5 ms·
I hate this framing so much. "All of these major organizations were promoting the benefits of nuclear energy at the same time." As if to cast aspersions on any
by legitster 5y ago
I hate this framing so much. "All of these major organizations were promoting the benefits of nuclear energy at the same time." As if to cast aspersions on any actual benefits as being purely fictitious. The actual merits are irrelevant - guilty by association.
And notice that all of these same organizations promoted things like... breakthroughs in consumer electronics, worker safety, medicine, vaccines, solar power, space travel. And yet, there are no articles about the "propaganda" around things like seatbelts. To pull out nuclear is a lazy post hoc analysis hit job.
I hate this trend in modern journalism where anytime consumers show preferences for something a journalist doesn't like, they are written about like some sort of victim in an information war.
- teddyh 5y ago> I hate this trend in modern journalism where anytime consumers show preferences for something a journalist doesn't like, they are written about like some sort of victim in an information war. That’s “victims of misinformation”.
- legitster 5y agoExcept it's hard to make a case that people who support nuclear power are misinformed.
- teddyh 5y agoThere is no need to make the case explicitly, just assume it as a given. Look at the article of this thread; it assumes nuclear power is bad merely by inference, never by explicitly arguing it.