it’s completely different. In Teletubbies, Tinky Winky was gay but in LOTR they’re all gay.

Also the sun baby in Teletubbies was way more malevolent than Sauron.

Because Elrond cut the the budget of Revendell NASA to spend more money on some project to make elves self-deport.

What is it, react with the default tailwind style? It’s not terrible, just really boring. Looks like fucking Jira.

I’m supposed to ignore the fact that Hamas tortures people? I’m supposed to ignore the fact that Hamas has objectively made things horrible for the Palestinian people?

While you make jokes and memes, while Palestinians in the parts of Gaza Hamas still controls are being tortured. You don’t care about Palestinians, you only care about conforming to meme culture.

So “liberal hypocrisy” is worse than torturing people?

Whataboutism. Whatever you say doesn’t matter to the people Hamas is oppressing.

And really how has the violence of Hamas benefited the Palestinian people? Like at all?

Hamas tortures people when they speak out against them.

While you joke around and pretend to support the Palestinian people, actual Palestinians are being tortured and killed by Hamas.

Yeah, so have you dug into the stats to find out the percentage of those people that are dying from heart disease that are over 70?

Also what is considered an article about terrorism? If the NYT mentions 9/11 in one sentence in an article does that become an article about people dying of terrorism?

The methodology of gathering and compiling data in statistics is relevant, and that’s before we get into analysis.

As Mark Twain said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” This graph is likely way more biased than the implied accusation of bias leveled on the NYT could ever be.

Having family members die of these things doesn’t make people aware heart disease exist? It’s only if it’s reported in the New York Times reports on it that makes people aware of things?

And no it’s not all that flashy when my grandfather dies of a heart attack at the age of 87. That’s part of your stats on the common causes of death, right? It’s sad for those that knew him, but do you expect a story about an octogenarian dying of a heart attack to make the front page of the NY Times? What would that accomplish more than an obituary stating people should give to a charity in lieu of flowers? Maybe with some more funding to medical research my grandfather could’ve lived to 88 or 89! But the damn NY Times decided it was more important to report on someone dying in the prime of their life instead of elderly people dying. Those insensitive bastards!

I’ve had various family members die from all of the most common things in the top 2/3 of the causes of death. It sucks. But I wouldn’t want there to be a story about it in the NY Times about it… because why would they do that?

They’re journalists not doctors, treating heart disease and cancer isn’t their jobs and it’s not all that interesting to write about.

Lounging and going barefoot are not safety issues, unless you consider all forms of unconventionality to be unprofessional, and all forms of unprofessionalism to be irresponsible.

It’s a morale issue, which a competent captain would be aware of. Crew members see that and think “if the captain doesn’t give a shit, why should I?” Crew starts blowing off their duties which would ultimately result in a safety issue.

There’s a reason why people in positions of responsibility behave the way they do when in front of others. I’m sure Picard lounged around in his quarters reading books or whatever, but when called to the bridge he’d put on his game face and behave in a way that commands respect in front of the crew. It’s part of the job of being captain.

Making a show about that would be genuine. Making a show about spaceship needs to portray a functioning spaceship. If it doesn’t care about the functioning of the spaceship, it’s just some actors on a set. Why bother with the spaceship set at all if everyone has to accept everything about everyone, even if it negatively impacts their ability to do their job?

One of the most interesting episodes of TNG was when Jellico was temporarily assigned as Captain of the Enterprise. He had a real hard ass leadership style, Riker didn’t like it and was confined to quarters, nobody liked him. Given it’s Star Trek, you assume that it’s going to turn out he was evil. But nope, he accomplished the mission Picard came back and resumed being captain. Leaving the audience with the question, was Jellico the asshole, or was Riker the asshole.

There were a few episodes where Data was in command and he wasn’t respected because he’s an android.

The thing about having a show about a future where everyone is accepting of one another and there is no interpersonal conflict is that is boring as hell. Considering the responsibilities of command, having interpersonal conflicts makes things interesting. Having a captain that acts like a teenager and everyone is cool with it, and the audience need to be cool with it because that’s just how things are in the future is incredibly boring.

