Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Further to “When You Scratch a Progressive, You Will Find a Fascist Underneath”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Democrats’ platform committee says they have a “Final Draft To Advance Progressive Democratic Values.”

Among those progressive values, criminalizing scientific dissent.  A plank calling for criminal prosecution of anyone who dissent’s from “the scientific reality of climate change” was adopted with unanimous consent.  Progressives do not tolerate dissent even from calling for the persecution of dissenters.

UPDATE:

Predictably, progressives ( wd400 @ comment 3 and rhampton7  @ comment 12) come in and apologize for the brown shirts.

No, WD, it is not like the tobacco company cases at all. Those cases were civil cases in which the goal was a civil money judgment against companies that sold products that killed people.  In this case the plank calls for criminal securities fraud investigations (notice the emphasis on misleading shareholders) against people who have harmed no one.

Both WD and R7 suggest that if the criminal defendants are ultimately found not guilty after spending millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours defending themselves, they will have nothing to complain about. Of course they are wrong.  The investigation is itself a punishment, no matter the outcome.

The mere prospect of the having to defend against a criminal investigation for the crime of thinking differently will chill speech.  You know, there was a time when you progressives championed free speech. Now you stomp on it.  Well did you learn from Maud’dib:

When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.

 

 

 

Comments
I'm largely a conservative when it comes to liberals demanding laws against things which it would be better to have open discussions about. Climate change denialism is fine, we simply need to have better evidence, and more evidence for it (which is rapidly accumulating). So much evidence already exists that the 'deniars' are already looking some what unhinged. When every insurance company bills for it in their premiums, when the US Navy is designing its future aircraft carriers with thicker hulls to travel through the shattered North Pole, when Russia, China, the US and EU actually agree on something, to deny that thing makes you look like you are at least on the fringe of rationality.rvb8
June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
Seversky, I suggest that the commonly encountered pretence that science has become closed, that there is thus no legitimate dissent or onward discussion and debate and more is highly questionable. Inherently so given limitations of scientific methods, monitoring, proxies and simulations -- especially involving a deep unobservable past (there are no time machines) and the even more unobservable future; we construct a model of the remote past and project a forecast for the future, neither of which can be equated to actual reality . . . no matter how much we try to get the best picture we can. In that context, the implied assumption of large scale corporately funded fraud sufficient to seek to put something in a party platform becomes suspiciously like projection of a scapegoat that opens the way for lawfare and the process is the punishment. I think we need to ponder very carefully indeed the matches we are playing with and the conflagration they may ignite. And yes, this is a sustainability issue . . . the trends and precedents we inject into government policies and law can have sobering consequences so our behaviour must be principled and extremely cautious. KFkairosfocus
June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT
Seversky @ 14: Are you suggesting that dissenting from a scientific conclusion is fraud? Yes, I understand that you progressives believe everyone who disagrees with you is, in Dawkin's words, "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked," and ought to be put in jail, or worse. That's what makes you fascists. Thanks for making my point.Barry Arrington
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
Are you suggesting that if corporations have been behaving fraudulently, nothing should be done about it?Seversky
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
RH7, in a too often polarised, hysterical climate, fraud accusations can be very damaging and place one in the dilemma where the costs and effort of trying to defend oneself are both the punishment and the source of a huge chilling effect against politically unwelcome speech. Indirect censorship and message domination by intimidation. KFkairosfocus
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
The important word is fraud. There must be evidence of a crime, not a mere disagreement. Corporations may not defraud their investors. From Corporate/Shareholder Fraud "Corporations have an interest in maintaining a successful front in the eyes of shareholders and securities analysts because investors buy shares of companies that are healthy and growing. Corporate fraud, also known as shareholder fraud, occurs when, to maintain this front, corporations deliberately conceal or skew information." Incidentally, "To prevent corporate fraud, President George W. Bush instated a “Ten-Point Plan to Improve Corporate Responsibility and Protect America’s Shareholders.” This plan was proposed in March of 2002 and has been implemented since by the SEC."rhampton7
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
H'mm: If [anthropogenic] climate change is deemed scientifically established [and closed] "reality" then by political or rhetorical inference only the ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked can differ. So, the putting up of fraud investigations for corporations led and staffed by those who almost by definition do not fit into ignorant or stupid categories has just one possibility left on the table. Problem is, no significant scientific finding of any complexity may be properly deemed closed. The logical and epistemological limitations of scientific methods inherently preclude that. Further to this, computer simulations and relatively sparse observations augmented by a lot of proxies, do not constitute a direct construction of reality. The trend seen in recent days begins to raise questions of pre-determined conclusion show trials. We need to think again on what matches we are playing with. KFkairosfocus
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
I don't agree with the word fascist. Fascist just also did suppress truth and speech etc. (so did my parents. (as i saw it) I think its a great thing because a opposition can point to it as tyrannical, unamerican, illegal. Banning conclusions or musings is absurd to americans(some canadians). Its truly laughable. LET THEM DO IT. It shows a general philosophy of speech control which we all complain about. Welcome this blunder . just it against them. Don't desire their speech control policies to be reasonable. Remember TRUTH is the natural right. Speech freedom is only a tool for this. So its a natural and government right.Robert Byers
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
What is "the scientific reality of climate change"? Andrewasauber
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
That's not it at all, William. The investigations they are taking about follow the model used by the US against Tobacco companies. To succeed they'd need to show the fossil fuel companies knew very well that emissions would lead to climate change, but deceived shareholders and the public by not sharing this information.wd400
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
wd400 has the right of it. "Investigat[ing] alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies" does not equal "criminal prosecution of anyone who dissent’s [sic]." Arrington has misrepresented what the document actually says in a way that makes it sound much broader than it actually is. Lied, in other words.FierceRoller
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
This is less surprising once you get straight that the real Fascists were Leftists. The Left Wing is composed of people who want to consolidate political power (and all that goes with it) in the hands of the national government. Originally, the Left Wing was monarchist. The Right Wing is composed of people who want to retain political power as close to home as possible. The Right Wing defends individual choice and private property (and was originally the untitled businessmen and lesser nobles). Executing citizens for their personal opinions (rather than merely their religious preferences) began during the French Revolution, and throughout the 19th century there were always wacko Leftists (which may be redundant) who admitted publicly that as soon as they had control of the government they would begin executing people who disagreed with them. Read "Fire in the Minds of Men" by Billington.mahuna
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
wd400 said:
Predictably, the link does not say this. The policy is about investigating whether companies committed fraud by knowingly misleading people about climate science.
Not exactly. The quote from the summary:
Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.
This means that any fossil fuel company that reports to its shareholders any position or research on climate change other than agreement with its "reality" as per supposed consensus is subject to charges of fraud. You get that? You either agree with what the supposed consensus has decreed is reality on climate change when you report to shareholders, or you are committing fraud.William J Murray
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
A plank calling for criminal prosecution of anyone who dissent’s from “the scientific reality of climate change”
Predictably, the link does not say this. The policy is about investigating whether companies committed fraud by knowingly misleading people about climate science.wd400
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply