Denialism Blog

Author: denialism_bv2x6a

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 6s, "Stifles Innovation" and "Technology Can't Be Regulated"

    Competition is magic. But this argument must be amplified! How? Easy, appeal to “innovation.”

    i-0e101f65eb2af18162cb37225d4d5ac2-6h.jpg The denalist will argue that the intervention will stifle innovation. Typical 6 of Hearts arguments include “this is just a tool,” and “you’re banning technology.”

    Next is the 6 of Diamonds, a somewhat contradictory but still widely-used argument–that technology “can’t be regulated.” Of course, any technology can (just look at standard setting organizations), but this exercise isn’t about being cogent, it’s about stopping whatever intervention the denialist opposes.

    		 i-80d93bc4eecfe9d2f2d365246fb0f3c4-6d.jpg

  • The Wall Street Journal, A Denialist Debunker?

    I’m a real fan of the Wall Street Journal. I read it on the BART every morning, to the displeasure of my knee-jerk co-passengers.

    Why is the Journal awesome? Because days like today, you find reporting showing how branding is often an illusion, how cheaper printer cartridges are actually more expensive, and how formaldehyde is used as a preservative in Asia. Denialists may be reading the opinion page, but the rest of the paper seems to highlight the many difficulties and imperfections in the market–from insider trading to outrageous executive pay. All in the same day.

    Back to the opinion page…it’s crazy. The editors are infatuated with boogeymen. Today, they hit four of them: the IRS, Elliott Spitzer, the trial lawyers, and George Soros. And the facts asserted on it often differ from the reporting elsewhere in the paper. Going forward, I’m going to document examples of this, and I invite you to do so as well!

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Third Hand, Competition is Magic

    i-c2389d448fdaa3a787a1059c5a46809d-6c.jpg A denialist does not soft pedal competition. It is a religious term. It is frequently employed, because any market can be described as competitive, regardless of the facts or the myriad factors that practically limit choice.

    Competition solves all problems. Period. If competition doesn’t solve the problem at issue, then it isn’t a problem, or people really like the problem (4 of Spades, 5 of Hearts).

    Because competition is magic, there are no problems to solve. And those that may exist will be solved, eventually. The denialist will say: “give competition a chance” or “sometimes a competitive market takes time to reform” (3 of Spades, 5 of Spades).

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Clubs, "Our Rights"

    Allow me to jump ahead in the Denialists’ Deck of Cards, in light of Verizon’s claim that giving customer records to the National Security Agency is protected by the First Amendment:

    “Communicating facts to the government is protected petitioning activity,” says the response, even when the communication of those facts would normally be illegal or would violate a company’s owner promises to its customers. Verizon argues that, if the EFF and other groups have concerns about customer call records, the only proper remedy “is to impose restrictions on the government, not on the speaker’s right to communicate.”

    This is a great example of “Our Rights!”

    i-61e1d912b04d64604016e05fe2aaa8a2-ac.jpg The denalist can almost always argue that any restriction on business activity is unconstitutional. After all, businesses were afforded many civil rights before women achieved suffrage.

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 5 of Spades, "Delay Tactics"

    Delay always benefits the denalist. At this point, any number of delay tactics can be employed to wait and see whether consumer education will solve the problem that doesn’t exist.

    i-cd6f090dc53e3317d3d68a695418f18a-5s.jpg

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: Consumers Want It, Or They Don't Know What They Want

    The spectacle manifests itself as an enormous positivity, out of reach and beyond dispute. All it says is: “Everything that appears is good; whatever is good will appear.” – Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

    i-9d936ebcbb671ac98c18d0fb1b4e58c6-4s.jpeg You’ve argued that consumer education can set individuals free. Now argue that because something exists, people must want it. After all, the market is perfect, and even if it produces a seemly odious product, it’s not really a problem. On the other hand, if consumers start making choices that the denialist doesn’t like, the denialist will say that individuals don’t really know what they want. i-4c97633fd541b43d1718e227370307bb-5h.jpeg

    So, whether you go with consumers want it or consumers do not know what they want, you conclude with the “no problem” chorus.

    i-24f3928018e4a410ca06a6d0a4839de9-5c.jpg

    (more…)

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 4 of Diamonds, "Consumer Freedom"

    i-fdadf3f4eafaf88a43c4ba0f2ec49117-4d.jpg Given that there is consumer education, any attempt to limit the practices in questions threaten consumer freedom. Denialists will assume that people are perfectly rational and in possession of all relevant information. Thus, individuals choose the problem being addressed, and to limit it frustrates consumer freedom, because they like the problem or harm at issue.

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Second Hand, Consumer Education

    Okay, you’ve tried denying that the problem exists, you’ve tried to trivialize the problem, and you’ve even argued that the problem causes so harm, so it isn’t a problem. Obviously, this no harm thing begins to have diminishing returns. What’s next?
    (more…)

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 3 of Spades, "Dolittle and DeLay"

    i-8bf2fb738c3a7cb4ab229deaa8d34631-3s.jpg

    		 At this point, the denalist engages in delay. The problem that doesn’t exist, and the harms that do not occur will continue not occur in the future, if we just wait.

    A great “wait and see” tactic is to “shift the goal posts.” The denialist does by stating, “we don’t know that there is a problem until X is demonstrated.” The denialist will set unrealistic expectations for X, and if X is shown, it can easily be changed to Y. In the climate change debate, denialists claimed that we did not have enough historical information to make determinations about global temperatures. In 1998, Michael Mann’s research allowed scientists to view 1,000 years of temperature data. That wasn’t enough for the denialists. New advances enable a far deeper knowledge of global temperature, but with each new advance, denialists say it does not go far enough.

    Another is to delay by calling for a study of the non-existent problem. I call this the Mustapha Mond option. In the California RFID debate, industry lobbyists argued against setting security and privacy standards, and instead suggested that a “study committee” be formed. This committee would produce a non-binding report with recommendations, some time in the future. The buys the industry time, and then allows a completely new debate over whether the study was proper.

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 3 of Hearts, "No Harm"

    Okay, my industry lobbyists in training. You’ve said “no problem” over and over. You’ve dismissed problems as attributable to bad apples, or diminished the problem as a “mere inconvenience.” But people still seem to think that the problem that doesn’t exist still exists. You’re getting more and more press calls on the non-existent problem. What next?

    (more…)