And the show may take place in the future, but the audience lives in the present day. The ship needs to function in a way that someone grounded in how ships function in the present day, otherwise how are we supposed to know when the captain has crossed the line and when the captain is doing things that are normal for a captain to do?

It’s not just military captains that are responsible for the lives of those onboard their ship. That’s true for the captain of any ship. Even on a cruise ship. Read about the Costa Concordia. Captain didn’t take the job seriously bent the rules and a bunch of people died. That captain sounded like he’d be a fun guy to go have a beer with at a bar or whatever, but he had no business being the captain of a ship.

And this is my point. You want a show with a bunch of people that seem like they’d be fun to hang out with. I want a show about people that are actually good at their jobs. Sure they aren’t really on a spaceship, so none of it really matters. But it’s more interesting to me to see someone commanding a ship that’s actually acting like someone commanding a ship. otherwise it’s just actors on a spaceship set being quirky. The responsibilities of command the ethical dilemmas that come with that, that’s interesting. A captain is someone the crew should respect, not someone they want to hang out with because she’s like your quirky aunt.

Besides that, isn’t she supposed to be training these people? What happens when these cadets finish their training and get assigned to a captain that’s not a quirky auntie type? In real life the drill sergeants that train people are the most hard ass people around so when people complete training they’re ready for anything.

And I’m pretty sure people in the federation aren’t required to be in starfleet. It’s something like a combo between NASA and the military both of which demand a high degree of discipline. Even in a utopian future there will be jobs that it’s dangerous to have people that fuck around doing those jobs. Physics can be harsh and I think the vacuum of space will kill people even in a utopian future. Just that in a utopian future people will volunteer for those jobs knowing the risks and knowing they will need to be disciplined when doing the dangerous work.

I thought the captain was the one that supposed to teach them how to do the job? Why is she acting like a teenager? How are they supposed to learn how to stop acting like teenagers and take their jobs seriously if the captain is acting this way too?

Yeah it’s just a show, but characters in a show should be acting as if the world they’re in is real. It breaks immersion when they don’t.

There’s a general fear of being genuine with characters in a lot of shows and movies, and it’s gotten really old. It’s really cringey at this point.

It would be nice to have a show about people on a spaceship acting like people that are really on a spaceship that have serious jobs. It’s boring to have yet another show where it’s just people acting like youtube influencers on some spaceship sets. People that actually like vapid youtube influencers will only just watch clips from these shows, so what’s the point of trying to appeal to that crowd?

It’s part of a general problem where old trek is basically competence porn (everyone is ridiculously competent at their jobs) while in new Trek everyone kinda acts like a teenager. Maybe it’s a desperate attempt to appeal to a younger audience (I don’t think that actually works tho), but it certainly doesn’t appeal to fans of older Trek.

It definitely breaks immersion to have characters that have serious jobs acting like teenagers.

Isn’t that what the ready room is for? Captain chills out reads a book or whatever in a room next to the bridge, but they are ready to go out to the bridge and conduct themself formally when they get out there.

What’s this woke nonsense? Most of those helium atoms started life as hydrogen atoms. Therefore they shouldn’t be considered to be helium atoms!

Well that was quick. Kinda get the feeling Carney didn’t outright reject the invite knowing that Trump would revoke it out of pettiness sooner or later. Now Trump feels like he “got him” while really he did exactly what we wanted him to do.

Is it a threat to another country if you move your military further away from your border with them?

It doesn’t really make sense to. The idea of a sending a token force is to act as trip-wire. A trip-wire force is there so if they’re attacked, it means war. In that case, those soldiers would be reinforced. They’re the tip of the spear.

If Canada sent a trip-wire force in Greenland, those soldiers would not be be expecting reinforcements if attacked by the US. Because Canada is on the border with the US there would be fighting much closer to the aggressor than where the trip-wire forces are. So it would be sending soldiers to Greenland and telling them if attacked by the US they will die with no hope of reinforcement.

You put trip-wires on your outer defenses between you and your enemy. You don’t put them far away from the front-lines of a potential conflict. Doing that is just telling soldiers to either die or surrender if attacked.

Remember they’re soldiers not some pawns on a chessboard that you sacrifice for a phony political statement. Really what would be the plan to reinforce Canadian soldiers sent to Greenland if they were attacked by US forces?