Look, we’re talking past each other.

I don’t believe that any judge or person in general should be forced to perform a ceremony of a different religion or belief system. I agree with you on that point, because full ceremonies are indeed performances with a lot of layered, cultural meanings.

The issue here is you are then taking that and asserting that any proceeding that is more involved than signing a piece of paper is, in fact, a ceremony. This is where we differ, and I’ll tell you why: by that definition, signing the paper is ceremonial.

Yes, it does record a real world event. But that is a ceremony that we have culturally come to accept after a long history of doing it. We could have come up with many other types of ceremonies to confirm a contract - it could have been a wax seal, or using a broke stick like stocks originally were. Anything can fit the definition of ceremony if you squint hard enough.

So, what’s a reasonable place for us to draw the line? I would argue that the current status quo is not particularly religious or meaningful outside of the contract.

The officiant confirms that both parties understand what is happening, that this is a contract that will legally bind them together. It’s very serious. Be very sure.

Then, they announce that the couple is officially wed, and they sign the document.

Last, they usually say “you may kiss” or something to that effect.

The most objectionable thing here is the final statement, but even that is hardly objectionable. It is a statement of fact and does not imply any level of endorsement beyond confirming that the deed is done.

This is a very, very small formality. There are courtroom procedures that are more lengthy and involved than this regularly. But you are pushing to say this counts as a ceremony, because if it does, then the judge doesn’t have to do this and she’s in the right.

I just don’t buy it. The only part of that which can be called remotely ceremonial is the statement about kissing, and honestly if the judge refused to say that in the end I would not care. But every other part is a reasonable procedure to make sure both parties understand the stakes, are not being coerced, etc.

I don’t care what bad-faith conservatives are saying, yes they’re full of it. Here are the facts:

• We are pushing forward full-tilt on renewables in general. Factories are going up, the IRA was 80% focused on renewables, and as long as the incoming admin doesn't actively roll things back, we’re heading in the right direction.
• Headlines like this one are coming up because private companies are starting to invest in nuclear for their own purposes. This is spare money and effort that we could be leaving on the table.
• If we start seeing politicians actively shutting down green energy in favor of nuclear, we should absolutely say “fuck no”.
• As of yet, I have not been seeing this in policy or in reality, and every year the renewable industry becomes more self-sustaining and grows without active pushes from the government (though we can and should continue to subsidize).

From where I’m standing, we should be encouraging the private sector and investing some percentage of our portfolio in restarting and building nukes with all of that context.

This is the same logic behind building an investment portfolio. You could go all in on Bitcoin, or you could spread out your portfolio in the market. 80% into the solid, tried and true stocks, 15% into up and comers, 5% into moonshots like crypto or gamestop or whatever. Same deal here.

My understanding is that this is not the case for providing baseload to entire cities, and it’s unlikely to be the case as we increase energy usage (which has been spiking again, thanks to crypto and AI among other things). With current battery tech it would require massive amounts of lithium that would have far greater environmental impact, and still not really cover all needs. And other mechanisms, like stored energy (pumping water, spinning disks)are more theoretical.

I think I would be much more open to the argument once we have a full modern city converted at least partially to 80-90% renewables, with emergency services and other core infrastructure running off of storage instead of existing power plants. If we get there, then I’d probably stop saying we should invest in nuclear in parallel.

And to be clear, we should get there, if possible. We should push forward full throttle, because all of that innovation would be incredible, and I don’t want us to rely solely on one power source at all, be that renewables, nuclear, or whatever else. A smart strategy is have backups, which is why I think we should do both.

We don’t have a set amount of money and resources, fundamentally.

We have an abundance of food, water, and shelter.

We have a lot of smart people who are currently spending their lives making money on made up markets and apps.

We have plenty of steel, concrete, and any other resources that would be in contention.

When it comes to money, if we raised taxes just a little, we’d be fine. I’m kind of an MMT person, but point is, we could get money, print it, tax it, etc. as it’s an abstraction on top of the other things above.

The mindset of “it’s gotta be one or the other” is a false choice presented by the fossil fuel industry and conservative politicians. They say we can’t raise taxes and we can’t increase deficit spending so they can get us to fight. And I guarantee you, if we all agreed to do nuclear, they would flip the script and start investing in renewables, because what they want is to kill momentum. After all, who do you think was behind all the scare mongering after three mile island?

I don’t want to kill momentum for renewables, but I want to start building it for nuclear at the same time.

We can do both.

