Underlore

I have an Adri, your argument is invalid.

Sociology

Nuclear Advocacy’s Failure

Contents
An open letter to the intellectual elite of the pro-nuclear movement.

ChPC5pTWMAQ-7fz
Here is why for decades we have failed to awaken the populace to the truth of nuclear power. Here is why for decades we have failed to counter the effects of essentially one lunatic, one actress, and one movie despite all the facts being on our side.
Pro nuclear intellectuals are rather keen to complain about the ignorance of the populace when discussing nuclear energy in the context of why “won’t people listen” type conversations. They often drone on about lousy “education” for example. (Ironic, since much of the pro-nuclear community is right wing, and accordingly view quality education as a free-market privilege, by definition to only ever be given to a small elite minority who can pay for it. But anyway.)
We’re often as a result patting ourselves on the back for being so brilliant as to see the truth. But if we’re so brilliant and educated, why do the seemingly stupidest of the uneducated anti-nuclear people have all of us combined completely over a barrel in terms of policy and social influence? What good is being a collection of hyper-educated geniuses if we can’t even effectively counter one lunatic and her library of lies?
For decades apparently (my time and long before) nuclear’s entire approach to convincing lay people of things has essentially been to simply clone the way we convince each other of things. With facts, logic, charts, and exhaustive arguments. When those efforts failed with the general public we lament the dimness of the people and then try again later in the exact same way. More charts, more massive technical essays, more echo-chamber conventions, and it never ever works. This is again ironic when the golden age of nuclear power was full of organized public relations backing.
Why do we keep doing the same failed thing over and over?
What we need are memes, demonstrations, films, social media presence, and activism.
Our old way has consistently failed because it fundamentally misunderstands our target audience, the general public. At the same time we are seemingly unable to admit we’re capable of misunderstanding anything, expressly because we are more or less a collection of hyper-educated, often genius, individuals, rarely familiar with stepping outside the areas where we truly do know more than virtually everyone else on the planet.
The real problem is that we are the ones that lack an education in the science of public relations. And rest assured, it is and has been a science for a very long time. We say they need to go back to school for physics, and that’s true, but we need to go back to school for sociology, psychology, and public relations.
Here’s just a small taste of the toolset at our disposal to defend nuclear energy via the right and from the left.

We need to shift a major portion of our efforts to the public relations and activism fields.
Examples:
  • Ready memes to counter every fragment of the anti nuclear argument. And not tons of them, so that anyone can carry the debate solo with images alone.
  • Public demonstrations meant to educate and provide context by their very existence. Such as anti-radiation demonstrations at coal plants.
  • Widespread social media engagement particularly aimed at the science type figures that are either silent or blatantly anti-science in their anti-nuclear fervor. (Tyson and Nye spring to mind.)
  • We also need to draw constant parallels between anti-nuclear crusaders and climate change deniers because here we have a ready-made work flow for dealing with powerful anti-science types, which the general public already accepts, particularly the left, which is the main source of anti nuclear activity.
    Because is what anti-nuclear is also by definition anti-science and anti-climate.
Those of you with the magic PHD need to very publicly step up to popular science figures to question their anti-nuclear comments and silences because you are the only ones that can.
I highly recommend we all learn twitter. Twitter’s very format forces the creation of pithy media, and bite sized arguments and unlike the other platforms it is much more like one giant lobby and crowd, as opposed to a hotel with many rooms. And before anyone complains about complexity of argument not fitting in a tweet, save that crap, because if science can fit a smartphone in my pocket, it can fit a good argument into a tweet. After all, you can link video and images to tweets, and a picture is worth a thousand words.
Also I might add, virtually all the political figures you’d ever want to influence have and use twitter accounts, including the president and all three people with a real shot at becoming the next one.
Thanks for your time 🙂
Resources section:

Videos:

Bernie Sanders is Going To Win

In response to:

TLDW: Guy gives 30% chance of Bernie victory.

 

TLDR: I’m giving 100% chance of Bernie victory.

O.o 30%? You yourself did a video before western Saturday saying all he had to do was perform as he had previously and he’d win. Does Bernie EVER LOSE a supporter? Has that ever happened even once?

Now he massively over performs his polling, only loses once due to clear election failure, and you’re still saying 30%?

