Shit man they had universal healthcare in Star Trek's 2024. In Star Trek's 2024 the tech billionaire decided to help the homeless. We're doing worse in the real world than what Star Trek depicted as being near the absolute nadir of human society.
GuyFleegman
joined 2 years ago
It is, but I’ve seen this question asked earnestly so many times I just can’t tell anymore…
The hell could O'Brien have done to get such a reaction?
Nothing. Tom just wanted to scare O’Brien off. Tom was worried O’Brien knew Will well enough that an extended conversation would blow his cover.
Based and friendpilled
No one on your instance has subscribed to it, so it's not federating content in. If you subscribe, it will populate.
I agree it would be nice if people would post there more, which is why I’m suggesting it
You’re preaching to the choir. “Concede the point” is a figure of speech which means the speaker is going explore an assumption despite not believing it themselves.
My point is that the whole “capitalism is the best economic system we know about because humans are greedy” argument is sophistry. It doesn't even make sense in the context of its own flawed premise.
Let’s concede the point: humans are inherently greedy and selfish.
But greed and selfishness are bad, right? We want less greed and selfishness in the world.
Given these two assumptions—humans are greedy, greed is bad—shouldn’t we architect society to explicitly disincentivize greed?
With the benefit of 11 years of hindsight, lets talk about Star Trek Into Darkness. Cards on the table: I don't like this movie at all. It's probably my least favorite Star Trek story across the entire canon.
While this movie was being promoted, no one would confirm that Cumberbatch was Khan despite rampant speculation. He's not even introduced as Khan, for the first half of the movie he's "John Harrison," and the Khan reveal is played as a big dramatic moment.
JJ Abrams' entire shtick is that he crafts "mystery boxes." So... is that it? Is Star Trek Into Darkness just a mystery box where the identity of the villain is the mystery, and Abrams & co. just worked backwards from there?
Lets be generous and say that's not it: Into Darkness had something to say. We have a conspiracy, a rogue admiral, an automated super-warship, the death of a mentor... it seems like we can pull something out of here, right?
... right?
“Is Discovery canon?” is an interesting question because the only real purpose canon serves is to give us boundaries for where it’s reasonable to stop expecting (searching for?) a degree of consistency throughout all of Star Trek
When someone says “that’s not canon” what they’re usually telling you is that they don’t care to reconcile it with other Trek
Given that Discovery is two seasons of “top secret classified never happened” and three seasons of “800 years later than any other series,” even if we decided it was canon in some technical or legal sense, it gives us basically nothing that could potentially influence other Star Trek, before or since. In other words, it’s not canon in any practical or meaningful sense.
tl;dr yeah I guess you’re right