These people can be persuasive to those who only hear their side of the story. I was going to comment upon one of these yayhoos' pieces, when I was cutoff by a tech difficulty. It seems a lot of the times that occurrences of one kind or other tend towards an effort to censor any dissenting views. That may be wrong, but what else can I think? These people are not in the mainstream in terms of the American tradition of free expression. In fact, I suspect that so called climate science is part of the attempt to overturn the entire society.
Under the old system, in which they are trying to overthrow, one had the right to dissent and to present opposing views. These people do not allow dissent. So, how can a system that does not allow dissent be self correcting? It cannot. It will be forever mired in institutional groupthink.
Evidently those who present their beliefs of climate catastrophes have some doubt about their evidence, or otherwise, why suppress that information? They want to use the heavy hand of the state in order to suppress opposing viewpoints. If anything is to be punished, that should be. It is illegal, as in the First Amendment.
Ah, but we don't need such outmoded thinking that came from dead white guys. Get with the times. /sarc
No comments:
Post a Comment