Why are you the authority to change how people talk? At the risk of sounding harsh: no one cares what you think.
FriendOfDeSoto
joined 3 years ago
I'm not debating you on fashion choices. I'm pointing out that you yourself use class to describe folks. You can't fight against the class system when you write of "working class" yourself. And in a way that answers your question: it is ingrained in people.
(the typical getup of a white, working-class British lad)
You perpetuate it yourself.
Call me cynical but I do think an outlet called oil price dot com may not be entirely impartial when they report on this. That is not to say what they wrote here is wrong; I wouldn't know. It just has a touch of pot and kettle about it.
Since the power networks are linked and European countries import and export electricity, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that next to renewables power from gas stepped in to fill the nuclear gap. And the price for natural gas is often linked to a certain other commodity price.
The origin of left and right come from the French revolution. In the first assembly, the pro-monarchists were sitting on the right and the "let's try something different" folks sat on the left. So strictly speaking, the US political spectrum was entirely on the left (until a narcissist was elected and wouldn't mind being crowned king).
What's in a label? The problem is the lack of debate. This team think that makes every idea from the other side stupid by default. A parliamentary system will fail when people stop talking to each other.
And socialism is really only a red rag with a yellow hammer and a sickle in the US. It's your cold war hangover. Socialists or social democrats exist in most democracies.
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.
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.
If you don't live there, legally or not, you don't have to do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_census