undefined | Better HN

0 pointskennywinker12y ago0 comments

When the overwhelming body of evidence points to something, denialist seems appropriate. e.g. climate change denialist.

There was a reasonable case for HIV is not the cause of AIDS for a while in the 90s, but everything that pointed that way was overturned by further inquiry.

I met an HIV causes AIDS denialist once in university, so I did a bunch of research so find out if he was a crackpot or not. Things may have changed since I looked, but in 2007 there was no credible evidence I could find to suggest that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

newbie1212y ago· 1 in thread

Describing someone as a "denialist" is a demonization, it is designed to connect the person to absurd Holocaust "deniers".

kennywinkerOP12y ago

The point is definitely that it's demonizing.

However, I don't think "denialist" is always referencing holocaust denial... that connection didn't occur to me until you mentioned it. I could only think of "climate change denialist" which may be a reference to holocaust denialism, but that's once removed already.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse