Issues which conservatives need to listen more closely to liberals on

[k9bfriender]

@Shodan

So liberals want to do something about global warming because they are pro-science, but only in ways that are anti-profit. And they are so anti-profit that they turn against the science when it comes to nuclear power.

That would be a very incorrect assessment. When people say that republicans are pro-profit, they mean that they are for profits at any other expense. That’s different from simply wanting a profit. As Dave Thomas said “Profit is not a dirty word.”

I own a business, and while I am happy when I see my bottom line in black, I do not seek to maximize my profit at all costs. I could cut corners, I could pay my employees less, I could even pay them less than MW under the table as many of my competitors do. There are things more important than improving your profit margin.

So, and I do think that you know this, that claiming that liberals are anti-profit is just utter nonsense.

Actually that seems like a fairly clear presentation of the attitude. “We can’t support nuclear energy, which has a chance of working, because someone might make a buck off it. We prefer solutions like solar and wind, that won’t work, because at least nobody benefits.”

Very poor interpretation on your part, there. The main reason that it is left leaning groups that are anti-nuclear is because when nuclear was going full tilt for profit, it was left leaning scientific groups that were the only real oversight to the nuclear industry. The builders were pro-profit, and so were willing to cut corners the impacted both short and long term safety of the plant, as well as allowing unacceptable levels of emissions.

Now, sure, there are far left wing groups like greenpeace and such that are against nuclear in any form, but most of us centrists ignore them, and it would be wise for you to do so as well. At the same time, just removing all regulations and letting the nuclear industry decide its own best practices again may have some unfortunate consequences.

There is quite a bit of room for nuance in there that your strawmanning ignores. For instance, myself, a left leaning centrist, is very pro-nuclear power, but I do not want to see another PWR or BWR 1st generation plant built, as they are not safe, they are not efficient, and in trying to get them to anywhere near safe, ends up costing much more than not just coal and other fossil fuels, but is not competitive with most renewables either.

If the republicans wish to invest in the science and engineering research that is needed to build better, safer reactors, I am all for that.

And this shows how liberals support science. And it’s conservatives’ fault.

This shows quite a bit of your perspective, and how it is distorted from reality. The democrats have invested in nuclear research over Obama’s term, even given the republicans cuts and sequesters to all parts of the government.

Trump’s proposed budget cuts science funding rather dramatically, I have not pursued it in depth myself, but if you can show that the budget bumps up spending on nuclear research, you may have a point, if it doesn’t, or if it cuts it in line with the rest of spending cuts, then your sarcastic quip" And it’s conservatives’ fault. " is actually more true than sarcastic.

Regards,
Shodan

And you, my very good friend, have a great day!

K9

[WillFarnaby]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Typical atomistic individualist rhetoric.

Argument by label. Devastating.

[E-DUB]

I’m not inherently against nuclear power, but there is a real garbage disposal problem associated with it. Solar and wind are great because, among other reasons, they are decentralized. (I thought conservatives believed in decentralized power.) But I’m really hoping for a breakthrough on fusion. The first country that figures out how to do fusion on a practical basis will rule the planet for the next hundred years. It’s that much of a game changer. OPEC will be reduced to lubricant salesmen, and that’s just for openers.

[septimus]

Bricker has me beat in newspaper reading by parsecs. I have very different reading, pursuits, and recreations; and get almost all my current affairs news reading SDMB. :eek: I would miss opinions, especially from the right-wing, if not reposted here. Thanks to Bricker for bringing matters to my attention.

@Gyrate

It’s certainly one conservative’s fault for creating a strawman that doesn’t remotely follow from the post quoted.

And thank you too, Mr. Gyrate. I would have missed the post you quote. which does provide interesting insight into some conservatives’ thinking. (I hope other conservatives in the thread will help clarify Mr. Shodan’s observation in the context of thread topic.)

[Max_Torque]

@Shodan

Yes, I understand what you said. The question is, why do liberals oppose nuclear energy? It can’t be because liberals are pro-science - the science is pretty firmly on the side of nuclear energy. Could it be because, just like conservatives, they turn their commitment to science on and off when the science conflicts with their agenda?

