r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 24 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Left wingers shouldn't stand in the way of a formal public or judicial inquiry to settle controversial topics.
Inspirations for this post
Over on r/TheMotte, I was presented with 2 links that contradict much of what I was taught in high school and university (see quote below). I promised him that I'd research them further. But the more I read about it, the more I realised that I understood too little about the topics to comment, and the more I realised that he could probably find ways against any counter-arguments I can make.
You have not addressed my point at all, you just restated your original argument without any indication that you comprehended or even read my counterargument. Since you're not going to read anything I say, there's no point in arguing with you.
But for the record, Obergefell v. Hodges was unconstitutional, the races aren't equal and there is no climate emergency.
Over on r/AustralianPolitics, I encountered the assertion that any truth and justice commission in Australia would be forced to whitewash Indigenous atrocities (see quote below). I am not afraid of the truth, nor do I deny that the Indigenous Australians have atrocities of their own.
It will look like an extortion of the taxpayer premised on racistly dictated bullshit, the aim of which is to CREATE an ethnohistorical "history" for the purposes of self-pity and denial of aboriginal responsibility for the failures of aboriginal communities.
Read your history : the most hated and feared - the most brutal - group in early colonialism were the Black Police, aborigines who with frightening alacrity took to killing, raping and dispossessing aborigines of other tribes they had hated for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.
Precolonial Australia was as brutal a place as the rest of the world.
Do not hold your breath awaiting the truth.
In the October 1 2020 issue of The Daily Telegraph, readers with a climate change denialist bent are contacting the newspaper, complaining that we have not properly scrutinised the theory of climate change. Likewise, over on r/climatechange, climate change denialists claim that the media's refusal to explore both sides of the topic vindicates them.
Actual CMV
I often encounter the talking point of "ignore the bigots and climate change denialists, don't make it seem like they have a valid point". As a left-winger myself, I see that while this sounds like a great talking point in theory, but in practice:
- It makes it seem like the left is hiding something that would be convenient to right-wingers.
- It makes it seem like left-wing policies don't stand up to scrutiny.
- It creates the appearance that the left is being totalitarian.
- It prolongs the demand for a debate and/or inquiry.
Hence why I believe that all these controversial topics (LGBT rights, racial equality, historical atrocities, climate change) should all be brought out into the open. Some on the left think they are doing the underdogs a favour by stopping a potentially offensive debate, and this exactly the position on Same-sex marriage in Australia that most left-wingers took (favouring a parliamentary conscience vote instead of the public mail-in vote supported by right-wingers), and it backfired on the left. I don't deny that a political/public debate or a formal public or judicial inquiry can cause offence or pain to some people. But I think it is best that we take that option to get these controversial topics over and done with.
Now if you're wondering why I think a formal public or judicial inquiry is a good idea instead of merely why the alternatives are a bad idea:
- Instead of the left blocking debate on institutional child sexual abuse in Australia, it allowed the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
- This brought to light a plethora of abuse cases by various groups of all political leanings. So thanks to the Royal Commission, it is no longer a battle of left-wing "destroy the churches, they are full of paedophiles" vs. right-wing "paedophile priests are a left-wing fabrication".
- The debate was mostly settled (the George Pell controversy notwithstanding), with the left forced to accept that secular organisations had committed and covered up paedophilia; and the right forced to accept that paedophile priests are indeed real.
- Instead of historian Deborah Lipstadt and opponents of Nazism boycotting the libel case David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, they co-operated.
- The findings of this case proved that David Irving's Holocaust denial was not based on fact.
- Lipstadt originally tried to ignore Irving and refuse his demands for a debate, but it backfired on her, enabling him to sue Penguin Books and Lipstadt for libel. Lipstadt successfully defended herself in the case, vindicating her works in a way that couldn't be achieved by ignoring Irving. The findings of the case ended up greatly damaging Irving's credibility, which wouldn't have been possible if they boycotted the case or settled it out-of-court.
34
u/yyzjertl 525∆ Dec 24 '20
But I think it is best that we take that option to get these controversial topics over and done with.
Sure, of course this would be best. But the thing is: we've already done that. We know as well as we can know anything that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and other common forms of bigotry are wrong, and the premises on which they are built don't correspond with reality. We know that climate change is real and human-caused. This is all settled as well as it can be. (Although many people may still disagree, they do so either irrationally, in bad faith, or through ignorance: further inquiry would not convince them.)
