Some folks like to call themselves Sceptics. But they are not sceptical. So why the use of the term? As the title of the post suggests, in God’s Own County the tendency is to straight talking, and plain English description. Thus, I believe, it should be with those who oppose organisation and consensus.
Darling of the Tory right Dan, Dan the Oratory Man is explicitly anti-EU. He says he loves Europe, but that the UK should not be part of it. There is no scepticism in his stance, yet we are told that he is Eurosceptic. And I say this is drivel. Anyone who is sceptical of an organisation is not yet persuaded of its utility: such people are in “show me” mode. Hanann is not in “show me” mode. He does not want to be shown; his mind is made up. Thus he is not Eurosceptic but Europhobic: totally and howlingly anti-European. He should therefore be labelled thus.
The attempt to misuse the concept of scepticism is also deployed among those who are opposed to the scientific consensus on Climate Change. Here, too, the likes of Christopher Booker and James Delingpole (both unlikely to upset Guardian readers, who will routinely switch off when treated to their barrage of abuse) attract the term Sceptic, when they are not. Neither of them, nor many of the rest of those scrabbling to rubbish the consensus, are in “show me” mode. They do not want to be shown, and have made up their minds. They deny that Climate Change is happening, and so they are more accurately described as Deniers.
And, as I’ve noted previously, the idea that “Denier” automatically suggests “Holocaust” is also drivel. This is a cheap and sub-Freudian attempt to play the victim. Someone who denies that something is happening is demonstrating an act of denial, and on that subject is therefore a denier of it.
Call a spade a bloody shovel. End of story.