Reactors on Navy vessels, since at least the 70s, are very safe. They are closed systems and are completely sealed in compartments surrounded by feet of shielding. While some negligible amount of radiation does get through, it's half life is very short. Radioactive isotopes don't escape, nor do they get created by proximity to a radiation source and start floating around the crew compartment. In addition, each crew member carries a dosimeter which tracks their exposure. As others pointed out, walking around outside exposes us to more radiation (from the sun, earth, ceramic tiles...) than spending months next to to one of these reactors.
Also if they’re wrong (those being contrarian) who cares? Hypothesis and there’s should be able to defend themselves rationally against any attacks if they can’t then they are not studied well enough to have rigorously tested the hypothesis
At least imo, sure misinformation is one thing but if we’re talking about other scientists I assume, not some layman on facebook
Once the mud slinging stuff like "he's a scientific racist!" comes out (especially when it's clear the author would vehemently disagree with the label), you gotta somewhat adjust your Bayesian priors that the person slinging the mud isn't doing it because he ran out of rational arguments.
Yes, this is the usual precanned retort when faced with the fact that one's fringe viewpoint isn't in line with the mainstram science. It's not an argument though, in that it doesn't tilt the balance of probabilities (from a Bayesian point of view) away from the initial prior (i.e. the fringe is likely wrong and experts are likely right - note that I said likely, not 100%, like a good Bayesian). If anything, his elementary mistake about Crick, his failure to stay up to date with recent findings about African DNA, and motivated agenda with roots in scientific racism are tilting in the opposite direction.
I have no skin in the game; didn't even read the article. "You're just being contrarian so you're wrong" is a weak and lazy retort. I did appreciate that op provided a counter-perspective though; that's rare.
A conservative wanting to limit the power of government? Shocking!
Seriously though, this position is consistent with conservative beliefs; why do you find it hard to believe? Even the infamous Rush Limbaugh opposed letting the government force Apple to decrypt the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone.
"If you create encryption, it makes it harder for the American government to do its job — while protecting civil liberties — to make sure that evildoers aren’t in our midst."
"On Tuesday, June 23, Senators Graham (R-SC), Cotton (R-AR), and Blackburn (R-TN) introduced a bill that is a full-frontal nuclear assault on encryption in the United States. You can find the bill text here. It's been formally introduced as Senate bill 4051, which you can track here. (Other reactions to the bill so far: EFF, Techdirt.)"
Conservatives generally only want to limit the power of government when they feel those limits are in their interest. There are tons of examples of conservatives wanting to expand or maintain the power of government relative to the left.
> Conservatives generally only want to limit the power of government when they feel those limits are in their interest.
This is in the same category of “liberals only want immigration to expand their voter base”. It’s so lazy and reductionist that the only reason to post it is to collect claps from people who already agree with you. What’s the point?
Seriously. How can you expect any kind of productive or inquisitive conversation to come from telling “the other side” they don’t actually believe what they believe? Why waste all of our time like this?
> telling “the other side” they don’t actually believe what they believe
Their actions, in the form of legislation, conflict drastically with the stated beliefs, and trying to discuss that never gets anywhere. See other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29457639
(Manifesto hypocrisy is not at all exclusive to the right! But for some reason it doesn't get used as an attack line in the same way in the other direction)
Is the Texas abortion ban "limited government"? Show your working.
You’re attacking a straw man. Conservatives aren’t and don’t purport to be anarcho-libertarians. To a first order approximation, conservatives believe in cabining government to functions it has historically performed in the American tradition. That includes defense and internal security. It includes the protection of human life. At the state level—remember, state governments are not ones of enumerated powers—it includes a pretty broad intrusion into “the public welfare and morals.”
> You’re attacking a straw man. Conservatives aren’t and don’t purport to be anarcho-libertarians.
It's not uncommon for prominent GOP politicians to portray themselves this way. And I've seen similar declarations from rank and file GOP members.
It's a motte and bailey fallacy: when progressives want some new regulation, conservatives declare that they're the party of the government not intruding into your business, of the government being hands off. When they want some new regulation, or to maintain a currently intrusive one, then suddenly they're the faction of balance after all.
Motte and Bailey is shifting positions on the same issue. Regulating abortion but not corporations isn’t motte and bailey, it just reflects an ideology where some things are more appropriate for government intervention than others. Liberals are the same way—they talk a lot about “freedom” when it comes to sex, but not so much when it comes to participating in the economy. Neither party claims to be about “freedom” for its own sake as the highest value—that’s libertarians.