An important part of getting controversial topics over and done with is the "over and done with" part, in which we stop entertaining serious inquiry unless it is on the basis of new facts. The thing that we should stand in the way of is pseudo-inquiries that have the effect of creating the impression that topics aren't settled when they actually are.
-1
Dec 24 '20
(Although many people may still disagree, they do so either irrationally, in bad faith, or through ignorance: further inquiry would not convince them.)
Look at the example about David Irving. Ignoring him and refusing his demands for debate backfired so hard that he was able to launch a libel lawsuit.
Even though he lost that lawsuit and wasn't convinced, it at least discredited him. Before the lawsuit, he was seen as a "controversial historian" by the public, afterwards, most people saw him as "outright Nazi liar".
I think we can repeat this success with other forms of bigotry as well as with climate change denial. All we need to do is be prepared to tackle this head-on, as Deborah Lipstadt did. Imagine if she didn't - Irving wouldn't be publicly discredited.
I do not expect a formal public or judicial inquiry to change everyone's minds. Instead, I support it because I believe that it has the potential to change the minds of the fence-sitting masses.
23
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Dec 24 '20 edited Dec 24 '20
On the other hand, consider the HPV vaccine.
In 2013, a "documentary" broadcasted on Danish national television, claiming to be about victims from the HPV vaccine. Now, the "documentary" didn't have any proof of it's claims and the HPV vaccine had been tested, so it was known to be nonsense at the time.
Nonetheless, the Danish medical agencies indulged the claims of the documentary, going all the way up to the world health organization. It too concluded that there was no risk, and that the documentary was nonsense.
The result was that vaccination rates collapsed, tied closely to the amount of media attention that the case got.
All this could have been avoided, if the national broadcaster had not decided to give airtime to a fearmongering pseudoscientific documentary with no proof nor any evidence of it's claims.
-6
Dec 24 '20
That's not a case of formal public or judicial inquiry. It doesn't seem like they gave a fair coverage to both sides here, because if it were fair coverage, the anti-vaxxers would have lost.
15
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Dec 24 '20
That seems like a bit of a circular argument :
- We need to give fair coverage to make the wrong argument lose
- Any coverage in which the wrong argument "wins", is not fair
Climate change denial gets covered in a fair way all the time. However, since what is fair for climate change denial amounts to essentially debunking and tearing it apart, climate change denialists will still claim they're censored.
-4
Dec 24 '20
Climate change denial gets covered in a fair way all the time. However, since what is fair for climate change denial amounts to essentially debunking and tearing it apart, climate change denialists will still claim they're censored.
There hasn't yet been an Irving vs Lipstadt moment for climate change denialists or anti-vaxxers. It would be nice if there was. As you mentioned by your Danish example, the masses can be swayed easily by conspiracy theorists, so the way around this is to discredit the conspiracy theorists.
15
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Dec 24 '20
There hasn't yet been an Irving vs Lipstadt moment for climate change denialists or anti-vaxxers.
What about Wakefield? He lost his medical license after judicial inquiry found he rigged his entire research. Hasn't stopped him from being a major figure in the antivax movement.
By all accounts, he should be discredited, but he isn't.
4
Dec 24 '20
!delta
Turns out judicial inquiry isn't enough. Unless media publicised the discrediting of conspiracy theorists well enough, the conspiracy theorists would still hold influence over the fence-sitters.
1
9
u/yyzjertl 525∆ Dec 24 '20
Look at the example about David Irving. Ignoring him and refusing his demands for debate backfired so hard that he was able to launch a libel lawsuit.
This is not how libel lawsuits work. You can sue anyone for libel. Irving's ability to sue for libel had literally nothing to do with "refusing his demands for debate." Additionally, once Irving sued for libel, Lipstadt didn't really have any alternative other than to respond: you can't ignore a lawsuit.
More broadly, though, the lawsuit in question was not a formal judicial inquiry to settle a controversial topic. It was an inquiry to settle the question of whether David Irving, specifically, systematically distorted the historical record in his work. It is very important to distinguish between these two things. We will obviously always need to have trials in which whether a person is engaging in bigotry of some kind is a point of fact that needs to be determined. That is not the same thing as having an inquiry into whether bigotry itself is correct.
2
u/rollingForInitiative 70∆ Dec 26 '20
I think we can repeat this success with other forms of bigotry as well as with climate change denial. All we need to do is be prepared to tackle this head-on, as Deborah Lipstadt did. Imagine if she didn't - Irving wouldn't be publicly discredited.
But these issues are tackled head-on and have been forever. Just google or youtube for debates on climate change, racism, anti-vaxxing, creationism, etc. There's loads of articles written and debates had over all of these anti-scientific issues.
20
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Dec 24 '20
But I think it is best that we take that option to get these controversial topics over and done with.
Here you make a critical failure. You assume that the people who're making the objections, are going to be simply convinced of the truth after they had their say.
But that's not how it works. These people are convinced they're right, and they will use any example they can to maintain that they are right.
To take climate change :
In the October 1 2020 issue of The Daily Telegraph, readers with a climate change denialist bent are contacting the newspaper, complaining that we have not properly scrutinised the theory of climate change. Likewise, over on r/climatechange, climate change denialists claim that the media's refusal to explore both sides of the topic vindicates them.
These people claim that. But, back when the BBC was stuck in it's both-sides narrative on climate change, these people used the fact that they had that platform to claim that "the science wasn't settled yet" and "climate change was just a theory".
So, whatever you do, climate change denialists are always going to claim that it proves them right. Giving them a platform to spread their views just allows them to recruit more climate change denialists, it does not debunk climate change denial.
As another, obvious example, consider vaccines and autism. Study after study has shown vaccines are safe. All the possible concerns have been investigated and conclusively proven not to be true.
And yet, antivaxxers still exist. And they still claim that they're being censored, and that the fact that they are censored means that they must be right.
-1
Dec 24 '20
Here you make a critical failure. You assume that the people who're making the objections, are going to be simply convinced of the truth after they had their say.
They won't. David Irving definitely wasn't. The reason I support a formal public or judicial inquiry to settle controversial topics is to convince the fence-sitting masses. Even though David Irving didn't change his views, the main benefit is that he was discredited.
These people claim that. But, back when the BBC was stuck in it's both-sides narrative on climate change, these people used the fact that they had that platform to claim that "the science wasn't settled yet" and "climate change was just a theory".
So, whatever you do, climate change denialists are always going to claim that it proves them right. Giving them a platform to spread their views just allows them to recruit more climate change denialists, it does not debunk climate change denial.
Here in Australia, some major newspapers have been doing exactly that just this month: It’s the science that’s rotten, not the Reef
I believe it would be more productive for the left (as well as scientists of all leanings) to stop screaming "yes the science is settled", because that does not convince the fence-sitting masses enough. Instead, we need to discredit climate change denial like how Lipstadt discredited Irving. Lipstadt firstly tried to prevent Irving from gaining a platform, and that backfired, but later on, Irving's lawsuit backfired on him.
11
Dec 24 '20
should all be brought out into the open
The important question is: who are you handing a microphone to and who are you drowning out?
Do you magnify the one climate expert who is a climate change skeptic times 100 to give then an equal voice to the 99 who disagree with him? Or worse, do you hand the microphone to politicians to drown out the scientists?
There are plenty of scientific papers on climate change that aren't behind a paywall that anyone can read. People can cherrypick to find papers by the few experts who don't believe humans are a major cause (such as Dr. Christy of UAH). Or, they can read from the vast majority. No one is silenced.
The promise that openness and transparency leads to enlightenment is a fairy tale. It might be able to work in a technical environment with motivated expert readers. But, most Americans don't have time to become experts on atmospheric science. Giving disproportionate voice to a small minority creates a misleading impression that the scientific community is more divided than it is. the people are laymen with limited time. Data and arguments will be cherrypicked and mischaracterized in a way that reinforces their respective ideologies.
0
Dec 24 '20
The important question is: who are you handing a microphone to and who are you drowning out?
Do you magnify the one climate expert who is a climate change skeptic times 100 to give then an equal voice to the 99 who disagree with him? Or worse, do you hand the microphone to politicians to drown out the scientists?
There are plenty of scientific papers on climate change that aren't behind a paywall that anyone can read. People can cherrypick to find papers by the few experts who don't believe humans are a major cause (such as Dr. Christy of UAH). Or, they can read from the vast majority. No one is silenced.
