View Single Post
Old 01-04-2013, 05:55 PM   #338 (permalink)
Arragonis
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
I actually cracked it after I posted. Part of the problem is the dominant parties identify as Red and Blue. And once I found out they traded colors in the 40s, I can't remember which is which.
Red tends (internationally) to be the colour of socialism which was the original meaning. Green means, well, green as in environmentalist activist such as a member of the WWF or Greenpeace or the Green party.

It is of course media-activist created nonsense - not every green is a socialist and not every environmentalist is a socialist and not every skeptic is a conservative and not every conservative thinks "drill baby drill" is a good idea - remix and repeat as required.

If you see "denier", "flat-earther", "fearmonger", "alarmist" or "watermellon" in a posting about CAGW on a science site or a science blog close the tab and move on.

I've not used any of these words in regard to anyone else here and won't ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
Agreed on your last point, but is 'anti-revisionist' any less judgmental than 'denier'?
Slightly confused - anti revisionist ?

Historical revisionism is essentially a posh way of saying "holocaust denier".

It is too narrow an interpretation IMHO - "historical revisionism" is legitimate in some respects - for example it is valid to revisit the reasons behind the American Civil War, or it's impacts and aftermath, or the causes of WW1 or why South American countries gained independence when they did. All of these are subjects of books on my Christmas list in 2012. And all of them further knowledge and challenge accepted ideas.

Holocaust Denial is something deeper and more evil - usually linked to modern anti semitism or racism in some way or other. Holocaust denial is disgusting, the idea that the deaths of 6-7 million innocent people was faked is just crap. If anyone had any doubts at all, a simple skim of "Mein Kampf", some of his speeches or even this book will confirm it.

An Anti-revisionist would be someone who is against this, therefore they would not be a "denier" - a "confessor" ?

The original use of the term "denier" in the AGW debate (see quote above) was a deliberate or perhaps clumsy attempt to link those who didn't agree with AGW / CAGW with that idea. It was a low hit and the writer didn't do any more pieces for the Globe.

I find it offensive as I live in a mixed race household - one of us is white english and one is Indian, and we have a son who is a mix obviously. We've faced racism once or twice as have members of our extended family. Sometimes it has been deliberate and sometimes just casual.

Better words exist, and ones which create more light than heat. Skeptic is one, contrarian I'm fine with, or maybe something else.

Anyway I'm done with this topic now.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]