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: 3,008 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 121
Set Bookmark
Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 2:00pm (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Unexpected

Nopoet, as far as I can tell it’s all men not taking this seriously, from the writers to the commenters here. And your example is a bit extreme compared to what Trip experienced in the episode. He wasn’t raped just because he got pregnant and human women can only get pregnant through sex. As he was quite keen to point out, he didn’t have any sexual contact with anyone.

I found it quite appalling though. Why wasn’t abortion even mentioned? They did in that Troi episode and it was simply that she didn’t want to, so there’s no excuse here. He clearly doesn’t want to be pregnant and Archer acts like he’s being childish instead of a victim of a violation with a potentially serious condition.

I hadn’t clocked the water under the boat thing. That’s pretty silly.

I really liked the alien ship and Trip adjusting to it. Organic ships and partially organic ships are very cool. And their holodeck is beautiful. Shame the story is so stupid and offensive.
Set Bookmark
The River Temarc
Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 1:52pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Silicon Avatar

The problem with this episode is not that it presents a moral dilemma. Done well, moral dilemmas make great fodder for Star Trek. The issue is the execution.

First, the crew never really pinpointed the heart of the matter: whether the Crystalline Entity was sentient, and thus could be not only communicated with but reasoned with, or whether it really was (1) sentient but evil, or (2) a sperm whale instinctually feeding on cuttlefish.

If you're in the former territory, Picard has a justifiable stance. If you're in the latter territory, killing the Crystalline Entity is justified. Planets with intelligent life aren't cuttlefish. And park rangers kill bears that have mauled humans. (To be clear, Picard explicitly stated that "it may be necessary to kill" the Crystalline Entity, so clearly he's contemplated the latter territory.)

Second, Marr's character came off as a mustache-twirler from the get-go with her threats to disassemble Data. Moral dilemmas work well when each side can make a credible case (see "Ethics" for a good example), even if one viewpoint ultimately prevails (e.g., "Drumhead"). That's the opposite of mustache-twirling.

If we wanted someone to truly critique Picard, either Marr or another character needed to delve into the heart of the matter above. (Troi would have been the obvious choice; in "I, Borg," she observed that there were no civilians among the Borg. And Guinan did the same thing.) The inexplicable choice to focus the first third of the episode on boring scenes set in caves left no time to cut to the chase.

Third, you can't ignore the fact that "Silicon Avatar" is a sequel to "Datalore," and that ultimately is what undercuts Picard's position here; "Datalore" strongly suggests that the entity knows what it's doing.

So in sum: potentially interesting dilemmas spoiled by poor execution and a one-sided antagonist. "Silicon Avatar" is no hidden gem.
Set Bookmark
The River Temarc
Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 1:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Silicon Avatar

"I rather suspect that if you or your family had had dealings with a rampaging killer, you wouldn't be here defending this thing."

I actually was prompted to re-watch "Silicon Avatar" this evening after re-watching PATRIOT GAMES and vaguely remembering that the actress who played Mary Pat Foley was in a TNG episode.

FWIW, in PATRIOT GAMES, the Deputy Director of CIA, a guy named Marty, tells Jack Ryan -- whose family had been attacked by an IRA splinter group -- that "you are a victim of terrorism, and that does not make for the best analysis." The movie never followed up on this point (it wouldn't be Jack Ryan if he doesn't work at CIA!) but Marty had a point.

We do not, in Western judicial systems, let victims determine punishments -- yes, we take them into account, admit victim impact statements into the record at sentencing, and so on. But we ultimately recognize that victims do not always offer an objective prescription for the appropriate course of action going forward.

I mean, in real life, should victims of IRA terrorism have been able to scuttle the Good Friday Accords?
Set Bookmark
The River Temarc
Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 12:43am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S6: You Are Cordially Invited

In a bit of retroactive continuity, it's clear that Sirella had some sympathies for T'Kuvma from Discovery Season 1. Sirella subscribes to an idealized version of Klingon history and worries that aliens are adulterating Klingon bloodlines. This sounds exactly like someone who would get seduced by T'Kuvma's ideology.

And despite 100 years' worth of changes to Klingon society between the two series, I doubt T'Kuvma's ideology has completely disappeared. (We know that there are still Molor worshippers in Kronos, for instance.)

All of this makes Sirella a lot less likeable than she already was.

All in all, I think this episode suffered from way too may cliches: the angry mother-in-law; calling off the wedding at the last moment; the caricatured Klingon bachelor party. It had its moments, and I enjoyed Jadzia's scene with Sisko and her Polynesian-themed party. And yes, I do think Worf and Dax had some chemistry; but the execution was still poor.
Set Bookmark
Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 2:53pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: The Wounded

Strange how something can just strike a person so funny:

Kardashian War...

I had to take off my glasses, wipe my eyes, take a sip of coffee, all before I could continue.

I'm picturing nice-looking but largely expensive, useless ships; with huge engines.

Enjoy the day everyone... RT
Set Bookmark
Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 3:04am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Broken Bow

I’ve never watched Enterprise before. I thought people were joking about the decontamination scenes. I have never seen anything so ridiculous. First of all, it’s not a sexy premise, they’ve got some kind of space fungal infection. Second, why can’t they do their own ears? I don’t really buy that these people aren’t fit enough to do their own backs, but they can certainly do their own ears. Thirdly, it’s just not sexy. The tension isn’t sexual tension, their dislike for each other has no chance of being transmuted into passion. It’s just two people who don’t like each other talking in a room, but half naked. You’re not wondering “ooh are they going to say sod professionalism?”. So the idea that it was okay to include such a stupid scene because it’s titillating is even more insulting, because it’s not titillating at all.

Combined with the space strippers (again weirdly and aggressively not sexy despite clearly being there to be sexy, eating bugs is the opposite of sexy!) and as pointed out the two female characters being a competent cold woman no one wants around and a sad scared teacher, it’s such a step backwards after Voyager.

I had real difficulty telling Trip and Reed apart in this episode, at least until they spoke. They have the same face! And they both seemed to be engineers. In the next episode Reed is a bit more firmly established as the weapons guy but it was very confusing here. All of the other characters have very different appearances to each other and also better differentiated characters.

Apart from these issues I enjoyed it. I think they could have portrayed the Vulcans a bit better, but I like the idea also explored in the next episode that they don’t really explore like we do, for its own sake - or at least they don’t before getting the idea off us.
Set Bookmark
Jonathan Byrd
Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 4:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Caretaker

I'd give star trek voyager a 4 star review; if it wasn't for the fact that every time I bring up the fact the Newton's "What goes up, must come down" Law of Nature was never a applicable law of physics, and ask some lefty, "Really MoFo', it was never a law; if so, when in the hell is the Voyager 1 probe going to fall back down?!" and they answer, "25 years at maximum warp." ....other than that, I give it full stars
Set Bookmark
Sarjenka's Brother
Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 3:12pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: The Mark of Gideon

A planet so overcrowded that they must press up against the duplicate Enterprise? How did they ever make room to construct it?

Give them the name of a good 21st century skyscraper architect.
Set Bookmark
Sarjenka's Brother
Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 3:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: The Lights of Zetar

The girl.

The girl.

The girl.

The girl.

The girl.

The girl.

The girl.
Set Bookmark
Sarjenka's Brother
Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 3:46am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: That Which Survives

Lt. Raddah: "What a bunch of *itches on this ship. If we survive, I'm getting a transfer."
Set Bookmark
Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 8:30am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: The Road Not Taken

While I understand the reasons for the move to hulu, I don't like what it might do to the show.

I really hope we won't see any sharp turn for the worse in the show's storytelling in season 3. I know the Orville is Seth's pet project and that he has a specific vision for it, but I can't shake the feeling that something is going to go horribly wrong with this move to streaming.

Here's to hope that my gut feeling gets proven wrong.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 7:13am (UTC -5)
Re: ENT S1: Fight or Flight


Hoshi whole-heartedly agrees with you :-)

As for your question:

"Fight and Flight" is not a beginning of some trend.

