pjwestin @ pjwestin @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

1,074

Joined

2 yr. ago

I like watching old sci-fi to see how the tech of the day was reflected in the tech or the, "future." The original Enterprise looks like it was run on colorful 8-tracks. The TGN Enterprise looked like it was full of microwave touch-screen interfaces. The Abrams Enterprise...looks like an Apple store with a big chrome throttle. The original Alien movies probably hold up the best; aside from the CRTVs, that technology still seems like a plausible future.

It says exactly what they claim it does:

Good Jobs First, among other things, serves as a watchdog for government subsidies, and maintains a database of subsidies and tax bonuses awarded to companies. Of note is the page for Royal Dutch Shell...The value presented on the page for RDS is $1.725 Billion...

For me, what becomes even more dated than the old tech are the cultural attitudes. The original series is supposed to be an egalitarian, utopian society, but they men treat the women like it's an episode of Mad Men. TGN, on the other hand, is trying so hard not to be sexist that the romance scenes sound like they were written by a virgin who only learned about sex from HR meetings.

I didn't mind the first Abrams movie. I thought the story was pretty mediocre, but it looked good visually, and they captured the characters nicely. The second movie went off the rails, though. They invented interplanetary transporters and cured death. It feels like that would have had massive, status quo changing consequences for the entire franchise, but I guess not.

The original movies certainly have more action in them than the series (though they're definitely not as action-packed as the Abrams movies), and they're also not as interested in exploring sci-fi concepts as the show, but to me, they're defined by fan-service more than anything else. They found an excuse to put the characters in modern times, let Kirk create peace with the Klingons, and literally met God.

A lot of Star Trek fans didn't like them. Star Trek trends more towards, "traditional," sci-fi, which is more focused on exploring scientific and philosophical concepts in fiction (think Jules Verne or Isaac Asimov). What Abrams produced was basically just an action movie in a futuristic setting. It's sorta like how, even though Star Wars is set in an advanced galactic civilization, it has more in common with the fantasy genre than traditional sci-fi.

That doesn't necessarily mean classic Star Trek is better or smarter than the Abrams movies or Star Wars. In fact, a lot of Star Trek is cheesy, dated, and kinda dumb (and not just the original series; even TNG has a lot of cringe in it). However, it does mean that the Abrams films were a pretty big genre shift that put a lot of fans off.

Women want one thing and it's disgusting.

That's a great example of something they shouldn't have done, not some they should have done. Believe me, there's plenty of intervention that I wish the military and intelligence communities hadn't done, but the way the comment is framed, it seems like this person is implying we should have done more, not less.

Why would the U.S. have started trying to expand democracy after the Cold War? They were willing to support anti-Democratic coups in Iran, Syria, Brazil, Iraq, Bolivia, and probably dozens of others I'm forgetting. America was promoting capitalism during the Cold War, not democracy.

The Last Dinner Party's Prelude to Ecstasy.

Yeah, that's my thinking as well, although to be clear, I'm not saying that intelligent life would be humanoid, just that it's the most reasonable real-world explanation I can come up with for why fictional aliens look human. I'm not an exobiologist, and I have no idea what the leading theories are on what intelligent life might look like. I'm just saying that, whenever I'm watching some sci-fi with a bunch of human-looking aliens, my go-to head cannon to explain it away is Convergent Evolution, and it at least feels like a reasonable explanation.

I mean...what did you want us to do? Invade Europe?

If you're asking why it appears in our sci-fi, you were correct in assuming it was mostly about cheap costuming and special effects. If you're asking for a general canonical reason for it, there isn't one, but many sci-fi shows have come up with unique ones (for example, Star Trek had the Progenitors, a species of humanoids that seeded world with their DNA). If you're looking for a possible real-world explanation that could account for it, Convergent Evolution might explain why intelligent species wind up being bipedal tetrapods.

The problem is people like, "their," geriatric. Ed Markey is my Senator, and he says he'll be seeking reelection in two years when he'll be 80. Even though I think he's been a pretty good Senator, I want him to retire at the end of term, but I'm probably in the minority, and it will be an uphill battle to primary him if he doesn't choose to step down.

To be fair, it was Jerry Connolly's turn. There's nothing more important than that.

Exactly. They've called literally every Democratic candidate in the last 20 years a radical socialist. They might as well run on some socialist positions, since some of them (for example, HEALTHCARE) seem real popular right now.

Kamala had a lot of enthusiasm behind her when she took over the campaign. Then she squandered all of it by hiring the same hacks who lost to Trump in 2016. If she hadn't sidelined Walz, or ignored the Uncommitted movement, or ran on the kind of left-wing economic message that won in 2020, she might have had a chance.

Biden, however, had no chance. Even if he had reversed course on Gaza and adopted left-wing economic populism, he was doomed from the moment he walked on that debate stage. Everyone was worried that he was old and senile, and it turns out they were right. Nothing was going to make the American people vote for him after that became public.

Dude, you need to reread the article, then reread my comment. The Uncommitted movement and Abandon Harris are two different groups.

I criticized Abandon Harris in my comment for having unrealistic goals for how far they could push Democrats. Uncommitted had much more reasonable requests. Harris completely blew them off, so they couldn't endorse her, but they still came out with an anti-Trump, anti-third-party statement. Harris could have one their endorsement with some small, most symbolic gestures, and she fucked it up. Losing that endorsement was entirely the Harris campaign's fault.

Except you're glossing over the parts where he insists that being centrist and courting moderates, AKA the strategy Democrats have been losing with since 2000, was the path forward:

From remains an unabashed centrist who believes that economic growth, not the economic populism of Sanders or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is the answer. “It’s important the critical mass in the Democratic party show that it’s the party of opportunity, responsibility and community but not the party of the left,” he insists.

“The Democratic base alone is not enough to win elections, he warns. The party needs to reach moderate voters in the suburbs who “love the compassion” of the Democrats but question whether they have the “toughness to govern” as well.

Every pundit is saying the same stuff he's saying about working on the party’s communication, finding fresh faces for leadership, winning back the working class, etc., but he's being dragged back out to push centrism and remind everyone of the one time this strategy payed off in the 90s. I mean, he's literally saying they should, "not [be] the party of the left," after Harris got her ass handed to her with a centrist campaign. It's absurd.

Oh my fucking God WHY THE EVER LOVING FUCK IS THERE ANOTHER FUCKING INTERVIEW WITH AL FUCKING FROM?!?!?! For fuck's sake, the last time I heard from this fucking dinosaur was after Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, and they were dragging his old ass out of retirement to explain why actually, despite losing to Donald Trump, moderate centrism was a good strategy. Almost ten years later, and they're dragging his even-older ass out here to do the same fucking thing? This dipshit's centrist strategy won one election 32 years ago, and now we've got to listen to him prattle on about how Democrats need to be more moderate forever? I mean, Jesus Fucking Christ, its bad enough we have to listen to a Democratic fuckwad explain why this, "win suburban moderates," strategy is good (even though it has lost to Donald Trump twice now). But for fuck's sake, is it too much to ask that that they at least find a fuckwad who hasn't been politically irrelevant for 20 years? Is their really no one else beside this fucking 80 year-old ghoul that can champion this stupid, obviously ineffective strategy? I mean, fucking hell, what the fuck are we even doing here?

Well, I get what you're saying, but I think Harris' failure to negotiate with these groups is entirely on her. The Uncommitted movement's goals were very lofty, but their demands were small. They wanted State Rep. Ruwa Romman to give a speech at the DNC, and a leaked draft showed it was a very mild speech that didn't even condemn Israel. It just called for an end to the war. After the DNC declined, they asked her to meet with families who'd lost loved ones in Gaza, and she ignored the request. Finally, they gave her until September 15th to hold a meeting with them, and she again ignored them, so they decided not to endorse her.

The Uncommitted movement didn't create the problems Harris had with the Muslim community; Biden's handling of Gaza did that. The Uncommitted movement just took that anger, organized it, and put it towards productive action. That's what activist leaders are supposed to do. The Uncommitted leadership was clearly looking for any gesture towards the Palestinian community that they could take to their supporters, and Harris just wouldn't do it. You have to do something to win an activist groups' support. Endorsing her after she snubbed them wouldn't have convinced the Uncommitted members to vote for Harris, if would have convinced them their leaders were pushovers.

Yeah, also no, and it you'd actually read the original comment, you'd know that. As I said:

they declined to endorse her, but still urged their supporters not to vote Trump or third-party.

They knew Trump was worse, they didn't want Trump to win, but they needed Harris to make a gesture towards the Arab community before they could endorse her; she didn't, so they didn't. She didn't negotiate to get their endorsement, so she didn't get their endorsement. It's very funny that you're acting like everyone else is an idiot yet you still don't understand this.