4 ms·

Well, you did prove my point. I said nuclear the wrong way, and you had a meltdown. Again, I didn't make any arguments against you. You put those words in my mo

Well, you did prove my point. I said nuclear the wrong way, and you had a meltdown. Again, I didn't make any arguments against you. You put those words in my mouth yourself. Three times I told you point-blank that you misunderstood me, and not once did you ask for clarification. You didn't calm down until I told you that I agreed with you. You thought you heard something you didn't like, you panicked really hard, and you refused to receive any new information I tried to give you.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Jesus fucking christ, way to punish a good deed. You receive one iota of charity as to your motivations and rather than engage in good faith you go back to 'see it's because you're irrational that you don't trust the constant gaslighting and you took my words at face value rather than assuming the most favourable possible turn of any ambiguity'. There was no meltdown. I was outlining the history of why your cry bullying wasn't the enlightened rationality you were pretending it was. And why people correctly refuse to trust it for sound meta-reasoning even if they don't understand the technical details. You've not even attempted to dispense any new information other than asserting anyone who disagrees with you for any reason is doing it for irrational reasons and all of the deal breakers are actually fine if they'd just see what the new tech is (but you also carefully didn't define it so it can't be rebutted other than loosely implying passive meltdown safety sufficed to answer every objection which you've now walked back without acknowledging). At least the usual reactionaries have the decency required to posit a semi-coherent position.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- marmetio 4y ago
  Quote me gaslighting you. You accused me of it twice without evidence. First time, you thought I wanted you to believe people, and that since you didn't, you were panicked. I never said that. You did. The comment I linked explained to another commenter why I don't want them to trust anyone. I replied to you that I don't want you to accept anything that's unacceptable to you. And the panic refers to inability to engage in the conversation. Second time, you accused me of not acknowledging past lies. But I had already said that the nuclear industry would have to address past bad behavior. And like I said, you shouldn't be trusting people anyway. You argued with yourself. You gaslit yourself. You cry-bullied yourself. You had a melt down. I told you I wasn't saying those things. You said I was. Repeatedly. That's on you. And why would you think that I have some super secret new information specifically for you? I don't know you. I don't know what you know or don't know. It was a general comment about how some people would rather throw a tantrum instead of talking like a normal person.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    The gaslighting was referring to the industry's messaging as a whole and you knew this, but if you insist. > The only true fix would be a reactor and fuel design that can't melt down. A walk-away safe design that, even if you intentionally induced the worst disaster, still wouldn't pose a real threat to the public. Then it wouldn't matter if the operator was a cartoon villain determined to destroy the city. > This is the part that people still don't want to hear. They can't accept that their pet concern can be eliminated by approaching the problem differently and breaking their assumptions. They look for new concerns, but educating them doesn't help because when they run out of unaddressed concerns, they just circle back to old concerns that were already addressed. Their concern was never more than an excuse. They just want the answer to fit their preconceived notions. You've claimed 1) that the only possible objection is risk of plant meltdown 2) that there are credibly deployable technologies where this is categorically impossible and not just an extension of defense in depth 3) that the claimed existence of 2 satisfies any objections to existing reactors and not just potential future ones and 4) that any objection that doesn't fit this framework is the fault of the objector's reasoning faculties. 1 2 and 3 are untrue, and 4 places the blame for reality not agreeing with this on anyone objecting and silences any further discussion. This is textbook gaslighting. You also left just enough ambiguity that you can have a little cry if someone calls you out on it and call them emotional for reading what you meant rather than what you might possibly have meant if we really stretch the principleof charity to breaking point. > I literally told you that you were wilfully misunderstanding me. You disagreed. That's on you. You gaslit yourself. I briefly entertained the notion that you had made a good faith misunderstanding and were just an incredibly poor communicator and attempted to engage, but you disproved that resoundingly by refusing to engage in good faith. Now you are attempting yet again to claim any disagreement is a purely irrational response. This is a second attempt. You've also abandoned the clearly stated claim that walk away safety satisfies all objections and claimed that you agreed all along Gen 4 reactors and their fuel cycles posed unnaceptable risks. This is a third attempt at gaslighting. You also keep talking about how you address concerns and educate people, but you've done nothing but insult.
