What kind of Denier Are You?

Just found out I'm now a "Residential School Denialist". Thank you, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for that valuable designation.

Apparently I'm also a “Climate Denier”, and a “Science Denier”, and probably some other kind of denier I haven't even heard of yet.

How does one occupy so many tiers of denialism, you may ask?

Perhaps this has more to do with the definition of the words than anything else. The beauty of making up new terms is that you can basically make them mean anything you want - especially when the whole premise revolves around someone disagreeing with something you've said. It rarely matters if the meanings of these words have already been well-established over decades of use. All one needs to do is utter the phrase, “Okay, boomer” to instantly denounce the assumption that these definitions are still relevant today.

When I first saw the word “Denier”, I was a bit confused because it seemed to me to be talking about some kind of fabric (looks kind of like “denim”, right?”

Well, it turns out the word “denier” comes from the French and is pronounced something like “den-nyay”. According to tent manufacturer msrgear.com, denier is:

“a unit of density based on the length and weight of a yarn or fiber.”

This is not the kind of denier I'm talking about and it also sounds completely different. However, it does seem to have some application in the sense that “spinning a yarn” is another way of saying that you're making something up, and the word “dense” can also refer to one’s intelligence.

So, there's that.

Now, where was I?

Oh yeah… an added benefit of making up new words and phrases is that not only can you define them, but now you're the resident expert as well, because it's your word, so if you ever need to quote an expert (especially an anonymous one), well, you know who to call. Think about this the next time you read an article quoting unnamed experts…

Let's look at some definitions of these three forms of denialism.

1. Climate Denier

Wikipedia defines Climate Denialism as:

“denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.”

Okay, so there's a lot in there, and by the way, that’s not the whole definition but I guess we need to start somewhere.

Now let's examine that statement. Obviously if you're a denier, then “denial” is a legit description, as is “dismissal” I suppose. But how about “unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus”? Well, I guess that depends on how you define, “unwarranted” in this context. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of highly respected climate-type scientists who have doubts about many aspects of the climate change/global warming theory. I guess if you for whatever reason think those doubts are “unwarranted”, then you now have the right to call these scientists “climate deniers”.

Another great part of this definition is, “the extent to which it is caused by humans”. Well, very likely some small part of it is caused by humans. I mean, we’re here, and there's a lot of us. Scientists don't agree at all on exactly how much of it is, or how big a deal it is, but that's probably the point. If you decide that a very large portion of climate change is caused by humans and someone disagrees with you, then once again you may call that person a denier.

I think a particularly useful one here is this:

“the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions”.

Ah yes, potential. And not just any potential but “potential of adaptation”. So, what is our potential of adaptation to global warming? Well, evidently people in hotter climates are already well adapted to heat and have experienced the fewest number of heat-related deaths. Based on this, it appears that there is at least some potential of adaptation to increasing temperatures (not to mention that as it warms, we can expect to cut the winter death toll down a bit as well). Now I just need to figure out exactly how much potential you think exists and if it ends up being an "unwarranted" amount then yes, I can legitimately call you a Climate Denier.

Here's my absolute favourite gem from this Wikipedia article:

Climate change denial can also be implicit when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.

Now this is heavy, man. So, I can *accept the science”, but if I don't “come to terms with it” (whatever that means) OR couple it with “action” (like what, fly to Europe for a climate change conference or something?) then, you guessed it - I'm a denier. And apparently you are as well if you're not currently hugging a tree of some sort.

Of course I wrote something about this a little while ago called, “The Coziness of Glaciers and Other Awakenings” which you may want to read if you have five minutes and you're not at a climate conference…

Okay, time to move on. There's way too much to tackle here without getting bogged down on only one form of denialism.

2. Science Denier

This one is very broad, and for good reason. I won't say much about it, because it's just too big.

There are many times when these more specific Denialist descriptions just don't quite fit with your current situation. In times like this, the last thing you want is to have to come up with a brand new category on the fly. This is when you can whip out “Science Denier!” because it covers pretty much everything. This is a huge category that includes, but is not limited to: climate denialism, Covid denialism, evolution denialism, and flat-earthers. Honestly, I would probably consider at least one of these to be a legitimate example of denialism, but hey, everyone has their reasons. Religious zealots and ideologues on the left and the right are famous for these novel positions and most of the time they see no need to even offer a reason, because it's just what they “know to be true”. In actuality, many of these folks couldn't explain it to you in language you would understand anyway. Kinda like the whole “the science is settled” thing, I guess. But feel free to add your own subcategories here as well, since there are never enough ways to call someone a denier.

3. Residential School Denier

Sorry, this is a long one, and that’s mainly because there's so little factual information about it and a whole lot of fantastic ifs, buts, maybes, and conjectures. It's also a relatively new addition to the Denialist camp. Again, there are many facets to being a Residential School Denier, but evidently one of those is NOT actually denying that residential schools existed.

Yeah, I know. I'm shocked as well.

According to this article by Kisha Supernant and Sean Carleton (who is a self described “settler scholar” and Assistant Professor at the University of Manitoba),

Residential School Denialists “do not deny the existence of residential schools or even some of the harms of the IRS system".

Alright, that's cool. I guess that describes me, as well as most other people in this country. I'm still trying to get my head around that one, but hey, if you make it too complicated, then calling someone names isn't nearly as much fun.