Here, I’ll go ahead and prove I get it better than Kyle: I predict Bernie will win the nomination. It’s called. It’s done. All we have to do is keep doing what we’re doing.

(Like I actually did on July 1, but my predicted path to his victory was wrong, as I mistakenly assumed the AA vote would like the guy cloning MLK’s platform, marched with MLK, and got arrested on the right side of the civil rights movement. http://underlore.com/batman-feels-the-bern/)

Kyle is clearly consumed with the argument to moderation. He believes the middle path and cynicism are more truthful by default. Reality isn’t like that. Truth is truth and it can be anything. It can be the middle or an extreme or even knowable. It can be eternal or fluid. Truth just doesn’t give a fuck.

It’s possible to over compensate and be wrong in the other direction. Being honest doesn’t just mean defending an assertion that you find unfavorable. It also means being clear about conditions that are favorable.

He has this problem in common with Cenk.

But hey, I view these people like Wikipedia. I can listen critically just as well as I can read critically and no human source of data is infallible. Nor do I need them to be.

It’s funny, Him and Cenk go on and on about how bias the media is, they themselves work in alternative media, they complain that the media isn’t giving him credit for his wins, and then they say that the msm is a massive roadblock. There’s a contradiction. If the MSM is such a massive roadblock, then where are his wins coming from? At what point do you take away the msm’s credit for the ability to influence votes?

People whine about money in politics, but the major spending target of that money is TV advertising. So if we let TV ads pick for us, is that money’s fault or ours? And really DO we let TV pick for us? Money didn’t help Jeb.

Bernie is proving with his rallies and wins and donations and volunteers, that msms bias isn’t the hurdle they’re constantly saying it is.

How’s that for facts?

Here’s another one, Kyle STILL hasn’t done the homework on WHY the primaries are southern fried.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/22/southern-primaries-frontloaded-unfair-clinton-sanders-trump-column/82094230/

There ARE two primaries, BY DESIGN.

Cenk himself is already fond of saying during election coverage that it’s not like a race, the elections have already happened it’s just when counts come in. That’s true now to a large extent.

There are two polls that already determined this election in advance. The rest is expensive red tape and information distribution.

1. Which candidate is most favorable? 2. Which platform is most in-line with the majority’s desires? Bernie and Bernie’s. We already share Bernie’s positions, we just have to A. Be informed he exists, and B. be informed of his character. As that information and ONLY that information spreads, he already wins elections in its wake.

He’s already won, like I said in July. I was just wrong about the demographics of how. It’s like how the world changed the very second fire was discovered. It just took time for the effect to ripple out. Clockwork.

“All these roadblocks” boiled down to one that isn’t even a block, as proven by his landslide wins. He’d have landslid Arizona also And all the states with closed primaries and voter suppression had those two policies been reversed.

There’s no new media. Guy has 300,000 subscribers, it’s already impossible to get a response out of him.

Writing this comment is literally like talking to the TV. Mainly the only people that hear it are the other people in the room.

Kyle’s right about one thing. There is no choice. http://underlore.com/bernie-or-bust/

Best I ever got as a response out of these people was a like on my tweet from Jimmy D. and Ana K.

9/11: Rhetorical Poison

I make it a point not to discuss my position on 9/11 because the entire debate is rhetorical poison.

It’s like a land mine for your credibility. I step over it.

The result is the same either way. Assume for a second it was as they say an inside job. Or assume it’s the other extreme, exactly like the official story. Same result. Same tragic deaths. Same insane policy. Same wasted opportunities.

It’s the modern JFK. The results will be much the same. No matter what really happened, no amount of likely evidence will convince either side to switch sides.

If it was an inside job all proof of it is gone by now. If it wasn’t, no amount of what’s left will convince the opposition. The smoking gun is paperclips by now.

Honestly even the death toll isn’t relevant when you step back. How many civilians did the American military kill last year? The drug war? Treatable illness? Hunger? Etc.

What would proving it and having a massive public trial that turns out exactly as they want actually accomplish? How likely is the best possible outcome? Will it ever be worth 3000 lives? Is that even possible?

I just think the whole thing is worse than pointless. I think we can go back once we can afford to. The time to do something meaningful in any but the historical context is over.

Clearly it’s a massively significant historical event and thus is worthy of study, but the fact is there’s a reason why we basically leave that study to people bent on self-marginalizing.

