To try to answer, succinctly (which I’m bad at): looking backward is easier than looking forward. What I mean by that is since you didn’t get into the series until 3, it makes sense that you wouldn’t have a problem with 3 and 4, since it’s harder to see what the series could have been…as pretentious as that sounds.

Where much of the hate comes from (and I think a lot of it is overblown - I’m not trying to justify the behavior of the maniacs out there) is that the overarching progression of the series feels reset. Fallout 1 -> Fallout 2 showed a progression in a *post-*post-apocalyptic world, with society advancing again, to some degree. Shady Sands grew between 1 and 2, and was the foundation of the NCR.

So Fallout 3 at the time was IMHO a disappointment because the setting felt more generic, and like they were just playing the greatest hits from 1 and 2. I get the arguments that the setting in-universe was hit harder, but it still felt weird that it was post-apocalpytic instead of post-post-apocalyptic.

One reason (as always, IMHO) that New Vegas was so popular is that it continued to build on 1 and 2. We saw the NCR had continued to grow, other factions rise in importance, and generally felt less like the bombs had dropped the year prior. It’s what a lot of folks hoped Fallout 3 would be, in that sense. That’s my own biased view though, so take it with a grain of salt - there’s folks who want more humor, only isometric, more complex and branching storylines, etc.

Plenty of folks do worry about the possibility of being sued though, so getting rid of a chilling effect is good. Not everyone wants to even deal with the legal struggle or anxiety that would come with that, so it’s good. It gives workers more rights, which is good.

I think I’m confused though about your second paragraph: do you mean that companies only enforce these things on big names, who have money to defend themselves anyway? If so, seems like there’d definitely be a chilling effect for anyone making less, unless they’re willing to take a chance.

This book speaks to it better than I can: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-bullshit-jobs/

Specifically take a look at

Chapter 3: Why Do Those in Bullshit Jobs Regularly Report Themselves Unhappy? (On Spiritual Violence, Part 1)

Alyx was incredible though! Way more than a tech demo (though I get the argument that it was a test to see if folks would pick up a VR Half-life 3). I played it on a cheap, used WMR headset and an old PC that could barely keep up, and it still stays in my top five videogaming experiences.

It’s a great example to bring up though, because I’d bet it wouldn’t have been made if the studio was only chasing money instead of trying to innovate.

If your eyeballs are missing, I can make an assumption that your vision isn’t great just by looking at you. That’s not a moral judgement.

Doesn’t mean blood tests are useless, and in fact it means we have some idea where to start investigating a potential health problem.

Yes, I agree that there’s bias against folks who are overweight, and also that there’s a range of risk associated with being overweight. It’s pretty clear, however, that obesity is a health concern that we should take seriously. If someone smokes five pack of cigs a day, I’m going to make an assumption about their lung health. There’s always outliers that live to 100 smoking and not doing exercise, but it would be a shit doctor if they didn’t tell folks not to follow their example.

Or as the Engineer from TF2 said:

Hey look, buddy. I’m an engineer, that means I solve problems. Not problems like “What is beauty?”, ‘cause that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems! For instance, how am I gonna stop some big mean Mother-Hubbard from tearin’ me a structurally superfluous new behind? The answer? Use a gun. And if that don’t work, use more gun. Like this heavy caliber, tripod-mounted, little ol’ number designed by me, built by me, and you’d best hope… not pointed at you.

My favorite joke in Brooklyn Nine Nine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5QoYZuMILo

For folks who haven’t seen the show, the Captain is normally stoic to a near-fault. RIP André Braugher.

Also, I think it’s worth pointing out that Adira was from Earth, which at that point had left the Federation, and had become seemingly a much more paranoid place. So that Adira was uncomfortable and worried about what folks might think of them seems reasonable, since they weren’t used to living in the Federation, where being nonbinary isn’t something anyone should be worried about sharing with others.

