You’re missing the point - the entire notion that political ideologies can have some discrete vectorization in a linearizable space is a social construct. To the extent that it has validity at all, it’s a projection of reality onto a space with inherent distortions. I’m not arguing that it’s not useful but it’s important to realize that the shared understanding it provides people with is a shared understanding of the idealized world of the model, not of the underlying reality.
I hear that QAnon talks a lot about GOP, Republicans, conservatism, border walls, etc. - but I don’t see them censoring that
They said QAnon (i.e.: WWG1WGA)
The political compass isn’t real, and politics isn’t a square.
You’re talking about this as if there’s no overriding socioeconomic context that carries forth implications. Any time birthing restrictions have been tried, rich and privileged groups always get exemptions.
People should be encouraged to take advantage of contraception because they should have the right to plan their families- not because we’ve decided we want to look down on people who breed.
How do you encourage marginalized people who have been historically discouraged from breeding due to eugenics reasons to voluntarily stop breeding because the people in power just lowkey want them to?
And which social or ethnic group in particular do you suggest should be the ones to be sacrificed exactly? The answer to eugenics is not more eugenics.
✊ Happy Labor Day
Because driving too fast kills our children
Bold of you to assume the CEO would be convicted
You suggested a propaganda film. I know what happened in Bikini Atoll and the subsequent federal activity and lack thereof, I don’t need to “watch” history laden with a political agenda to learn what can be read.
This isn’t speaking truth to power, though. More cars driving faster and more dangerously is the establishment. You fail to see that free speech is for protecting the voices already in power, and this is just another example.
Definitely muddled by the fact that they learned most of what we know about the medical consequences of radiation exposure from Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the decade following. And then they can be like “well we didn’t know it was harmful!”- but “we didn’t poison them intentionally” is a low bar
Big win for vehicular manslaughter fans
One is that nuclear power has to account for and financially compensate its passive radiation emissions. This is unique to nuclear power, even though passive emissions from nuclear plants are less than 10 times lower than radiation emissions from coal power plants. Clearly we don’t care that much about the harmful effects of the radiation emissions, and if we do then coal should be charged for the current and past emissions.
Gonna backfire big time when the Republicans’ mistresses get prosecuted
The only reason it takes longer than a few years is because of arbitrary regulatory barriers we’ve placed - so when we say “we should build more nuclear” part of the manifestation of that will be streamlining regulation to make it faster and cheaper.
Alternatively, we make coal, oil, and natural gas subject to the same externality-internalizing regulations and taxes and see how things shake out.
So your issue is actually that there’s a lack of a full commitment to public transmission infrastructure that would allow nuclear power to displace coal, gas, and oil? Sounds like we agree then
She’s a political prisoner