Sure, both can be true though. What I don’t see very often from the pro-nuke crowd, right or left, is that we should defund renewables. Pro-nuke types tend to be pretty technical and very in the weeds so they see the benefits of both. They just get bent out of shape by their pet project being defunded.

On the pro-renewable side, there’s more partisanship because it’s a wider base, it appeals to the crunchy side of the left, AND nuclear has been character assassinated with fear around meltdowns. Most people with concerns around timelines and technical constraints on nuclear, like yourself, are flexible too.

It’s the crunchy folks and the moderates we need to convince. If they log onto a post here on Lemmy and see a bunch of pro-nuke people and pro-renewable people arguing and not agreeing that both forms are awesome and we should do both, those people are much more likely to fall for one of the forms of propaganda from the fossil fuel lobbyists. After all, we can’t even agree!

I don’t think we have the time to wait on and expect breakthroughs anymore. A decade ago, sure, but if we end up having major issues with storage and don’t make those breakthroughs 10 years from now, and we start building nuclear plants then, we’re in for an even worse timeline.

Re: government support, sure. If this is a zero sum game and we have to choose one or the other, I’ll probably go renewable. From what I’ve seen, the zero sum mentality itself is the conservative trap. They keep us fighting against each other when we could just say “do both”.

When the IRA passed in the states, there was some amount of funding for nukes. Not a ton, but some. Yet there was skepticism of that, there were calls on the left to defund that among circles I frequented. Why? The support for nukes was much less than renewables and storage, and like an order of magnitude less. It was a hedge - keep investing in alternatives to renewables in case they don’t work out, because we don’t have a crystal ball. So why be divided on this?

The trap isn’t nuclear. It’s division and scarcity thinking. It’s zero-sum politics.

Yeah, I get that. I again want to take a second to acknowledge that children are hard when it comes to this stuff. I absolutely understand that people have hesitation around considering minors transitioning, I think that’s really valid and it’ll probably be a common feeling for decades, if not longer. I want to be a parent soon myself, and even though I’m trans, I’ve thought about “what if my kid is trans?” And tbh that gives me a lot of anxiety and worry. I’d much rather not have to deal with that 😅

My path was also not 100% clear. Some trans people describe knowing since they were 4, or 8, or as soon as puberty started. I didn’t really start questioning until 19-20 or so, and I didn’t transition until 32. I would say I knew something was off for a lot longer, but it took me a while to figure out what that was. It was also a very confusing process, and I tried literally everything before accepting this. I remember being a teen and a young adult and thinking “this is it, this will fix things” so many times, only for it not to work out. It’s why I had given up.

So I really get why it’s like, scary to let someone who’s still growing and learning make decisions that will change their path permanently.

At the same time, that journey was really, really hard. There were times I wasn’t sure I would make it. I got into some really bad places, mentally and in real life. I sometimes wonder if it would have been easier, if I had figured this out sooner. And I do believe there are people who know much sooner, who just have that sense internally that they are a different gender, a much stronger internal compass than mine. That would have been torture to deal with if I had known that.

I lost a brother to suicide, and I know a lot of trans youth are at risk. So all of that and my own experience is why I really feel that this path should be navigated between the parent, the child, and their doctors. It’s just not going to be an easy process, no matter what, and I don’t think anyone can do it perfectly. I don’t blame parents who hold back on affirming strongly, but I do hope in time there’s less worry and fear about this, as we spread knowledge and our experience. Especially around social transition and just trying things out and experimenting. That’s the best way to get more real information - does the child actually like living as the opposite gender, doing things like that? If they do, it’s still scary, but you know that they aren’t just imagining the grass is greener. And if not, then cool! It really was “just a phase” lol.

Thanks for listening, it’s very much appreciated ❤️ you sound like a good parent and a kind person.

I updated it a lil bit

Yeah, I agree re: Reagan. I think the overall point is more that there may need to be compromise to create a new coalition, because right now the Dems keep choosing economics that hurt the average person, and lean harder into socio-political progressivism to still appear left leaning.

Yes, definitely agree it should require the doctor to approve as well, and the child should also consent. The point is that the government is interfering with both parents and doctors by stepping in. Feels very much like your body, my choice here.

Obviously it would only be if the doctors and parents approved together. Point being, the government is stepping in and overriding my parental rights and my doctor’s recommendation just because someone else does not agree.

And I don’t see parents voting for bans, none of these have been initiatives. These are law makers.

This is why I’ve been thinking we should focus on changing the voting system within primaries rather than in the general to start with. The general election is going to require massive amounts of effort and political will to change, but primaries could be changed more easily since it’s mainly up to the party itself (still could require some legal changes to update voting machines, etc)