Why aren’t men capable of seeing the scenario, recognizing why it’s necessary to say something like that, and getting over themselves just a little bit to get the point?

here's something i've formed up recently after this man/bear thing happened, it's a working theory, and i'm curious to see what people think. If no likey, please yell at me in reply.

because it's basically impossible? It's like asking someone born without vision to see. It's a significant cultural divide (i say cultural as a stop gap here) between two massive parties who have different understandings and views of the world. It shouldn't come as a surprise when one party expresses a doctored viewpoint of theirs to the other side, for the other side to be really fucking confused.

I take it you probably don't know much about nuclear power? If so, it'd be like me coming out of the blue when you mention that fukushima was bad, instead of me talking about why fukushima happened, why it was bad, what could've been prevented, and how it shouldn't have happened. I started talking about reactor design, and going through the different generations of designs, talked about the EPR, the EBWR, the ABWR, the PWR, the MSR, the ESR, the PBR, the SSR, etc... You quite literally, do not need that level of background to be able to comprehend fukushima specifically.

I think it's a similar thing, where people are trying to make people comprehend something they can't experience, don't really care about on a personal level. They might know someone who has, which makes them sympathetic/empathetic to it, but that's it. We all understand, on some level, that this is an issue, i don't know how much the specific experience here matters, when the broad problem is very much identifiable, and objectively bad. And that everybody probably already agrees with it. It seems rather redundant to me.

It's like trying to explain "war bad" by showing pictures of war casualties to people, all you're doing is traumatizing them in that case.