The vast majority of Enterprise episodes do not feature such disturbing imagery. However, like every Trek series before it, Enterprise gives us many different types of stories. So if you are sensitive to this kind of thing, there will probably be a few episodes that would trouble you.

Then again, this is nothing new to Enterprise. There are quite a few episodes of TNG that have a similar level of visual nightmare fuel. Picard's torture in "The Chain of Command". The body horror in "Genesis". If you managed to soldier through these difficult parts of TNG and VOY and DS9, you shouldn't have any problem with Enterprise.

By the way:

While ENT gets *darker* in season 3, it does not get any gorier. Think of the Dominion War Arc from DS9, which managed to get quite dark without going out-of-line with the visual imagery.
Set Bookmark
The Man
Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 6:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S3: Rise

Actually the 300 kilometer pole in the ground reaching into space is believable because it's a space elevator and scientist are looking for ways to build one right now.
Set Bookmark
Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 10:35pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

@Trent RE: Episode

"But as the constant shots of the alien posed in a mirror emphasize, the metamorph's merely reflecting back to the watcher what the subject wishes to see."

This is a very cool observation that I missed.

"The more the metamorph drifts toward Picard's ideal ... the more he cares about her well-being."

I disagree here. He clearly cared deeply about her well-being before he even met her. His concern over her treatment is what set the entire plot into motion. I'm sure he probably liked her more later, but that's pretty standard.

"This is not a "sexist episode", or a "juvenile fantasy", as others have labelled it above, but a critique of sexism,

I understand how you came to this conclusion but I don't think the writers injected a sufficiently unambiguous repudiation of the tropes they apparently celebrate elsewhere to firmly establish this as a critique of sexism as opposed to an indulgence in it. I think it can really be seen both ways. I think the writers purposely left a lot of things ambiguous to both avoid taking any strong position, and to allow people to entertain themselves by projecting their own interpretations.

"""How did you resist her?" the ambassador asks, before leaving the ship. But Picard didn't, and that's what disturbs him."

This is a good example of that intended ambiguity. They keep Picard silent so that you can fill in the blanks however you like.

@Skeptical wrote a pretty brilliant hypotehtical interpretation that comes to precisely the opposite conclusion as you, suggesting that Picard may have actually 'saved' her to a degree (Wed, Aug 7, 2019). It's worth reading and I'm going to paste it below:

"Yes, there is a clear tragedy if someone is a perfect match for person A but must be with Person B, even if her Person A personality is a better ideal than a Person B personality. If she imprinted on a stuffed shirt like Picard and then married someone who loved adventure and excitement and wanted a partner to share those loves, that could be a tragedy. But that's not really what happened here. IIRC, it was pretty explicitly laid out that her husband-to-be didn't really care about obtaining her as a person or as a wife, but rather just saw this ceremony as a means to an end. She was nothing more than a tool for his political position and power.

If that's the case, what would she be like if she imprinted on him? If he sees her as a mere tool, will that be how she sees herself? Will she just sit passively in a chair for the rest of her life waiting for the few moments when she will be useful either in the bedroom or in state functions? Is that even much of a life?

But back to Picard. In a way, Picard and the king are similar: they both have some strong desire for independence and solitude. Presumably, for both of them, the idea of a perfect mate is someone who is not around them all the time. The difference, though, is that the king doesn't care about her one way or another outside of when she is pleasing him, while Picard presumably wants her to live a rich and fulfilling life when they are not together. So her new Picard-centric personality is one where she wants to fulfill her duties, wants to make her partner happy, but also is perfectly fine with her partner being alone for long periods of time and will happily find fulfillment by herself in those time periods. Her king-centric personality would have been wanting to fulfill her duties, wanting to make her partner happy, but would be a passive blob during the long periods of time when she is left by herself. Nothing of the Picard imprint would contradict what the king would want, and perhaps there's some tragedy that she would rather make Picard happy than the king, but at least the 80% of her life where she would be alone is much better for the Picard imprint.

