Regular readers of this blog (my loyal facebook friends who all think I’m really smart and cool, a little redneck named Jed, and Dan) know how I feel about being a Denialist. When I first stumbled across this term in Scientific American et. al., I was skeptical of its usage in the proper English of scholarly writing. However, Michael Shermer, my favorite man about town, defined its usage by his own excessive usage of it, and I’ve come to understand that Denialism is not only real, as well as perfectly grammatical, but also a disease that needs to be quarantined in order that those susceptible won’t catch it. Free inoculations from the PED haven’t yet curbed the spread. Geneticists currently suspect that people, especially those with a Y chromosome, are genetically prone to catching the disease, even post vaccination. Therefore, the only answer, really, is emergency quarantining to curb the contagion.
Thankfully, Popular Science has performed an emergency quarantine by shutting down their comment threads, in which the bacterium known as h. delirium was spreading at an alarming rate. I applaud their decision. If you are a denialist on this being a good idea–having been exposed at any number of internet sites–I would suggest you listen to the voice of reason and seek out appropriate medical treatment. Denialing the word of science experts is dangerous. Negarismo [sic] la palabra de los expertos es peligroso. ¡PELIGROSO! Let’s all be critical thinkers about this. If you don’t yet believe in the dangers, Popular Science is nothing if not scientific:
LaBarre cites a University of Wisconsin, Madison study that, among other things, found that: “Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself.” . . . LaBarre says the often politically motivated debates erode the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics, such as evolution and the origins of climate change. She says that on occasion they will still open the comments section on select articles that “lend themselves to vigorous and intelligent discussion.” The windows of communication will also remain open on other platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Google+, and the hope is that readers will still chime in there.
“Don’t do it for us. Do it for science,” she says.
If you read the above NPR article and the comments–which have, oddly, been allowed to propagate unchecked–you will notice that there are those who pretend to be reasonable, such as a woman who calls herself Bernadette. “I understand Popular Science’s intent, but I think it would be better if they used a pre-approval moderation system with strict rules,” she opines. While the idea that censorship of speech is better than the outright monstrosity of preventing free speech, this woman obviously doesn’t understand the risks inherent in spreading the h. delirium bacterium. She has not experienced the side effects of the disease–the useless limbs that cause shuffling limps, impotency in males (who are more susceptible than females, as new research shows), and head tics. As Sinead O’Connor so wisely sang some twenty years ago, “These are dangerous days. To say what you feel is to make own grave.” Although denialists may claim that they aren’t stating what they feel at all, but what the facts suggest, the experts don’t agree with them. The h. delirium bacterium, when allowed to infect the mind, will cause great emotional upheavals; it will eventually cause death. You will, to speak poetically and literally at one and the same time, be digging your own grave. Indeed, these are dangerous days.
Please, for the sake of Western Civilization, stop spreading the disease of denialism. Para salvar a la civilización occidental, por favor, dejar de ser un negadoralist [sic].