How the USA gets rid of Trump

[vetran]

Surely they disagreed with political or religious views of their time which importantly were NOT backed up by either scientific or historical evidence.

Like denying their was a holocaust BEFORE the camps were inspected. Or denying climate change existed 50 years ago when we had no data.

The only science allowed was that which agreed with the church. That was the point of my post. Sorry tell me again how to get a research grant?

In my opinion anyone who brings the holocaust into the argument should lose by default.

[d000hg]

Do you actually mix with anyone who would identify themselves as liberal-left DA? i.e. not people who vote Tory but you call lefties because you're more right than them.

Since you have such clear disdain for these views and the people who hold them it seems unlikely you'd have many friends in those demographics, and the sector you work in as well as your level of wealth suggests your colleagues and neighbours are similarly going to be skewed to the right.

If you only get your understanding of what left and left-liberal people think from the media then you're going to get a very biased picture because these are the extreme views/people otherwise they wouldn't be newsworthy. Just as 'lefties' who get their understanding of what Tories are about by reading the Daily Mail.
And even that's assuming you read a spectrum of media i.e. not just confirmation bias reading the papers who take a stance you agree with.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...eral-news-feed

I fear you'll just make some quick sneering rejoinder rather than enter a civilised discussion but it is a real question. Are you sure you aren't being blinkered by the media and your own bias to believe all left-liberals adhere to the stereotypes you suggest? Because those I know are open for discussion on such topics though of course they have their own biases.

[d000hg]

The only science allowed was that which agreed with the church. That was the point of my post. Sorry tell me again how to get a research grant?

Back then people didn't get research grants as a matter of course, often the scientists were those wealthy enough to do this without needing a job.

And not being allowed to do science is not the same as disputing accepted EVIDENCE. Which was the key word in the dictionary definition. It didn't say a denier is someone who disputes the accepted view.

In my opinion anyone who brings the holocaust into the argument should lose by default.

If it's about winning and losing then you've lost before you start. But that's a strange view to take because the Holocaust is something we can learn a huge amount from and absolutely not something to sweep under the carpet.

And in this context, talking about "deniers", the holocaust is THE example. That's where the charged use of the word surely comes from? And, my differentiation of denying it happened before the evidence was found and afterwards is entirely sensible... the former case you are denying rumour and speculation it and that's a plausible position, the latter case it is not.

[SueEllen]

By DA reasoning loads of Tories were/#are liberal lefties including his beloved Thatcher.* This is why I pointed out he doesn't understand what liberalism means.

Now if DA had pointed out there is an issue with politicians e.g. our ruling elite some of his ranting would have made sense.

*Thatcher did things like vote for abortion rights and to decriminalise homosexuality.

[pjclarke]

Here is the list:

Climate change - anyone who doubts any fact, argument, prognosis of the liberal left is a "denier"
Migration Anyone who questions membership of the EU because they are concerned about immigration - racist
Homosexuality - anyone who refuses to marry a gay couple or bake a cake - homophobe
Rape - Rapists defined or identified on the basis of race or religion - racism
Victim - anyone with an axe to grind, seeking attention is taken at face value. If you are being bullied on social media then don't go on it.
The worlds problems - no matter how societies organise themselves all problems are the fault of British and American imperialism/empires.

Ah, I see. The objection is not to actual liberals, or real liberal opinions. it's the Daily Mail cartoon version that has DA so excised. Strange way to spend your day, but each to his own.

[DodgyAgent]

Do you actually mix with anyone who would identify themselves as liberal-left DA? i.e. not people who vote Tory but you call lefties because you're more right than them.

Since you have such clear disdain for these views and the people who hold them it seems unlikely you'd have many friends in those demographics, and the sector you work in as well as your level of wealth suggests your colleagues and neighbours are similarly going to be skewed to the right.

