|
The plebiscite thing still gets me, just assuming that everyone else is also a complete idiot who doesn't understand the concept of statistical probability. One thing's for sure, I would much rather live right next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Phlegmish posted:The plebiscite thing still gets me, just assuming that everyone else is also a complete idiot who doesn't understand the concept of statistical probability. One thing's for sure, I would much rather live right next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant. Yeah like I said, it's asinine. It's not like there aren't nuclear power proposals that couldn't be opposed for legit reasons ("Hey let's build a cheap unshielded reactor next to an Indian reservation!") but again, that's not what's happening in his strip. I feel undeservedly smug for not liking Last Dog now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 14:34
|
|
|
The problem with Peter Dutton's Nuclear power plan is it goes like this: Coal and Gas Power now -> Peter Dutton Retires -> Nuclear power maybe? Whereas a workable plan goes either, Renewable power now -> Renewable and Nuclear Power or Renewable power now -> More powerful Renewable power It seems to me that if any place in the world could build a Nuclear power plant in a place that wouldn't harm humans if it melted down it would be Australia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 14:48
|
|
|
Also "a series of possible Fukushimas"  Oh, you mean the event where more people were killed by the government overreaction than by the reactor failure? Yeah, we should probably avoid those, by not overreacting to nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 14:48
|
|
|
I mean, if nothing else, Fukushima being the only major nuclear accident in almost 40 years, AND it took a major natural disaster to cause it shows that nuclear isn't the big, bad boogeyman anti-nuclear advocates make it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 14:55
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The problem with Peter Dutton's Nuclear power plan is it goes like this: This is a perfectly reasonable objection and I actually agree with it. The problem has been that the usual suspects in this thread (the cartoonists) have been leaning in on the SCARY NUCLEAR ATOMS aspect of the plan, and not the fact that the plan is a sham put forward by a hateful human-potato hybrid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 14:56
|
|
|
Garrison begrudgingly opening up his reference folder and searching for "big booty" before having to add "women" so his pictures of Trump would not show up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
Doomykins posted:We could have everything running by 2050? Great! The loving quote about a generation planting trees they won't live to enjoy the shade of, you vile clown. First Dog, the vile clown, correctly makes the point, in that comic, that by the time a nuclear power plant got up and running in Australia, we could already have transitioned to 100% renewable energy, more easily, cheaply, and safely. Maybe that's not the case elsewhere, but it's definitely the case in Australia, and the reason why there is no valid case to be made in favour of nuclear power in Australia, no matter who's making it or what the specifics are. I agree that the scaremongering is unnecessary, but largely because it's irrelevant, not because nuclear can't possibly be scary. It's cleaner than coal, and it may be nearly perfectly safe when there are strict regulations in place that everyone follows all the time... when no-one ever cuts corners to maximise profits at the expense of the environment and human lives... ah, what a world that would be. Randalor posted:I mean, if nothing else, Fukushima being the only major nuclear accident in almost 40 years, AND it took a major natural disaster to cause it shows that nuclear isn't the big, bad boogeyman anti-nuclear advocates make it out to be. Yeah, like most things, nuclear is perfectly safe, barring the unpredictable, which by its nature cannot be predicted, in which case it is extremely unsafe. Oh actually, earthquakes in Japan? Those are quite predictable, in fact. And yet a nuclear disaster still happened. Come here to Japan and complain about how irrational the nation's reaction was. Vincent Van Goatse posted:Indian reservation ? Again: Australia. Though, since we're on the topic of Indigenous populations... DalaranJ posted:It seems to me that if any place in the world could build a Nuclear power plant in a place that wouldn't harm humans if it melted down it would be Australia. Maybe! I hope that this would be discussed with the traditional owners of the proposed site. I'm sure such discussions would be appropriately deferential to Indigenous Australians, as they always are! While you're thinking about Indigenous Australians, you can think about them inhabiting — permanently or periodically — every part of the continent for many thousands of years. You can think about how the image of the vast desert plains as uninhabited, useless, valueless, etc. — a great place for a nuclear power plant — is an image seen, and promoted, only by the coloniser, coloured by western, capitalist, and indeed imperialist values. I'm sure in Europe or America or wherever the gently caress, supporting nuclear power is very progressive and leftist or whatever posters in this thread think of themselves as. And yet for all your progressiveness you're unthinkingly interpreting Australian issues through a European/American lens. (Even Australians aren't immune to this because we're influenced by the more culturally powerful western/English-speaking societies.) Just remember that the whole fucken world isn't the same and doesn't have the same problems and even where the problems are similar, the ideal solutions to those problems, in the local context, may not be. In America, if you needed a background check to buy guns, gun ownership and thus gun violence might go down! In Australia, if you only needed a background check to buy guns, way more people could have guns. You all understand this, right? OK well understand this too: nuclear power in Australia would be a step backwards for the environment, for sustainability, for safety, for global warming, for human rights. Our problems are different, thank gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Chicken Parmigiana posted:Come here to Japan and complain about how irrational the nation's reaction was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 15:53
|
|
|
Chicken Parmigiana posted:Yeah, like most things, nuclear is perfectly safe, barring the unpredictable, which by its nature cannot be predicted, in which case it is extremely unsafe. It took the tsunami following the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan (and the 4th most powerful recorded in the world) to cause the disaster. I don't think this is quite the own you think it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Okay. The government should apologize for all the people that they killed. Where do I complain? Me, a strict utilitarian, in the most convincing tone I can manage: "So you see Obaasan, if an accident happens, it's actually very safe, because while you might get sick from the radiation, you'll get more sick from stress if we move you away from it!" Randalor posted:It took the tsunami following the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan (and the 4th most powerful recorded in the world) to cause the disaster. I don't think this is quite the own you think it is. OK, so we're back to it being an unpredictable disaster, then. The kind which by nature can't be safeguarded against. (Also I can't agree that it was completely unpredictable... the scale goes up to 10, after all. And Japan knew for a long time that The Big One was coming at some point. But that's by the by.) What's your argument here? Are you arguing that a nuclear power plant should be built in Australia? Because that's what my post was about. (Fukushima factors in, incidentally but rightly, as an example of the supposedly safe becoming suddenly unsafe. But as I said at the start: regardless of whether nuclear is scary or not, it ought to be irrelevant because there is no good argument to be made in favour of nuclear power in Australia.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
Chicken Parmigiana posted:Me, a strict utilitarian, in the most convincing tone I can manage: "So you see Obaasan, if an accident happens, it's actually very safe, because while you might get sick from the radiation, you'll get more sick from stress if we move you away from it!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
Randalor posted:I mean, if nothing else, Fukushima being the only major nuclear accident in almost 40 years, AND it took a major natural disaster to cause it shows that nuclear isn't the big, bad boogeyman anti-nuclear advocates make it out to be. Am I misreading your post or did you just forget that Chernobyl happened? And Three Mile Island ('79) was within 40 of Fukushima (2011), it just isn't also within 40 of today. (I'm not an anti-nuclear advocate, but as someone who isn't I care a lot about being honest about the dangers of nuclear power.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
Chicken Parmigiana posted:Me, a strict utilitarian, in the most convincing tone I can manage: "So you see Obaasan, if an accident happens, it's actually very safe, because while you might get sick from the radiation, you'll get more sick from stress if we move you away from it!" ... what's YOUR argument here? Since when did I say anything about building a nuclear power plant in Australia? I commented that Fukushima being the only really major nuclear accident in almost 40 years, and that required an actual no-poo poo natural disaster to happen, just shows that nuclear energy isn't the boogeyman the media portrays it as. Then you came in, quoted me, and started going on about predictability and unpredictable events as though that had anything to do with what I said. Hell, other than First Dog being from Australia and comparing the area the Fukushima meltdown affected to Melbourne's area, there's nothing in the comic talking about building reactors IN Australia. The comic itself is just anti-nuclear. It was other goons talking about Australia being a good place to build one. Xiahou Dun posted:Am I misreading your post or did you just forget that Chernobyl happened? And Three Mile Island ('79) was within 40 of Fukushima (2011), it just isn't also within 40 of today. I meant almost 40 years from this year. I was going to say "in over 40 years" but it turns out Chernobyl was in 86, not earlier. Randalor fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
Chicken Parmigiana posted:But as I said at the start: regardless of whether nuclear is scary or not, it ought to be irrelevant because there is no good argument to be made in favour of nuclear power in Australia. Why not? Why is Australia's use of coal and gas magically so much cleaner than everywhere else in the world that there's no argument for moving against it? What 'Australian issues' make it so bad that you don't even want to discuss it? Renewables would also be a good idea, of course. It makes sense to choose a point somewhere on a sliding scale of nuclear to renewables and the best point certainly differs by where you're at. Quite probably Australia's is much closer to the renewables end! But you say there's no good argument to be made in favour of nuclear power at all, but are short on reasons why beyond declaring people imperialist colonizers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 16:59
|
|
|
