My favorite example of this is how the left attacks and ostracizes those who dare to oppose the gay rights agenda in any way (two examples which immediately spring to mind are [1] [2], but there are many more).
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
I could go on at length about the importance of defending someone's right to state unpopular opinions even (or perhaps especially) if you disagree with them, but I hope HN'ers are smart enough to fill in the details of that argument themselves.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_c...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membershi...
Well done.
The topic becomes political the moment it has political ramifications. The bigger those ramifications are, the more of a political topic it is.
The parent knows it is a scientific topic, but when it's brought up, it's likely not. When it's argued, it's likely being argued by people who arn't looking at evidence, but looking at effect.
Your post reminds me that this research seems to miss another way that people delude themselves: persecution-complexes.
Once you believe that others want to do bad things to you for your beliefs, you become far more entrenched. And ridiculous exaggerations such as yours allow you to more fully insulate yourself from facts: because you're under attack and your freedom is at risk, you have to protect yourself from these terrible people, and therefore, their beliefs.
>So why don't people "believe" in climate change? Because they realize it's a political, not a scientific, topic. It has winners and losers to the order of trillions of dollars.
How can you possibly say it's 'not scientific' when it's entirely scientific. The responses to climate change are political, but the topic itself is minimally political.
But you do enforce the point that people will cut themselves off from reasoning logically, if the conclusion is one they don't want to face. If your political buddies may be hurt, one is much more likely to fight the truth.