Even if they are right and the goal is noble, there are more pressing issues.

Every one ethical and sane already all basically agrees the war on terror is a human rights catastrophe, the war in Iraq a gargantuan mistake, a decade and a half of hard experience has taught us the folly of this path and the informed are already committed to changing it, for the most part.

We manufactured Osama and we manufactured ISIS, and either they engineered 9/11 or they ruthlessly exploited it, and either way they are responsible for an unfathomable number of deaths, plus or minus 3000.

The best thing to do now is avoid all such things in the future as best we can and oppose any logic which dismisses the suffering and death of others.

Why don’t republicans love China?

Because Bernie Sanders I see a lot of bullshit about China coming out of the right wing types these days.

It’s a republican wet dream as far as I know. There’s like no real social safety nets, there’s no real environmental regulation, nothing like an actual minimum wage, nothing like real privacy protection, a de facto slave trade, obsessive cultural worship of the past, no unions, no real justice system just a lot of arbitrary executions and censorship and militarized police, huge and belligerent actual military, institutionalized sexism, it’s financial systems are a deregulated bubble factories thick with corruption and insider trading, the list is endless. Not to mention they are the direct or indirect obvious beneficiaries of every trade pact on the planet. Trade pacts which the right wing ADORE.

It’s like if Fox news ran a country. China seems the end product of libertarianism. Socialism for the corporations and oligarchs, and heartless individualism for everyone else. Which is exactly what all right wing policy demands. That’s the entire point of starve the beast, since Reagan.

Literally the only difference between China and a theoretical right wing utopia is no government enforced Christianity, and maybe a few differences of label. Functionally they seem nearly identical to me.

The very term libertarian BEGAN as a corporatist lie. A philosophy tailor made to justify pro business regulation and deregulation. And isn’t that what China is now? Just a massive corporation with a bunch of wholly owned subsidiaries with the entire populace in the role of employees?

Links:

http://www.alternet.org/visions/true-history-libertarianism-america-phony-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-28/republicans-misguided-china-bashing

600 Words on Why You Should #FeelTheBern

2016-02-11_141359600 Words on Why You Should #FeelTheBern

http://voteforbernie.org/

Objection!

Response.

Free Stuff Doesn’t Grow on Trees!

Every dollar in Bernie Sanders’s proposals is matched by a corresponding dollar raised in revenue — it’s all accounted for.

For example, the $75 billion/year College For All plan will be paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation, while the $100 billion/year Rebuild America Act will be paid for by taxing corporate offshore income.

Socialists will ban private property!

Bernie Sanders is a DEMOCRATIC socialist. He believes that our current economic system isn’t doing enough for poor and middle-class Americans and that democratic change is needed to create a more fair and just America.

But this isn’t radical or scary! Many of the programs instituted by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson that we take for granted today — such as Medicare, the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, and Social Security — can be considered socialist programs.

He’ll tax us all into homelessness!

If you’re one of the 1.5% of Americans making more than $231,450 a year, your marginal tax rate will go up slightly — money you earn above $231,450 will be taxed at 37% instead of 33%.

If you’re one of the 0.6% of Americans making more than $500,000 a year, your marginal rate will go up from 39.6% to 43%. Above $2,000,000 the rate will be 48%, and above $10,000,000 the rate will be 52%. These are tax increases that will only affect the very, very wealthy.

On the other hand, the vast majority of Americans will see significant savings when factoring in tax and healthcare changes under Bernie’s plans.

He’d never win vs the republicans!

Bernie has a better chance in the general election than Hillary would have:

Bernie performs better than Hillary does in all hypothetical match-ups against Republicans in poll after poll (2.4% better against Trump, 4.6% better against Cruz, and 1.5% better against Rubio, on average).

Bernie significantly outperforms Hillary in surveys of independent voters, and with 30-40% of Americans identifying as independents, they will play the deciding role in the general election.

And Bernie has a big lead in favorability, with a +10% net favorability rating among all Americans, compared to Hillary’s -10% net favorability rating. No presidential candidate has ever won with a negative favorability rating.

Republican controlled congress won’t let him do anything!

Bernie is actually well-known for his ability to compromise to get things done without sacrificing his values. In the House, he was known as the Amendment King, and passed more amendments, addressing exclusively progressive goals, than any other legislator, by forging cross-party coalitions.

