Denialism: what drives people to reject the truth - The Guardian

“So how do you fight denialism? Denialism offers a dystopian vision of a world unmoored, in which nothing can be taken for granted and no one can be trusted. If you believe that you are being constantly lied to, paradoxically you may be in danger of accepting the untruths of others. Denialism is a mix of corrosive doubt and corrosive credulity.”

There is a subtle flaw in this writer’s logic. If you read the piece, it places public discourses is in a red zone of “cognitive infrastructure” to be policed. Another passage cites a plurality of views increases this ‘danger’. That is opposed to the idea, “better and more speech, remedies bad speech/ideas”.

What do you think?

I wanted to frame this in context of denialism. A person is accused of a bad thing. The accused person denies all, with or without proof or context. To admit what you have done wrong and to apologize to the injured party is the correct path. If you have means to prove your innocence or to resolve the matter, it should be provided quickly, as public remedy. To not resolve the issue swiftly trifles and burdens the public conscience to hamstring reaction to injustice.

Typically, when legal charges are filed and public evidence of corrupt or illegal acts are presented to the public in news, a decent person will not deny what occurred. Morally psychotic people deny what is plain to all. When those people are in charge of governing militaries or large public budgets, that is a really big problem. The public becomes exhausted by long trials and dragged by moral charges with no resolution.

Unfortunately, bald faced denialism heralds the accused suffers from moral instability or moral volatility and may prove character potential or capability for corrupt acts by the person in question.