> Motte and Bailey is shifting positions on the same issue.
The issue in this case is the avowed principle, on which they have two distinct positions, while pretending they're the same.
That said, I don't disagree that you can find hypocrisy on the left as well. Just look at housing in California. You could make housing cheaper, drastically benefiting the poor and working class, through either zoning deregulation or massive public housing investment or both, but the Dems there choose largely to do neither.
> The issue in this case is the avowed principle, on which they have two distinct positions, while pretending they're the same.
There's no "avowed principle"--and conservatism is more of a temperament than a principled framework anyway. Yeah, there's a lot of rhetoric about "freedom" and "small government"--but the conservative audience understands that that means and doesn't mean. Put differently, you're not dunking on a conservative when you say "you say you're for 'limited government' but you support a big department of defense!" The answer is, "well yes, defense is one of the enumerated functions of the federal government in the Constitution, but healthcare isn't."
> Just look at housing in California. You could make housing cheaper, drastically benefiting the poor and working class, through either zoning deregulation or massive public housing investment or both, but the Dems there choose largely to do neither.
Dems believe that government regulation of the economy produces better results. The fact that the principle doesn't really work in the specific case of housing isn't hypocrisy, it's a limitation of the principle.
You are talking about GOP politicians and members. The comment you are replying to is talking about conservatives. Membership in these two groups is not exactly coincident. I hope that your comment is just based on confusion stemming on completely misunderstanding the right in the US, instead of deliberate attempt to identify the two groups as convenient for argument.
“Conservatives” are a coalition of different factions, just like “liberals.” Historically, the GOP is a fusion party of social conservatives, economic libertarians, and defense hawks. Like with liberals, there’s give and take among those factions about their view of the proper role of government (where it should be involved and where it shouldn’t be).
Different parts of the coalition have different views of government intrusion on different things. It's not the libertarian party that views less "intrusion" as an end in and of itself.
Superficial differences exist between factions, but their fundamental core moral position remains the same.
Conservatives believe in a hierarchical society with the elite at the top who must be pampered, and the bottom feeders who must be ignored and kept quiet lest they try to upset the apple cart. Feudalism was deemed to be too rigid, leading to its downfall in the French Revolution. Capitalism exists as an acceptable alternative, where some one with sufficient IQ and talent from the bottom is allowed to float to the top and prevent unnecessary mutinies.
Conservative factions differ in only who they think should be at the bottom. Social conservatives think it should be gays and other minorities. Economic conservatives believe it should obviously be poor people. Defense hawks believe it should be people of other countries because the home country is racially and culturally superior. A huge percentage believe in all 3 of them. This is why we see apparently contradictory stances such as
1. Small government folks against cheap food stamps but for expensive wars
2. Railing against cheap universal health care to support an expensive insurance industry
3. Republican devout christians opposed to helping the poor and immigrants
The apparent contradiction exists because conservatives never spell out their belief in a hierarchical society outright instead go round and round about in circular arguments - avoiding a statement about their core moral position.
And it can also create hilarious dissonance such as gay republicans or Jewish white nationalists like Stephen Miller supporting Nazis. Stephen Miller is a classic example of a person from an ethnicity that was genocided gleefully cheerleading racism. He is a text book example of an all round conservative who hates all minorities, except perhaps Jews :)
> Superficial differences exist between factions, but their fundamental core moral position remains the same.
The differences are significant, but you're correct they share fundamental core moral positions, namely a resignation to the human condition and skepticism about efforts to fundamentally change it.
> Conservatives believe in a hierarchical society with the elite at the top who must be pampered, and the bottom feeders who must be ignored and kept quiet lest they try to upset the apple cart.
No, conservatives recognize that society is inherently hierarchical and believe that efforts to engage in social engineering are typically counterproductive.
> Conservative factions differ in only who they think should be at the bottom. Social conservatives think it should be gays and other minorities.
No, social conservatives believe that "culture" is fragile and difficult to engineer, and we should hesitate to change longstanding institutions like marriage to address the needs of minorities. Case in point, social liberals are literally failing to perpetuate their societies--North America has become wholly dependent on immigration from socially conservative Latin America, while Europe has become wholly dependent on immigration from socially conservative Muslim countries.
