I'm not sure how that's irresponsible, but in any case, my attitude is, "try to answer the question they have, but make sure that the answer is a good one — e.g., don't scaremonger, don't be pollyannaish, don't make things seem entirely black & white, give the nuance."
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
But the one thing I would push back on: I don't think talking about the possibility of nuclear use is a totally privileged discussion. I mean, the outcomes would be bad for the unprivileged as well — arguably disproportionately so.
(FWIW, I have a student doing research on this at the moment. There is almost no literature on it in the nuke field, but there is in other disaster response fields. I have been tempted to suggest her call the paper, "Fallout Shelters So White.")
-
-
I don't think it has to be an either/or thing — we either talk about the possibility of a nuclear detonation, or we talk about systemic violence and poverty. This seems like a false choice to me (and there is journalism about the latter, to be sure).
-
There is a separate question about strategy, e.g., does talking about the damage serve as a hook to get people to care about the issue, which can then result in policy engagement? In my experience this is true, but this is also being studied.
-
(E.g., Does framing nukes in terms of social justice get a stronger response — esp. with younger voters — than framing them in terms of the "circles of death"? I don't know. This is an empirical question, not quite yet answered to my satisfaction, but we're looking into it.)
-
Anyway, I appreciate your comments.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.