I think the downvotes come from a semantic disagreement, based on a strong or weak definition of the word ‘inherent’.
I think the downvotes come from a semantic disagreement, based on a strong or weak definition of the word ‘inherent’.
For English sources probably the best book is Tokyo Noir by Jake Adelstein
If they are built and maintained correctly. And meltdown isn’t the only problem that could occur.
I don’t have much faith in a corrupt, self-regulated industry, with strong yakuza ties, to do things 100% the correct way, especially given everything we know about the industry post 2011. Knowing how much local political power the company has, I know they could literally get away with murder, as no politician or police would want to be on their bad side.
Don’t get me wrong, the missile was still the biggest threat, but I do believe the power plant isn’t necessarily safe. An engineering and/or scientific understanding of a modern power plant doesn’t mean shit if you don’t consider the political and capitalist systems the that underpin their construction and maintenance.
We were in this scenario last year, when NK launched a missile towards Hokkaido, and we were on the west coast, just next to a nuclear reactor.
After getting the altert, we put on clothes, went downstairs to the sturdiest room, stuck on the TV to the NHK news, and waited. The missle plopped into the ocean off the coast, and we had tempura for lunch.
There’s really nothing you can do in these situations but stay calm and do the small, sensible things.
My point is, by looking at one of the replies, that people might just be misunderstanding the argument being presented, as they have a different understanding of what ‘inherent’ means, and if you look up a dictionary definition, you can understand why.
For example: in “existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.”, the first two clauses are immutable, but third is mutable.
As last names are a social construct, their characteristics and usage can change over time. Just because they started as, or are predominately used as a tool of patriarchy, doesn’t mean that’s what they will be in the future. If you believe that something ‘inherent’ is an immutable trait, that you would disagree with the premise of the argument, but if you think it’s just a characteristic trait, then you would generally agree - if I change my last name to ‘Orange’ to signify my love of the fruit/colour, it is still a last name, but has nothing to do with patriarchy, proving that patriarchy is not an immutable trait of last names.
Personally, I think that both marriage and last names are predominately used as tools to enforce patriarchy historically and currently, but can imagine that changing in the future. But when I initially looked at the OP’s statement, I disagreed, because I understood ‘inherent’ to be an immutable trait.