A corporation sells poison and therefore wants to maximize the presence of poison in our food and drinking water. The more poison it sells the greater the profit. The corporation insists that this is deadly poison for certain selected plants or insects but is harmless to people and animals who eat the food and drink the water which is loaded with the poison, and harmless to beneficial insects and to all other wildlife and the environment.
Jane says, “That makes no sense rationally, and all the evidence is against it. Plus you have a very strong motive to lie. I don’t believe you.”
Tom says, “Hallelujah, I believe! The critics are just anti-science fearmongers.”
According to the English language, which is the skeptic?
As in every other case where reality-based language comes into conflict with power, the English language isn’t used in public discourse wherever the corporate prerogative becomes controversial. At every such point an Orwellian impostor language substitutes, one which seeks to turn reality upside down. Thus according to themselves and in mainstream, “respectable” messaging, it’s the pro-poison fundamentalists who are called “skeptics”. That’s a feature of the pseudo-skeptic branch of the corporate media.
Most bizarrely, people are so indoctrinated that Jane too is likely to call Tom a “skeptic”. When even the potential raw material for a new political and cultural movement is brainwashed into preferring the dominant toxic culture’s own terminology, it’s clear that we who are trying to break ground for this movement have a tough row to hoe indeed.