He has earned respect from Republicans ranging from John McCain to the ultra-conservative Jim Inhofe. If any Democratic president can reach across the aisle to work with a stubborn Republican Congress, it’s Bernie Sanders.

See Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6hbwp0RUAI
(Bernie Sanders’ Realistic Plan to Confront and Defeat Obstructionism in Congress)

He wants to cancel Obamacare!

Bernie wants to expand health care coverage, not get rid of it!

Obamacare has made things a lot better, but it’s only a step in the right direction: Americans are still paying more for healthcare than any other country, and more than 10% of us still don’t have health insurance.

Bernie’s Medicare-for-all proposal will do just what it says — provide coverage for every American citizen, while saving the average American family $2000—$4000 per year.

But Hillary is Better!

Not really:
https://medium.com/@Lookingforrobyn/when-you-ask-me-to-vote-for-hillary-174becdb5ccc

==== ==== ==== ====
For original source of text and links with citation check out:
http://ilikeberniebut.com/

For more information on where he stands on other issues check out:
http://feelthebern.org/

Other links:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-pragmatic-case-for-bernie-sanders/462720/

Softball Questions

TYT, It sounds to me like you are complaining about bishops being interviewed for the job of pope, on the grounds that they are not being harassed about being religious. A town hall isn’t the place for that. You guys are missing the point of a right wing town hall.

The right wing mutilates the crap out of itself on terms it can understand during debates. Why would right wing audiences want to see the same in the town hall? Softball is the only way right wing voters get to see an example of them being given everything they want without direct personal opposition. Which is what they would get as president.

Think about it, no one ever really got in Bush’s face while he was president. Because he was the freaking president. Softball questions are actually a pretty great way to preview what each candidate as president would look like.

Also you guys are talking like it’s the media’s job to basically interrogate the right about why they are right wing generally, and that’s fair out in the world in the context of problem solving, but that’s unfair in the context of a town hall given that in other contexts you accept the existence of the right wing.

You never for example overtly and seriously argue that the right wing should be banned. You never overtly argue for a one party system. Think about what that means. It by definition means that you agree that the existence of the right wing is legitimate, in which case you must also grant it is legitimate for it to explore itself in some contexts unchallenged. This is one of those contexts.

Everyone knows everything there is to know about the right wing. These candidates are virtual clones of each other. There’s no new information to extract from them from either side. Just like everyone knows that those bishops all believe the same things, we know all these regressives believe the same things, wrong or not.

The function of the press as a watchdog is to challenge them on this stuff, true, which they don’t, but a town hall is supposed to be partisan friendly. This is actually like the one place where where softballs kind of are fair play.

Now, you cry but what about the left getting hardballs, how is that fair? Well it’s fair because that’s what the left wants. Progressives have a lot bigger decision to make intrinsically when choosing a direction and a leader.

This is about the fundamental difference between conservation and progress. There’s only one past, but there are many possible futures. Wanting to regress is a unidirectional goal, but wanting to make progress is an infinitely more complicated hypothetical because you can go in any direction except back.

This town hall is exactly what was expected, exactly what it should be, and that’s why I didn’t watch it.

TYT seems to understand this when they comment on the fear of being called liberal media. That’s exactly what the media are afraid of because that’s exactly what it would be if they were to ask hard (IE, how dare you be right wing) questions, in the context of a town hall.

The time to ask them that sort of question is out in the real world when their policies fail. That’s the kind of question you ambush them with while they are getting off a bus or otherwise have them cornered. Like if you catch them drinking some water you ask them how they’d feel if you told them deregulation put lead in it.

Even TYT must realize fairness isn’t it’s actual goal. Yes you are saying ask both hardball questions, but that’s what you want them to do. That’s even but it’s not fair. You’re asking to get your way in both cases, but another form of fair is to not get your way in both cases. Would you rather the left get softball questions too in the context of debates and town halls? Of course not. Because that’s not the function of a town hall for the left wing.

Realize. This is what the right wing wants and expects from partisan contexts that already agree with them. It is not what the left wing wants and expects. The right in these contexts wants easy mode, the left wants to be challenged. Conversely, in a left wing debate everyone in civil, in a right wing debate they tear eachother’s throats out. The media is right wing biased, no question, but this softball town hall is not in my opinion an example of it.

Underlore © 2013