Yes, as it establishes the potential bias of the article author. If this article was written by typically a pro-nuclear author it would be much more noteworthy.
Predictably, it didn't bring up the costs (though of course the first comment on HN did) but it tried to play the "environmentalist who has seen the light" angle pretty hard.
It's actually kind of weird how many articles like this do get submitted to hacker news. Link says "it's safe & making a comeback", comments say "it's just not economic and no" <- this has happened quite a few times.
Noting an author's biases/motives, like agarttha did, is useful. It's not the same as asserting that a conclusion is logically false because of the biases of the person who argued it.
In this case I thought it was rather obvious what the author's bias was and he doesnt't try to hide it.
It might be useful if they tried to conceal it. E.g tried to present themselves as an objective researcher at a think tank that takes money from general dynamics/lockheed or a journalist who clearly hastily rewrote a press release.
Broken clock shows the right time twice a day. Biased people being correct is an exception, not the rule. We should be suspicious of people with know biases.
Is it bias when you have an opinion and share it? The article can contain some of the reasons he's anti-nuclear, instead of the other way around, where his bias causes him to write the article.
While not the entirety of the under-representation situation, the pipeline is absolutely the biggest contributing factor. Take a look at any CS class today and you'll see a sea of white and east/south asian faces, an almost no black students – I took several CS courses at the University of Washington a couple years back (staff perk) and out of ~500 students perhaps 2-3 were black.
No amount of corporate diversity training or preferential hiring is going to fix that ratio.
Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, and many other US cities saw mobs attempting (and in some cases, succeeding) in burning down police precincts and courthouses this summer.
You've subtly avoided answering the question I asked. As far as I know, there was one (abandoned) police precinct burned. Was the burning of an abandoned building avocation for violence against police officers?
If you need me to explain to you how mobs attempting to burn down police and court buildings is indicative of advocating violence towards police officers, then you've got bigger problems then your misreading of my response.
You've gotten a distorted version of the story. The Minneapolis Third Precinct was abandoned at the time of burning only because police could no longer defend it against the rioters who were trying to break in and hurt them.
> against the rioters who were trying to break in and hurt them.
This is, we'll go with dubious. Probably true at this point, but the protests had been going, relatively peacefully for close a day, and then less peacefully, with police having repeatedly tear gassed and fired rubber bullets at protestors who weren't doing anything violent, and didn't appear to have any violent intentions. Reports obviously differ, but many concluded that the actions of the police, in attacking the protestors, are what escalated the situation to violence. Compare from [1], and I think this "who is escalating" question becomes clear and relevant.
Which is to say that while the protest ended violently, I think you'll be hard pressed to find widespread intent that it be violent from the start.[2]
So again I'll ask: do you believe that the protesting in Minneapolis was formed with the intention of committing violence against police officers?
On the other hand, do you believe the insurrection at the capitol, which had participants openly advocating for violence for days, was formed, with the intention of committing violence against elected officials?
I find the attempt to draw a parallel between a situation where it took 3 days of getting teargassed for protestors to become violent and one where it took...a speech from the President.
[3]: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2020/06/30/what-happened-at... is my source for the timeline, which appears to be a fairly evenhanded account, noting that some city council members had already proposed abandoning the precinct for more than a day before it ultimately was.
I believe both of those things. I'm confused by the contrast you're drawing here, because the reason I believe them is the same in both cases: many participants made angry, public declarations that violence was needed and they'd like to see it happen. Questions of how many nonviolent people were involved, how long the violence took to kick off, or who made the first escalation don't strike me as very relevant.
Can you source these in the case of BLM? That's what I'm missing. Preferably equivalently specific plans, which amount to "our intent is to physically harm police officers and destroy a police precinct" at a minimum.
> how long the violence took to kick off, or who made the first escalation don't strike me as very relevant.
I think they're highly relevant to discussing the goal of the protests. If a group of protestors shows up and demonstrates peacefully, but is eventually goaded into violence by the group they're protesting[0], that's very different from a group that essentially immediately attacks the people they're protesting.
And, of course, all of this entirely assumes that both groups have equally valid concerns, which is just plainly not true and important to realize. If you're going to take a stance that violence is absolutely never valid, that's an interesting opinion that I don't believe I share. But if you're of the opinion that violence may be an acceptable response to injustice, well, there's a whole lot more reason to believe that BLM protestors have justification for their claim of injustice than stop-the-steal protestors.
[0]: I'll reiterate the importance of this, in general, especially with police tactics that escalate and force violence, such as kettling. While I don't think that specific tactic was present at the 3rd precinct events, tactics that escalate violence are often used against BLM protestors, to predictable results. The fact that violence was reached quickly and without any of those tactics at the capitol speaks to, I think, a different mindset.
