The Intolerance of Progressivism

Even at The Daily Beast.

If you have time (it’s a long article) read this. Yeah, I know many of you won’t agree with some of the content, but that it’s even out in a major online publication is amazing, you know, to a conservative.

Read it though. I’ll bet you’ll find a few items in there that you agree with the author.

Here’s a bit to whet your buds:

Today’s Clerisy attempts to distill today’s distinctly secular “truths”—on issues ranging from the nature of justice, race and gender to the environment—and decide what is acceptable and that which is not. Those who dissent from the accepted point of view can expect their work to be simply ignored, or in some cases vilified. In the Clerical bastion of San Francisco, an actress with heretical views, in this case supporting a Tea Party candidate, who was pilloried, and lost work for her offense.

You’ll see the word “intolerance” as well. Amazing we’re not talking about conservatives here, isn’t it? What we should all take from this however is never use a broad brush. I know plenty of progressives that cringe at a lot of what’s in this article.

It’s not because they disagree with the articles content.

2 thoughts on “The Intolerance of Progressivism

  1. Climate scientists who diverge from the warming party line, even in a matter of degree, are routinely excoriated by the Clerisy as “deniers” of “settled” science even in the face of 15 years of relatively stable temperatures. The media also participates in this defense of orthodoxy. The Los Angeles Times as well as the website Reddit have chosen to exclude contributions from skeptics.

    As a progressive liberal, there is much in this article with which I agree, including the criticism of those who have acted to silence various speakers. But I am troubled by the paragraph I have excerpted above. First, there is no warming party line. The fact that a relatively small number of climate scientists “diverge” from the inaccurately described “warming party line” does not mean that the climate change consensus is a hoax or a conspiracy. The evidence supporting the IPCC reports and conclusions is overwhelming. These so-called climate skeptics are in fact climate denialists. With the exception of one published peer-reviewed article by one of the climate scientist denialists, this small but vocal band has produced no credible evidence to counter the present climate science. The fact that temperatures have been stable for the past 15 years is not an a serious counterargument. In fact, this issue has more than adequately been dealt with at the SkepticalScience website (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm, http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm), and the Real Climate website (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/; ). The inclusion of this comment in the article gives me cause to question the main thesis of the article. The author is giving credibility to those who have not earned it. These so-called climate skeptics are not being unfairly silenced, ignored or excoriated. They simply are wrong.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s