So I disagree with your analogy. Instead, she may not be able to, say, pursue being a Shakespearean actress, and she may be forced to go to Miley Cyrus concerts once a week, but she is now perfectly able to read and listen and watch Shakespeare in her downtime when she wouldn't have been able to before. Thus, introducing Shakespeare into her life is making it better, even if it isn't the perfect life. It's not that she imprinted on a good person like Picard that makes her life better, it's that she imprinted on a good person AND a loner."
Set Bookmark
Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 10:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

@Trent Re: Comments on social sciences

"The social sciences tend to expose forms of past and present exploitation which modern western conservatism deems natural, good or non-existent."

I'd be careful here, because it almost sounds like moral judgement, which for the most part is not a part of scientific research (pretty sure that's not what you intended). To be clear, exploitative relationships may be detailed, analyzed, etc. but social scientific work also frequently reframes historic events we've come to see as evil and exploitative, simply as amoral strategic responses to external factors.

"The conservative is always ranting about..."

Correction: POP-conservative/pundit. There has been plenty of legitimate work in social sciences that has supported and lined up with politically conservative viewpoints. My criticism was regarding the unscientific, biased and sensationalist nature of a host of media pundits, politicians and activists who have gained traction in attacking academia. Political leaning itself is not really the problem, as there is a long tradition of respected work from "conservative" schools of social science. I would welcome any legitimate work to debunk the notion of gender roles (for example), but that's not what we're getting.

Finally regarding "patriarchy" it's also important to remember that this label doesn't carry any moral judgement one way or the other. It is just a useful way of describing the structure of power and decision making in any given society. There are certainly conditions under which patriarchy can be the more efficient option.
Set Bookmark
Other Chris
Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 10:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Future Imperfect

The alien reveal, for all of the minute it's on screen, takes too much guff. Especially in a series full of goofiness like this.

This felt a little tighter in the writing department. Intrigue and twists that don't insult your intelligence.
Set Bookmark
Other Chris
Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 3:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Remember Me

The first half is classic Frasier; dancing around the details to cause more confusion. I checked out for the technobabble second half. Gotta love how the Enterprise is mostly functional with only one or two people on board.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 1:26pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Brother

Taking Patrick's quiz...


1. Will your Trek series/movie take place in Trek's past?

A. No
B. Yes

My answer: C) Depends on the story being told and when it makes sense to take place. My favorite Star Trek Era is the 23rd Century but that's never NOT been the case. Despite having said that, I'm okay with moving forward like "Picard" and the third season of "Discovery" are doing.

2. Have you watched The Original Series?

A. Yes
B. Does watching old parodies of it, count?

My answer: A) Yes.

3. What's the inspiration for your new Star Trek series?

A. Firefly
B. The New Battlestar Galactica
C. A and B

My answer: D) Neither.

4. What's your favorite Star Trek Movie?

A. Wrath of Khan
B. Wrath of Khan
C. A New Hope
D. All of the above

My answer: A) "The Wrath of Khan", but non-sarcastically.

5. Will your Trek series/movie try to adhere one iota to continuity?

A. Yes
B. What am I? A fucking nerd?

My Answer: C) For the most part yes. But sexism should be retconned out. And, like it or not, anything set during the TOS Era would have to have at least some updating. Maybe not to the extent that DSC did, but the point still stands.

The asshole who'd reply with "B" doesn't speak for me.

6. What will your Trek series/movie feature?

A. Green Animal Women!
B. Space Battles!
C. Klingons!
D. The Mirror Universe!
F. Khaaaaaan!
G. Tribbles!
H. Section 31!
I. Thoughtful, exploration of the human condition through a humanistic lens
J. All of the above, except "I".

My Answer: K) Depends on the story. But I would NOT have Green Animal Women or Khan. And I think the Tribbles have had enough exposure.


Guess I'm not hired. Even though I like "Discovery".
Set Bookmark
Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 3:51pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

@Peter G .

Wow. You're super sensitive. I called you (and everyone else who's been contributing) an interesting person and established that I'm not an academic and am 'blue collar' That's credential flashing? I'm guessing you haven't experienced real 'hateful diatribe'.

I mean, I was waay harder on @Booming and he took it remarkably gracefully.

