Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 833 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 34
Set Bookmark
Jason
Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:16am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S5: Timeless

Synthehol does have similar intoxicating effects to alcohol, but they can be easily dismissed. So you do get drunk, but you can sober up in an instant if need be. Data mentions this in "Relics".
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:27am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: First Contact

" You can still object to it in isolation-a character being coerced into sex with it being treated as wacky hijinks-as many people do."

Agreed. But I still wouldn't use the "R" word to describe this situation. You stated I applied a "double standard" which implies an *unfair* application of a principle. I already stated straight up that I see this sort of thing through a gendered lense - but I don't think it's unfair to Riker. I just think that whether it's 1990 or 2019 this situation is apples and oranges with the reverse gender, especially with Riker being this big shot officer with a whole starship backing him up. If he was some kind of anonymous slave I might see it a bit differently, although even then not quite the same.

Although it's funny someone mentioned Vash because kind of the same thing happened to her in Q Pid with Sir Guy or I guess would eventually have happened if Vash hadn't gone soft and tried to rescue Picard.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 8:29pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: First Contact

It's impossible for me to see what happens to Riker as a "rape " in context. This comes from my perspective as a man, which I think is reasonable in light of Riker being one too. There is just nothing in his performance either that could possibly indicate that he has somehow been violated by this.

If I have to pinpoint the reason for my feeling, apart from just having a gendered idea of what sexual violence is - it comes down to power, who has it and who doesn't. Riker may be on the ropes temporarily, but he's still the First Officer on a starship that could level this lady's planet. He's not being trafficked or sold into slavery. He might die I suppose but either way, he's got plenty of support. It's like Thor getting hit by Natalie Portman's car - we can laugh because whatever the present circumstances, he's still an Asgardian God so we aren't seeing it quite like we would if someone did the same the other way around.

If you have to say: "imagine if the genders were reversed!" you are kind of conceding that the gender isn't an incidental detail but actually matters quite a bit.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 5:29am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S5: In the Flesh

"Remember, we (Federation) had an incredibly powerful weapon against them. One in which they had no defense... seems like a plausible angle for them to take."

I beg to differ, extremely. Let's recap what we learned from Scorpion.

These were the guys who could one shot a Borg cube - that would be the same type of ship that could take on a Federation *armada* single handedly - with a ship the size of a runabout.

Oh yeah and they could string together 9 of their little runabout ships for a makeshift death star / planet killer. And they were shown to have hundreds if not thousands of these ships. Do the math. That's what? 100+ makeshift planet killers?

So yes, 8472 had no "defence" against the nanoprobe weapon except -uhhh using their hundreds of *death stars* to blow up the Federation in about 6 minutes?

What's offensive about this episode is that it completely negates what we saw in Scorpion. It is a massive retcon of a species that had only been shown once or twice before. In other words, classic Voyager writing. Because yes, species 8472 could turn Earth into chunky rocks and probably blow up the sun while they're at it just for kicks, but Janeway defeated the Borg with coffee. Never underestimate the power of coffee.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 11:24am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: Extinction

Hi Rattrap I know it's silly of course the way it is depicted, but why is this concept so uniquely impossible? Viruses do in fact change the DNA of cells they infect don't they? With modern methods like Crispr (which came from a bacteria?) You can edit DNA.

Is this more far fetched than say replicators? Why wouldn't it be possible to edit the DNA of an organism on a massive scale? And if you did do so (somehow) couldn't you literally change one thing into another in real time? Or have I missed something?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 8:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: North Star

Whoops my bad. Jammer did note the Archer going to jail thing. But riddle me this: just how did they plan to have that schoolteacher serve her 10 year sentence? Do they have women's prisons to send her to on their cardboard planet of three villages or were they planning to keep her in that little jail cell behind a screen door for her sentence? And what if they needed the cell for petty thief or a disorderly drunk?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 8:35pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: North Star

I learned from this episode that 22nd century ray guns are about on par with 19th century fire arms in a shootout. And I'm surprised Jammer didn't mention Archer going to jail again.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 4:55am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Dear Doctor

You know I thinking further on this episode and I thought of the following analogy: you come across a playground where a group of kids are playing soccer. They play soccer there everyday. It's the only game they know. There are some kids who are the stars and they kind of run things but the less skilled kids still enjoy it and they might just keep on playing soccer everyday forever.

