5 ms·

I haven't downvoted, but I think it might be because calling someone an ideologue because you disagree with them is bad taste.

• colechristensen 4y ago
  If we go ahead and look at the definition of the word, I think it would almost be an automatic label for a Greenpeace leader.
  • SECProto 4y ago
    Dictionary definitions generally don't include information on connotation. Edit: I searched to find a dictionary for word connotations, best I found in a couple mins is https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~ychoi/connotation/ https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~ychoi/connotation/
  • forty 4y ago
    Admittedly I'm French and the negative connotation of this word might not have carried to English but looking at an English dictionary [1] it does seem to me that's it's something you would only say of someone you disagree with. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue
    • colechristensen 4y ago
      I'm one to think ideologues "on my side" also deserve to be disagreed with because of their methods and absolutism. But you are right, it's not a thing you'd really say about somebody you liked.
• causi 4y ago
  “Nuclear power plants are not the solution to climate change. To make fuels for nuclear power plants, we have to go through the whole process of uranium mining, transporting, and disposing. Considering this fact, there will be a lot of carbon emissions.” When you're so rabidly anti-nuclear that you ignore the fact uranium is 1.5 million times as energy-dense as coal, you are an ideologue. Uranium has so much energy per kilogram you could fuel the world's reactors by shipping it via airplane. There's plenty to criticize about the environmental damage of uranium mining. Carbon emissions is not one of them. It's my opinion this choice to attack nuclear energy by casting it in whatever critical light is trendy rather than its actual weaknesses demonstrates Morgan is against nuclear energy for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with its actual dangers, hence she is doing little or no risk/reward calculation, and that her future choices will not be based on human energy needs and accurate assessments of nuclear technology and industry.
  • jonny_eh 4y ago
    By comparison, mining of coal emits carbon, and using it emits carbon. Double whammy of carbon emissions.
    • forty 4y ago
      I don't know the person we are discussing about in this thread and I don't know her opinions or the opinion of German green party etc, but I do know some arguments of green parties here in France that are also anti nuclear too (note also that France and Germany are very different when it comes to nuclear as here most of our electricity is nuclear already) The arguments they make is that producing electricity and most usage of electricity are bad for our planet and thus we should use less electricity if we want to preserve it (and as a result wouldn't need to add extra nuclear or coal capacity). This part is often forgotten which results of thinking they want to replace nuclear by coal, which would be absurd. I imagine it's probably hard to imagine that someone would think that seriously from a US perspective (one of my US based colleague asked "when are you getting AC in Europe??" when here many people are wondering if the Americans are going to stop being crazy with their freezing AC ^^)
      • bluefirebrand 4y ago
        > The arguments they make is that producing electricity and most usage of electricity are bad for our planet and thus we should use less electricity if we want to preserve it Unless they have ideas about how people and society can continue to accomplish all of the things we want to, using less electricity, this is not a serious argument. It's simply ideological fluff, advocating for people to embrace a lower standard of living for nothing in return. If a person advocates against cleaner sources of energy on the grounds that "we should just be using less energy", then I don't think they are a serious person and they should be ignored. Let them go live their hippie life on a commune somewhere and free up the space for the adults to talk about real solutions.
        • forty 4y ago
          Well, what they would get in return is preserving the planet were we live. Even if they don't have children, the consequences of the past and current carelessness are already showing and severely impacting many people's life. But there are also plenty of things that can be done to reduce energy consumption without impacting anyone's little confort. Regarding thermal confort the obvious solution is to improve insulation so they wouldn't have to heat or cool as much and might even save money in the long run