this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
-5 points (44.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35819 readers
1835 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 46 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do we have to be a hivemind?

[–] Dlayknee 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If I say "no," does that mean yes?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 27 points 11 months ago

Depends - who is the "we" in the question?

[–] Deestan 24 points 11 months ago

Greenpeace is a long time contributor to keeping us on - and in some instances reverting to - oil and coal, by their feelgood-based resistance to nuclear power. They are actively harmful to Earth's climate and environment.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago

We? How about you either study the subject and form your own opinion or then don't have an opinion on it at all.

[–] xe3 15 points 11 months ago

I think there is no “we” and there is no “them”

It’s an arbitrary distinction between two groupings that are too broad to meaningfully judge.

There is also no point or honor in judging on its own. If you dislike Greenpeace's approach, find another approach and devote yourself to it, put your money where your mouth is.

Activism is in reality often a choice between choosing the least worst strategy in a context where you have limited power and control, and any decision you make will alienate someone. Particularly the armchair-sitters who believe they are “in the middle” and who’s only contribution tends to be saying empty things like “I believe in their mission just not their tactics” but don’t put forward a practical strategy of their own. This applies to most activism, particularly direct action.

[–] twistypencil 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] surewhynotlem 8 points 11 months ago

I must confer with the hive mind

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Personally I dislike top-to-bottom-orgs like gp, while I see at the same time they are fighting for a world worth living in (as I do as well).

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

There isn't enough opposition to entrenched influence. They push back against huge companies doing shitty things. I like that.

I'm ambivalent about their anti-nuclear stance. Renewables seem like a much better bet, but it's hard to say no to anything that would slow down climate change.

They've screwed up on some of their actions, sure. But they're pushing in the right direction.

[–] KpntAutismus 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

absolutely, i've done a lot of research on nuclear energy recently and i can safely say: we should've shut down the coal plants. but there are some real problems with long-term storage. so if we did leave them running, we still would need to get renewable either way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

"Some real problems with long-term storage"

Political problems. Real, political problems; see Harry Reid's opposition to Yucca. Fossil fuel and renewable manufacturing also have serious waste problems that are on a far greater scale than nuclear.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago

Look into deep geothermal. We don't need nuclear. There are other options

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If we (society as a whole) had started switching to renewables when Greenpeace first started campaigning for them, I suspect we wouldn't have the climate emergency that makes nuclear look attractive.

It's hard to expect them to change their stance just because we failed to follow their lead for decades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think that's what most people miss. Green Peace is mostly right. Everything scientists and environmentalists have been saying for decades is right. They're easy to shit in because they are passionate and wear their hearts on their sleeves, but they're right: we need to do better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

They're easy to shit on because they are stupid, being passionate and stupid are not a necessary combination.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Nuclear is attractive because all the renewable options are climate dependent consequently highly variable. Unless you have some new form of renewable energy, this isn't going to change.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

They are an anti science organization. They oppose nuclear power, GMOs, etc.

[–] glimse 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why has this community become asklemmy2

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

what else would it be?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

i think they mean well. its hard to hate the person. the organization has made some interesting choices

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Can't talk for anyone else, but I put them in the same category as PETA.

They probably do a lot of good, but it feels like the good they do is outweighed by all the bad they do to get there.

Like kidnapping collared dogs from the streets to euthanize them (PETA), or fighting the (at the time) only realistic alternative to oil, giving all the rich oil sheiks a hard on and adding to the already bad global warming problem (Greenpeace).

[–] jeffw 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

While there was like 1 fucked up story about a PETA employee doing that, it’s not something they actually do. It’s like the needles in the Halloween candy, people still spread the story

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Right, I thought it was a group of employees doing this over an extended period of time, might not be a fair comparison after all then.

Not that it's a fair comparison to begin with, I just held a similar amount of annoyance toward the two.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago