Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Buce]

7 hours ago, Charl91 said:

 

Why should they be penalised? Funnily enough, that's what current students think. Why should they be penalised? 

 

If you're asking current students to essentially pay a graduate tax, why not ask all people who have graduated to pay a graduate tax on their earnings, as long as they are still earning. Surely that's much more fair than just dumping the burden on the current generation (a generation that is financially much worse off than previous generations as it is). After all, the same argument applies; those people have benefited from going to university and receiving higher wages (in a much more lucrative job market, may I add), why would it be wrong to also apply the same standards to them? 

 

Great, you can argue "but previous generations didn't sign up for it". Fine, but two points.

• Firstly, no one signs up for a tax. That would like me saying "well, when I decided to earn £100,000, I didn't expect the tax bands to be changed". Tough shit, you don't get a choice about taxes.
• Secondly, the current generation don't really have a choice. Well they do, it's 1) Pay extortionate Tuition fees, or 2) Be locked out of many different professions. It's not really a choice, and it's unfair for previous generations, who didn't have to make that choice, to then lump it on to the younger generations to save themselves a bit of cash.

 

Your right, times change and financial situations of countries change. So maybe say to all those people who have graduated "Sorry, we thought we could afford to pay for your education, but it turns out we can't - you're gonna have to contribute something to it". But screw fairness, the younger generation are an easier political target, especially as many of those affected couldn't actually vote.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with the principle of paying tuition fees. Some people disagree, but personally I think if you benefit from University, then you should pay for it. I don't think those people who haven't been to University should contribute towards the education of those who (though I do understand the arguments about it being beneficial for the economy, etc, etc.) However benefiting from free tuition and then pulling up the ladder behind you as absolutely disgraceful. I absolutely think those people who have been to University for free, and are still earning significant amounts of money from it, should contribute. You try telling me how that would possibly be more unfair than the current system  

 

Neither would it be without precedent to retrospectively change the rules - it’s exactly what they’ve done to teachers’ pensions. 

[Carl the Llama]

Why would you pay for nice things when you can pass the costs onto your kids?

[Bellend Sebastian]

Some have said that saying Brexit won't be like Mad Max is underselling it, but to be honest I'd have been more up for it if they'd said it would be. I've watched Fury Road at least 4 times.

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-43120277

 

If nothing else, a fantastic realignment of expectations

[Fox Ulike]

30 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Some have said that saying Brexit won't be like Mad Max is underselling it, but to be honest I'd have been more up for it if they'd said it would be. I've watched Fury Road at least 4 times.

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-43120277

 

If nothing else, a fantastic realignment of expectations

 

So after Brexit, Britain won’t be a post-apocalyptic wasteland over-run by violent motorcycle gangs.

 

That’s a relief.

 

It is good to finally hear something of the about the Government’s vision of post-Brexit Britain. He’s saying some good things about animal welfare and regulations and quality standards etc.  Directly contradicting the wishes of the Brexiteers on here last week who want to force-feed chlorinated chicken to poor people.

 

My question is about him saying it won’t be a race to the bottom. How can they control this? Surely The Holy "Free Market", so beloved on here, will determine whether it is or not?

[Innovindil]

7 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

My question is about him saying it won’t be a race to the bottom. How can they control this? Surely The Holy "Free Market", so beloved on here, will determine whether it is or not?

Looks like we won't be going after a free market. Reads like we're leaving in name only. If we're planning on keeping the same standards and regulations, there isn't really any point in leaving at all. All of the negatives, none of the benefits. 

[Fox Ulike]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Looks like we won't be going after a free market. Reads like we're leaving in name only. If we're planning on keeping the same standards and regulations, there isn't really any point in leaving at all. All of the negatives, none of the benefits. 

 

Well, to trade with the EU we were always going to have to maintain their standards and regulations. That shouldn’t come as a surprise.

 

Businesses will have the “freedom” to make their products to two different standards. One for EU market according to EU regulations;  and one for the UK market according to new UK regulations. But in reality that’s just going to be an unnecessary overhead for most businesses. Chicken farmers aren't going to want to keep half their chickens in shit and piss and half in clean cages.

 

So if you allowed cheaper foreign imports (like US chicken) to flood the market then will that might make most British businesses uncompetitive.

 

So yes, we might be leaving in name only.  Would that not be good enough?