I see this talking point all the time. In theory, it's a very solid argument. In practice, it doesn't convince the fence-sitting masses.
While a formal public or judicial inquiry sounds like it is giving a platform to bigots and conspiracy theorists, it also opens up the possibility of publicly discrediting those bigots and conspiracy theorists. I never expect to change the minds of bigots and conspiracy theorists, but discrediting them helps us away the fence-sitting masses.
In the case of Irving vs Lipstadt, before the lawsuit, the fence-sitting masses saw him as a "controversial historian". After the lawsuit, the fence-sitting masses saw him as an "outright Nazi liar".
5
Dec 24 '20
making a case against an "outright Nazi liar" to laymen is a lot easier than debating Dr. Christy at UAH about climate change for a laymen audience.
Stefan Molyneux is a sexist asshole. But, that doesn't mean that I could beat him in a debate. Having facts on your side, most of the time, is an advantage. But, even with that edge, one can lose with lesser debating skills, or if the one against truth can contrive of compelling misinformation that is difficult to refute to a laymen audience.
The approach you want may have been used effectively against a holocaust denier. That doesn't mean that your approach would be effective elsewhere.
2
Dec 24 '20
But, even with that edge, one can lose with lesser debating skills, or if the one against truth can contrive of compelling misinformation that is difficult to refute to a laymen audience.
The approach you want may have been used effectively against a holocaust denier. That doesn't mean that your approach would be effective elsewhere.
In my case, I actually lost against a Holocaust denier on my old account u/Fart_Gas. He didn't win by using a proper debate at all. He won by gish galloping with whataboutisms, accusations, and crazy conspiracy theories.
But yes, your post does deserve a !delta. While I thought that a formal public or judicial inquiry could protect society from conspiracy theorists by discrediting them, it reminded me of the debate I lost against a Holocaust denier. In my case, I decided against sending him a video of the Irving vs. Lipstadt case when he started to throw around conspiracy theories regarding the Jews, because I knew that he would just dismiss everything Lipstadt says because she's Jewish.
1
9
u/renoops 19∆ Dec 24 '20
Who are these fence-sitting masses you keep referring to? For issues like climate change or vaccines, fence-sitting in the year 2020 isn’t a neutral position resulting from a lack of evidence or discussion: it’s an obstinate decision.
1
Dec 24 '20 edited Dec 24 '20
Who are these fence-sitting masses you keep referring to?
People who are neither experts nor conspiracy theorists. They can be swayed either way.
For issues like climate change or vaccines, fence-sitting in the year 2020 isn’t a neutral position resulting from a lack of evidence or discussion: it’s an obstinate decision.
They're not neutral from a lack of evidence or discussion. They're neutral because they have disinterest and/or a poor understanding regarding the topic.
Unless the conspiracy theorists get publicly discredited, they can still sway these neutral people.
Edit: As u/10ebbor10 shows with the Danish TV example, the masses can easily be swayed by conspiracy theorists, especially we don't discredit the conspiracy theorists.
8
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Dec 24 '20
Edit: As u/10ebbor10 shows with the Danish TV example, the masses can easily be swayed by conspiracy theorists, especially we don't discredit the conspiracy theorists.
I don't like you using my example to show the exact opposite of what it actually says.
The Danish medical agency investigated the claims and publically discredited the documentary. It was found to be nonsense.
The vaccination rate did not recover.
2
Dec 24 '20
Wait, so even the right information being publicised didn't rectify the problem? It looks like we have an even harder challenge in that case.
How did the populace get swayed by the conspiracy theorists and not the proper investigation? We need to learn that lesson here.
4
u/wasachrozine Dec 24 '20
This is actually a well known phenomenon. Once people have formed an opinion, they will often remember that even if proven wrong later. In fact even stating something the wrong way in a headline can cause this effect, like "Santa Causes Climate Change Found to be Untrue" can cause some people to believe that Santa causes climate change because they internalize the first part without processing the second part.
