• dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean yeah he actually wasn’t quick to denounce Israel’s genocide in Gaza. I am super happy he has come around but I think I’m the beginning he was reluctant to (not because he agreed with it, because he probably didn’t want to mess with Israeli money coming after him politically).

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I doubt he gives a good fuck about AIPAC setting their sights on him, they’ve been sniping for years.

        I can’t speak for him but my bet is that he’s experienced enough to wait for the dust to settle a little before forming an opinion.

      • jasondj@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dude was raised in a Jewish family and volunteered with his wife in Israel in college.

        Mad props for ever speaking out about Israel, IMO.

      • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think he’s alone. The Hamas attack was a shock to many people, and Israel of course would respond but… even six weeks ago it was starting to become obvious that this was a gross overreaction.

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          True israel needs to kill at least 20k innocent kids. Step it up Netanyahu these are rookie numbers

      • Lazhward@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The more I learn about nuclear the less it makes sense. It’s a great source of energy but it’s complex and expensive to maintain. Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are simple and becoming cheaper by the day. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which we ever require more energy than those combined could provide.

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Solar and Wind can’t create a stable grid, you would need gas/coal backups.

          Hydro is fine but causes a lot of damage to river ecosystems and there is so much hydro you can build.

          Geothermal is probably best source of energy if you can get it but is only viable in few places.

      • Reptorian@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s fusion on the work, so that alleviate some energy issues without nuclear energy and fossil fuels. And fusion might even have less problems, but I don’t know much about it.

        • ChillPenguin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is fusion is always 20 years away. It’s essentially limitless energy if we can develop the technology and get it working. Also a lot of places have been moving away from nuclear.

          • Welt@lazysoci.al
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nuclear ain’t nuclear. Uranium fission plants allow for nuclear weapons proliferation. Thorium fission plants don’t melt down, don’t create radioactive waste, and even use uranium fission waste so there’s less remaining. It can’t be used for bombs though. Why do you think the great powers opted for uranium technology? Thorium fission is a viable option, but we should stop just saying “nuclear”.