There are more articles out there reporting on the same thing. Just because it might not fit your preconceived notions, or the narrative that you have already decided on, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Here, for example, if you scroll down:

We’ve just heard from two people from Britain’s Jewish community who attended the football match in Amsterdam.

(…)

“We got to one of the central areas and we saw mopeds turn up and some guys started beating an Israeli guy going back to his hotel," he says, adding they were referring to his religion and stomping on his head.

(…)

“Shortly after, the same men that had attacked the Israeli came up to us right into our personal space, saying are you Jewish? We said no, we are British," he says.

(…)

“They were looking for Jews not just Israelis,” he says.

This coming from British men, as reported by the BBC. BBC also release this article a couple of day ago; do you think they are just running propaganda for Israel?

Just because Israel is committing genocide in Palestine, you don’t have to condone or try to downplay this type of behavior. You can support Palestine and still acknowledge that this behavior was grounded in antisemitism. Or do you find it unlikely that in central Europe, and with the rise of the far right, there are Nazis and other antisemites? Not to mention football hooligans are usually quite right wing.

Cartoon violence inflicted on a rude person displayed in a comic strip has somehow started a war about “incels” and “toxic masculinity”; meanwhile, I’ve never watched Sesame Street and I was over here thinking Big Bird was a girl.

“When nuclear fallout happens”

How would using nuclear as a source of energy (not weapons) result in a nuclear fallout, exactly? A nuclear fallout would result of nuclear superpowers (countries that possess nuclear warheads) initiating a nuclear war; meaning there would be nuclear warheads flying and detonating all over the world. There’s no reason a nuclear fallout would result from using fission as an energy source.

The materials you mention are classified as “low level waste”, and they are “materials which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity”, and they actually make up 94% of waste in the Uk, but according to this article, it’s 95%.

96% of spent nuclear fuel is Uranium, which can be reused.

Waste storage so far was managed so corruptly and incompetently that it is already failing after 50 years

Purely anecdotal; here’s a different anecdote.

Here’s is also a National Geographic article about this topic, and here is another.

Here is also the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022. You’ll notice that after heavy R&D in renewables, nuclear is still the second safest; with all top three being really close, but hydro being a far 4th.

Please stop with the fear based, anti-scientific, rhetoric. I shouldn’t feel like I’m arguing with climate deniers or pro oilers when talking with supposed environmentalists. Which reminds of the reason why this is so important: renewables alone still can’t meet the energy demand without the assistance of fossil fuels, and the energy requirements keep rising:

“Clean sources of generation are set to cover all of the world’s additional electricity demand over the next three years” - they are accounting for nuclear, but nevertheless: “Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026”.

Almost half, by 2026, accounting for nuclear. And we are still getting warmer.

It has already been solved, and a search should tell you all about it.

I’m still on mobile, so sharing links is still a pain, but a few key things:

Nuclear waste is produced quite slowly, so whatever cost you associate with storage is over a large period of time; we have the technology to build centrals that can use that waste to produce more energy, reducing waste even further.

No, you have one safer option (solar), and just barely. And again, that is after a decade of heavy investment and development. The data doesn’t lie. You can’t just just throw out science and data when it doesn’t serve you. Stop spreading BS. You are quite literally spreading misinformation.

Don’t know, you’d have to ask the experts; what I do know is that the data shows nuclear is safer than wind and much safer than hydro.

I’m on mobile right now so it’s convenient to find and post it, but if you want you can scroll my profile and you should some older comments with the data and sources.

Again, this is baseless, unscientific, fear mongering. Nuclear is the second safest energy source, not far from solar. And still far safer than for ex. hydro, which destroys environments, and in that case it’s not an “if”.

Honestly,I feel like I’m back in like 2005 arguing against pro-oil people; in this case it’s about renewables, but the arguments are still unscientific and usually based around “But tHe ecOnOMy”.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.

Most of the benefits and drawbacks you mention only became a reality after a decade of heavy focus and investment on renewables, with no similar focus on nuclear. It could be argued that if the same investment and focused had been applied to it, then none of those arguments would be true. In fact, back then those were the same arguments used against renewables.

In other words, the arguments of “but money, and look at the economy” are absolute shit, and they are the reason we spent so long on oil. The facts it’s now used in favor of renewables and to shut down discussion of other alternatives is quite ironic.

Edit: To add, as I’ve mentioned somewhere else:

“Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026.”

That’s half, by 2026, and they are accounting for nuclear. That means the other 50% will still be fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the planet is getting warmer, some places are going underwater, and we are getting extreme weather events more and more frequently. “But-but, the economy!”

Because it’s still the second safest energy source, very close behind solar. And about 10 years ago, before heavy investment in renewables, it was the safest.

This is like being afraid of airplanes because things only have to go wrong once for hundreds to die.

Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.

I think this is it.

The historians I know of actually seem to lean quite left of the average person; it’s the light hobbieists, who are often more interested in the aesthetics/surface stuff, who seem to fall victim to the alt-right stuff.

goes to show most Europeans are shitty mannerless folks

Well, that’s uncalled for… I can show you American MMA fighters saying/doing some pretty fucked up things, but it wouldn’t really be fair to make such a statement about Americans, would it?

EDIT: Just to give an example, here and here is a (at the time) UFC champ, who suffered precisely 0 consequences for any of this.

As a general rule, people who pursue fighting as a career are typically not great people.

When I watched the video, I was shocked this even was a thing that happened.

I heard about the controversy for a while, heard some people say when they saw the fight they “understood why there was questioning”, and heard something about a punch. As an avid MMA fan, I expected a scary knockout, like those where you hold your breath until you see the person start moving again.

Imagine my surprise when I finally saw the video, and watched an Olympic boxing fight for the first time. I see of them wearing headgear, one of them gets hit with a few good punches, gets to pause to adjust headgear, gets hit with a few more good punches and calls off the fight without her knees ever even buckling or getting stunned, and doesn’t even have a mark on her face. Perhaps the neatest, least harmful fight I’ve ever seen.

To be clear, I don’t hold it against her for realizing she probably won’t be winning and quitting before taking unnecessary damage, I’m just shocked anyone would think Imane is trans or a man based on that fight. Imagine if those people ever saw Amanda Nunes, or Dakota Ditcheva, or Zhang Weili. But I’d guess most of those people never actual watch women compete in any sports unless there is a controversy like this one, at which point they become experts.

Man, a lot of comments on here are giving me reddit debate lord vibes. People talking about “the truth matters”, but the way a lot of them are saying, it sounds like they just want to ego boost and dunk on/bully someone that they perceive as inferior; which I suppose could also be called “asserting intellectual superiority”.

Chances are that any argument you use on them is something they’ve already heard, and the more you push and demean them the more defensive they will probably get, and the harder it will be to convince them. And even if you did manage to pressure and shame them into believing the earth is round, that won’t suddenly make them good critical thinkers.

Mind if I ask what you are basing this on? Because the experience I’m having in my country tells me that would probably just reinforce the status quo, and then the far-right would have a huge increase.

In my country the center-“left” soc-dems (who have been leaning more and more liberal) were in power since 2014, with a majority on the left; in 2022 that party got a majority of votes, and the rest of the left loss a lot of votes, but the right was still in minority. This has essentially resulted in them being able to keep doing whatever they want and what they’ve always done and not keep their promises because they know a bunch of people always vote for them anyway because “it’s them or the right wins!”. Then in late 2023 there was a corruption scandal that resulted in us having new elections early this year where the far right saw unprecedented growth, the “center”-right party won the elections, and there is now a majority right in parliament. At no point during these 10 years did our country turn further left; the right certainly didn’t.

My point is, based on that, I would guess that having liberals (who are the ones in charge of the Dems) in power so long with a majority would just result in them consolidating power, the rest of the left to be pushed out, and eventually for the far right to see a renewed growth.

The real solution would either be for everyone to vote for a new different left-wing party (if we’re already talking about convincing “everyone” to vote for Dems, why not dream a little higher?), or turn to mutual aid and grassroots movements. And a party that wins elections will almost certainly never want to change the electoral system because they benefit from it the most; again, the best hope for that might be getting behind one party whose mission purpose is exactly to turn away from a 2 party system.

When I studied Computer Engineering, I met several other students who had a lot of trouble using the Windows file system, and navigating a file system through a terminal was a Herculean task for them.

Most people growing up now, and since over a decade ago, are only tech savvy in the sense they know how to use smartphones, tablets, and social media; none of those require any understanding of file systems, and even using desktops doesn’t really require it that much for most people.

I just wanted to say, this is a very good comment.

When people say it’s not “we” and it’s just a few people, or just companies, it always seems to me that they are - consciously or subconsciously - just making excuses for not having to actually do anything and hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. They want the problem to be solved, while not having to do anything or change their lifestyle.

There are some very obvious and clear examples of this; here’s two of them:

• Studies have shown most people are in favour of carbon taxes. But with carbon taxes, companies would just shift the extra cost onto the consumers by increasing prices. One thing affected by carbon tax, would be the price of gas itself. And when prices (especially gas prices) increase, that usually results in a lot of anger and protests. So why would any democratically elected politician ever implement a carbon tax? If they did, they would be voted out, and the next one to come in would just undo it.

• Another obvious example, is meat. We know one of the major protagonists in CO2 emissions is animal farming. Red meat especially is responsible for a huge source of those emissions. And yet most people don’t even wanna think about eating less meat, and they will still crack jokes about vegans and look at them sideways. And as for regulations regarding meat, the example from before still applies.

As you seem to be implying, what really needs to happen is a whole cultural shift. Trying to shift blame onto to a few people and hope they get the guillotine, won’t change anything as long as people keep demanding all the same things because then someone else will come in to fulfil that demand. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that it’s the sum of all our actions that will determine the future, and our actions can influence other people’s actions; therefore, one way or another, we are all responsible.

Sorry for typing some much at you since you’re basically making the same point already, but I just felt like adding on.