If liberals want to give themselves airs about how pro-science they are, they need to be so consistently.

It’s like Algore and his energy-sucking house and his private jet flying around to global warming conferences. “We all need to change our thinking and our lifestyles to deal with the scourge of global warming. And by we all, I mean you.”

Regards,
Shodan

I’m generally liberal, and I am in favor of nuclear power, in theory. A running nuclear power plant can crank out gigawatts of power while requiring very little fuel or maintenance. I say “in theory,” however, because there are three big issues in getting there.

Everyone likes to crow about the low cost of nuclear, but they’re not including the startup cost. Building a new nuclear power plant today costs upwards of $9 billion. That’s a huge up-front cost before a single watt comes out of the plant. By contrast, a windmill costs $3-$4 million for a 2MWh model, installed; that should be sufficient to power just over 300 homes.

Of course, closing plants is a problem, too. Costs are generally estimated at 10 to 15 percent of building costs. Most of it can be recycled these days, but it’s a long and pricey road to get a site back to “greenlawn” condition.

And of course, there’s NIMBY. No one wants to live next to one, or within 50 miles of one. So, finding a good place to put a plant is tricky.

[DSYoungEsq]

Ah, but a large component of the start-up costs has to do with regulations put in place by “liberals” who don’t want “libertarian” nuclear plants. Mind you, I don’t mind this; I don’t want my own personal nuclear power plant, and I don’t want others having one either. But I would be willing to bet that the process could be streamlined some. In which case, Toshiba might not have been going under, due to Westinghouse.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Check again.

When is a slippery-slope argument not a fallacy?

Hint: “Toulmin method.”

We know already that the basis for what the Telegraph made the article were false and misleading in the extreme.

For your point to work you needed to start with a good premise. Not bollocks from The Telegraph.

Slippery slope

“slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur. The strength of the argument depends on two factors. The first is the strength of each link in the causal chain;** the argument cannot be stronger than its weakest link.** The second is the number of links; the more links there are, the more likely it is that other factors could alter the consequences.”[34]

[k9bfriender]

@DSYoungEsq

Ah, but a large component of the start-up costs has to do with regulations put in place by “liberals” who don’t want “libertarian” nuclear plants. Mind you, I don’t mind this; I don’t want my own personal nuclear power plant, and I don’t want others having one either. But I would be willing to bet that the process could be streamlined some. In which case, Toshiba might not have been going under, due to Westinghouse.

There are certainly some regulations in place with nuclear that could be revised or updated, especially given new technologies and reactor designs. But having regulations to avoid construction from cutting corners that could cause serious issues down the road is not a bad thing, IMHO.

For one, a nuclear power plant cannot emit pretty much any radiation, none at all. IMHO, regulations on the release of tritium and xenon to the environment could be relaxed considerably, saving a ton of money in the capture systems for them, and still pose considerably less of a radiation source than a coal fired plant. There are probably many other little things like that that could increase the economic viability of a nuke plant, but any regulations to be removed should be studied very carefully to make sure that it wasn’t actually an important one.

The problem is, is that the regs have been pretty much set in stone for decades, and it would require an actual working congress to get any sort of useful change.

[Beren_Erchamion]

@k9bfriender

The problem is, is that the regs have been pretty much set in stone for decades, and it would require an actual working congress to get any sort of useful change.

Are nuclear plant standards statutory or regulatory?

[Beren_Erchamion]

@D_Anconia

The thing is, YOU don’t get to define “decency” for the rest of us.

When the rest of you define it in a way that justifies violating the rights of others, well, someone’s got to step in. Individual rights are not up for negotiation.

[Beren_Erchamion]

@Martini_Enfield

Interestingly, I’m an informed, decent, well-educated person

That’s questionable, given your ignorance of sociology.

What’s the “Slaves In The Antebellum South” version of Godwin’s Law?

I mean, when you’re making slaveowner-style arguments, what else is there to do?