Then their soccer ball gets run over by a truck. The kids are in despair: what to play if not soccer? Some of the kids come up with an idea for a new game of running and tagging one another. Those are the ones who were less skilled at soccer. The former soccer stars are kind of miffed. They want to go back to playing soccer because it's the game they shine in.

If only a helpful adult will come along and repair their soccer ball, and all will be as it was. Soccer will be back and this new game (which the less soccer inclined kids turn out to be pretty good at!) will never be played.

So is it ethical to come in as an adult and fix their soccer ball?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 4:27am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Dear Doctor

"Things can be better evolved for their environment, or worse evolved for their environment. There is no evolutionary tendency toward sentience, or anything else. We are not 'more evolved' than chimps or bacteria, although we are probably better evolved to take advantage of the current environment than the former, and will prove less resilient to changes in the environment than the latter. If there were to be a change that threatened our extinction, it would not be pre-ordained or be part of a natural process to benefit bacteria or any other species or organism, 'standing on an evolutionary threshold', although it might unleash a wave of evolutionary change. "

Kermit, I think Trek has been guilty of this sort wrongheaded idea of evolution in the past for sure (I'm looking at you Voyager...) but I don't see that being what was going on in this episode.

Phlox is a human (basically) looking at another race through human eyes. He's saying their evolution is towards something more human cognitively, intellectually, whatever. If he's making a value judgement about it's because he's a being who evolved values so that's what he does.

Sure from mother nature's standpoint a human is no more evolved than a cockroach - building starships and flying cities is no more or less valid a survival mechanism than building a tree nest - yet from our point of view one is certainly more interesting (and even desirable) in the long run.

Phlox's ethical decision isn't a claim that "evolution" judged one more worthy than another (or at least that isn't how I read it) but simply that it isn't ethical for us to put our fingers on the scale and raise one species above another. His comments that they were on an evolutionary threshold can be read as "about to become a lot more like us". His example to Archer about saving the Neanderthals was pretty on point.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 8:50pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: Impulse

@Peter G. I actually don't even have a problem with Archer by season 3. He isn't even really a bumpkin anymore. That was more of a season 1 thing.

Part of the issue, apart from weak crew chemistry and mediocre story concepts, is overall "direction" as you put it. The whole show, from the very first episode, just immediately jumped the shark with this Temporal Cold War malarky. Halfway through season 3 with the Xindi arc and we are still down the same rabbit hole because even the poor Xindi can't stand alone without handlers from the future.

It just sucks that the story of the first human starship and the birth of the Federation has been hijacked, the players made into pawns in their own events. Did anyone in the 22nd century accomplish anything on their own?

They even have an encyclopedia of the future stashed in one of the ship's cabins on a data pad. God they should just open the little magic pad and look at the Memory Alpha entry on the Xindi. Problem solved, story over. God this is stupid!
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 6:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S3: Impulse

"A Trek zombie movie is a bit like watching pornography that doesn't have any nudity in it."

This. What is it about Enterprise that's just so consistently mediocre? I feel like each episode is a solid 2 stars, maybe 2.5 stars, with a rare 3 sprinkled in. There are even pretty good characters like Hoshi and Flox. Heck even T'Pol is starting to grow on me. But nearly three and a half seasons in and it just never gels.

At this point I feel like I'm just doing nerd homework watching this series.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 5:34am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Cold Front

"You know, having no transporter chief when transporters were a brand new technology but having a steward is just so distinctly Enterprise."

In TOS the transporter was this scifi contrivance they had to rely on for budgetary reasons. Now in Enterprise it's this thing the writers just seem desperate to pretend doesn't exist. Even by season 3 in life or death situations they're still ignoring it completely or coming up with perfunctory reasons to just remove it from play based on radiation or whatever. In one recent episode supposedly they couldn't beam up an infected person because she'd "infect half the ship" but picking her up in a shuttlepod wouldn't?!

The whole idea of the transporter in Enterprise is simply out of place in this setting. I mean in one episode they are marvelling at this alien replicator that can materialize a fish dinner on demand because yes, they can magically turn a human body into energy and recreate it atom by atom remotely on a planet thousands of km away, but filet of salmon - that's the real technological wonder!

You know what have been really cool? Why not have an episode where a crewmember starts going nuts after being transported too many times and gets diagnosed with "transporter psychosis". A nice callback for the long time fans and an excuse to basically do away with this perennial plot hole like it's clear they wanted to do almost from the get-go!
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 6:52am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

"The idea that the society that produced this episode ('92 USA) was patriarchal is so generally accepted across not just Sociology, but many other social sciences that questioning it at this point puts you in the same fringe company as climate skeptics and anti-vaxxers. Not saying you can't do it, but the burden of proof is fairly high. "

Those are scientific theories that are falsifiable. Pretty much all that needs to be said and the last substantive point of rebuttal I intend to make on this thread.

"There's a reason why Trent, myself, and (I'll bet) pretty much anyone with more than a passing familiarity with social sciences got a laugh out of how easily @Booming sniffed out Jordan Peterson's prejudicial influence on @Jason R.'s ostensibly autodidactic impressions of Sociology. "

I haven't been influenced by Peterson, to be perfectly honest with you, and might have made the same points years ago before the guy was even known outside of his faculty - but even if I was influenced by him, so what?

Anyway I don't think this discussion is really reflecting well on any of its participants, myself included frankly.

Getting sucked into these bitter ideoligical debates is something I need to avoid in the future. As Booming said, it's not worth it. So that really is my last word on the subject.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 6:26am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

Booming to be clear I never said that sociology was feminism or based on feminism. I implied that most of the people in your field are feminists, and suggested that feminism must have influenced modern sociology (and if that isn't true then mea culpa) but that point was tangential and basically incidental to the main one, which is:

1) Claiming "society" is patriarchal isn't just a fact like saying 93% of senators are Male or that there has never been a female president; it is certainly an opinion, based on a certain ideological perspective, namely a feminist one; and

2) Yes when you talk about patriarchy in this context you are certainly engaging a feminist discourse.

You are the one who conflated this meager narrow point into a claim that sociology is based on feminism. I never made that claim. Frankly, I didn't even realize your original comment was based on "sociology" - it just came across to me as an opinion.

Anyway I have been less than innocent on this thread. But in all seriousness, why do you keep implying that people who disagree with you are uneducated or the "lower classes"?

Do you know how condescending that is?

Speaking of assumptions can we just clear up the pronoun thing? Are you a woman as Peter said and have we been using the wrong pronouns? I could have sworn you had said you were a gay man on another thread but can you just clear it up?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Aug 9, 2019, 5:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

I read Peterson's book about a year ago out of curiosity but I have no deep familiarity with his views, let alone his "talking points" on this issue, whatever those are. I don't watch his videos.

In any event I apologize for the tone of my posts. I don't think the narrow point I was making was wrong, but I was being passive aggressive about and deliberately confrontational.

Have a pleasant summer.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 12:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

"What you guys don't understand is that explaining very basic concepts to you isn't the least bit interesting for me. For example what feminist theory (not Feminism) means in sociology and why what I said about patriarchical societies has nothing to to with femnist theory or feminism."

This debate was never about sociology nor were you ever called on to provide an expert opinion as a sociologist. You have lost sight of the main point which was that your critique of the episode, and the perspectives of others on this thread, was overtly feminist.

That's it. Everything else you said is you bringing baggage into this that has nothing to do with it.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 12:05pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

"'Her', just for the record"

I could have sworn it was a he from past discussions. Mea culpa.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 11:47am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

"Jason, I assume in this context the word "feminist" is being taken as a dig because of the "feminism 101" moniker. "

Yes, but not in the sense that "feminism" is some kind of pejorative.

A man walks into a bar dressed in a priest's robe waving a three foot cross in my face and says "sir do you realize drunkenness is a sin against God?" And I politely reply "I disagree with your Christian perspective" and he in turn replies: "it's not a Christian perspective, it's God's truth."

I just don't understand how a sociologist (literally a person who studies human society) feels it necessary to get so pedantic on such a small point. It's not like I called him a Marxist or something. Within his field, most people I'd wager would be insulted if you *didn't* acknowledge their perspective as feminist.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 9:28am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

"So far I see no feminist perspective. I'm just using standard sociological terminology and stating the obvious."

Do you think modern sociology might be influenced by feminist ideology? As for what's "obvious" this is, by definition, an opinion not a fact. Which brings me to the next point.

"Would you say that the USA were not a patriarchical society during the 90s? If so then I would love to see your prove for that."

It is not for me to prove or disprove a claim you asserted. We seem to be having some confusion on opinion versus fact.

That the majority of government officials in the 90s US were men is a factual statement. The claim that US society was "patriarchal" is an inference from fact, perhaps even a strong one, but is nevertheless an opinion and one that has been asserted most prominently by a certain ideological movement, namely feminism.

"How did that come about? Didn't you once mention that you have no higher education?"

I never commented on my own education either way in this thread.

"Let's make this easy.
Do you agree with Skepticals statement:
"given the general societal pressure of telling men that the women are ALWAYS right when it comes to relationship issues, and that a man who marries should get used to losing every argument?"

It's factual that this message has been promulgated from certain quarters in popular entertainment, advertising and some other corners of pop culture. It's literally a cliche for comedians to tell men in the audience that their wife is always right or some variation of that joke.

Since I never made the assertion, I don't see why I have to defend it or refute it.

I made precisely one claim: that you are obviously approaching this topic from a feminist perspective.

So is feminism a dirty word in sociology circles? Why the hesitation to concede this small pittance?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 8:04am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

"No. Could you answer the questions, please"

Okay. Well re: question 1 your assertions about us living in a "patriarchal society" etc... seemed pretty self-evidently feminist to me so it was curious to me that you were insistent that you weren't coming from a "feminist" perspective. And yeah I did take a women's studies course once upon a time. Not claiming to be an expert on the subject by the way. But yeah, if the word "patriarchy" appears multiple times in the same sentence, it's probably a feminist perspective dude.

As to your second question, apart from the fact that my assertion was plainly true? I dunno - I got this my ideology isn't ideology but obvious truth vibe from your post. Like admitting that your perspective was "feminist" and not "self-evident truth" was a big deal for you. This was after you labelled another poster "masculanist" (whatever that means) - which I guess was your way of accusing the other guy of being ideological and not factual (like you).

So what's your deal anyway? Is "feminist" a pejorative label in your milieu?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 6:41am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

"Could you also explain why you felt the need to make that statement about me?"

Why? Is it offensive to you?
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 5:11am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

""I mean, Booming, it seems pretty clear that you are looking at this from a feminist perspective." No, not really."

Uh yeah you are buddy. Straight out of Women's Studies 101.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Mon, Aug 5, 2019, 7:10pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S2: Regeneration

Obviously the Borg, even in their weakened state, should have easily assimilated Enterprise, heck Earth itself. They inexplicably de-adapt to the phase pistols after having previously adapted (including to the enhanced ones) and Malcolm and Archer are just dropping them like flies. They just inexplicably abandon Enterprise for the other ship so that they can be blown out of the sky.

Plus Phlox curing himself with radiation makes zero sense - a far more egregious continuity breach than anything else in this episode.

That said I love this episode. The music, the mystery, seeing the Borg again through fresh eyes... absolutely brilliant and *scary*. Damn but this almost was into horror movie territory. And seeing Phlox struggling with being assimilated was such a gut-punch given what a great character he is. It would be like watching Neelix get assimilated if I actually liked or cared about Neelix.

Fantastic.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 9:37am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S4: The Killing Game

"To: I Hate Janeway

Love your screen name! We have something in common."

My head canon is that Admiral Janeway didn't die after the Borg pod thing blew up in Endgame; she was flung back in time and ended up an inmate chef in a 21st century prison. The nano probes also gave her a Russian accent.

Not any less plausible than most of Voyager's plotlines.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 5:39am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night

"Everyone likes to think they'd be part of the Bajoran Resistance, or Dumbledore's Army, or whatever the resistance group was called in the Hunger Games. "

Real life isn't like a movie where "the" story tells you who the victim is and who the villain is. There are always competing stories and our personal biases pull us to one kind of story or another like gravity.

The Nazi German example isn't a particularly helpful one because it's so extreme that almost no one credibly can use it in any contemporary analogy without engaging in hyperbole (I.e. Godwin's Law) thereby wrecking their credibility with anyone who could potentially be drawn into a different story's orbit (continuing the gravity analogy)

But even in the case of Nazi Germany, I doubt very many people knew they were supporting the "bad guys" even out of fear. This is more revisionist retrospective analysis from the point of view of a story that hadn't been written at the time - at least not the final draft. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts many even most on the bad side didn't even know they were the bad guys.
Next ►Page 1 of 34
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.