Tedious and Transparent

[DaveH explains the shirt-rippin’:]

@Robert Grumbine

Your warmist/fascist association is interesting and warrants study. My own opinion is that warmist is insidious enough as it is without any extra associations. By casually labelling opponents in this way, firstly the “-ist” implies an attachment to an ideology (as in marxist, socialist, communist, fascist). This is strengthened by the repetition and association, reducing a scientifically based standpoint to a simple belief. The ideological framing inherently undermines the scientific basis, leaving the audience with the impression of irrationality on the part of the labelled. Secondly, the prefix “warm” implies that the labelled is in fact seeking warming, that they see the warming as the positive outcome of the belief system! This again ties in to the constant repetition that personal gain is at the root of any implied “fraud” – the “warmist” actively seeks warming to butress their ideological beliefs and fuel, as a reason for their own material gain, and even as a punishment to be rained down upon a human race they clearly hate .

For all these reasons I find the term repellent on its own terms (likewise, alarmist).

Denier is equally bad, but I think that the constant insistence that the term gains its power from holocaust associations has been a hugely effective strategy – because the term is in fact far more damaging alone. If one is successfully labelled as a denier, then their entire belief system is presumed to be based upon a rejection of fact in favour of self-delusion. To attempt to rebut the label on its own terms is difficult – once labelled, continued denial acts as a feedback (hah!). However, the “holocaust” misdirection is fantastically useful – not only does it neatly sidestep having to engage with the accusation of delusion on its own merits, but also it acts as a handy smear, discrediting the labeller for employing such a casually offensive smear. So – warmist and denier are not useful terms if one wants to actually engage in a constructive debate – denier in particular just blows up in your face anyway. However, harping on about how denier is indelibly associated with the holocaust is a tedious and transparent continuation of the above strategy.

All of this presumes that a constructive debate is actually sought, possible, or even worthwhile, none of which I think is the case.

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)