Thank you for saying that: it’s been interesting to see things from another perspective.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

I certainly agree that there’s more crying than I’m used to in Trek, but I wouldn’t call that wokeness (unless the crying was about a reason that was “woke”, I guess?). Mostly I chalk that up to popular entertainment dripping with CW style shows (for the worse, of course). That said there was a fair amount of crying/emotional outbursts from Sisko and others on DS9, especially if we take the Maquis into account - like Sisko said, it’s easy to be a saint in paradise. Doesn’t jive with the perfect crews we’ve seen on the Enterprises, but like DS9 being a run-of-the-mill station that got swept up in religious politics and galactic war, Discovery was “just” a bleeding edge science ship that went through hell, so it does kind of make sense that people would be more than a little traumatized and outburst-y.

Totally agree that the casts being treated like it was normal is a great message to send without focusing on it, but they did touch on it occasionally. In the TNG pilot itself, Geordi and Crusher talk pretty openly about his blindness IIRC, and he says something to the effect of “I was born this way”, and he rejects potential “cures”, showing how comfortable he was with what others would consider a curse.

Also there most certainly episodes reassuring Data he was part of the crew. An entire episode reassuring him he was sentient, right? It was central to his (and others’) growth over the series. Whether he was truly a sentient being or not definitely draws parallels to dehumanization in the real world, and was pretty blatant about it.

Plenty of folks on TNG had to talk through their problems - that was pretty much the point of Guinan, in a lot of ways, and even having a Betazoid on the bridge. Feelings and emotion were being pretty openly explored in a way that’s just different to the way things are now. Mental illness has over the decades been normalized in a way that is kind of incredible. Again though, the amount of crying does irk me (that much I agree with, especially when shit is literally on fire). I just don’t consider that to be wokeness in my face, just shoddy writing.

I’m not downvoting either of you, and I hope this doesn’t sound like me being argumentative, I just want to know what you’re seeing in Discovery that I haven’t seen in all the other Trek series (see me other comment in this thread, I guess). Morality lectures are central to Trek, IMHO.

What about Discovery felt like it had a spotlight on it more than “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”? Or that TOS put a diverse cast front and center on the screen, including folks hailing from nations that were currently/recently enemies of the USA at the time? I grew up watching TNG, and the way Geordi turned the concept of what it meant to be ‘disabled’ on its head felt really pointed, even for child me. Likewise the dehumanization of Data.

I’m happy to gripe about worse writing, but if someone wrote a shoddy story that included a couple giraffes (because giraffes were more popular nation-wide), I wouldn’t get mad about “giraffe messages” in entertainment, I’d get mad about shit writing.

I must be ancient here, because nobody has claimed this is like September 1993 all over again…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

I’d also humbly submit Sierra Ferrell: not exactly outlaw country, but definitely in the vein of old school country, and she has a voice that is absolutely hypnotizing.

One of her most popular songs that is about love with a healthy dose of morbidity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2W8kCk1qnU

An absolutely legendary display of what she’s capable of with her voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Aha_GwFt4

My apologies, since wells are hardly “free” to build and maintain I had assumed you were talking about collecting it directly via a harvesting system. I’ve used wells the majority of my life.

My general point is that wells or direct capture is not viable for dense urban areas, and while you’re saying it’s a choice, the majority of folks in the USA live in urban areas. Big urban centers aren’t going away any time soon, so we should consider how to meet people where they are, when possible. The larger point I wanted to make though is that we (at least in the USA, and all the Latin American nations I’ve lived in) have good public sanitation and water systems precisely because it’s seen as a right. And those systems aren’t cheap, but we do it. As I argue we should do more for re: housing.

That’s the crux of the biscuit: I just think more should be done to help people afford these basic necessities. I think we should (as a nation/planet) fundamentally rethink the way we approach housing, for the same reasons water and food are subsidized (and they should be further subsidized IMHO, but that’s another point entirely). I’m not going to claim I know the answers, or that it would be easy or cheap, but I think it’s something we should all try seriously to solve.

Hahaha awesome, do you get the majority of your clean water via collecting rain? Do you think it’s a viable source for folks living in dense metropolitan areas?

Water is tangible though. Clean, safe drinking water isn’t cheaply and widely available (in the USA, anyway) by accident: it’s a huge endeavor that requires tax money to maintain public infrastructure. See the ongoing crises in places with tainted water to see how challenging it is to maintain.

Housing is harder than water, but public water and sanitation systems are incredibly expensive, so I wonder what the comparison would be like against more public housing.

To reply to myself, because it merits its own giant text box: for anarchist-minded folks like myself, I’d highly recommend reading Homage to Catalonia, because it gives some glimpse of how things might work in a less-hierarchical military (in the cases like in Trek’s Starfleet that weapons are sometimes unfortunately needed).

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0201111.txt

The main sections I want to quote are:

The essential point of the system was social equality between officers and men. Everyone from general to private drew the same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette, you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was understood that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood that when you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not as superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.s but there was no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to produce within the militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society. Of course there was no perfect equality, but there was a nearer approach to it than I had ever seen or than I would have thought conceivable in time of war.

But I admit that at first sight the state of affairs at the front horrified me. How on earth could the war be won by an army of this type? It was what everyone was saying at the time, and though it was true it was also unreasonable. For in the circumstances the militias could not have been much better than they were. A modern mechanized army does not spring up out of the ground, and if the Government had waited until it had trained troops at its disposal, Franco would never have been resisted. Later it became the fashion to decry the militias, and therefore to pretend that the faults which were due to lack of training and weapons were the result of the equalitarian system. Actually, a newly raised draft of militia was an undisciplined mob not because the officers called the private ‘Comrade’ but because raw troops are always an undisciplined mob. In practice the democratic ‘revolutionary’ type of discipline is more reliable than might be expected. In a workers’ army discipline is theoretically voluntary. It is based on class-loyalty, whereas the discipline of a bourgeois conscript army is based ultimately on fear. (The Popular Army that replaced the militias was midway between the two types.) In the militias the bullying and abuse that go on in an ordinary army would never have been tolerated for a moment. The normal military punishments existed, but they were only invoked for very serious offences. When a man refused to obey an order you did not immediately get him punished; you first appealed to him in the name of comradeship. Cynical people with no experience of handling men will say instantly that this would never ‘work’, but as a matter of fact it does ‘work’ in the long run. The discipline of even the worst drafts of militia visibly improved as time went on. In January the job of keeping a dozen raw recruits up to the mark almost turned my hair grey. In May for a short while I was acting-lieutenant in command of about thirty men, English and Spanish. We had all been under fire for months, and I never had the slightest difficulty in getting an order obeyed or in getting men to volunteer for a dangerous job. ‘Revolutionary’ discipline depends on political consciousness–on an understanding of why orders must be obeyed; it takes time to diffuse this, but it also takes time to drill a man into an automaton on the barrack-square. The journalists who sneered at the militia-system seldom remembered that the militias had to hold the line while the Popular Army was training in the rear. And it is a tribute to the strength of ‘revolutionary’ discipline that the militias stayed in the field at all. For until about June 1937 there was nothing to keep them there, except class loyalty. Individual deserters could be shot–were shot, occasionally–but if a thousand men had decided to walk out of the line together there was no force to stop them. A conscript army in the same circumstances–with its battle-police removed–would have melted away. Yet the militias held the line, though God knows they won very few victories, and even individual desertions were not common. In four or five months in the P.O.U.M. militia I only heard of four men deserting, and two of those were fairly certainly spies who had enlisted to obtain information. At the beginning the apparent chaos, the general lack of training, the fact that you often had to argue for five minutes before you could get an order obeyed, appalled and infuriated me. I had British Army ideas, and certainly the Spanish militias were very unlike the British Army. But considering the circumstances they were better troops than one had any right to expect.

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.

Compromise time: he’s a (mostly) retired Batman, and we can have a younger actor as Batman Beyond?