You’re both in luck! Someone else linked to an article that breaks down how it could work in reality: https://startrek.website/comment/9430643

Truly. I didn’t know a song could make me cry until I listened to Billy Austin, a song Earle wrote about the death penalty.

I appreciate that you gave it a listen! Hopefully you appreciated it

I know y’all are quoting System of a Down, so I want to share a country song about exactly this…because the difference in the musical styles is neat. One of my favorites by Steve Earle: Rich Man’s War.

It’s a song I’ve always loved for the direct message of rich people using poor folks as soldiers in wars…but also the way it weaves in a larger economic picture about the decisions by the rich that put people in the very desperate positions that they later exploit.

From the article:

“All the satellites which re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere burn and create tiny alumina particles, which will float in the upper atmosphere for many years,” Takao Doi, a Japanese astronaut and aerospace engineer with Kyoto University, warned recently. “Eventually, it will affect the environment of the Earth.”

I wonder if there will be a couple Putin-approved “vaguely possibly anti-Putin” talking points allowed, for the sole purpose of avoiding that (obviously true) accusation. So the Fox News heads can say “Tucker has the balls to stand up to Putin, it’s not propaganda!”, and Putin still wins.

It’s a slow start, but it’s worth the investment IMHO. Have a good one!

Reminds me of a conversation in the Wire between Carcetti and Bunny, about “Old Man Stryker”: https://youtu.be/MTrvAnP5U18?si=UvjiXno_gbefGCuG

FRIENDLY NOTE: I don’t mean this to sound combative, I just want to offer a different (more optimistic) perspective.

What’s missing here is the central conceit of Trek: that humanity grew up. We could have a utopia now if people would just stop being greedy little shits, and decided to embrace empathy and forgiveness. There’s nothing stopping every single person in a modern conflict from dropping their weapons, but we still want vengeance and punishment. and I’m not saying I’m above that: someone kills someone I love, and I’m going to want blood. On paper I’m against capital punishment, but I know if I was faced with a war on my doorstep, bombs being dropped, my morals may not hold.

In Star Trek, they had WW3/the Eugenics Wars, and after that…humanity finally had enough. Never again, but for all the ills of humanity, in a way.

So very few people in the Trek world would actually complain about working a shit detail, because they’re in it for the greater good. We saw in TNG episodes that randos from the 20th century could just waltz around the ship at their leisure, and how lax security is…because people just generally behaved well. Humanity really did bind themselves to a stronger social contract, if that’s the right term.

As for needing ships: there seem to be plenty of civilian ships out there, from trading and light exploration to proper science vessels. Not all Starfleet, though the shows have focused on them. So I can only imagine there’s plenty of opportunity for non-Starfleet folks to get out there.

Granted, DS9 pushed back on all this a little, as the Maquis are comprised of a lot of Federation members that went feral/colonial and don’t hold themselves to the Federation ideals that seem to keep the rest of humanity and others acting in good faith at almost all times. Likewise still plenty of BadMirals out there, and they do show the Tom Paris-es of the world in some kind of prison, so it’s not all roses, and could definitely be spun as drops of dystopia in a utopia, but we’re also told (and have no reason to doubt) that it’s all well-above board, humane, and focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

Also, all that said, I do wish it wasn’t so hierarchical, but that’s my anarchist streak flaring up.

You’re entitled to feel the way you do too, but it doesn’t change what I’ve seen in my years, either.

I think I’m being perfectly level headed, I’m just being a little snarky. At least equally snarky to your comment.

I just wanted to point out that nuance is possible with just a few additional words, but only if we choose to use nuance.

Well it’s a good thing you did the work and spoke with every Jewish person in north America to be able to paint with such a broad brush. I guess all the people I’ve spoken with we’re lying about their ethnicity.

In seriousness though, simply adding “many” or “a plurality of” is enough to add nuance to the discussion. Starting with the blanket “the Jews” isn’t a good look.

To add to this: if the opposition party consistently shows up to vote, the dominant party gets nervous, and has to focus on the chance of losing. Not showing up means they’ve truly won.

It also shows the opposition party that they can and should invest the time in supporting that area, because there’s people who haven’t given up yet.

Also, the president isn’t the only person on the ballot, and small races are where more radical third parties actually have a shot!

I had read your initial comment as insinuating the previous commenter was supporting hamas, and when someone directly challenged you on it, you didn’t reject that accusation.

So if you just wanted to point out the irony, consider my comment as much a non sequitor as your comment on its irony, which is - I suppose - at least irony-adjacent in itself.

Do you get mad at geologists for explaining why volcanoes erupt and kill people?

There’s a difference in understanding and supporting, or considering something morally correct.

As another example: I understand why some folks get sucked into gangs. If someone grows up in a crumbling school system, falls through the holes in whatever is left of a social safety net, has no proper familial support, and sees nothing but violence and economic despair day-to-day, joining a gang suddenly becomes a viable path to prosperity. Exceedingly dangerous, but this hypothetical teen can look around and see they’re likely to have a shit future regardless, so why not take that chance, right?

So this isn’t me saying that I support gang violence, but I can understand why it happens. Which is why my politics are what they are: we don’t need to just beat the shit out of gang members in the streets, but give folks support so they don’t feel like joining a gang is the only way to survive.

The other poster is (I think) making a similar kind of argument. What the fuck else is some kid in that situation going to grow up to be? Some folks will make it out alright, sure: but on the whole it’s a recipe for despair, which often leads to horrific acts. It doesn’t make the acts right, but we can understand a little more about the why.

Reminds me of a great pair of line from a Warren Zevon song: “I can saw a woman in two, but you won’t want to look in the box when I’m through.”

It’s not disingenuous. Jewish people literally just weren’t there until very recently. You’re talking like 1000+ years ago.

This is the central question everyone can’t agree on, right? Which group that conquered the region and eradicated their enemies has the “rights” to the land? I’m seriously ignorant on the subject, and more than happy to delete this comment if it’s not really adding to anything, but we’re calibrating our standards of who has the rights to a region based on what the latest Empire said, be it Ottomans or Romans or however far back we want to go, until we’re talking literally Neolithic folks showing up, right? I’m not religious, so there’s a critical part of this conflict I simply cannot fundamentally understand.

The difference between making claims based on occupation in the late 1800s versus late 800s seems arbitrary, to me. That said, I know that can sound patently ridiculous, since we’re talking generations we can count on one hand versus the same number of Empires controlling the land: so this is where I throw my hands up and just cry a little. Solidarity to everyone suffering oppression and terrorism, in whatever forms they take.