One of the blogs I follow just changed. This is not about that.
This post regards another blog I follow: Worldchanging.com. WorldChanging is about good stuff in general, however it has a large focus on environmentalism. Although many Calgarians may see their recent action as bold and impetuous, I find it basic and refreshing.
The action is this: WorldChanging “deletes comments which deny the absolutely overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, just as we would delete comments which questioned the reality of the Holocaust or the equal mental capacities and worth of human beings of different ethnic groups. Such “debates” are merely the morally indefensible trying to cover itself in the cloth of intellectual tolerance.” (read it on their blog.)
Because information is so readily available for skeptics and supporters alike, I believe WorldChanging’s censorship is appropriate and clarifies their position. They don’t exist to evangelize skeptics; they exist to talk about solutions to a real problem.
The comparisons they make to the Holocaust or to eugenics (both scary words to google) is powerful but not overstated.
What are your thoughts on WorldChanging’s recent decision?
Related posts:
Hmm, while I agree that the scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming, I don’t see it as an issue in which the debate should be silenced. There are people who disagree with the scientific consensus on a number of issues; evolution comes to mind immediately. I’m very much in favour of free speech, so I don’t feel that it’s right to not allow certain opinions to be expressed (although I do recognize that a blog is fully within their rights to censor whatever they want).
Of course, this raises the issue of censoring racism and Holocaust denial, both of which I agree with. I guess that means that I don’t consider environmental issues to be on the same level as human rights issues. Anything that is a question of science (gravity, time, etc.) is something that can be questioned, and I believe that peoples’ right to question that should not be taken from them.
I do not, however, believe that people should have the right to do as much damage to the planet as they want. Regardless of their opinions about climate change, and their right to express those opinions, they should be forced to work with the rest of society towards a healthier planet.
It is a tricky issue, this one. I think I side with WC because they aren’t controlling all forums on the net. Just their space. I can imagine they are inundated with skeptical comments and are probably frusterated by them. I think this is a very gray issue, so I won’t go to the wall on it.
I think your note about the scientific, rather than moral, nature of the debate is insightful. They should have positioned their post that way.. . It would have been better received. If someone was repeatedly denying that gravity exists and happens and is measurable and consistent, we’d think they are a little stupid but not immoral. The comments would be deleted for stupidity’s sake in a forum that seeks nuanced investigation to the problem of gravity. (Posted from blackb)
Absolutely, it’s their site, they can choose what they want to allow our not: that is completely their prerogative. I deleted a comment from my blog today because someone saw my post about my new apartment and made a comment about having apartments to rent of their own. It wasn’t spam, but I decided it didn’t need to be one my blog, so I deleted it. And you’re right, they must get so many negative comments that they’ve just decided to change the entire tone of the blog. I know of a fashion blog that has decided to ban all comments about the skinniness of the models, not because they disagree with the points being made about an unhealthy image, but because that isn’t what they want every conversation to be about.
While I can see their point about denying the scientific evidence of climate change as being similar to denying the historical evidence of the Holocaust, I just can’t agree.
That being said, dividing issues into scientific and moral categories won’t work all the time: after all, there have been times in our recebt history when science declared homosexuality to be a psychological disease and some races to be superior to others. Actually, that’s why I think it’s important that people are always free to question science.
Well put. I think WC could have done a better job to say “question science in other forums; this isn’t the appropriate space.” Sort of like a forum about how to live a theistic centred life telling atheists “question god all you want, we’ve decided that we have faith and this is the place we’d like to talk about it.”