If you only get your understanding of what left and left-liberal people think from the media then you're going to get a very biased picture because these are the extreme views/people otherwise they wouldn't be newsworthy. Just as 'lefties' who get their understanding of what Tories are about by reading the Daily Mail.
And even that's assuming you read a spectrum of media i.e. not just confirmation bias reading the papers who take a stance you agree with.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...eral-news-feed

I fear you'll just make some quick sneering rejoinder rather than enter a civilised discussion but it is a real question. Are you sure you aren't being blinkered by the media and your own bias to believe all left-liberals adhere to the stereotypes you suggest? Because those I know are open for discussion on such topics though of course they have their own biases.

I do not consider myself right wing. I strongly identify with the politics of people like Brendan O'Neill, Rod Liddle on the left but also many on the right.
I believe in the positive redistribution of wealth not as a punishment for being rich nor as something to signal my own virtue but as something as a practical way of making society a better place. I am also very patriotic and liberal in my views and attitudes to others. I am however prepared to argue them rather than suppress others rights to make them. I do not pretend to speak for other people (the classic virtue signaller leftie).
Most of all despite being an agent . I cannot stand bulls*t or hypocrisy

[vetran]

Back then people didn't get research grants as a matter of course, often the scientists were those wealthy enough to do this without needing a job.

And not being allowed to do science is not the same as disputing accepted EVIDENCE. Which was the key word in the dictionary definition. It didn't say a denier is someone who disputes the accepted view.

If it's about winning and losing then you've lost before you start. But that's a strange view to take because the Holocaust is something we can learn a huge amount from and absolutely not something to sweep under the carpet.

And in this context, talking about "deniers", the holocaust is THE example. That's where the charged use of the word surely comes from? And, my differentiation of denying it happened before the evidence was found and afterwards is entirely sensible... the former case you are denying rumour and speculation it and that's a plausible position, the latter case it is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

In the Catholic world prior to Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth,[11] though Copernican theories were used to reform the calendar in 1582.[12]

Its not a strange view to suggest that using the holocaust to strengthen your case is not appropriate. No intention to brush it under the carpet but your usage to support climate change is like "popping work will set you free" on the front of a document selling sweeties to suggest millions of deaths is somehow linked and increase sales.

[Mordac]

By DA reasoning loads of Tories were/#are liberal lefties including his beloved Thatcher.* This is why I pointed out he doesn't understand what liberalism means.

Now if DA had pointed out there is an issue with politicians e.g. our ruling elite some of his ranting would have made sense.

*Thatcher did things like vote for abortion rights and to decriminalise homosexuality.

I heard some years ago from a source I have no reason to doubt, that one of the original drivers of the whole climate change circus was Maggie herself. She wanted a plausible reason to deprive the mining unions of all their political power, and proceeded to do so by creating a fear of coal-based emissions using iffy science (or a dodgy dossier, if you like).
Replace the coal fired power stations with gas, nuclear, anything-but-coal quite frankly, thereby removing the demand for coal, and bye bye Scargill. An innovative solution to a messy political problem, as anyone who remembers the power cuts of the 1970s will testify.
Interestingly, the main objection to the principle was from scientists warning of an impending mini ice-age (anyone remember that?)
Bottom line is, scientists will say anything if there's a fat research grant in the offing, I would be concentrating far more on deforestation than emissions.

[DodgyAgent]

By DA reasoning loads of Tories were/#are liberal lefties including his beloved Thatcher.* This is why I pointed out he doesn't understand what liberalism means.

Now if DA had pointed out there is an issue with politicians e.g. our ruling elite some of his ranting would have made sense.

*Thatcher did things like vote for abortion rights and to decriminalise homosexuality.

I don't have a problem with liberalism at all. I have a problem with how liberalism is exploited to suppress debate.

[OwlHoot]

Do you really want me to run through the list of left wing liberal orthodoxies again?

OK here we go:

...

Many of those are in one form or another "championing the weak", or what might be widely considered as the weak, even if they are not.

So deep down, as I've often said here, the conceited desire underlying a lot of virtue signaling is that we should be persuaded of not only the signaler's virtue but their superior position.