> Economic conservatives believe it should obviously be poor people.
Economic conservatives acknowledge poor people will always exist and are skeptical of efforts to "fix" it. Case in point, the mixed results of Great Society programs.
> Defense hawks believe it should be people of other countries because the home country is racially and culturally superior.
Defense hawks acknowledge that great powers will exist on the international stage, and believe that the world is better off with America being the one in charge.
> 1. Small government folks against cheap food stamps but for expensive wars
Food stamps aren't in the Constitution but defense is.
> 2. Railing against cheap universal health care to support an expensive insurance industry
Even Elizabeth Warren doesn't believe you can make our healthcare system significantly cheaper than what we have now. Universal healthcare in other countries may be cheap, but so are lots of other public functions that are extremely expensive in the U.S.
> 3. Republican devout christians opposed to helping the poor and immigrants
The Bible doesn't say anything about using government coercion to help the poor and immigrants. Conservatives give more and religious organizations are the main "boots on the ground" entities working on refugee resettlement.
You're confusing "want" with "accept." Liberals, more strongly than conservatives, want an egalitarian society. Conservatives, more strongly than liberals, are resigned to the idea that you can't have one and trying will probably make things worse. And I don't know if you've looked around lately, but the liberal world is vastly more hierarchical than the conservative world. NYC and SF are incredibly hierarchical, while Iowa is incredibly flat. Liberals have embraced hierarchy economically, culturally, socially, etc.
> No, conservatives recognize that society is inherently hierarchical
A lot of your responses are simple yes-no with nothing really to back it up. This is your belief system, not a reality. This is analogous to a Muslim complaining about a statement "Muslims believe Mohammed is a prophet" and counter claiming
"NO, Muslims RECOGNIZE Mohammed is a prophet".
The only folks who are going to swap "belief" for "recognize" are other conservatives, which is not surprising.
In most of your responses you are basically just agreeing with me - simply providing unsubstantiated justifications for your belief system. I recognize your belief system- I simply disagree with it.
> The Bible doesn't say anything about using government coercion to help the poor and immigrants.
I am talking about the conservative Christian's asking for a Christian nation.
> Conservatives, more strongly than liberals, are resigned to the idea that you can't have one
They absolutely are not RESIGNED to the idea. They love it, want it and will spend enormous amounts of time, energy and money to defend and reinforce it - for example on tech discussion boards :)
> NYC and SF are incredibly hierarchical, while Iowa is incredibly flat.
Good for Iowa because federal tax dollars flow out of liberal NYC and SF to pay for the upkeep of conservative, fiscally responsible flat Iowa.
Also, liberals recognize that society will be hierarchical. But justice and fairness are important principles for liberals - not expendable burdens. Liberals "recognize" that conservativism is an inherent malaise of society and has repeatedly tried (unsuccessfully for the most part) to hold back progress in favor of parochialism.
In the United states conservatives fought to preserve slavery and prevent civil rights. I was able to immigrate here because the conservatives failed.
In India, they fought to preserve caste system, child marriages and sati and now are attempting to strip muslims of citizenship.
In Burma, they carried out a Rohingya genocide.
In the ISIS Islamic state, they butchered all non Abrahamic peoples they could find.
In Germany, there was this great nationalist chancellor who believed in a hierarchy of human ethnicities. And at the bottom were the Jews. Conservative jewish immigration expert Stephen Miller seems to be seized by similar ideas. Certainly, a gem of a man.
Conservatism is a platform for the likes of Stephen Miller, Bannon, KKK, white nationalists, motley crew of conspiracy theorists, anti science numb nuts - who if they find themselves in power- will destroy the very fabric of society that has helped humanity progress so much, painfully, step by step to this day. A certain German chancellor with strong beliefs in human hierarchies and conspiracy theories of the Atlantis comes to mind. Nearly managed to wipe out Germany.
> and we should hesitate to change longstanding institutions like marriage to address the needs of minorities.
Ah classic conservatism. I hope these gays don't destroy America!
> In most of your responses you are basically just agreeing with me - simply providing unsubstantiated justifications for your belief system.
I’m trying to help you understand the belief system. Neither of us are going to prove the correctness of those systems on a message board.
> I recognize your belief system- I simply disagree with it.
You can disagree with it without constructing a straw man caricature of it.
> I am talking about the conservative Christian's asking for a Christian nation.
Being a Christian nation means that government reflects the needs and morals of a Christian population. It doesn’t say anything about whether charity should be done by the government or by individuals.
>,They absolutely are not RESIGNED to the idea. They love it, want it and will spend enormous amounts of time, energy and money to defend and reinforce it - for example on tech discussion boards
Mind reading is a liberal skill? Conservatives spend a lot of time defending social structures because they are worried that liberal changes will destabilize the system. Which they have countless times in history.
> Good for Iowa because federal tax dollars flow out of liberal NYC and SF to pay for the upkeep of conservative, fiscally responsible flat Iowa.
Yeah and the Fed printing press doesn’t prop up finance-dependent NYC and SF…
> Liberals "recognize" that conservativism is an inherent malaise of society and has repeatedly tried (unsuccessfully for the most part) to hold back progress in favor of parochialism.
Conservatism is a force that prevents stuff like the mass famines when communist countries tried to impose mass social and economic change. Tens of millions of people died in the 20th century because of conservatism.
> In the United states conservatives fought to preserve slavery and prevent civil rights.
The Confederates believed they were the liberals, adapting to the new “science” of recognizing racial differences. They painted abolitionists as religious nuts clinging to the Christian idea of everyone being made in God’s image. (Remember in the 19th century you didn’t have DNA sequencing. Equality of people was an unfalsifiable belief.) Read the famous Cornerstone Speech.
> I was able to immigrate here because the conservatives failed. In India, they fought to preserve caste system, child marriages and sati and now are attempting to strip muslims of citizenship.
Socialism in India also failed. Also, in India, it’s the liberals that are fighting to protect hierarchy—they are Lord Macaulay’s cultivated leadership class, “Indian in blood and colour but British” in culture and beliefs. Trying to impose secular western liberalism on a population that doesn’t want it: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial...
> In Burma, they carried out a Rohingya genocide…
cough communism. You want to talk about body count…
> Ah classic conservatism. I hope these gays don't destroy America!
See, that’s the straw man. I’m from next door to you in Bangladesh. The prophet was clear about the purpose of marriage: to have and raise children. And he didn’t have nice things to say about people who don’t get married. Americans had the same understanding not to long ago. Obviously that has changed and the western understanding of marriage has become more individualistic and has become disconnected from child bearing. Same-sex marriage being legal reflects that. But can we acknowledge that post-child conceptualization of marriage has consequences? The percentage of households that are married with kids dropped from 40% in the US in 1970 to under 20% today. Americans as a whole, but especially liberal, secular Americans, don’t have enough kids to perpetuate their own civilization. They are reliant on immigrants like us, who typically bring over our conservative attitudes about family formation, to perform the basic function of a society—continuing to exist. I happen to support same-sex marriage. But looking at the big picture, maybe conservatives had a point about the unintended consequences of all the social reengineering we did in the 20th century around our conception of marriage?
> Due to some [reason], an overpopulation calamity hasn’t yet happened and we might coincidentally stabilize at a level that’s somewhat close to what maximizes average utility...
Given the birthrate trends in developed countries, it's more likely the population will peak and then decline as prosperity spreads. The cause isn't hard to discern - child labor laws - they turn children from potential assets into guaranteed liabilities.
A declining population will be a bad thing; our modern way of life is built on systems that depend on growth (from Wall Street to our tax structures to the various Social Security safety nets countries have in place); take that away and we will have real problems.
Given the context, I suspect the parent was referring to the overhead caused by managing incompetents. Given the choice between working with an asshat who knows what they're doing and a moron who doesn't understand the basics _and can't be taught_, which would you take?
I assume in the open source world the latter is easier to ignore, but in business it can take years to get rid of an incompetent, and the longer they're there, the greater the drag on the team and the harder it is to hang on to talented people. By contrast, letting a talented and productive asshat go is much easier; just introduce them to HR!
Thought experiment: how would you feel if YouTube banned all pro-trans content? ...or pro-choice, or anti-Isreal/Jewish material?
It doesn't matter to me if you're against companies censoring any of these things. Be aware that it means you're fine with authoritarianism, so long as it aligns with your politics...
Coca-cola produces over 100 billion plastic bottles per year. Multinational corporations seem happy to keep cranking out items they know damn well will end up in the ocean. Because money.
It's usually government types (DoD, FDA) pushing for this stuff, and lots of it. The thinking appears to be, "The more the paperwork, the better the product".