> Preferably equivalently specific plans, which amount to "our intent is to physically harm police officers and destroy a police precinct" at a minimum.
I'll take a crack at this. I could just site your own post where you say the following:
" If you're going to take a stance that violence is absolutely never valid, that's an interesting opinion that I don't believe I share".
It kinda seems like you are at least implying that you support the violence that happened during those riots. So your post right here would be one example of people endorsing violence.
The context we're in is advocation for violence prior to the events. Are you looking for cheap rhetorical points, or are you actually trying to engage thoughtfully (as the person I'm responding to is)?
> people endorsing violence.
Note how you've shifted from "advocating for" to "endorsing" and what I asked for was 'specific plans, which amount to "our intent is to physically harm police officers and destroy a police precinct"'.
So can you explain how my statement that, hypothetically, violence may be acceptable in some situations, is a specific plan to harm police officers? With the added assumption that such people should then, you know, show up and do a violence. All of those things were present with Parler. Unless you're claiming that
1. I made statements specifically advocating for violence against in advance of the 3rd precinct protests
2. I then showed up to those protests and committed acts of violence (or, alternatively, I have a large enough following that my followers did the same)
If even you yourself are at the very least implying that you might support the violence, then really it should not be surprising or an out there claim that other people at the riots also supported the violence, is the point.
Feels like a weird thing to push back on. You kinda admit that you personally might support the violence. If even you admit this, then really you should not be pushing back hard on this assumption that other people also supported it.
It should not be an out there claim, that other people supported the violence, when you are kinda implying that you support it yourself.
I just don't think that you should act flabergasted, or surprised, or indignant, or demand large amounts of specific evidence, at someone making a claim that other people supported or wanted violence to happen, given that you kinda are saying that you support it yourself.
> The context we're in is advocation for violence prior to the events
"Nobody advocated for violence before it happened, but now that it did happen I definitely think that the violence is justified!" feels like a pretty poor argument to me.
If you are going to imply that the violence was justified, then really you should not push back on this idea that other people thought it was justified to, and endorsed it prior to the event.
I'm not asking for examples of people saying what the protestors did was okay. I agree that there's lots of that. I'm asking for examples of the violence being planned or premeditated. Those are two different things. The "line" appears to be in between those two things, and people (like you!) appear to be equivocating between them when they aren't the same.
> support it yourself.
My (hypothetical!) lack of objection to generic violence is not the same as active planning and encouragement of specific violence. And I find your repeated attempts to equivocate between the two rather confused.
I'm asking for examples of the second, the active specific planning and incitement of violence. You're avoiding engaging with that request, likely because, as I believe, you can't find examples of that kind of behavior.
> My (hypothetical!) lack of objection to generic violence is not the same as active planning and encouragement of specific violence.
Yes there are varying levels of support. But frankly if you are going to take a position that is kinda moderately in favor of violence, then you really should not be pushing back so hard at the possibility that there are other people who were a bit more supportive of the violence than you are.
That is what I am pointing out. I'd put you at a 5/10, on the "is this person trying to justify the violence that happen". So if an average/random person such as yourself are going to moderately support the violence, then you really should not be so flabergasted at the suggestion that there were other people that were closer to an 8/10 on the "do they support violence" scale.
If such a thing would be so unsurprising, you should have no problem finding and citing those examples. Your only justification so far seems to be a combination of "both sides are the same" and "well some people don't object to all violence".
My argument is that, well no, both sides aren't the same, as shown by the fact that only one set of protestors was openly advocating for and planning to attack people. The burden of proof is on you to show that they both sides are in fact the same. I obviously can't prove a negative, and so far you haven't provided anything concrete.
> "well some people don't object to all violence".
Actually, after rereading the original comment, I'd have to say not some people. Instead Id say you specifically. You specifically pretty much tried to said that the violence was justified.
Ex: you said this, which is a not so subtle attempt to justify the violence:
"of the opinion that violence may be an acceptable response to injustice, well, there's a whole lot more reason to believe that BLM protestors have justification for their claim of injustice ".
> well no, both sides aren't the same
Specifically you, kinda do seem at least to be pretty similar to the "other side" actually, after rereading your comment, in that you attempted to imply that the violence actually was justified, and that it therefore "may be acceptable".
Your comment was a pretty clear attempt to say that this violence could have a "justification" that would make it "acceptable".
No, not "understand". Instead you implied that it would be justified and also acceptable.
In this situation I really would not consider you much different than the other side if you are attempting to say that the violence was justified and acceptable.
If you are saying that it was justified and acceptable, which your comment pretty clearly
seemed to imply, then I would consider the difference between you and "the other side" to be very small to the point where the difference doesn't matter that much.