[Bone]

@GIGObuster

It remained a fallacy and underwhelming to boot. Pointing at a news letter advice that had no authority nor applicable or teachable to the student body that was indeed just a mole hill. And yet this is a good teachable moment. It demonstrates how propaganda can misled many in ways that look natural and even causes the targets to believe that they are getting the whole truth when it is far away from it.

Pray tell, what whole truth is missing from the conclusion that

Sometimes called “micro-aggressions”, subtle, everyday racism can appear trivial. But repeated micro-aggressions can be tiring and alienating (and can lead to mental ill-health). Racial microaggressions might include:
• Not making eye contact or speaking directly to people

That’s casual racism and it’s asinine. Here’s a Telegraph article that discusses it. What exactly is false and misleading in the extreme? Seems like a pretty clear example of weakening the term racist by applying it where it doesn’t’ belong.

[Beren_Erchamion]

@Bone

Pray tell, what whole truth is missing from the conclusion that

That’s casual racism and it’s asinine. Here’s a Telegraph article that discusses it. What exactly is false and misleading in the extreme? Seems like a pretty clear example of weakening the term racist by applying it where it doesn’t’ belong.

That absolutely does belong, because it absolutely is racism, because it absolutely does reinforce hierarchies of white supremacy.

Again: our understanding of social dynamics isn’t fixed from where it was in 1964. It’s entirely possible for us to know things now that we didn’t fifty years ago.

[Bricker]

@Beren_Erchamion

When the rest of you define it in a way that justifies violating the rights of others, well, someone’s got to step in. Individual rights are not up for negotiation.

Sure they are. Because “individual rights” intersect with other individuals. My right to refuse service to a customer because he’s wearing a “Make America Great Again,” hat is an interference with that customer’s right to proclaim his politics while he shops in my store. Whose right is dominant?

[Bricker]

@Beren_Erchamion

That absolutely does belong, because it absolutely is racism, because it absolutely does reinforce hierarchies of white supremacy.

Again: our understanding of social dynamics isn’t fixed from where it was in 1964. It’s entirely possible for us to know things now that we didn’t fifty years ago.

You’re affirming the view that eye contact, or the lack thereof, is a racist microagression.

Excellent. Post bookmarked for any time you assert you have to high ground to define anything as racist.

[D_Anconia]

@Beren_Erchamion

When the rest of you define it in a way that justifies violating the rights of others, well, someone’s got to step in. Individual rights are not up for negotiation.

Once again, YOU don’t get to determine what “individual rights” are.

There’s another thread where a poster is claiming that college students have a “right” to a safe space.

I disagree. Who decides?

Hint: It’s not posters on the SDMB.

[wolfpup]

@Martini_Enfield

I live in Australia. We have universal health care. Everyone thinks it’s a great idea and the average person thinks the US system is the complete opposite of that.

As for the rest of your points, I will again note I live in Australia so I can’t speak for the US situation except in very broad terms.

Fair enough, but I think you’ll find that my other examples can be associated with conservative ideology past or present in Australia and most other modern democracies. For example, Australian conservatives include some of the most strident climate change denialists I’ve seen anywhere, no doubt in part because Australia mines and exports a great deal of coal. To be fair, Canada harbors denialists as well, inevitably connected to Alberta oil interests. Also to be fair, American politics is so skewed right by the standards of modern democracies that the Democratic party is at most centrist if not center-right, and contemporary Republicans are truly in a class by themselves.

@Martini_Enfield

Speaking as an experienced journalist: No, they don’t.

Look, I respect the solid work the Guardian does but they’re openly left-wing and run a lot of OpEd pieces and columns supporting some (IMHO) fairly unorthodox left-wing views.

What’s interesting is that people are always carrying on about the Australian media being super right-wing but the overwhelming majority of journos I’ve met or worked with have been on the leftward side of the political spectrum.

This meme of most media being somehow inexplicably “liberal” reminds me of the typical conservative hostility to universities that I mentioned earlier. Since the purpose of universities is to educate, they naturally have a predisposition to knowledge and facts and the accuracy thereof, which naturally pits them against some of the conservatives’ cherished counterfactual beliefs noted in the OP, among others. I submit that much the same is true for conservatives’ attitude toward the media. It should be no surprise that when conservatives try to offset this alleged bias by establishing their own media, you get things like Fox News, Breitbart, the Daily Mail (UK) (and Sean Spicer!) all of which are primarily distinguished by a constant barrage of lies.

