Whatever happened to the idea of starting an antinuclear activism group?

[XemaSab]

I recall there was a lot of enthusiasm for the idea, and then nothing came of it.

[FBaggins]

1. I don't think there ever was any such enthusiasm.

The real desire was to turn E/E into an antinuclear activism group... to make sure that people looking for information on energy and the environment would only be presented with an anti-nuclear position and the implication (if not explication) that progressives never support nuclear power.

I think the fear was that a separate group wouldn't get any traffic (as unfortunately appears to be the case with Peak Oil)... that the real desire was less a "safe" place to discuss related issues and more a desire to squelch honest debate.

[GliderGuider]

2. I think the reason the Peak Oil group doesn't get traffic...

is that the peak has already happened. The idea is boring and mainstream now, so there's no controversy to draw people to a separate group.

[FBaggins]

3. Lol... no, I don't think that's it.

It certainly isn't the case that "peak oil has already happened" is a generally accepted fact.

Heck... AGW is generally accepted and we still get plenty of threads discussing it... but would it survive as an active group?

I think it's just that there isn't a sizeble enough population here interested in that as an ongoing active forum (as opposed to occasionally seeing a related piece here or in GD). OTOH, I miss the daily drumbeat posts here and go there to pick them up... but there's hardly ever any conversation about it.

On edit - BTW, I'm not doubting that the concept of peak oil is well established. It's irrefutable. But there's significant and legitimate reason to doubt that the peak has already occured (even with recent spin revising earlier claims). I remember debates I had years ago on TOD with some of the regulars insisting that it's now well established that peak natural gas in the U.S. is long-gone. We now know for certain that they were dead wrong. That doesn't mean that there will never be a peak in natural gas... it just means that attempts to pin it down were overly pesimistic.

[GliderGuider]

4. You're probably right.

I'm trying to easy myself out of the hysterical prediction biz, and just be a witness to change...

Except for the crash in world population back to one billion by 2150 - I'm still foursquare behind that prediction...

[bananas]

6. I don't recall anyone calling for an antinuclear activism group, but that might be a good idea.

IIRC, there was a suggestion for splitting into two seperate groups,
one where discussion of renewables wouldn't be disrupted by anti-renewable nonsense,
one where pro-coal pro-nuclear industry hype and PR would be allowed to thrive.

[madokie]

15. That is about as good of an idea if ever there was one

[kristopher]

20. My original remarks

My original remarks on the topic are at the top of this thread, where I endorse someone else's idea with the caveat it is done in an equitable fashion. Of course, that was not acceptable to the nuclear proponents.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11271082

Energy and Environment in a World of Nuclear Power
Where the pronuclear voices can lay out their vision with no disruptors.

And

Energy and Environment in a World of Renewable Power
Where those who group nuclear in with fossil fuels can lay out their vision of tomorrow with no disruptors.

[XemaSab]

21. Start a petition and let's do this

[FBaggins]

23. And what of those who want both?

"Renewables OR nuclear" is a false dichotomy.

[RobertEarl]

43. My idea

We make E&E a nuke free zone, meaning that it is not allowed in this group for pro-nuke (since it is anti-environment) posts to remain. Pro-nukes can have their own group where they can post away all day.

Of course it would mean that after their first (or second?) pro-nuke post they would be banned from this pro-environment/clean energy group.

There is, I believe one person who has been banned because it was pro-right wing against the idea of global warming. In a similar regard, we now know that NPPs are the worst most deadly idea man ever invented to boil water.

[Nihil]

45. And here we have a classic example of almost unbelievable disruption:

> We make E&E a nuke free zone, meaning that it is not allowed in this group for
> pro-nuke (since it is anti-environment) posts to remain. Pro-nukes can have
> their own group where they can post away all day.
>
> Of course it would mean that after their first (or second?) pro-nuke post they
> would be banned from this pro-environment/clean energy group.

If you want that, go off and donate then persuade another 9 like-minded people
to join with you to set up such an echo-chamber but DON'T come in here demanding
that the E&E group suddenly develop a terminal case of "fuck-brain fascism".

*I* don't want to see another nuclear power plant built anywhere in the world
(as I have found that humans simply cannot be trusted with them) but I will not
support *anyone* coming in to declare that their own little disruptive niche definition
of "environment" is the only one to be adopted on pain of being banned.

