4 ms·

> Oppenheimer was dragged through the mud during the red scare and his name is still tarnished because of that. How would that tarnish his name today?

• jjulius 3y ago
  Public perception doesn't change at the snap of a finger. I'm sure there are plenty of people alive today who grew up thinking "Oppenheimer bad" and would possibly perpetuate that perception down the generational line.
  • lostlogin 3y ago
    If you ‘show dead’ here, you’ll find how right you are.
  • tivert 3y ago
    > Public perception doesn't change at the snap of a finger. I'm sure there are plenty of people alive today who grew up thinking "Oppenheimer bad" and would possibly perpetuate that perception down the generational line. I had a vague understanding that he had a bad reputation, but always assumed it came from more of an "anti-nuclear activist" angle (because he was responsible for making nuclear weapons real).
    • atoav 3y ago
      The knowledge of hindsight can be a curse. Don't forget that Oppenheimer is to a certain extent seen as the guy who is responsible of giving humanity the tools to kill itself a thousand times over. The fact that we didn't is good luck, but it could have gone different during many points in the cold war and then you and I wouldn't be able to discuss about this on here. But if you knew about Oppenheimer and still were alive you would probably not think highly of the man. So it doesn't have to do with anti-nuclear (as in: against civil nuclear use) — Oppenheimer was just the prototypical smart guy that failed to predict the consequences of his own actions and by that nearly ended humanity. This makes him an ethically ambivalent figure, and that ambivalence has become a defining trait of the public image of Oppenheimer.
      • tivert 3y ago
        > So it doesn't have to do with anti-nuclear (as in: against civil nuclear use) That's not my understanding. I don't think you have anti-nuclear activists that are totes fine nuclear weapons and just don't like powerplants. The activists who oppose civil nuclear use are a strict subset of a broader anti-nuclear activist set that includes nuclear disarmament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement: > The anti-nuclear movement is a social movement that opposes various nuclear technologies....Major anti-nuclear groups include Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Peace Action, Seneca Women's Encampment for a Future of Peace and Justice and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. The initial objective of the movement was nuclear disarmament, though since the late 1960s opposition has included the use of nuclear power. Many anti-nuclear groups oppose both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
        • atoav 3y ago
          So how does that refute my point about Oppenheimer's infamy being a result of the actual risk he produced and not the technology behind that risk?
    • 0x138d5 3y ago
      >"anti-nuclear activist" angle Which is also a bit funny seeing as Oppenheimer was opposed to the H-bomb and the whole nuclear arms race.
• PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  Some people think being a democrat is bad even when they agree with the policies, and democrats are by and large a "right wing" party. Being labelled a commie is on a whole other scale of bad.