[wolfpup]

@Bone

It’s only a win-win if you get to define the success criteria.

This is what I would call trivially true – that is, it’s an argument that you can apply to almost anything. It’s not necessarily meaningful. You say that your project came in on time and under budget and exceeds all requirements? Let me give you the success criteria by which it’s a failure: the CEO doesn’t like it! He can’t say why, he just doesn’t, and around here that’s what matters!

The point being that in order for universal health care to be dismissed as an important social objective, one has to propose success criteria that are downright irrational, such as the proposition that it’s important for a certain segment of the population to NOT have health care (which is the converse of UHC) because then those who have it benefit in trivial ways like reduced wait times for minor elective procedures, and that it’s worth having others suffer and die prematurely – and to pay MORE for your health care than you otherwise would – in order to accomplish this. The absence of rational factors for NOT having UHC, and the compelling factors for having it, is precisely why every industrialized nation on earth has it.

[GIGObuster]

@Bone

Pray tell, what whole truth is missing from the conclusion that

That’s casual racism and it’s asinine. Here’s a Telegraph article that discusses it. What exactly is false and misleading in the extreme? Seems like a pretty clear example of weakening the term racist by applying it where it doesn’t’ belong.

Why is that you call casual racism an advice to look to avoid things that can be racist? If anything that is casual anti racism. A bit silly, but what you miss is that it remains a very silly example of your fear when it was not enforceable, nor directed to all. The falsehood is in the clear attempt from the Telegraph to misleadingly avoid context and making this to be important or crucial; as it turns out, there is no evidence that an academic did this, it is likely that it was just a department secretary.

If you still think what the Telegraph did is kosher one still wonders what then the solution is supposed to be in this case. It is like if they claimed that an authority at an astronomical institute warned about the end of the world when it was actually the gift shop reading the instructions for the sparklers wrong.

[Bone]

@GIGObuster

Why is that you call casual racism an advice to look to avoid things that can be racist? If anything that is casual anti racism. A bit silly, but what you miss is that it remains a very silly example of your fear when it was not enforceable, nor directed to all. The falsehood is in the clear attempt from the Telegraph to misleadingly avoid context and making this to be important or crucial; as it turns out, there is no evidence that an academic did this, it is likely that it was just a department secretary.

If you still think what the Telegraph did is kosher one still wonders what then the solution is supposed to be in this case. It is like if they claimed that an authority at astronomical institute warned about the end of the world when it was actually the gift shop reading the instructions for the sparklers wrong.

It matters not at all whether an academic did this or not. It matters not at all if it is enforceable or not. These distinctions are not meaningful. Telegraph posted at article where the source was easily identifiable as I did in about, 10 seconds and based on both the Telegraph article and the source document, I don’t see any context missing. What context do you think is missing? There is no sense that this is some kind of sweeping policy - just an example of sensitivity gone amok.

The solution should be vocal derision of the idea presented. The goal would be that similar ideas would face ridicule in the future such that any person anywhere would think twice before pushing such asinine ideas. A larger goal would be to discourage casual accusations of racism because they are counter productive. Casual accusations of racism do real damage when it comes to seeking justice for actual racism.

Follow the line in this thread - first it was said that conservatives are racist and if they don’t want to be called racist they should stop being racists. An example was given that at Oxford’s Equality and Diversity Unit, they advised that not making eye contact could be racist. It’s through this type of lens that allows people to dismiss charges of racism - because the charge has been watered down to the point of triviality.

A prominent analogy I can think of is the Anti-Defamation League. I think it’s fair to say they are a serious about fighting anti-semitism. But when people trot out inept comparisons to Nazis they rightfully are opposed, because inappropriate comparisons trivialize the holocaust. That is the point I’m trying to make. Lack of eye contact is an inept charge of racism.