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Well, to trade with the EU we were always going to have to maintain their standards and regulations. That shouldn’t come as a surprise.

 

Businesses will have the “freedom” to make their products to two different standards. One for EU market according to EU regulations;  and one for the UK market according to new UK regulations. But in
reality that’s just going to be an unnecessary overhead for most businesses. Chicken farmers aren't going to want to keep half their chickens in shit and piss and half in clean cages.

 

So if you allowed cheaper foreign imports (like US chicken) to flood the market then will that might make most British businesses uncompetitive.

 

So yes, we might be leaving in name only.  Would that not be good enough?

3

 

Playing Devil's Advocate, wouldn't there still be a market for ethically produced chicken, like there is for Free Range eggs?

[leicsmac]

Has anyone seen Melanie Phillips column in The Times today, and would be good enough to stick it up on here? Unreal.

 

To quote Brian Cox, "It manages to conflate support for brexit with intelligent design and global warming scepticism, and present individuals who embody all three as warriors fighting ‘to the death’ against the establishment of utopia."

[Webbo]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Has anyone seen Melanie Phillips column in The Times today, and would be good enough to stick it up on here? Unreal.

 

To quote Brian Cox, "It manages to conflate support for brexit with intelligent design and global warming scepticism, and present individuals who embody all three as warriors fighting ‘to the death’ against the establishment of utopia."

Brexit bashing is an attempt to stifle free speech
melanie phillips

Intellectuals who champion life outside the EU are the latest victims of the thought police

Nearly 40 prominent economists, lawyers, philosophers, historians, scientists and policy experts have formed a “Brains for Brexit” campaign to counter claims that Leave voters are idiots and challenge the intellectual distortions in the argument. Yet some academics say they are too frightened of career-ending repercussions to join the group. Similar anxieties have been expressed by Artists 4 Brexit, a group of creatives and performers who think the arts will thrive outside the EU. They fear that if they “come out” they’ll be dropped from commissions or galleries.

What views are so dangerous that Brexit supporters are too frightened to express them and feel the need to band together for protection if they do? Well, it’s their rabid support for democratic national sovereignty and their demented belief that global engagement is more progressive than regional protectionism. As a result they are deemed to be racists, xenophobes, nativists, jingoists, Nazis and, of course, stunted imbeciles.

These aren’t just insults deployed to smear Brexit supporters and shut down debate. Among many Remainers, there’s a deep belief they are true. That’s because of the “progressive” orthodoxy that British national identity is racist and discriminatory due to its discrete historic culture which by definition outsiders don’t share.

In addition, the western nation itself is deemed innately bad because it’s based on colonialism and oppression. So upholding British or western identity leads to nationalism, fascism and war. British or other western national sovereignty must therefore be trumped by transnational institutions and laws such as the UN, the EU and international human rights. These are deemed to be virtuous since they derive from utopian ideals of global harmony and the brotherhood of man. Opponents must be demonised and silenced for the good of humanity.

 

Claims by Brexit supporters that their deepest concern is to restore democratic control over British laws and policies are dismissed as absurd by Remainers because they don’t value democratic sovereignty. Many despise it. That’s why they want to remain in the EU. And why they are determined that Brexit be stopped.

There are many issues other than EU membership where dissent is simply not tolerated. The doctrine of multiculturalism holds that all cultures have equal value. As a result, when the then head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, observed that multicultural Britain was “sleepwalking to segregation” he was, despite his black Guyanese ancestry, denounced as a racist.

Years ago, I was invited to a meeting at an Italian villa to discuss a topic of concern to scientists of different disciplines. Participants attended on condition of the utmost secrecy. If their presence was revealed, they said, their academic and scientific research would instantly be stopped.

The forbidden topic was the theory of “intelligent design”, or ID. This holds that the “irreducible complexity” in the evolution of life could only have been brought about by some kind of intelligent agency. That doesn’t rule out evolution through variation or diversification, only in the creation of new complex genetic information.

From this, proponents conclude from the study of science that there are limits to scientific knowledge. For many scientists that is a forbidden idea. So instead of disputing the theory with evidence, they smear and intimidate proponents. The method of character assassination is falsely to conflate ID with creationism, the theory that the earth was created under 10,000 years ago and which contravenes the consensus from radiometric age-dating that the earth is billions of years old.