@Jason R.

"These are scientific theories that are falsifiable."

Everything is a scientific theory that is falsifiable. The difference between the theory that "93% of senators are male" and any of the other theories listed above, is that the observational evidence required to strengthen your confidence for the first theory, is much easier for you personally to collect given your limited resources.

In either case, you will rely on scientific consensus at the end. Sure, most senators look biologically male, but if you really needed to be certain, you would want DNA tests and medical exams. You are not capable of collecting this information yourself, so you would probably end up relying on expert consensus to validate your theory.

With social science theories, the data capture and analysis is even more difficult for you to collect personally. For that reason you should be even more suspicious of your personal judgement and double down on the scientific method.

"I don't think this discussion is really reflecting well on any of its participants ... bitter ideological debates"

Strongly disagree. I think everyone has acquitted themselves pretty well. I've taken shots at pretty much everyone on all sides and been generally impressed with everyone's ability to articulate their thoughts.

I don't think anyone here has been inflexibly ideological and I would've never characterized the conversation as bitter. I actually thought it was kinda cool that we have a fan base that is so diverse in their opinions and can so seemlessly jump from topic to topic while talking about a simple tv show episode.

Anyway, if it's your preference I'm always comfortable having the last word. That's just the kind of guy I am. [double finger snap, spin move, applies more hair gel]
Set Bookmark
The Man
Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:26am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S2: Tuvix

I would also argue that Tuvok and Neelix were clearly still conscious in Tuvix's head by evidence of his comment to Kes calling her "Sweeting."
Set Bookmark
The Man
Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:23am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S2: Tuvix

@Peter G. And if you are going to ignore the fact that two men are clearly still alive but are dying then you're wrong. As for saying they don't have rights because they are gone that's like saying that a person in a coma or is incapacitated doesn't havdd rights. They do, and if they can't speak for themselves they have loved ones that speak for them, they don't just rot away and die like you seem to think that Neelix and Tuvok should have done. Just like an incapacitated person who needs medical care and can't speak for them, Captain Janeway, Kes, and the crew spoke for them when they could not defend themselves.
Set Bookmark
The Man
Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 9:17am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S2: Tuvix

@MAX you're wrong max, clearly Neelix and Tuvok werent dead or else they would not have been brought back. And all of this nonsense of "murdering" Tuvix, what about Neelix and Tuvok? They deserved to love and their only voices were the Enterprise crew.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 5:28am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

@Yanks & @Shannon

I think it's more that a bunch of interesting people happened to hit the forum at the same time. That said, IMO it's a dope episode.
Set Bookmark
Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 5:07am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: The Perfect Mate

@Peter G.

"Not being a sociologist doesn't actually disqualify people to make commentary.."

@Booming didn't say that, he said that it makes it less likely that you are correct. Particularly as your analysis begins to shift from general episode commentary to thoroughly uninformed meta-analysis of technical terminology and contemporary research trends in an academic field you have no expertise in.

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.


"when it comes to fiction, it's better to have good themes and a good story than to try to tell a message."

Seems like very presumptuous over-generalization and false dichotomy. I'll be sure to tell George Orwell & Nathaniel Hawthorne they're trash. Maybe Tom Clancy can tutor them.

Nah, for real I can see how a good writer can do either or both well.

"And yet, when I suggested that women could get a moral message out of this episode, Booming started ranting..."

Perhaps because it's a bit perverse to suggest that women claw through 20 metric tonnes of sexist bullshit to find a single nugget of fortune cookie advice that I guess maybe applies to everyone kind of, if you jig it a little. Not saying it's not there, but I'm damn sure not telling my local rabbi he might get a moral message out of Mein Kampf. (and with that I announce the Christening of this thread with Godwin's Law. We made it people, cheers.)

"Star trek's messaging is poor and all over the place"

Definitely true. But @Booming's conclusions are not only based on the writer's intentional narrative and thematic decisions, but also the implications of fairly radical choices that they clearly did not even notice they made (or at least, failed to understand the importance of). In that sense we can glean a distinct sense of a patriarchal world view, even in the presence of some divergent thematic directions. (Although tbh, even the conscious thematic & narrative choices, while differentiated, certainly skew overall in a clearly androcentric direction).

@Jason R.

"I implied that most of the people in your field are feminists."

Sounds like you're guessing. Dude most of the people in the developed world are feminists, so this is a good, if meaningless, guess.

Since the conclusions @Boomer arrives at are not exclusive to feminist theory and have widespread interdisciplinary support, bringing it up just sounds like an attempt to apply a reductive and often purposely misconstrued label to a group of people in order to subtly suggest that their objectivity is compromised by the limitations of a narrow ideological framework. We can see what you're doing.

You might as well sneer "most of you are *academics*." Technically it's not an insult, but clearly their is an implied appeal to the popular trope of a disaffected ivory tower intellectual masquerading his myopic prejudices as universal truths.

"Claiming 'society' is patriarchal isn't just a fact like saying 93% of senators are male..."

Nah, it's more like saying, "evolution is real" or "the measles vaccine is generally safe" or "Real Politik driven alliances in an increasingly multipolar world were a major factor in triggering World War I"

One is an easily verifiable fact, and all the others are more complex theories that through mountains of inter-disciplinary work have overwhelming acceptance across virtually all related fields. 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.

I guess as an alternative you can claim a shared consipiracy across the social sciences. I mean, social scientists have gotten it wrong before. It was not so long ago that ethnocentric and androcentric bias created anthropological, economic and sociological conclusions that reinforced white supremacy and patriarchy. Similarly, doctors once considered heroin and tobacco healthy.

However, the difference here is that reform emerged from within the field, in the form of scholarly work and critiques that stood up to peer review, and were as intellectually unassailable as they were damning. Often this work was produced by representatives of marginalized and under-privileged groups in the face of immense opposition.

This is a far cry from the current trend of self-interested heavily financed pundits and entertainers rousing large groups of uninformed people to rage against positions they don't understand and don't care to read about. There's a reason why conservative forces have chosen to wage this war on the battleground of popular entertainment and political strategy as opposed to scholarly work that seeks to produce knowledge. hint: It ain't because they don't have the money.


"I know I know. I'm snobbish again."

No way man. I appreciate how quickly you changed your tone and appreciate even more your taking the time to respond to me directly.

I understand exactly what you're saying. I think you probably have a lot more experience being in this frustrating situation than I do as I am not in academia and am blue collar as fuck (for now).

I agree that the increasing wealth gap has contributed to greater political polarization. Tbh, I'm pretty sure this whole regressive nativist uproar is just a clever redirection of the rage created by elites' capture of the surplus generated by globalization and their escape from the worst fallout of the financial crisis.

Silly me, I thought globalization surpluses were supposed to be channeled into the welfare state in order to facilitate transitioning displaced workers into more productive industries. Ironic that they would be used to construct a white male identity politics wherein the disenfranchised would be taught to rage against the welfare state that never was. Well, I guess it's easier to just #LearnToCode your bigotry.

That said, I think it's important not to catastrophize. Every few years another Jordan Peterson emerges, captures the public's interest and is shortly thereafter relegated to the wrong side of history, as the work of people like yourself moves society forward.

Remember Herbert Spencer, or Jihad vs McWorld and the Clash of Civilizations.. or the Brontosaurus? Yeah me neither. Believe me, one day soon people will look back at the events of this decade sheepishly and you'll be able to put on your best Picard voice and say: "We've grown out of our infancy" (S1E25: The Neutral Zone).
Set Bookmark
The Gorn
Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 12:15am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

The big problem is that STD season 3 has the potential to end Star Trek canon as we know it. They go into the future and everything they're gonna find is closing a chapter. The first few promo images show Mickey Spock and a non-white male in a barren landscape (Iceland). This indicates that the future is as bleak as the writers imagination. It could also mean that the federation doesn't exist any more and that Mary Sue has to single-handedly fix the future of the federation. Ugh.
I really hope I'm wrong!
Next ►Page 1 of 121
▲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.