Christ almighty.Randalor posted:... what's YOUR argument here? My argument is that there is no case for building a nuclear power plant in Australia. Thought that was pretty clear. quote:Since when did I say anything about building a nuclear power plant in Australia? I commented that Fukushima being the only really major nuclear accident in almost 40 years, and that required an actual no-poo poo natural disaster to happen, just shows that nuclear energy isn't the boogeyman the media portrays it as. Right, and it was in that context that you made your comment and that I quoted you. But I think I can see where we are misunderstanding each other: quote:Hell, other than First Dog being from Australia and comparing the area the Fukushima meltdown affected to Melbourne's area, there's nothing in the comic talking about building reactors IN Australia. No, see, the comic is completely about building nuclear reactors in Australia, because that is a current topic in Australian politics, hence the Australian political comic from Australia talking about it. This is — and I am not accusing you of this solely and completely — but this is the sort of cultural myopia I was complaining about : you see the Australian comic asking, "Why are we talking about nuclear power?" and you think that "we" means "All of us, anywhere in the world, especially wherever it is that I live, probably America," whereas in fact, when First Dog said "we," he meant, "we Australians, here in Australia". I do not love the First Dog comic. I don't agree with everything in it. But it needs to be interpreted in context. Please. Prism posted:Why is Australia's use of coal and gas magically so much cleaner than everywhere else in the world that there's no argument for moving against it? It isn't, and there isn't. I never even implied as much. quote:
As I said — though I'll try to make it more clear this time — in Australia, if we started seriously investing in renewables right now, the same amount (much less in fact) that we would have to invest in nuclear power, we would be running on 100% renewable energy long before a nuclear power plant could even be built. There is thus no good reason to even consider nuclear power. It is a current topic in Australian politics because the current batch of regressive conservatives have at last sensed the political wind blowing against coal, oil, and gas, so they are bringing up the idea of nuclear power in opposition to movement towards green/renewable energy. It is an annoying distraction; it's contrariness for the sake of it; it's not a discussion that needs to be happening... in Australia. Again, that's a whole different country. quote:Renewables would also be a good idea, of course. It makes sense to choose a point somewhere on a sliding scale of nuclear to renewables and the best point certainly differs by where you're at. Quite probably Australia's is much closer to the renewables end! Yes. Except, it is right at the renewables end. I know. It's the loving Twilight Zone. quote:But you say there's no good argument to be made in favour of nuclear power at all, but are short on reasons why beyond declaring people imperialist colonizers. Which people did I describe as imperialist colonisers? The imperialist colonisers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
Chicken Parmigiana posted:Maybe! I hope that this would be discussed with the traditional owners of the proposed site. I'm sure such discussions would be appropriately deferential to Indigenous Australians, as they always are! Excellent points, thanks for your response.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Why not an energon cubes-based energy policy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
Murdstone posted:Why not an energon cubes-based energy policy? [eyes widen] Why, in social and economic terms, that would be transformative!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
Chicken Parmigiana posted:Right, and it was in that context that you made your comment and that I quoted you. But I think I can see where we are misunderstanding each other: That's fair. We were talking past each other and I misunderstood. Though in my defense, First Dog was the one that invoked Fukushima in the first place (well, okay, "a series of Fukushimas", but considering what it took for Fukushima to happen, I think Australia would just be gone at that point). For what it's worth, I live in Canada, and while the province where I live does mostly rely on hydro power, the past few years they've been having to turn on the backup generation stations more than usual because of low water, and those are natural gas generators. While renewable energy is great, they do have their downsides as well, and you'll want to have backup stations just in case something happens. When that time comes, I would prefer the backup to be nuclear over gas or coal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
Chicken Parmigiana posted:Which people did I describe as imperialist colonisers? The imperialist colonisers? I didn't say you were wrong, I said you'd need more than an accusation because those only make policy if you are an American Republican. This is a pretty good response, thank you. The economic reasons are a good reason to drive straight to renewables. You can go there without scaremongering about nuclear power like the comic does and you followed up on. edit: I am also not American fwiw and I get annoyed when the Americans assume everything is just like it is there, too. Prism fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Mar 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:Rall: Another Casualty of the Cashless Society You're right, Ted. We should kill them the old-fashioned way: Shoving them onto train tracks and then bragging about it in a book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
Prism posted:You can go there without scaremongering about nuclear power like the comic does and you followed up on. To be fair to First Dog, regardless of his personal feelings about nuclear power (I don't know what they are specifically), upon a re-read, I think that what he's getting at in that comic is that — whether it's rational or irrational — Australians are wary of nuclear power, and thus political unpopularity is another point against the likelihood of nuclear power in Australia being a worthwhile pursuit. Again, the message of the comic is really: Peter Dutton is not even serious about nuclear power. He knows it's not going to happen, and he knows it shouldn't happen anyway, he's just wasting everyone's time and attention because that's his job. And the media indulges him, and isn't that frustrating. quote:edit: I am also not American fwiw and I get annoyed when the Americans assume everything is just like it is there, too. Yes, and sorry to you and everyone else for snarking and generalising a bit. The generalising is, best case scenario, to make the general point I'm making more important than the specific people I'm quoting in order to make it. And the snark comes across probably worse than I intend it (depends who's reading), but I've been online for literally decades now and can probably do better. Thank you all for reading what I had to say!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