As a result, ID advocates have had their reputations trashed and careers jeopardised. A similar fate has been meted out to those sceptical of man-made global warming theory. Scores of scientists, some of them among the most eminent in their field, have said it’s unsupported by the evidence, which has been regularly misrepresented or distorted. Such sceptics have been compared to Holocaust deniers and targeted for calls that they be jailed, subjected to aversion therapy or drowned.

Dr Richard Lindzen, a former professor of meteorology at MIT and prominent sceptic, says many scientists toe the global warming line either because they feel terrorised or because they won’t get grant funding if they don’t do so.

All these orthodoxies are linked by a common belief that they are routes to utopia. Opposing intelligent design supposedly destroys irrationality. Supporting man-made global warming theory will save the planet. Multiculturalism will excise prejudice from the human heart.

Utopia, however, is unattainable. That fact must be suppressed. So such ideologies must be enforced by coercion and heretics punished.

Brexit may not have been about these specific issues. It was, however, the first ever push-back against a utopian world view that not only rode roughshod over people’s legitimate aspirations and values but smeared and demeaned them.

It gave the lie to the claim that, since this orthodoxy embodied reason and decency, only a few cranks and bigots would oppose it. The millions who voted for Brexit demonstrated that the mainstream was somewhere else altogether.

Which is why the reaction is so extreme. For this isn’t just about membership of the EU. It’s about resisting the abuse of cultural power. That’s why the battle over Brexit is now a fight to the death.

 

 

 

 

Seems a fair assessment to me.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Brothers and sisters
When they insist we're just not good enough
Well we know better
Just look him in his eyes and say
We're gonna do it anyway
We're gonna do it anyway

[David Guiza]

41 minutes ago, Webbo said:

 

Seems a fair assessment to me.

It's an assessment. Whether or not it's fair is very much up for debate.

 

She certainly makes some interesting points before then going too far to the point of ridicule. 

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Well, to trade with the EU we were always going to have to maintain their standards and regulations. That shouldn’t come as a surprise.

 

Businesses will have the “freedom” to make their products to two different standards. One for EU market according to EU regulations;  and one for the UK market according to new UK regulations. But in reality that’s just going to be an unnecessary overhead for most businesses. Chicken farmers aren't going to want to keep half their chickens in shit and piss and half in clean cages.

 

So if you allowed cheaper foreign imports (like US chicken) to flood the market then will that might make most British businesses uncompetitive.

 

So yes, we might be leaving in name only.  Would that not be good enough?

If these businesses are selling their products into the eu market, what difference does it make if we get cheaper foreign exports "flooding" in? They will still be able to sell their products to the eu. And those of us who want cheaper products will have access to them, those that don't want cheaper products will still be able to get better quality, more expensive products. 

 

I don't see the downside. 

[Rogstanley]

41 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

If these businesses are selling their products into the eu market, what difference does it make if we get cheaper foreign exports "flooding" in? They will still be able to sell their products to the eu. And those of us who want cheaper products will have access to them, those that don't want cheaper products will still be able to get better quality, more expensive products. 

 

I don't see the downside. 

Why would a company that sells exclusively to the EU choose to base itself in brexited Britain?

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Brexit bashing is an attempt to stifle free speech
melanie phillips

Intellectuals who champion life outside the EU are the latest victims of the thought police

Nearly 40 prominent economists, lawyers, philosophers, historians, scientists and policy experts have formed a “Brains for Brexit” campaign to counter claims that Leave voters are idiots and challenge the intellectual distortions in the argument. Yet some academics say they are too frightened of career-ending repercussions to join the group. Similar anxieties have been expressed by Artists 4 Brexit, a group of creatives and performers who think the arts will thrive outside the EU. They fear that if they “come out” they’ll be dropped from commissions or galleries.

What views are so dangerous that Brexit supporters are too frightened to express them and feel the need to band together for protection if they do? Well, it’s their rabid support for democratic national sovereignty and their demented belief that global engagement is more progressive than regional protectionism. As a result they are deemed to be racists, xenophobes, nativists, jingoists, Nazis and, of course, stunted imbeciles.

These aren’t just insults deployed to smear Brexit supporters and shut down debate. Among many Remainers, there’s a deep belief they are true. That’s because of the “progressive” orthodoxy that British national identity is racist and discriminatory due to its discrete historic culture which by definition outsiders don’t share.