That's pretty close to advocacy for violence to say that it was justified and acceptable.
I'm going to disengage because you've chosen to repeatedly ignore my comments, and instead respond to imagined things that I haven't said. I can only assume this is because you can't actually do what I've asked you to do seven times now, and find someone actually openly advocating for and requesting that people engage in violence against the police.
I want to be absolutely crystal clear about one thing: I have never, not in this comment thread, nor anywhere else, advocated for people to engage in violence against the police. It is frankly insulting for you to insinuate that I would do so, or to state that there is essentially no difference between me and people who planned and executed an attack on congress.
> I have never, not in this comment thread, nor anywhere else, advocated for people to engage in violence
What I pointed out is that you basically said the violence was "justified and acceptable".
Those were your words, when you used the words "justified" and "acceptable" in your original comment to generally describe that violence in general. I didn't make you say that.
While the NYT has always had its share of bias claims, since Trump's election it appears that even the facade of balanced reporting is taking a back seat to their editorial agenda.
You have editorialized headlines[1] that incorporate common liberal phrases to invoke outrage. Other "How to Raise an Anti-Racist Kid"
Any story that mentions Trump will have a negative headline, even mundane stories about disaster declarations and normal government business.
The line between editorial and news content has grown increasingly blurry: scrolling through their app you'll need a second look to determine whether a storing is news or opinion - they're mixed together, often without delineation. For example in the app today you'll find an opinion piece calling for slavery reparations sandwiched between an analysis on Trump's reelection campaign and a story about a problem police officer.
As a long-time subscriber (and no fan of Trump), it's both frustrating and worrying to see the "paper of record" of my country begin to parrot leftist talking points in their daily reporting.
So, actually, I think it's interesting to examine the above headline empirically.
1. I think we all here agree that "anti-racist" is a good thing to be. Even if we're annoyed w/how the term itself may be used sometimes for effect.
2. The United States has an extremely well-researched and well-documented history of deep, systemic racism, which persists to this day. Redlining in Chicago is one example of less-obvious or less-known ways in which racism has been baked into the system.
3. Item 2) is also reflected in U.S. media and culture. It's getting better but mass media/culture industry portrayals of people of color (especially black men) are extremely problematic. I'd like to emphasize none of this is entirely unique to the U.S., but, the U.S. is the focus of our discussion right now.
4. I'm pretty sure research in social science and psychology proves (even taking into account all of the replication issues found w/studies in these fields, and in medicine, over the last several years) that we all are strongly and unconsciously affected by our environment, especially in our formative years.
4. Therefore all of us who grew up in the U.S. - including people of color - unless we were incredibly lucky w/regards to our family and community in our youth - have internalized racist outlooks and beliefs to one degree or another.
I think this is an extremely important point. Anyway ...
5. Therefore it makes perfect sense that, once we acknowledge the empirical truths of points 1-4, that people would be interested in raising anti-racist kids.
Sure, it's of-the-moment and eye-catching. On a deeper level, it's super-relevant to our current moment, and something important for people of conscience to think about.
Whether the article is any good or not, I have no idea and it's not relevant to this discussion ;)
So I don't think that particular phrase is a good example of an unhealthy bias for a news organization to have.
BTW I too have issues and concerns around politicized language at times. More so an irk or knee-jerk reaction that it serves more to virtue-signal than do good.
That said, I've been trying to examine my thoughts and feelings around politicized language (in this case what you're calling "leftist language") more analytically.
In part I think the immediacy of my reaction is itself an interesting signal. I wonder if that's true for you too, but of course I have no idea - just projecting here.
It's not even leftist. The NYT confuses reality with semi-classical liberalism. Trump is allowed to push their buttons (and, their readers') in the news articles. But they haven't grappled with the illiberalism of the average American, nor is there editorializing really for anything. It's purely reactionary.
There was a John Stuart interview recently where I was pleasently surprised he got this. NYT now calls lies lies, but they get so titillated from this departure from both-siderism they forgot they
a) Most people are used to being lied and gaslighted by authority constantly and no longer have that emotional reaction
b) the emotional reaction to lieing caused them to stop their analysis from going deeper, so we miss out on a complete picture of the reality vs the message
c) the emoting is the exact biases tone the both-siderism was supposed to prevent. The calling a lie a lie bit was something we all wanted because it wasn't actually in conflict with objective reporting.
Basically, they sound like they are miming the intercept's voice without the coherent ideology that makes reading the Intercept worth it.
I couldn't disagree more. The idea of denying the HN community an opportunity to read a touching and deeply personal story—simply because its ending isn't palatable to you—is incredibly selfish.
