There is a trend beginning to emerge that I find very disturbing.

It started with the Anti-Smokers who, when holding their policy making decisions openly banned anyone from attending who wasn't an Anti-Smoker.  This of course resulted in an echo chamber full of nodding heads and the inevitable outcome was that policies were extreme, one sided and with no tolerance for any argument whatsoever.

Recently there was another example.  Leonardo Dicaprio [a slit eyed second rate actor with no qualifications whatsoever] called for a ban on all climate "deniers" from holding office.  If you aren't a fervent believer in the Church of Climate Change then you must be gagged and prevented from holding an opinion.

What saddened me about the latter was that there was an article and a poll on the subject and the majority [50%] agreed with this policy. Are there that many who no longer believe in debate or discussion?

One of the marks of a free society is the ability and right to hold opposing views.  People are free to express their views and debate them.  An exclusion of any opposition to any theory or line of thought will lead to that theory becoming dogma.  Once it was held as scientific fact that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and any opposing theory was heresy.  There is no difference between that and the modern trend.  If you don't believe in their religion you must be excluded and your voice never heard.

In a way, this site is a microscopic version of freedom in that anyone is free to hold a view in opposition to mine.  Unfortunately, there is a tendency for people who disagree with me to shun the place and go elsewhere.  Indeed, I did have a prolific commenter in the past whose comments I thoroughly enjoyed, but one day I got a private email saying that if I didn't change my views [on climate change] he would have to stop reading and commenting.  Fair enough.  I was very sad to see him go but I would much rather have debated the subject with him. 

I have my views on things and there are [probably a vast majority] who hold opposing views but all are welcome here.  I don’t lay down any rules that people can’t comment unless they fully agree with my opinions.  I have never banned or deleted any opposition [with one exception but he was just a fucking irritating little Troll!], despite claims in the past that I have done so.

Exclusion of dissent is a very dangerous path.  It leads to erroneous theories becoming "fact".  It stifles progress and turns science into religion.

And suppression of counter arguments is a sure sign they know they may well be wrong.


It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Tumblr


There shall be no dissent — 14 Comments

  1. "And suppression of counter arguments is a sure sign they know they may well be wrong."


    And the scary thing is a lot of people seem to think that suppression is OK. Very worrying.


    • Suppression of dissent can only lead to totalianarism.  As the Puritans have proved – let them away with one step and next they are spreading their tentacles everywhere.

      • Yeah, that bloody John Mallon coming here expressing his opinions – the very cheek! Tell him to make his own blog if he wants to do that…oh, wait a minute….

        On a more serious note, it is indeed a very worrying trend that seems to be gaining momentum, this attitude of wanting to silence any opposing views. And it's taken root in universities, too, which is more than worrying, it's a disaster. All this 'no platforming' of people because they hold 'non-PC' opinions is the very antithesis of what university should be all about. The students are supposed to be learning to question anything and everything, not parroting the currently fashionable dogma. It doesn't portend well for the future.

        Off topic, GD, your tinkering in the engine room just recently seems to have done the trick – 'Birthday girl' is no longer demanding to be re-read, and I'm landing on the current page. Well done! I owe you a Guinness.

        • Re: Off topic… I'm glad that's fixed.  It seems however that the infection is spreading.  [See below!]  I'll hold you to that pint [or four] though…

  2. I agree with all your comments o wise one.One point Islam followers do not drink.But they do like a smoke.I think there may be a disagreement.

    • Welcome GeorgeB!  I thought the only time an Islamist smoked was just after detona… No.. I'd beter not say that.  I'd be banned.

  3. Not a comment on today's entry.

    Your blog is defaulting to the entry on October 11, and this time it's not tied to the calender.

    • Hmm.  If you read Nisakiman's comment above and my reply you'll see you aren't / weren't the only one.  In his case though it was stuck on October 9 which makes it even more strange.  I'll try another coupe of tweaks to see what happens…

  4. Although it might seem dissenters are being stifled, as long as you Grandad and other bloggers keep drawing our attention to it then the word spreads and more of us begin to realise just how many of our freedoms are being threatened.  As for global warming bollox it is just another way for the tossers at the top to keep landing us with another tax bill.  Here's another one.  In France we are charged by EDF (Lecky company) a percentage of our domestic usage supposedly to cover the cost of street lighting.  We also supposedly pay for street lighting through our council taxes so in effect we are being taxed on top of the taxes we already pay on our home electricity consumption.  Here's the extra rub – for the past two years we have had no street lighting although a week ago they have come back on from dusk (about 7 .30 pm currently) but go off at 8 pm and come back half an hour before dawn and go off at dawn!   Someone ran this past the European court who declared it an illegal practice (quelle surprise!) so we all sent in a claim for back payment which was ignored AND EDF are still charging the extra percentage for street lighting while they are appealing the judgement.  As we can only claim upto a max of 2 years back payment if the decision is upheld EDF are in a win-win situation as usual.  So much for global warming tariffs. All they do is profit the corporations as most awake people realise.

    • We're paying a levy to subsidise all those fucking wind farms that are sprouting all over the countryside.  I thought they were supposed to provide cheaper power as the fuel is free?  Hah!

      I noticed the lat time I was in France that all the street lights were switched off late in the evening, and back on before dawn.  It seemed sensible to me.  All our roads are floodlit like football piches all night which seems a little wasteful?

      • Ah yes those damned things are sprouting up all over France.  They're called eolians over here – not sure on the spelling but you've got to have an interest to care!  They're the biggest cons so far – cost an absolute fortune so I wonder if anybody has done the sums to see how many centuries it will be before somebody recoups the initial outlay?  Best of it is, they are very rarely seen to be working.  The land owners get a big fat bribe  fee to have them on their land.    I agree with you about the street lights being turned off at night – say after 10 pm.  But paying for not having them is a fine example of French logic! Hooda thunk they had a revolutio once?! 😀

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting