In general they're against most forms of large-scale power generation. Greenpeace doesn't like to admit this but, given their vociferous opposition, I can only assume that their long-term plan is to return the planet to a late-medieval industrial base, which would only support a population less than 10% of it's current size.
The thing is, at it's most fundamental, most basic level, communism as presented isn't some horrific nightmare fuel.
It's presented as "wouldn't it be nice if we helped people less well-off than ourselves". But it never stays there, because communists don't value morals and so have no problem at all lying to get what they want.
Well, if you're a colossal racist like DiAngelo, what would you need to talk to them for?
One presumes that, as an avowed antiracist, DiAngelo sees a student's skin colour and immediately knows how they think, knows everything there is to know about them.
One way to fight this (I had a similar thing in one of groups I help moderate) is to point out that by introducing politics to it, you are mandating political positions for the entire group, a very divisive position to take.
If you can make that point stick early enough, you can get in front of the inclusive rhetoric that'll surely follow in an attempt to colonise your group.
That appears to be the aim:
"Oh, this repeal of your civil liberties is only temporary! We're only doing it while this virus is out there!"
"It's endemic. It's always out there."
"Police! Police! One more for the covid gulag!"
The "real" reason, if there even is a single one, is the regulations of the time.
Ships in the era of the Titanic were physically much larger than they had been a generation before, and regulations hadn't yet caught up to what that meant for seaworthiness - as an example, one of the older-generation ships had struck an iceberg a decade or so before the Titanic's fateful voyage. You've not heard about it because this ship, with proportionately much thicker hull plating compared to the mass of the ship and a different shape that kept the impact away from the waterline, essentially bounced off without major damage.
Titanic, with her vast mass - 50,000 tonnes, more than double the size of the White Star liners commissioned only ten years earlier - slammed her flat sides into the iceberg, and her hull, while thicker than that of her earlier sisters, was still only 3/4 of an inch plate, driven into the iceberg with 50,000t of force behind it.
Regulations of the time were written with collisions between ships in mind, one driving bow-first into another somehow. The ship that rammed the other, per regulation, would stay afloat due to the strong bow bulkheads designed for this, and, if the damage to the other ship was significant enough to risk that vessel, both ships would combine their lifeboat flotillas to transfer passengers over to the ship with the damaged bow, which, thanks to the collision bulkhead, would still be seaworthy.
That's why Titanic was short on lifeboats, and why she was incapable of dealing with having a section of her side carved away.
Heh:
Shortly before the pandemic, Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of the globally respected Wellcome Trust, delivered a speech offering his prescription for protection of public health: it required good leadership, free-thinking scientists and universal trust in their work.
good leadership, free-thinking scientists and universal trust in their work.
So, a total failure, then...?
Look, Tony, can't you be just a little bit racist, viking desperately needs to validate his view of us as deeply problematic.