Go off and set up your "Hardline Anti-Nuke" group by all means and yes, feel free
to ban anyone who dares to challenge your opinions in that group - just don't try
that here in E/E.

[RobertEarl]

47. Whoa

Take it easy, slick

If you don't think being a pro-nuker is anti-human, anti-liberal, and is an enforcer of all that is wrong with modern society, that's your business.

There are rules on DU meant to keep disruptions and right-wingers at bay. And that is all I am suggesting. We keep them at bay.

[bananas]

7. How come you never made me a host?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=466

caraher

<snip>

I trust bananas will be added as a host soon

<snip>

[FBaggins]

8. Let's hear your campaign speech.

Any host actions taken in the last few months that you disagree with? Any actions avoided that you would have enacted?

Any hosting load that the current five have been unable to handle expeditiously?

Can you promise a chicken in every pot?

[kristopher]

9. Do we have 20 hosts?

The standard for DU is an opening and a desire.

[FBaggins]

10. Do we need 20 hosts?

Seems like a change from a prior claim that we needed none... preceeded by the claim that we needed you. There's certainly no "standard" that says "anyone who desires it... up to 20"

Bananas previously expressed doubt at the current group's (or perhaps at the time it was just one) ability to spot disruptors and (IIRC), the impact of personal bias. I think it's beyond contestation at this point that the existing host group has handled things well and I would be interested in hearing whether a prospective addition agrees or instead seeks to change things.

[kristopher]

11. What does it matter if we "need" 20 hosts?

You seem worried about the idea of "disruptors" being "spotted". Guilty conscience?

[FBaggins]

12. The reason is pretty obvious.

The current group works fine. As I understand it they worked collaboratively to set standards that they could all support and have done a great job. Despite all the childish whining about what some feared would happen, we've had not irrational bannings, no on-topic threads blocked because a host didn't like the subject. No picking sides and using the power of the office to influence the conversation.

In short, the earlier concerns turned out to be wildy misapplied (and potentially said more about those "concerned" than those they were concerned about). I for one wouldn't want to mess with that effective balance... particularly if it meant adding an element that formerly held the concerns and doesn't now recognize the error. It's reasonable to ask how he feels now.

You seem worried about the idea of "disruptors" being "spotted". Guilty conscience?

Not a bit. I'm well aware that there are a handful here who see disruption in anyone who doesn't agree with them. The only "worry" would be handing such poor character judgement the power to make it stick.

[bananas]

13. You want a campaign speech?

Let me think about that, in the meantime, before she locks this thread, yes there are host actions she's taken which I disagree with.

She assured me in a PM that she wouldn't lock threads about proliferation issues. Later, she inappropriately locked a thread about proliferation. This was not just inaprpriate use of host powers but also a breach of trust. It tells me I cannot trust her, her word is no good. I asked her to unlock it, and eventually the other hosts convinced her to to unlock it.

[XemaSab]

16. I assured you that I wouldn't lock threads that were on topic

The thread in question was not on topic.

[bananas]

32. The thread was on-topic, as you later conceded

But locking a thread is an effective way of disrupting discussion, even if you unlock it later.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11278359

[XemaSab]

33. I think this highlights the need for another group

Don't you?

[bananas]

34. It highlights the fact that you can't be trusted. nt

[XemaSab]

35. What about the OP do you find disingenuous?

[madokie]

14. Count me in

I don't remember it but shit far lets get'r done
As my grand daughter would say, just do it

[XemaSab]

17. Oh, yeah, now I remember

It never happened because everyone was too busy fighting to actually organize such a thing.

[phantom power]

18. Who has to be convinced? Procedurally, what has to happen?

[XemaSab]

19. I think all that needs to happen is for someone

to start a petition for such a group, and 10 people to pledge their interest.

Anyone want to start a petition?

[kristopher]

22. What was suggested: "Energy and Environment in a World of Nuclear Power"

Energy and Environment in a World of Nuclear Power
Where the pronuclear voices can lay out their vision with no disruptors.

And

Energy and Environment in a World of Renewable Power
Where those who group nuclear in with fossil fuels can lay out their vision of tomorrow with no disruptors.


My original remarks on the topic are at the top of this thread, where I endorse someone else's idea with the caveat it is done in an equitable fashion. Of course, that was not acceptable to the nuclear proponents.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11271082

Not sure where you get the "antinuclear activism" from.

[XemaSab]

24. The Environment/Energy forum is going to stay as it is

[kristopher]

25. Then if the nuclear club wants a safe haven...

...let them have at it.

[XemaSab]

26. I have no idea what you're talking about

[FBaggins]

27. The "nuclear club" neither wants nor needs a "safe haven".

We're not the ones asking to have conversations protected from opposing views.

[kristopher]

28. It isn't "opposing views" that is the problem here.

It is deliberate disruptive behavior and the deliberate use of false information.

[XemaSab]

30. Who do you think the disruptors are?

[FogerRox]

31. Same pro nuke article made the rounds today @ D Kos and DU

Its not like DU is immune.

D Kos has nuclearfreeDK group and 9 people are in the nuclearDKos group, and it does tend to keep people separated.

[FBaggins]

38. Not an appropriate question.

Too close to calling out other DUers.

The proper question is just as easy to answer though. There are a number of regular DUers with years of membership, thousands of posts, and a history of donating to the site... who post here with some regularity in support of nuclear power. Which of them do not deliberately use false information or disruptive behavior. Which are simply mistaken in their position?

[XemaSab]

41. And a question for you:

Without assigning blame, are you happy with the fact that most of the threads on here with more than 5 replies degenerate into the same exact arguments with the same exact people?

It's a yes or no question.

[FBaggins]

48. No. Of course not.

The question is somewhat hyperbolic, but no, I think a more civil atmosphere would be better for all concerned.

[XemaSab]

49. I agree

[FBaggins]

36. That would be nice...

...if there was any evidence that you could tell the difference.

The track record is far clearer. If you find an article (regardless of provenance) that agrees with a position you hold (or that you misinterpret to do so, as happened here with the LSS cohort data a couple days ago), then you consider it an established fact. If you've copy/pasted the same paragraph from that source three times or more, you think the fact is so well established that everyone must know it to be true. Anyone who refuses to accept it as established truth must of course now be doing so deliberately...

...and of course anyone who would knowingly do that must be doing it to deceive others away from the truth (clearly disruptive behavior).

[XemaSab]

37. I'm saying this as your friend:

Don't start.

[NickB79]

29. It sounds like it would just become two echo chambers

And would lead to more polarization rather than less, which is something we definitely do not need right now.

I for one enjoy the back-and-forth debates found on the E/E board as it currently is. I've found myself changing my mind on numerous issues over the years precisely because someone I didn't initially agree with brought information or ideas up that I would not have discovered on my own.

We can't grow intellectually unless we keep an open mind and allow ourselves to be confronted with information we would rather not hear. Otherwise, we'd all be posting on FreeRepublic

[joshcryer]

39. We'd be fine if E&E was more E and less E.

As it stands now the E outshines the far more important E, since nothing of significance is being done about the former E and the latter E is just getting fucked because of it. I find E posts to be totally asinine, really, when the solution to E is not being addressed in any significant way. It's one reason I side with GG on this issue of E vs E even though I'm a techy, because quite frankly as long as E is the single factor for glottalization E will have to go fuck itself.

And probably the rest of us with it.

[joshcryer]

40. I meant "globalization" there, but I'm leaving that.

It fits fucking perfectly.

[Nihil]

44. Nah ... it had too many letters ...

... should just have been "ggg" or maybe "G" ...




(FWIW, I agree with the direction of your previous post, just grinned at the thought
of a non-regular trying to work out which E was which ...)

[GliderGuider]

46. To the extent that this group becomes more about E and less about E

my participation will continue to decline.

To anyone who is interested in where the human tendency to use E at the expense of E comes from, and why we don't care that using more E fucks the E I'd strongly recommend Craig Dilworth's recent book, "Too Smart for our Own Good". He's come up with the clearest explication so far, IMO.

Regarding the group question under such earnest discussion, I don't give a flying fuck.

[RobertEarl]

42. We need a poll

There have been a few changes in the last year when it comes to acceptance of Nuclear power as a means to keep the lights burning.

Pretty much everyone knows where I and a few others in this group stand. But what about the rest of you? Hence this request that a star member post a poll. Thanks.

[XemaSab]

50. I started a petition:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124094479

[kristopher]

51. Is your intention to shunt antinuclear discussion into that group?

What changes do you envision this having on EE?

You are clearly operating with a goal in mind, what is it?

[XemaSab]

52. Kick for visibility

:kick: