[untitled]
3 comments
https://archive.is/2JrgH
I feel like there is a pattern of conduct which describes denialism of political convenience. The Gaza genocide is a very obvious case of genocide. People that deny it aren’t just wrong, they are obviously wrong, and yet people do it on mass, including here on HN (though I find genocide denialism is often flagged or otherwise downranked in the comments).
I suspect something similar is going on with climate denialism, that an obvious truth is politically inconvenient so rather than finding alternative explanations (climate change is not as urgent/severe, is China‘s fault), or fitting the reality—no matter how oddly—into your political narrative (e.g. climate change is fixable with technology and free market), the fact is simply denied (climate is not changing). Note that all three of these are denialism, but only the last would object to Climate Change being included on a wikipedia page for a list of global crisis.
With the Gaza genocide. We see all these types of denialism. People deny the severity, the brutality, the scale, the intention, the party at fault etc. They find alternative explanation (this is just a war and war is brutal) or find ways to fit it into their political narrative (it is only Netanyahu that is going to far), etc. Curiously though (and this may only be semantics) but all these (lesser) forms of denialism align with the most extreme form (genocide is not happening) in they would object to this Wikipedia inclusion.
I suspect something similar is going on with climate denialism, that an obvious truth is politically inconvenient so rather than finding alternative explanations (climate change is not as urgent/severe, is China‘s fault), or fitting the reality—no matter how oddly—into your political narrative (e.g. climate change is fixable with technology and free market), the fact is simply denied (climate is not changing). Note that all three of these are denialism, but only the last would object to Climate Change being included on a wikipedia page for a list of global crisis.
With the Gaza genocide. We see all these types of denialism. People deny the severity, the brutality, the scale, the intention, the party at fault etc. They find alternative explanation (this is just a war and war is brutal) or find ways to fit it into their political narrative (it is only Netanyahu that is going to far), etc. Curiously though (and this may only be semantics) but all these (lesser) forms of denialism align with the most extreme form (genocide is not happening) in they would object to this Wikipedia inclusion.