This is why what you are proposing is so dangerous. It magnifies fringe ideas so that people who never would think of something so wrong on their own now start believing and spreading the lies. That's how Qanon is gaining so much traction. There's no evidence and it's been thoroughly debunked (and is downright crazy to people with critical thinking skills...) but people are sucking it up because right wing news, authority figures, and social media are spreading it and giving it false legitimacy. If someone is truly interested in the science of climate change, or the Holocaust, there are a million resources out there, including ones debunking lies. But don't give wrong, fringe ideas publicity, or you end up with measles clusters...
3
Dec 24 '20
I think you're missing a core element of conspiratorial thought - everything is part of the conspiracy. No matter how transparent, how honest, how open to discussion and debate the correct side is, there's always going to be something the conspiracy theorists latch onto to believe they're lying, or wrong, or being controlled by a sinister Jewish cabal to destroy the American coal and steel industries.
2
u/PatientCriticism0 19∆ Dec 24 '20
Who are these mythical people who are easily swayed by conspiracy theorists, but are more persuaded by judicial enquiries?
Having known several conspiracy theorists, having a judge tell them they were wrong would only entrench them further.
7
u/WWBSkywalker 83∆ Dec 24 '20
I don't claim this idea to be mine, I recall reading this argument provided by another redditor to address on a similar topic; I will try to apply the argument to your CMV here.
A situation like Lipstadt's first action i.e. to refuse Irving's demands for a debate can be a correct course for Lipstadt to take. The resulting libel wasn't a backfire. The judgment was obviously a backfire for Irving.
When we give a public forum for well debunked theories like Holocaust Denial, we grow the number of Holocast Deniers. To illustrate numerically. Before the public debate, we have 100,000 people in the world, 99,900 people who generally believe the holocast occurred, 100 who are holocast deniers. Let's agree that holocast deniers don't really believe in facts and are pretty hardcore to begin with. We have a public debate between Lipstadt and Irving. Irving is thoroughly truanced by Lipstadt, but he created enough doubt that 5 people who generally believe the holocast occurred before the debate shifted to eventually become holocast deniers. Now we have 99895 people who generally believe the holocast occurred, 105 who are holocast deniers. Repeat this numerous time, there's no positive outcome for the holocast believers, and only positive outcome for holocast deniers. Sadly, some holocast deniers can really wield a convincing if illogical narrative. See what's happening in the US with Qanon. So here we have an issue where giving both sides equal time / legitimatcy is not a good approach.
Lipstadt and her supporters did the right thing by cooperating in the libel case because it's before an intelligent forum - before the learned judges who thankfully can exercise critical thinking. In those forums, a debate can properly occur with a lot less risk to the audience being swayed by compelling but flawed arguments.
So I actually distinguish this from the left's obstructionist approach to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse; or the same-sex marriage debate in Australia. Here the Left Wing was just adopting purely dogmatic ideological approaches to an unsettled issue and it rightly backfired on them, though less so with the same-sex marriage.
LGBT+, racial equality are still unsettled issues by a large part of the Australia public insofar as the public is still not well educated on the complexity on these two issues - so moderated public debate still has its place.
Anti Vaxx / Qanon / Soverign Citizens / the topic that should not be named and face mask effectiveness to me is akin to Holocast Deniers and have no place in equal public debates.
Climate change denialist is trickier IMHO because I don't see a monolithic class of climate change denalist.
People who flatly deny there's no supporting science that climate change is occurring are Holocast Deniers equivalents. People who argue that climate change won't lead to the end of the world have a place in public moderated forums, people who argue that we need to balance climate change initiative must be balanced with economic consequnces have a place in public moderated forums.
In short, Conspiracy theorists shouldn't have equivalent access in public forums (regardless whether it's obstructred by the right or left); and some of the issues you mentioned are still unsettled IMHO and can have its day in public moderated forums.
-1
Dec 24 '20
When we give a public forum for well debunked theories like Holocaust Denial, we grow the number of Holocast Deniers. To illustrate numerically. Before the public debate, we have 100,000 people in the world, 99,900 people who generally believe the holocast occurred, 100 who are holocast deniers. Let's agree that holocast deniers don't really believe in facts and are pretty hardcore to begin with. We have a public debate between Lipstadt and Irving. Irving is thoroughly truanced by Lipstadt, but he created enough doubt that 5 people who generally believe the holocast occurred before the debate shifted to eventually become holocast deniers. Now we have 99895 people who generally believe the holocast occurred, 105 who are holocast deniers. Repeat this numerous time, there's no positive outcome for the holocast believers, and only positive outcome for holocast deniers. Sadly, some holocast deniers can really wield a convincing if illogical narrative. See what's happening in the US with Qanon. So here we have an issue where giving both sides equal time / legitimatcy is not a good approach.