Luckily, they also were able to tell us what being a Residential School Denier actually is:

Rather, they seek to downplay or distort basic IRS facts and question the validity of ongoing research.

Now this I can understand, and I would agree that if someone was doing that, it would be an uncalled for, mean, and nasty thing to do. The main problem I have with this description is the context in which it's being used (and this is actually how most of these are used). For context, the authors linked to this piece by award-winning and excellent Canadian journalist Terry Glavin in the National Post. I highly recommend reading that one because unlike the previous article, it's a very well researched piece with accurate facts - facts that dispute most of what this other article says, which is likely the real reason it was targeted as denialism in the first place.

Anyway, after reading the CBC article, and the “problematic” one it took offense at, my main takeaway is that “questioning the validity of ongoing research” means that when journalists say there are “mass graves” or “remains were discovered” this means that you do not “question the validity” of what's being said (even though both of these statements turned out to be false). When these same journalists later backtrack a little bit and start calling them “probable grave sites” but still insist that they are “confirmed probable grave sites” (yes, they are both confirmed and probable), obviously we are not to question that either, even though “confirmed” doesn't mean that remains were actually found, just that they might be found if one would ever care enough to look. Of course no one has, but that is apparently beside the point. There may also be a problem with the word, “research” here since it seems that word also no longer means what it used to mean, but that's a topic for another time.

It's worth noting here that had 200 unmarked graves of white children been "discovered” anywhere in this country, we wouldn't be talking about “probable” grave sites because we would have been digging there within weeks and we'd know exactly what was there and what wasn’t. This is what's know as “evidence” and it's what most people insist on having when something important is going on. It’s also generally how you confirm whether something is true or false.

Instead, what we did (and by “we” I mean our government and their media) was question nothing and believe everything without even a second thought and because of that, flags all over the country were flown at half-mast for five months, while churches were being burned to the ground, statues toppled and decapitated, and all while our Prime Minister looked on in solemn understanding. And at the end of all of this, we knew absolutely nothing that we didn't already know before, except perhaps how very broken our national news media is (though that wasn't news to many of us either).

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

If you've ever wondered how these denialist doctrines are concocted, Terry Glavin has done a great job of describing exactly how this concept works. Here's Glavin talking about Sean Carleton (the U of W “settler scholar” from that CBC article):

Carleton appears to have invented (or co-invented) the “concept” of Residential Schools Denialism, and has defined (or co-defined) the thing, so he can say I have engaged in “textbook denialism,” and since he describes himself as an “expert” in the subject, he can expertly define me or anyone else who doesn't go along with his bullshit as the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. It’s quite a cunning racket, when you think about it.

As I said, when you're the one who makes up the word, you become your own expert with your own definitions and your own textbook. As long as the climate is such that enough people are too scared to ask questions, you can get an awful lot of mileage out of these things.

Predictably, this article by Sean Carleton refers to "the complicated nature of the complex truth" which might be another way of saying, “alternative facts” perhaps. Not really sure. I guess in an age of “my truth” and “your truth”, and “lived experiences” (though how that differs from any other kinds of experience I'm not sure), one could be forgiven for believing that truth is complicated. In reality however, truth is usually very simple and the only reason anyone would suggest that it's not is because they're trying to hide it from you.

Here's his closing bombshell that's supposed to make us all hang our heads in shame:

Just because some people want to see exhumation before they believe the already documented deaths in residential schools does not mean Indigenous Nations are under any obligation to dig up their relatives to prove what we already know happened.

Huh. There's that term again “what we already know”. Yes, the science is settled. This is what we believe and we have faith that it's true. This brings to mind a favourite bible verse from Hebrews, chapter 11:

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Right, well there you go. Evidently as long as these bodies remain unseen, that's all the evidence we need, and who needs additional evidence when you have faith anyway?

So far what we “already know” (as far as actual evidence goes) is that there are no graves - mass or otherwise. At least not where they were looking.

As far as obligation goes, they may not be obliged to offer any evidence, but neither should anyone else be obliged to believe incredible statements without evidence.

In conclusion, all these forms of denial have at least three things in common:

1. They all were created by someone pushing an agenda.

2. The rules are fluid, to allow almost any response to be classified as “denial”.

3. Even if you agree with the basic premise, if you're not willing to “take it to the next level” in some kind of activist role, you will be cast to the outer fringe with the other unclean deniers.

There’s one more common denominator here and that's a weird combination of arrogance and an unfamiliarity with (or willful blindness to) the facts on the part of those who wield this term. This is undoubtedly the reason the bar for labeling someone a denier is set so incredibly low. I mean, if it weren't that low, these people might actually be forced to have to defend their position, and that would likely be at least somewhat inconvenient, especially when facts are involved.

So I guess I'm okay with being called a denier if it means denying people the opportunity to mislead me with strange terminology and “complex truth”. If being a denier means I needn't be expected to believe something based strictly on someone else's faith in something neither one of us can see, then I'm fine with that too. Also, if it gets me off the hook for attending weird conferences and cringy protests, sign me up. I'd much rather live in a world where facts actually matter.

That's the simple truth.

---

More from BlogOfKen:

Our Questionable Climate "Catastrophe" - Part 1

The Language Hijackers

The Woke's War on Words

Death By a Thousand Degrees

What's the Big Deal About Freedom?