Chicken Parmigiana posted:To be fair to First Dog, regardless of his personal feelings about nuclear power (I don't know what they are specifically), upon a re-read, I think that what he's getting at in that comic is that — whether it's rational or irrational — Australians are wary of nuclear power, and thus political unpopularity is another point against the likelihood of nuclear power in Australia being a worthwhile pursuit. Again, the message of the comic is really: Peter Dutton is not even serious about nuclear power. He knows it's not going to happen, and he knows it shouldn't happen anyway, he's just wasting everyone's time and attention because that's his job. And the media indulges him, and isn't that frustrating. To be fair, Australia did lose that little radioactive chit a couple years ago. We don't know if they'd misplace the nuclear reactor too. They have a history of nuclear negligence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
The big problem is that he wrecks any semblance of a legitimate argument the minute that he starts going on the anti-nuclear hysteria train. Someone could have the best fiscal and political argument against renewables on earth but if they casually throw in that wind turbines give whales ear cancer it makes me not want to listen to the rest. Same goes for invoking Fukushima as anything other than a failure of response.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Am I misreading your post or did you just forget that Chernobyl happened?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The big problem is that he wrecks any semblance of a legitimate argument the minute that he starts going on the anti-nuclear hysteria train. Fukushima is also an example of the Japanese nuclear regulatory agency's failure to demand expensive retrofits to existing plants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 19:54
|
|
|
This is also true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Vib Rib posted:Am I going crazy/missing something or is 38 years not "almost 40 years" Not if you’re counting from when Fukushima happened 13 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
Guys please, there's not a single new political cartoon on this page.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 21:22
|
|
|
Korthal posted:Guys please, there's not a single new political cartoon on this page. Sorry, busy day at work. A.F. Branco  Al Goodwyn  Bob Gorrell  Chip Bok  Gary Varvel  John Deering  Michael Ramirez  Mike Luckovich  Steve Breen  Steve Kelley  Tom Stiglich 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
Skios posted:Tom Stiglich Kellies nomination: Laziest non-Gorrell
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 21:29
|
|
|
Skios posted:Mike Luckovich Kellies Nomination: Worst "Gizmos!  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 21:58
|
|
|
Skios posted:Al Goodwyn How the gently caress do you accuse the other side of clutching pearls at anything when you made something illegal because it exists literally only in your imaginations
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:15
|
|
Skios posted:Tom Stiglich Here's the "report" in question. https://cdn.mrc.org/static/pdfuploads/MRC%20Google%20Election%20Interference%20Report.pdf-1710439680476.pdf
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Here's the "report" in question. Like half of those are just “someone at google had a personal political opinion” lmao.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Here's the "report" in question. Oh. This chucklefuck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Brent_Bozell_III quote:On December 22, 2011, Media Research Center president Bozell appeared on Fox News and suggested U.S. president Barack Obama looks like a "skinny ghetto crackhead"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
Skios posted:Al Goodwyn Xiahou Dun posted:Not if you’re counting from when Fukushima happened 13 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
Vib Rib posted:Lol, look in the loving mirror. This is half your party's entire platform, alongside "gently caress minorities". You just didn’t understand me not understanding someone’s mildly ambiguous post. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
 Today's cartoons are about Trump being asked about former PM and now ambassador to the US Kevin Rudd by Nigel Farage on British television. Former US president Donald Trump insults ambassador Kevin Rudd, says 'he won't be there long' if he's 'hostile' Pope:  Kevin 07 was Rudd's successful campaign to win Labor government in 2007. Dyson:  Golding:   Spooner:  Chicken Parmigiana posted:To be fair to First Dog, regardless of his personal feelings about nuclear power (I don't know what they are specifically), upon a re-read, I think that what he's getting at in that comic is that — whether it's rational or irrational — Australians are wary of nuclear power, and thus political unpopularity is another point against the likelihood of nuclear power in Australia being a worthwhile pursuit. Again, the message of the comic is really: Peter Dutton is not even serious about nuclear power. He knows it's not going to happen, and he knows it shouldn't happen anyway, he's just wasting everyone's time and attention because that's his job. And the media indulges him, and isn't that frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 23:22
|
|