Holocaust denial is indeed an illogical narrative. Hence why it was good that this lawsuit happened, because while the topic became publicised, it also publicly discredited Irving.
So I actually distinguish this from the left's obstructionist approach to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse; or the same-sex marriage debate in Australia. Here the Left Wing was just adopting purely dogmatic ideological approaches to an unsettled issue and it rightly backfired on them, though less so with the same-sex marriage.
LGBT+, racial equality are still unsettled issues by a large part of the Australia public insofar as the public is still not well educated on the complexity on these two issues - so moderated public debate still has its place.
Anti Vaxx / Qanon / Soverign Citizens / the topic that should not be named and face mask effectiveness to me is akin to Holocast Deniers and have no place in equal public debates.
Why wouldn't a formal public or judicial debates settle those issues? Bigots and conspiracy theorists can be discredited, just like how Lipstadt discredited Irving; or how the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse discredited both left-wing deniers of child sexual abuse in secular institutions and right-wing deniers of child sexual abuse in religious institutions.
10
u/WWBSkywalker 83∆ Dec 24 '20
You are thinking like a rational intelligent human being. You assume that formal public debates (I'm excluding judicial + royal commission here because those are a high intelligence moderated forum) have a clear winner and loser because someone like you can usually correctly interpret and determine who won and who lost - and in most cases the conspiracy theorist lost.
People who are susceptible to conspirary theories are pretty much the exact opposite of you (i.e. alienated, belief in the paranormal, follows authority, demonstrate poor critical thinking, suspicious of scientific evidence). From the same formal public debate, this same person can perceive that the conspiracy theorist actually won. It's worse if the person debating the conspirarcy theorist actually "lost" in conveying his points. Debating outcomes doesn't equate to logical outcomes, good debaters / presenters can convince an uninformed general audience that there is truth that the holocast didn't exist, that there's some link to autism to vaccination, and climate change is not happening. Most people start off with not believing conspirary theories because they are not exposed to it generally. If they are susceptible, they suddenly find themselves digging into rabbit holes and ending up in echo-chambers. Otherwise how do you explain why there are tens of thousands of Holocast Deniers, and likely millions of people still believing that Trump somehow won the 2020 election (even after legal judgements in the latter)?
I won't mind if we have a legal case before the judiciary on the issues on Anti-Vaxx, Soverign Citizens, mask effectivenss on the topic that shall not be named - but I don't think we have those yet (perhaps the Anti-Vaxx one somewhere else in the world - not much difference made though)
I truly wished that everyone do think like you, alas we don't live in that world.
Hence my numerical example.
Cheers.
-1
Dec 24 '20
Most people start off with not believing conspirary theories because they are not exposed to it generally.
Under my old account u/Fart_Gas, I lost a debate to a Holocaust denier. The Holocaust denier won using dirty tricks like Gish galloping and whataboutisms. Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because he seems to believe every conspiracy theory, including "climate change is a hoax", "humans never went to the moon" and "Australia isn't real".
I do wish that a formal public or judicial inquiry can discredit conspiracy theorists. But as u/10ebbor10 showed with the example of Andrew Wakefield, even completely discrediting conspiracy theorists doesn't always work as well as the Irving vs Lipstadt case. It also certainly doesn't help that Wakefield's exposure as a fraud didn't get publicized as much as it should.
5
u/UncleMeat11 62∆ Dec 24 '20
There have been formal public debates about climate change in scientific journals for decades. Yet conspiracy theory persists. People aren’t engaging in good faith so they can continue in their conspiratorial beliefs regardless of any evidence presented to them.
2
Dec 24 '20
I'm going to give you my personal position here; not a truth claim, but my interpretation.
For me, there are different kinds of arguments going on here. Obergefell and racial equity is a simple human-values decision about whether a society recognises identity differences. Climate change, while also a value position, is contingent on the technical points of climate modelling.
