>Wait, we're better than this on HN

No were not. We're just more polite and consider it customary to google up someone else who agrees with you that you can cite.

Humans are pretty consistent. The rules of conduct vary between tribes.

And FWIW John Oliver seems to be a pretty decent comedian. His filter bubble certainly informs his work and he's prone to bias but he's an entertainer by trade so I don't count those against him.

Sorry, that was probably too glib of a response. How about this: John Oliver has a history of making ill-informed rants that conveniently skip relevant facts or counter-arguments for the sake of having a pithy little segment that sounds funny and which complements his English mock-outrage. It is not a good argument against nuclear power and in fact it generally only takes a few minutes to point out the rows and rows of strawmen he has set up so that he can knock them down with comedic zingers.

We should have higher standards here.

But no arguments were cited in the comment, there was only a John Oliver name drop.