In addition, the western nation itself is deemed innately bad because it’s based on colonialism and oppression. So upholding British or western identity leads to nationalism, fascism and war. British or other western national sovereignty must therefore be trumped by transnational institutions and laws such as the UN, the EU and international human rights. These are deemed to be virtuous since they derive from utopian ideals of global harmony and the brotherhood of man. Opponents must be demonised and silenced for the good of humanity.

 

Claims by Brexit supporters that their deepest concern is to restore democratic control over British laws and policies are dismissed as absurd by Remainers because they don’t value democratic sovereignty. Many despise it. That’s why they want to remain in the EU. And why they are determined that Brexit be stopped.

There are many issues other than EU membership where dissent is simply not tolerated. The doctrine of multiculturalism holds that all cultures have equal value. As a result, when the then head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, observed that multicultural Britain was “sleepwalking to segregation” he was, despite his black Guyanese ancestry, denounced as a racist.

Years ago, I was invited to a meeting at an Italian villa to discuss a topic of concern to scientists of different disciplines. Participants attended on condition of the utmost secrecy. If their presence was revealed, they said, their academic and scientific research would instantly be stopped.

The forbidden topic was the theory of “intelligent design”, or ID. This holds that the “irreducible complexity” in the evolution of life could only have been brought about by some kind of intelligent agency. That doesn’t rule out evolution through variation or diversification, only in the creation of new complex genetic information.

From this, proponents conclude from the study of science that there are limits to scientific knowledge. For many scientists that is a forbidden idea. So instead of disputing the theory with evidence, they smear and intimidate proponents. The method of character assassination is falsely to conflate ID with creationism, the theory that the earth was created under 10,000 years ago and which contravenes the consensus from radiometric age-dating that the earth is billions of years old.

As a result, ID advocates have had their reputations trashed and careers jeopardised. A similar fate has been meted out to those sceptical of man-made global warming theory. Scores of scientists, some of them among the most eminent in their field, have said it’s unsupported by the evidence, which has been regularly misrepresented or distorted. Such sceptics have been compared to Holocaust deniers and targeted for calls that they be jailed, subjected to aversion therapy or drowned.

Dr Richard Lindzen, a former professor of meteorology at MIT and prominent sceptic, says many scientists toe the global warming line either because they feel terrorised or because they won’t get grant funding if they don’t do so.

All these orthodoxies are linked by a common belief that they are routes to utopia. Opposing intelligent design supposedly destroys irrationality. Supporting man-made global warming theory will save the planet. Multiculturalism will excise prejudice from the human heart.

Utopia, however, is unattainable. That fact must be suppressed. So such ideologies must be enforced by coercion and heretics punished.

Brexit may not have been about these specific issues. It was, however, the first ever push-back against a utopian world view that not only rode roughshod over people’s legitimate aspirations and values but smeared and demeaned them.

It gave the lie to the claim that, since this orthodoxy embodied reason and decency, only a few cranks and bigots would oppose it. The millions who voted for Brexit demonstrated that the mainstream was somewhere else altogether.

Which is why the reaction is so extreme. For this isn’t just about membership of the EU. It’s about resisting the abuse of cultural power. That’s why the battle over Brexit is now a fight to the death.

 

 

 

 

Seems a fair assessment to me.

Never heard of Melanie Phillips but reading her Wikipedia entry makes her sound like a slightly upmarket Katie Hopkins. The usual boring old fart social conservatism mixed up with some utter idiocy, sprinkled with a few big words to try and make it sound clever. It’s all horseshit though in reality. Most people who claim they voted brexit due to EU law or sovereignty can’t describe the function of a single EU law nor the EU itself. 

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Why would a company that sells exclusively to the EU choose to base itself in brexited Britain?

Why would they not if everything is the same? 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

 

 

Column

 

Seems a fair assessment to me.

 

Thanks for sticking that up Webbo - as DG said, it's certainly an assessment, but wouldn't call it fair.

 

"From this, proponents conclude from the study of science that there are limits to scientific knowledge. For many scientists that is a forbidden idea. So instead of disputing the theory with evidence, they smear and intimidate proponents."

 

Every scientist worth the name acknowledges that there are limits to science and that theories only last until alternate data has been found to improve them, so this is a pretty obvious strawman. Also, the ID argument has been refuted many times (the Intelligent Design section of http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html answers almost all of the arguments) as well as simply being without any evidence itself (the basis of the vast majority of scientific theories). All ID does is attempt to put the cart before the horse by floating a theory and then speculating about evidence that might fit it. And also, exactly, which cosmic entity might it be that was responsible for this design? It couldn't be Phillips own Abrahamic God and not one of the ten thousand others....could it?

 

Scientists who follow the idea of ID are pursuing a busted theory and one that isn't going to have support in the wider scientific community for that reason, and that reason alone.

 

"A similar fate has been meted out to those sceptical of man-made global warming theory. Scores of scientists, some of them among the most eminent in their field, have said it’s unsupported by the evidence, which has been regularly misrepresented or distorted. Such sceptics have been compared to Holocaust deniers and targeted for calls that they be jailed, subjected to aversion therapy or drowned.

 

Dr Richard Lindzen, a former professor of meteorology at MIT and prominent sceptic, says many scientists toe the global warming line either because they feel terrorised or because they won’t get grant funding if they don’t do so."

 

I'd love to see detailed evidence of this supposed character assassination/conspiracy theory for floating the idea that CC may or may not be manmade. Again, the burden of proof lies on them. It isn't conclusive that what is happening now is driven by man (and if so how much), though the odds are pretty high on that - but the fact remains that carbon dioxide levels are shooting up in direct correlation with human industrialisation, with unpredictable results. Rather than doing nothing and doing our finest ostrich impressions (as Ms Phillips seems to advocate) or squabbling over what might be responsible, it might be a good idea to get some detailed, precise predictions in regarding what might happen next and take adequate action, yes?

 

In all honesty, conflating the nebulous political debate of Brexit with the much sharper, much more clearly delineated debate regarding ID and manmade climate change does the former a disservice by implying that they are as subjectively wrong as the latter.

[Rogstanley]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Why would they not if everything is the same? 

Because generally businesses like to set up where their customers are. Granted this doesn’t apply to all businesses, but in general the UK would have to have some extra appeal like cheap labour or low business tax to tempt businesses who sold exclusively to the EU into setting up in the uk.

[Webbo]

45 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Thanks for sticking that up Webbo - as DG said, it's certainly an assessment, but wouldn't call it fair.

 

"From this, proponents conclude from the study of science that there are limits to scientific knowledge. For many scientists that is a forbidden idea. So instead of disputing the theory with evidence, they smear and intimidate proponents."

 

Every scientist worth the name acknowledges that there are limits to science and that theories only last until alternate data has been found to improve them, so this is a pretty obvious strawman. Also, the ID argument has been refuted many times (the Intelligent Design section of http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html answers almost all of the arguments) as well as simply being without any evidence itself (the basis of the vast majority of scientific theories). All ID does is attempt to put the cart before the horse by floating a theory and then speculating about evidence that might fit it. And also, exactly, which cosmic entity might it be that was responsible for this design? It couldn't be Phillips own Abrahamic God and not one of the ten thousand others....could it?

 

Scientists who follow the idea of ID are pursuing a busted theory and one that isn't going to have support in the wider scientific community for that reason, and that reason alone.

 

"A similar fate has been meted out to those sceptical of man-made global warming theory. Scores of scientists, some of them among the most eminent in their field, have said it’s unsupported by the evidence, which has been regularly misrepresented or distorted. Such sceptics have been compared to Holocaust deniers and targeted for calls that they be jailed, subjected to aversion therapy or drowned.

 

Dr Richard Lindzen, a former professor of meteorology at MIT and prominent sceptic, says many scientists toe the global warming line either because they feel terrorised or because they won’t get grant funding if they don’t do so."

 

I'd love to see detailed evidence of this supposed character assassination/conspiracy theory for floating the idea that CC may or may not be manmade. Again, the burden of proof lies on them. It isn't conclusive that what is happening now is driven by man (and if so how much), though the odds are pretty high on that - but the fact remains that carbon dioxide levels are shooting up in direct correlation with human industrialisation, with unpredictable results. Rather than doing nothing and doing our finest ostrich impressions (as Ms Phillips seems to advocate) or squabbling over what might be responsible, it might be a good idea to get some detailed, precise predictions in regarding what might happen next and take adequate action, yes?

 

In all honesty, conflating the nebulous political debate of Brexit with the much sharper, much more clearly delineated debate regarding ID and manmade climate change does the former a disservice by implying that they are as subjectively wrong as the latter.

You've never seen climate change sceptics being smeared? You've never seen an alternative theory for climate change?

[Webbo]

56 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Why would a company that sells exclusively to the EU choose to base itself in brexited Britain?

What about companies that sell mainly to the UK being based in Europe? Surely they'll be moving here by your theory.

[Rogstanley]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What about companies that sell mainly to the UK being based in Europe? Surely they'll be moving here by your theory.

Yep. How many of them are there?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Yep. How many of them are there?

I don't know, how many British firms trade mainly with Europe?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

You've never seen climate change sceptics being smeared? You've never seen an alternative theory for climate change?

I've never seen them being smeared by others in their respective scientific field (members of the public laying into them on Twitter is another matter entirely and absolutely does happen) in the way that Ms Phillips implies here, no. Perhaps she should spend some more time with the aforementioned scientific community before dressing up opinion as fact?

 

It is perfectly plausible that climate change is entirely nature-based and the increase on CO2 and average temperature levels over the past few centuries in line with industrialisation is purely coincidental and part of the natural cyclic process that has been going on. This is a theory well-entertained in the scientific community. However, that community is much less interested in the responsibility for such things than Joe Public or the latest talking head seems to be; right now, they're focused on the rather more important task of predicting the effects of the climate change that is happening and formulating strategies to deal with its effects. There is practically zero point to attributing responsibility, and pretty much the whole issue of responsibility for climate change is a smokescreen used by those who want to obfuscate enough to maintain the status quo and do nothing because it might make their own lives more difficult. Sadly, as Ms Phillips proves here, it's a pretty well-burrowed narrative in the public consciousness now.

[Strokes]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I've never seen them being smeared by others in their respective scientific field (members of the public laying into them on Twitter is another matter entirely and absolutely does happen) in the way that Ms Phillips implies here, no. Perhaps she should spend some more time with the aforementioned scientific community before dressing up opinion as fact?

 

It is perfectly plausible that climate change is entirely nature-based and the increase on CO2 and average temperature levels over the past few centuries in line with industrialisation is purely coincidental and part of the natural cyclic process that has been going on. This is a theory well-entertained in the scientific community. However, that community is much less interested in the responsibility for such things than Joe Public or the latest talking head seems to be; right now, they're focused on the rather more important task of predicting the effects of the climate change that is happening and formulating strategies to deal with its effects. There is practically zero point to attributing responsibility, and pretty much the whole issue of responsibility for climate change is a smokescreen used by those who want to obfuscate enough to maintain the status quo and do nothing because it might make their own lives more difficult. Sadly, as Ms Phillips proves here, it's a pretty well-burrowed narrative in the public consciousness now.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/19/newspapers-ban-climate-deniers-reddit-science

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/19/newspapers-ban-climate-deniers-reddit-science

....and?

 

Though I disagree with the guys opinion (opinions on climate denial should probably be allowed in newspapers and Reddit in the interests of free speech as much as anything else, though denying it wholesale - manmade or otherwise - is flying in the face of all scientific evidence and as such is rather daft), this still doesn't come anywhere near to the scientific method/peer review process deeming it verboten.

 

This has very little to do with the scientific method or the community that apply it.

[Strokes]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

....and?

 

Though I disagree with the guys opinion (opinions on climate denial should probably be allowed in newspapers and Reddit in the interests of free speech as much as anything else, though denying it wholesale - manmade or otherwise - is flying in the face of all scientific evidence and as such is rather daft), this still doesn't come anywhere near to the scientific method/peer review process deeming it verboten.

 

This has very little to do with the scientific method or the community that apply it.

Sorry I should have commented on the original post. I’m just making a poor attempt at keeping out of this thread.

 

I’m just pointing out critics, sceptics and deniers are/have being silenced. I wouldn’t put myself in either category (possibly sceptic) but it does happen. Maybe it’s not as fierce as that opinion piece suggests but it does happen.

It was in no way meant as any sort of attack on you, or science in particular, more so a defence that simply deleting comments or not publishing things from people who might have interesting opposing beliefs is counter productive.