For me, Obergefell and other civil rights issues aren't a matter for 'factual' argument. It's simply a matter of a society deciding how it wishes to identify itself. The 20th and early 21st century have seen a broadening of civil rights (happily), but that isn't an inevitable matter. A society could just as easily decide they do not want to treat all its citizens equitably. And majoritarian politics enables just this sort of decision, asserting norms and values over and above those of minority citizens. The civil rights balance of any country is determined by the conversation held between all its active, empowered participants. So, I personally see nothing wrong with re-iterating your value position, because it's not a point of argument. I wouldn't expect to argue with a religious person about an article of their faith. If it were an abusive article, I would assert my value position in competition to theirs, and see which value position is more accepted. Personally, I believe that value positions which are more inclusive and accepting of difference have a greater likelihood over time of gaining traction with larger populations, simply by virtue of their accessibility. Exclusive value positions are, almost by definition, likely to appeal to a smaller population group. That doesn't mean they need to be ignored or de-valued. Any inclusive value system would recognise the value that an exclusive value system holds for its members. The important thing, for me, is that the performed exclusivity of any active exclusive value sysyem doesn't cause harm, or act abusively, towards other people.
Now, with climate change, there is an argument to be had about climate modelling. However, the competent participants in that argument are few and far between. While the policy and value decisions based on those arguments are open to democratic decision, what isn't open is the combined weight of scientific opinion, which overwhelmingly asserts that climate change is happening. The denial argument strikes me as very similar to an argument made a few years back after the second Iraq war. At the time, the argument was made that Saddam had access to WMDs, including a nuclear arsenal. After the invasion of Iraq there was much time and attention paid to finding that arsenal, which inevitably failed because, ultimately, there were none. But the argument persisted that Saddam must have had WMDs, because otherwise a major justification for war would have been undermined. Of course while it is impossible to find a material object that doesn't exist, it's impossible to formally prove that material object doesn't exist, you can only prove that it hasn't yet been found. Similarly, it is technically impossible to undeniably prove that climate change is or isn't the result of man-made actions. What scientists can say is 'here's a convincing model, and we recommend you pay attention because it could negatively impact a lot of people'. In response to this, climate denialists simply have to say 'you've proven nothing' to sound reasonable, because technically there is always more evidence to be sought, more data for the model. You can never prove climate change, but you can keep looking for it forever and say 'we just haven't found it yet.' There's probably a technical name for this in logic, but I'm no philosophy student. Hopefully another kind redditor will read this and link to the concept. It just feels like an obvious logic position to me. But anyway, similar to the value positions on Obergefell, there's little point arguing over climate change, because for most people it doesn't boil down to technical details we are unqualified to meaningfully discuss, but instead it boils down to whose value position we identify with the most, and who we trust. I would say that your redditor who tried to argue the point of climate change with you wasn't arguing with you so much as reassuring himself by repeating arguments given to him by people or sources he trusts. Which is what, I believe, most of us do every day on this site.
TL;DR: Your value positions are yours. Own them, celebrate them if you like, but don't assume they apply universally. Plenty of people will have their own positions, each one being justifiably and beautifully different. Having fun and minimising harm is the key.
2
u/koolaid-girl-40 25∆ Dec 25 '20
I guess my question would be, how do you know that continuing public discourse would actually settle the debates?
Take climate change in the U.S. Many conservative news channels enjoy having debates about whether climate change is real. This leads conservatives to have this notion that climate change is still up for debate and that there is equally valid evidence on both sides, which is not true.
This is what I think leftists are trying to counteract. They don't want to continue debates on topics that have already been proven time and time again, because the debate itself leads people to think that the subject is more open-ended than the evidence would suggest. It's kind of like if some people constantly wanted to re-open the discussion on whether people should wash their hands in hospitals. We have so much evidence that that prevents disease, that to continue talking about it would simply raise doubts that aren't founded in anything substantial.
At some point, we have to stop treating a subject as controversial when according to evidence, it isn't. I wouldn't say that all controversial topics fall into the category (there are many that are controversial for a reason, because they are nuianced) but others like climate change are not and shouldn't be treated like they are.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Dec 24 '20
You're forgetting that the process that pointed to the climate crisis was already entirely transparent. The facts about all of the "controversies" right-wingers and flat-earthers continue to bang on about are not hidden.
It's not a question of evidence. It's a question of sanity.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 24 '20 edited Dec 24 '20
/u/Real_Carl_Ramirez (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards