“SHUT UP” IS NOT PROOF.

                There it is again: the term “Denier.” In this case it’s the good old Washington Post, referring to GOP Congressmen as “Election Deniers.” Anyone who questions any aspect about the administration of Democrat election victories anywhere is now an “election denier.” Any doubt, and criticism over technical procedure brands you a “denier.”

                It’s not just elections. Question the constantly-changing dimensions of the theory of Man Made Climate Change, and you’re now a “Climate Change Denier.”  I don’t know anyone who denying the climate is actually changing, because it’s always changing; our climate is dynamic. But the theory that it’s being negatively altered by human activity, so we have to radically change our lives to save the world—questioning this now makes you a “Denier.”

                I’ve heard the term “White Supremacy Denier.”

                Seems like a lot of folks want to put their opinions and beliefs beyond question. They refuse to debate their positions, so they want to rule all opposition off the table and silence any doubters. That’s why they’ve come with this growing use of the word “Denier.” It acts to wall off discussion from areas of inquiry, like a blockade on a road saying “STOP! Go no further!”

                Why the term “Denier? Well, “heretic” is out of fashion. The actual use of “Denier” comes from the term “Holocaust Denier.” Saying the Third Reich’s campaign to exterminate every single Jewish man, woman, and child didn’t happen carries a special condemnation. Why? Because first off, it did happen. It’s like denying that there’s a sun. You can make that claim, but you’ll be swiftly corrected: the evidence and documentation of the Holocaust—up to and including survivors’ testimony—is undeniable.

                Secondly, there is no good faith way to deny the Holocaust. If you truly want to see its existence proven, then fine—that will take about 2 minutes. But persisting in your denial? Why? There’s no innocent explanation for that. My belief is that you deny the Holocaust for one of two reasons: you either 1) want to avoid personal or institutional responsibility, or 2) you want to do it again. There’s no place for either one of these in civilized society.

                So the moral opprobrium and condemnation toward denying the Holocaust is real and overwhelming. So strong is that moral condemnation, that some clever folks have decided to hitchhike, and siphon off that power to use on their own pet causes. It’s sort of ‘stolen victimhood,’ pocketing and repurposing society’s horror at the Nazi crimes to redirect toward your own opponents. As a bonus, you get to destroy the legitimacy of those who disagree with you, by drawing a moral equivalence between them and the SS. Bless your clever little sneaky heart.

                The Holocaust is beyond denial. There is no legitimate doubt. But the running and administration of US elections? Raising the possibility of election fraud in some jurisdictions? Daring to suggest that places like Philadelphia, New York, and the squeaky-clean city of Chicago might have a tad of ballot irregularities? Horror!! You, you NAZI! And entertaining alternate theories of weather and climate? Mass murderer!!

                Most theories and beliefs are open to question. Integrity of elections is something we argue (and in the case of Chicago, joke about) endlessly. Dogmatic announcement of scientific and social theories, especially ones that confer power on the proponents, should definitely be met with questioning. A proper word for those who question is “skeptic.”

                I’m perfectly willing to be labelled a Manmade Climate Change Skeptic. I got no problem being an election skeptic, until proven wrong. That’s the key: show me the proof. I can show you proof the Holocaust happened. You show me proof that humans are destroying the planet. Proof, not quasi-religious utterings by zealot prophets. Show me proof there were no irregularities in Anytown’s election. Go ahead: I’ve been wrong before and I don’t mind being a former skeptic who’s now satisfied with your claim.

                But “SHUT UP” is not proof. It’s substituting power for reason. Silencing the skeptics doesn’t alter reality. It just makes you into a tyrant. And the Holocaust was committed by tyrants. The tyrant is the common enemy of all truth, and all people of good will. Suppressing free debate is the sign of a weak argument—the tyrant knows he can’t freely convince people. Calling someone a ‘denier?’ what have you got to hide?

                Here’s the deal: if you’re silencing people’s opinions, not debating them, it’s a clue that you just may not be one of the good guys.

               

                It’s not just elections. Question the constantly-changing dimensions of the theory of Man Made Climate Change, and you’re now a “Climate Change Denier.”  I don’t know anyone who denying the climate is actually changing, because it’s always changing; our climate is dynamic. But the theory that it’s being negatively altered by human activity, so we have to radically change our lives to save the world—questioning this now makes you a “Denier.”

                I’ve heard the term “White Supremacy Denier.”

                Seems like a lot of folks want to put their opinions and beliefs beyond question. They refuse to debate their positions, so they want to rule all opposition off the table and silence any doubters. That’s why they’ve come with this growing use of the word “Denier.” It acts to wall off discussion from areas of inquiry, like a blockade on a road saying “STOP! Go no further!”

                Why the term “Denier? Well, “heretic” is out of fashion. The actual use of “Denier” comes from the term “Holocaust Denier.” Saying the Third Reich’s campaign to exterminate every single Jewish man, woman, and child didn’t happen carries a special condemnation. Why? Because first off, it did happen. It’s like denying that there’s a sun. You can make that claim, but you’ll be swiftly corrected: the evidence and documentation of the Holocaust—up to and including survivors’ testimony—is undeniable.

                Secondly, there is no good faith way to deny the Holocaust. If you truly want to see its existence proven, then fine—that will take about 2 minutes. But persisting in your denial? Why? There’s no innocent explanation for that. My belief is that you deny the Holocaust for one of two reasons: you either 1) want to avoid personal or institutional responsibility, or 2) you want to do it again. There’s no place for either one of these in civilized society.

                So the moral opprobrium and condemnation toward denying the Holocaust is real and overwhelming. So strong is that moral condemnation, that some clever folks have decided to hitchhike, and siphon off that power to use on their own pet causes. It’s sort of ‘stolen victimhood,’ pocketing and repurposing society’s horror at the Nazi crimes to redirect toward your own opponents. As a bonus, you get to destroy the legitimacy of those who disagree with you, by drawing a moral equivalence between them and the SS. Bless your clever little sneaky heart.

                The Holocaust is beyond denial. There is no legitimate doubt. But the running and administration of US elections? Raising the possibility of election fraud in some jurisdictions? Daring to suggest that places like Philadelphia, New York, and the squeaky-clean city of Chicago might have a tad of ballot irregularities? Horror!! You, you NAZI! And entertaining alternate theories of weather and climate? Mass murderer!!

                Most theories and beliefs are open to question. Integrity of elections is something we argue (and in the case of Chicago, joke about) endlessly. Dogmatic announcement of scientific and social theories, especially ones that confer power on the proponents, should definitely be met with questioning. A proper word for those who question is “skeptic.”

                I’m perfectly willing to be labelled a Manmade Climate Change Skeptic. I got no problem being an election skeptic, until proven wrong. That’s the key: show me the proof. I can show you proof the Holocaust happened. You show me proof that humans are destroying the planet. Proof, not quasi-religious utterings by zealot prophets. Show me proof there were no irregularities in Anytown’s election. Go ahead: I’ve been wrong before and I don’t mind being a former skeptic who’s now satisfied with your claim.

                But “SHUT UP” is not proof. It’s substituting power for reason. Silencing the skeptics doesn’t alter reality. It just makes you into a tyrant. And the Holocaust was committed by tyrants. The tyrant is the common enemy of all truth, and all people of good will. Suppressing free debate is the sign of a weak argument—the tyrant knows he can’t freely convince people. Calling someone a ‘denier?’ what have you got to hide?

                Here’s the deal: if you’re silencing people’s opinions, not debating them, it’s a clue that you just may not be one of the good guys.