Thread by @GJosephRoche

So @shaunrein is a full-blown denialist. Let’s use the five features of denialism from Diethelm & McKee to examine what he’s doing and why it is denialism.

doi.org/10.1093/eurpub…

https://twitter.com/shaunrein/status/1396395273170169857

1) Identification of conspiracies.

Sean thinks the western media is a conspiracy to deceive ppl about Tibet. (I think the media is biased and often reports half truths-but it’s not a conspiracy).

2) the use of fake experts.

Sean is himself the fake expert. He knows nothing about language politics and policy, but he thinks his status as eye witness enables him to debunk the ‘myths’ about Tibet. It doesn’t.

3) selectivity

Sean selects evidence that he thinks debunks the ‘myth’ of language oppression in Tibet. He excludes any evidence that suggests Tibetans have legitimate grievances about language policy.

4) creations of unreasonable expectations of what research can deliver.

Not really present in this case, I think.

5) misrepresentations and logical fallacies

E.g., straw man arguments - showing students using Tibetan in class is based on the straw man that language oppression = banning the language.

So, @shaunrein’s argument demonstrates four out of five of the features of denialism outlined by Diethelm & McKee. Keep an eye out for these features in the work of other denialists who attempt to ‘debunk’ language oppresssion in Tibet and Xinjiang.