[ksdale]

There are two ways to get people to do the right thing, however right is defined. You can convince them to do right, or you can force them. If you've decided that you don't care if you alienate them, then you've settled on forcing, and there's no reason at all to continue talking.

I totally understand that feeling I believe we all get when someone acts like a jackass and you don't mind alienating them, but every liberal democracy is built on a foundation of presuming that people can be convinced rather than having to be forced. That may not be true all the time, but it seems like we should at least act as though it is true.

If we're not going to act as though it's true, then we should call a spade a spade and say that it's ok to use authoritarian methods when they serve what we know to be right. Rule by strength of arms seems like a bad road to go down, though.

[neaden]

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Or to quote Upton Sinclair “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” If someone is against Global Warming at this point it is not because they've seen evidence that convinces them otherwise, or they are naturally skeptical. Those are just justifications for doing what they want and if you remove those justifications they will just choose new ones.

Now the fact that you immediately leap to authoritarianism is just plain stupid. No one at all is advocating for that in the linked piece or any of the comments. Passing a carbon tax for instance is not authoritarian if done through the democratic process.

[ksdale]

I agree completely with your first paragraph, but then why bother engaging? My point is that there is no reason to write articles or have conversations that risk alienating. The people who can be convinced won't be more convinced by the kind of language that alienates people, and it's not worth even talking to the people you believe can't be convinced.

The kind of language that alienates better serves the purpose of creating a group of people that is an enemy that can be fought against, which goes to my point about authoritarianism. There are lots of instances in a democracy where you put your foot down as a group and decide that certain behaviors are unacceptable. I just think it's morally important to distinguish between the times that we're using reason to drive policy and the times that we decide that we're officially so right that it's ok to use the power of the government to force people to behave in what we believe to be their own best interest.

FWIW, I absolutely believe massive change needs to happen on the climate change front. I just think that calling the other side deniers and anti-whatever is entirely counterproductive and only serves to deepen divisions. Policy can be made without creating a bogeyman, and if a policy requires a bogeyman, it's way more likely to be authoritarian, in my estimation.