"Conversation is impossible if one side refuses to acknowledge the basic premise that facts are facts. This is why engaging deniers in such an effort means having already lost."
So because one side utters "facts" and that is therefore adequate to silence and shut out the other side from having a voice.
History is an opinion, a shared narrative that has truth and objectivity... but nonetheless is an interpretation of events by fallible human beings.
If facts were self evident, then it would not have taken so long to discover penicillin (mouldy bread was around for a very long time). It took an opinion, an interpretation of mouldy bread to convert it to medicine.
Soon we will see such things as "wage gap deniers" being attacked as misogynistic.
Soon we will see anyone who questions the "good of minimum wage" be seen as "poverty deniers".
And they will sweep it all away and silence opposition by waving the "facts are facts" truism!.
Imagine the level of intellectual hubris of proclaiming: X is X! And magically vanishing your opponents and then throwing them in jail because "X".
So because one side utters "facts" and that is therefore adequate to silence and shut out the other side from having a voice.
History is an opinion, a shared narrative that has truth and objectivity... but nonetheless is an interpretation of events by fallible human beings.
If facts were self evident, then it would not have taken so long to discover penicillin (mouldy bread was around for a very long time). It took an opinion, an interpretation of mouldy bread to convert it to medicine.
Soon we will see such things as "wage gap deniers" being attacked as misogynistic.
Soon we will see anyone who questions the "good of minimum wage" be seen as "poverty deniers".
And they will sweep it all away and silence opposition by waving the "facts are facts" truism!.
Imagine the level of intellectual hubris of proclaiming: X is X! And magically vanishing your opponents and then throwing them in jail because "X".
Terrifying.