I’m good with both sides of things. Take grammar,
I do – take it seriously, that is, and strive to get it right. But I also agree with Stephen Fry, who has amused me throughout my life at least as much as has Weird Al.
What else is polarised on the Internet? Yes, alright, virtually everything, but the discussion around nuclear power is a really important example because we need so much more of it. Those for the negative have what can only be described (in the context of nuclear’s proven potential to mitigate carbon emissions) as a litany of objections, but behind it is a common failure to grasp a fundamental perspective on the issue. Most proponents were not always proponents, and to varying degrees we also suffered from fear and misinformation about nuclear: the impacts of Chernobyl and Fukushima, reports of cancers and mutations, corrupt corporations ignoring safety, the lack of any solution to nuclear waste. Et cetera.Proponents get what opponents are saying, but we are past that. They don’t realise they aren’t going to convince us with the old narrative, the one that isn’t yet so stale to them. Maybe we need to remember the perspective we left behind, if we want to convince them. Because, when the stars align, it does happen.When the common goal is primarily to address climate disruption, it boils down to a single main difference between our two camps: the nuclear advocates are prepared to listen to one more group of experts than the opponents are. Refusing to hear a single word from purportedly biased, untrustworthy, lying physicists, engineers and professionals is unadulterated motivated reasoning.