There are three other problems with merely dismissing views that disagree
with one as simply those of people who've been manipulated or brainwashed.
Firstly, it's patronizing. It sends the message that people who disagree
with one don't really have minds of their own. After all, if they did, they
would agree with one, of course.
The second problem is that it bespeaks a mental laziness. It involves much
less brainwork to merely dismiss the views of others who disagree as the
product of manipulation than to actually think about them.
Thirdly, it allows one to remain in one's comfort zone. If one can just
brush off differing views, then one doesn't experience the uncomfortable
thought that one might just possibly be wrong.
One thing I can promise you all here. I may disagree with your views, I may
even sometimes speak harshly or even derisively, which I usually regret
afterword. But I will never disrespect you by insulting you by saying that
your views are not worth considering because you are the product of
manipulation.
As you can see, that kind of thing really bugs me.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2018 9:50 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Evan: nuclear power
I belatedly found part of one of Evan's emails which I managed not to see or
forgot about or something. So, I would just like to mention the nuclear
accidents that took place at Three Mile Island, in Russia, or was it
Ukraine? And in Japan. We have no reasonable method for dealing with
nuclear waste, and we have no reasonable way of dealing with the results of
nuclear contamination. What has happened in Japan is a nightmare, but the
corporate media has been downplaying it. There have been serious informative
articles about it in the alternative media for years, and a few good novels
have been written about the problem in the past few years. But for the
majority of Americans, out of sight, out of mind. This method of
manipulating the public works beautifully. Intelligent people who want to be
informed about what is happening, can be diverted from the most disturbing
information. And by the way, these nuclear plants in the US are old and
falling apart, and they're heavily subsidized by the government because,
apparently, they don't do well in that free market that all the promoters of
capitalism praise. It's interesting that our government also subsidizes
fossil fuel companies. Now what good is a low carbon footprint when the
water and vegetation and earth are irradiated and will remain so for
thousands of years? How is supporting nuclear waste more environmentally
friendly than carbon emissions?
Miriam
Evan wrote
How many people have died as a result of nuclear power, as opposed tohttp://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/11/21/why-i-changed-my-mind-a
say, coal mining, or oil drilling? Now solar power is probably safer,
and I guess wind power might be up there, although I can think of ways
people could be injured or killed working with or on windmills. I'll
stack the safety of nuclear power against any of the fossil fuels
though. And yes, I do support subsidies of nuclear power. It will help
us get off carbon emissions faster. For the same reason, I support
subsidies for renewable energy. It's also worth noting that, "...
according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nuclear
produces four times less carbon emissions than solar does. That's why
they recommended in their recent report the more intensive use of
renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage."
