxdemon. After all, even the fact that government exists at all is itself ideological - the anarchists and lolbertarians would like to abolish government altogether, for ideological reasons, while sane people want to keep at least a minimal government apparatus, for similarly ideological reasons. Everything about governments is ideological, and they are never more ideological than when they claim not to be ideological.

[Sivad]

I'm not one for diminishing the avenues of scientific inquiry.

I don't want to diminish it either, I want to put it in a proper perspective.

However, I am categorically in support of measures taken against individuals, both private and public, particularly those in business, whose denial of climate change is leading to potential catastrophic effects for our planet. I'm not a liberal humanist so I don't categorically support freedom of speech when it endangers civilization and the future of the human species. Essentially, material existence takes precedence over lofty ideals of personal freedom.

I'm a liberal humanist because politically suppressed humans are the most dangerous thing on this planet.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I'm a liberal humanist because politically suppressed humans are the most dangerous thing on this planet.

I'm a communist because liberalism keeps the vast majority of humans spiritually, politically, and economically suppressed. Political liberation of the masses can only occur through socialism.

[Sivad]

I'm a communist because liberalism keeps the vast majority of humans spiritually, politically, and economically suppressed. Political liberation of the masses can only occur through socialism.

That kind of liberation is antisocial.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Capitalism, and liberalism, are inherently antisocial.

[Sivad]

Capitalism, and liberalism, are inherently antisocial.

I guess I just don't think there's a stick big enough to cure people of assholism. And if you do try to cure people with force then you become what hate and it ultimately blows up in your face anyway. I'm an anarchist, but I do understand the impulse to force these fuckers to act right.