    - marmetio 4y ago
      > Your gaslighting is not as subtle as you think it is. > The gaslighting was referring to the industry's messaging as a whole and you knew this I guess "your" means "the industry"? I'll go add that to the dictionary right away. "My" 4 claims are your 4 claims. For 1, context was Fukushima, which was a partial meltdown. So I gave a matching example about a concern about a meltdown. You extrapolated that yourself to mean that the only risk that exists is meltdown. I don't think that. Should have been easy to clear up early on. For 2, I guess we should just trust you that there will never be a solution and never talk about it again? Ironic, coming from you. But also, I want to point out how I agree with you here. Most proposals are just defense in depth. People talk in circles when they can't categorize a proposal as defense in depth vs elimination by design. For 3, I can't see anything I wrote to suggest this. It looks to me like the only evidence you had that I might think that was your misunderstanding of 1 and 2. Either way, I don't think that. For 4, I don't even know how you got there. But again, I don't think that. You're still adamantly telling me what I'm thinking. I'm still telling you that I don't think those things. How can I be a poor communicator if you're the one who's deciding what I'm saying? Look at this from my perspective. You tell me what I said, and then rant about it and accuse me of being a bad person. Every time I try to tell you what I actually think, you say "no, this is what you think, and now I'm going to rant some more and tell you how you're even worse now". The only person who has the power to stop this cycle is you. You have to stop fabricating what I'm thinking.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Jesus fucking christ, way to punish a good deed. You receive one iota of charity as to your motivations and rather than engage in good faith you go back to 'see it's because you're irrational that you don't trust the constant gaslighting and you took my words at face value rather than assuming the most favourable possible turn of any ambiguity'. There was no meltdown. I was outlining the history of why your cry bullying wasn't the enlightened rationality you were pretending it was. And why people correctly refuse to trust it for sound meta-reasoning even if they don't understand the technical details. You've not even attempted to dispense any new information other than asserting anyone who disagrees with you for any reason is doing it for irrational reasons and all of the deal breakers are actually fine if they'd just see what the new tech is (but you also carefully didn't define it so it can't be rebutted other than loosely implying passive meltdown safety sufficed to answer every objection which you've now walked back without acknowledging). At least the usual reactionaries have the decency required to posit a semi-coherent position.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
marmetio 4y ago
Quote me gaslighting you. You accused me of it twice without evidence. First time, you thought I wanted you to believe people, and that since you didn't, you were panicked. I never said that. You did. The comment I linked explained to another commenter why I don't want them to trust anyone. I replied to you that I don't want you to accept anything that's unacceptable to you. And the panic refers to inability to engage in the conversation. Second time, you accused me of not acknowledging past lies. But I had already said that the nuclear industry would have to address past bad behavior. And like I said, you shouldn't be trusting people anyway. You argued with yourself. You gaslit yourself. You cry-bullied yourself. You had a melt down. I told you I wasn't saying those things. You said I was. Repeatedly. That's on you. And why would you think that I have some super secret new information specifically for you? I don't know you. I don't know what you know or don't know. It was a general comment about how some people would rather throw a tantrum instead of talking like a normal person.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The gaslighting was referring to the industry's messaging as a whole and you knew this, but if you insist. > The only true fix would be a reactor and fuel design that can't melt down. A walk-away safe design that, even if you intentionally induced the worst disaster, still wouldn't pose a real threat to the public. Then it wouldn't matter if the operator was a cartoon villain determined to destroy the city. > This is the part that people still don't want to hear. They can't accept that their pet concern can be eliminated by approaching the problem differently and breaking their assumptions. They look for new concerns, but educating them doesn't help because when they run out of unaddressed concerns, they just circle back to old concerns that were already addressed. Their concern was never more than an excuse. They just want the answer to fit their preconceived notions. You've claimed 1) that the only possible objection is risk of plant meltdown 2) that there are credibly deployable technologies where this is categorically impossible and not just an extension of defense in depth 3) that the claimed existence of 2 satisfies any objections to existing reactors and not just potential future ones and 4) that any objection that doesn't fit this framework is the fault of the objector's reasoning faculties. 1 2 and 3 are untrue, and 4 places the blame for reality not agreeing with this on anyone objecting and silences any further discussion. This is textbook gaslighting. You also left just enough ambiguity that you can have a little cry if someone calls you out on it and call them emotional for reading what you meant rather than what you might possibly have meant if we really stretch the principleof charity to breaking point. > I literally told you that you were wilfully misunderstanding me. You disagreed. That's on you. You gaslit yourself. I briefly entertained the notion that you had made a good faith misunderstanding and were just an incredibly poor communicator and attempted to engage, but you disproved that resoundingly by refusing to engage in good faith. Now you are attempting yet again to claim any disagreement is a purely irrational response. This is a second attempt. You've also abandoned the clearly stated claim that walk away safety satisfies all objections and claimed that you agreed all along Gen 4 reactors and their fuel cycles posed unnaceptable risks. This is a third attempt at gaslighting. You also keep talking about how you address concerns and educate people, but you've done nothing but insult.
  - marmetio 4y ago
    > Your gaslighting is not as subtle as you think it is. > The gaslighting was referring to the industry's messaging as a whole and you knew this I guess "your" means "the industry"? I'll go add that to the dictionary right away. "My" 4 claims are your 4 claims. For 1, context was Fukushima, which was a partial meltdown. So I gave a matching example about a concern about a meltdown. You extrapolated that yourself to mean that the only risk that exists is meltdown. I don't think that. Should have been easy to clear up early on. For 2, I guess we should just trust you that there will never be a solution and never talk about it again? Ironic, coming from you. But also, I want to point out how I agree with you here. Most proposals are just defense in depth. People talk in circles when they can't categorize a proposal as defense in depth vs elimination by design. For 3, I can't see anything I wrote to suggest this. It looks to me like the only evidence you had that I might think that was your misunderstanding of 1 and 2. Either way, I don't think that. For 4, I don't even know how you got there. But again, I don't think that. You're still adamantly telling me what I'm thinking. I'm still telling you that I don't think those things. How can I be a poor communicator if you're the one who's deciding what I'm saying? Look at this from my perspective. You tell me what I said, and then rant about it and accuse me of being a bad person. Every time I try to tell you what I actually think, you say "no, this is what you think, and now I'm going to rant some more and tell you how you're even worse now". The only person who has the power to stop this cycle is you. You have to stop fabricating what I'm thinking.