It’s an increasingly common argument these days: if you question the new green tinted politics of fear - which marshals visions of apocalypse in order to shape people’s behaviour and lower their expectations as surely as Torquemada ever did - then you’re not only wrong, you’re morally suspect. You are not only(allegedly) a factually misguided individual who must be challenged through debate; you are a flawed, whored, bought off, morally polluted scoundrel with whom there can be no debate. The Independent’s gossipy green article was silly, but it is also part of a serious new trend: the incessant, and frequently fruitless, search for who is paying and puppeteering the critics of green austerity. The conspiratorial labelling of all sceptics as ‘suspect’ is the copping-out coward’s way of shutting down discussion: after all, what better way to dodge tough and testy arguments than by hanging a sign that says ‘DODGY’ around the necks of all who disagree with you?
Surely the enlightened progressives here in Maryland would never engage in that inane line of argument, would they?
1 comment:
"You are not only(allegedly) a factually misguided individual who must be challenged through debate..."
...would that the likes of Al Gore et al have enough respect for the "factually misguided" to even participate in a debate.
Post a Comment