How would you feel about the fact that they made the Jim Carrey movie and put it where you could see it?
I don't think the Morisetteian irony of watching a movie that's equally fucked up in its premise as you found out your life is would move the needle much. The rug would've been pulled out from under you and this wouldn't cause more than a wry bored smile a couple of weeks later when the shock has subsided a bit.
As far as I'm concerned, that and PIC S2 NEVER HAPPENED!
Ro's decision is understandable if you consider her life experiences.
The Maquis are not created in universe to be good or bad. They are not black or white, they are gray all the way. Because that's how all freedom fighters/terrorists are in their time. They get their marks from history. Some upstart colonists in the 1770s tend to get a more favorable score from history. For the communists in Cuba it depends who you ask.
Reality is a clusterfuck and politics is the art of what's possible. No one designed the situation to place colonists on these planets, to have a war in the neighborhood, and then have to come up with a compromise to end the killing. It happened and now they have to deal with it. I'd like to see the SWOT analysis of each colonized planet, just to see if they considered risking setting off the stereotypical fascist race in the neighborhood by their presence. That is to say the colonists may not be entirely blameless either. But regardless, the federation made an agreement to end the killing in a big war. They drew a line on a map and that's never not caused other problems in history. In the middle east, in Korea, in Europe, etc. It's often the best solution to end or prevent the fighting but it's still a shit solution that doesn't solve all problems. Indeed, one might argue it may only be a temporary reprieve. So the Maquis are borne out of gray, they do things that are gray, often more on the darker spectrum, and then the authorities come in and also react in dark gray when they poison an entire planet's atmosphere. The writers even threw in some native American tribes having to relocate or accept Cardassian rule to perfect the clusterfuck.
The way some of the Maquis stories are told in late TNG and then DS9 is not the best Trek has to offer. But if you zoom out, the overall situation they've created is realistic and believable. The Maquis are ambiguous, the role of the federation is ambiguous. It's all just gray. And while I don't think it's super unrealistic that they just get wiped out by the Ketracel White addicts, I thought it's a lazy writers' end to a great scenario they had created.
How is this mildly infuriating? If this Weekend at Bernie's vibe turns out to be true, that wouldn't be mildly infuriating. If it's the story of an evil politician clinging to life like dog shit to your sneakers, it also isn't just mildly infuriating. And if it is the story of an old man surely not long for this world, this isn't infuriating at all.
It's a stressful situation, a funeral. It seems insurmountable before it happens and once it gets going it becomes mostly manageable. I get why you don't want the stress and all the family dynamics and the religious top layer.
That being said: yes, you are unreasonable. If you like going to funerals, there is something wrong with you. Nobody likes it. For much the same reasons as yours. That's the baseline.
Think of it as a game and try to avoid talking to all the family members you don't like. And since it will be your father's funeral, you have the perfect excuse to have a thousand mile stare and be monosyllabic. And then you treat yourself when it's over.
There is no need to make your father sad now. Tell him you'll attend. Because it matters to him. Even if you have no intention to show up, which you should though. He'll either come back to haunt you from the afterlife (slim chance) or the only people who will maintain a grudge are your living relatives. That's the bed you'll be making for yourself and you can avoid a whole lot of additional shit in the future by investing half a day and attend the goddamn funeral.
Your account is five days old. So I don't think your message here carries a lot of weight unfortunately. That post is violating the community rules as well. And the account defended itself to not be a bot when no one accused it of that. So it's probably not a great case to use to start a warm welcome campaign.
Former redditors should be familiar with something like forum rules and how to check them.
Could it be the books are wrapped to protect against humidity? This may not be the whole reason why they do it but it wouldn't be the worst one.
blowing the butt trumpet has been an embarrassing thing for millennia
This is not correct. There is a Martin Luther qoute (around 1500) that goes something like "why don't you burp or fart? Wasn't the meal to your liking?" The Romans made the latrine a social gathering. The need for butt trumpet privacy is fairly recent.
Since I signed up to Lemmy I think I've spent about 30 minutes in the All feed. 5 minutes just now to remind me why I don't go there. You are your own algorithm. If all you subscribe to are meme communities, you ought to be able to drastically reduce political content in your personal feed. All and Local are for occasional excursions only.
Per your definition, the effects of loyalty are always per se negative. I don't doubt that in many situations this is true. I don't think it's always true. And a lot of it has to do with how we socialize. We need strong bonds. On a purely rational level, I'd be inclined to agree with you. We aren't very rational though.
If my hypothetical friend, out of the blue, got drunk, got behind the wheel, and ran somebody over, many people might turn away. If I stayed by their side, helped them arrange themselves in this new life of guilt, helped them make restitutions, and kept them from sliding into isolation and depression, my loyalty could be seen as a force for good in a bad situation. I could still donate to cover the victim's medical costs or funeral. There are bonds that keep us together even when we effed up.
Now, if I had willfully ignored all signs of alcohol abuse before, I think I'd be back on your page. So what I'm saying is we can create scenarios of loyalty with good outcomes. So the categorical dismissal as something negative isn't true.