Solumbran

joined 2 years ago
[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

I think that being a colonizer is not something a government should be. So yes, definitely, such a treaty is bad.

A government should be treating people as equally as possible. Ethnicity only brings unnecessary division.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

A creep writer and an absurdly obscure licence.

What could go wrong.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago

C'est pas comme si Macron était très loin du trumpisme.

S'il était né aux US il aurait été son bras droit.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 45 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

They're not disagreeing, they're just worried that it's going too fast. Europe has been slowly going nazi but americans are a step further, and european politicians are worried that it will make people realize the fascisation of their societies.

And pretending to be against what's happening in the US is reassuring the enlightened centrists.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 15 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

Well, american culture making such a big deal about ethnicity even when "positive" did influence a lot.

I never understood why the N word is racist because of history, but then being black makes it fine to say. It's still linked to a racist background, but it seems like americans consider that minorities can never be or do anything racist.

And I mean, in 99% of cases the concept of ethnicity is (or at least is used in a way that is) purely racist. Apart from a few studies on genetic specificities, it has no purpose at all, and definitely no purpose in daily lives and governments.

What's weird is that no one with a sane mind would say that a woman saying "women are bitches and shouldn't be able to work" isn't misogynistic, but when it comes to racism people are making up exceptions left and right.

If you focus on ethnicity, chances are you are racist, no matter the justification you put behind it.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

C'est une blague ?

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The reboot has a sort of coherence which makes it better to watch in order, but I don't think it's a big deal.

I would just say that Doctor Who is much more on the psychological thriller/horror side of science fiction than Star Trek.

I mean, it obviously depends on which star trek you like since the recent ones have been much much more into the horror/action/gore side than the older ones, if you liked the torture rape scenes of Discovery and the Alien plagiarism of SNW then Doctor Who might even seem mild in comparison, so I guess it depends on what you see Star Trek as.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago

Just imagine someone like you talking with you. How does it work?

I can't even imagine that it would last more than two messages. It's not a conversation if only one person is talking.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

Seeking help is definitely the way to go as others have pointed out.

If you don't care about others feeling hurt, well then just think about it rationally: you probably don't like getting hurt, so you can understand that they don't either and trying not to hurt others generally makes the world easier for everyone.

Now I would also say that aside of that, you should apologize to people you hurt. Not specifically expecting them to forgive you, but because it also logically makes more sense as it might make them feel less bad about your behaviour.

I would overall try to think about things more rationally than emotionally because it does look like your emotions are your main source of problem right now, and for example thinking that hurting people is going to make them improve is absurd.

And thinking rationally would let you realize what behaviors are not okay, and let you apologize/warn people about it even if you fail to control yourself. While people would still completely be entitled to distancing themselves from you if your behaviour hurts them, it might at least give them some insight that allows them to get less hurt. And once again, less hurt is generally positive.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I don't know why I expected anything smart.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Downvoting someone stupidly implying that most people with any health issue are responsible for it because they're lazy.

Stop clowning around and turn on your brain.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

J'ai pas de solution magique, mais je vois tous les jours des gens se taper des doses dangereuses de tabac et d'alcool (vu que la moindre dose l'est), alors que des doses dangereuses d'aspartame ça n'existe pas dans l'alimentation humaine, au vu de la science actuelle.

Du coup essayer de bannir quelque chose sans aucune preuve de danger (et c'est pas qu'on manque d'études, c'est une substance hyper étudiée), quand à côté on a des substances hyper répandues, qui sont validés et encouragées, et qui font des victimes à la fois chez les consommateurs et les autres, je trouve ça assez con.

Et puis bon, si on peut bannir l'aspartame ou le cannabis, je vois pas pourquoi l'alcool et le tabac sont intouchables. Et même si on accepte l'argument à la con de la "tradition" de l'alcool en France (les colonies aussi c'était une tradition française) l'argument ne tient pas pour le tabac.

 

J'ai découvert un peu plus en détail la vision de la pédophilie en France.

Il semblerait qu'en plus d'être à la source d'un tas d'idées pédo, la France héberge et récompense tout un tas de pedophiles connus, coupables et qui en sont fiers.

Je pensais que Polanski était une (horrible) exception, mais non, et c'est loin d'être le pire (Matzneff vient en tête, je vous invite à lire sa page wikipédia qui ressemble à un roman d'horreur, cette merde écrit des livres où il se vante de ses viols et reçoit des récompenses littéraires en échange).

En bref : c'est quoi cette merde ? Pourquoi le "pays de la démocratie" (mon cul) défend les pires horreurs et les pires ordures, sans aucune réaction de qui que ce soit ? Et pas d'excuses à la "c'est la loi blablabla", la loi ne tolère pas l'apologie de la pédophilie, et si la loi défend ces sous-merdes alors il faut changer la loi immédiatement.

Quoi le putain?

 

I've been watching the various Star Trek shows for a while now, and while not finished I saw most of them, I believe. And I cannot shake off the feeling that the messages given by these shows, especially (and almost exclusively) recent ones are pushing horrible morals that most people seem to not care about.

Slavery

I posted before, in the middle of my watching of Enterprise, that the show was supporting slavery because of the Cogenitor episode. Many comments disagreed, some even saying that they don't remember anything supporting slavery at all in the show. That was before I watched more. The show contains a full episode that is just about showing that:

  • Sex slaves are not only acceptable, they're "sexy" and cool and negotiating with slavers is a good thing

  • Sex trafficking of individuals groomed since they are born into being sex slaves is the fault of the victims for "seducing" men ???

How is this show not fine with human trafficking at this point? Is all that you need to avoid controversy, to paint the slaves in green? I still cannot comprehend the lack of reaction on this show. Add to that the frequent crimes of war by Archer and you have a nice cocktail of humanity's finest horror.

Section 31

This is also something that seems absurd to me. When it first appeared, it was already a gestapo/kgb-like group that ignores the concept of democracy, laws, and justice - in other words a horrible group - but its existence as a starfleet element was blurry. But with modern shows, they keep on bringing it back, and directly saying that it is supported by starfleet, and a good thing, or at least a necessary one.

The thing is that what made starfleet supposedly admirable was, if not every single individual's morals, the morality of their concept, their laws, their structure. Having section 31 be condoned by starfleet transforms starfleet from "utopian future of humanity" (which it was supposed to be) to "dictatorship that pretends to be a democracy but supports crimes of war and above-the-law groups". In other words, it destroys the concept of starfleet.

Discriminations, sexism, and other shitty ideas, morals and behaviours

Now this one is maybe more blurry and subjective, but it is scattered all across, nonstop.

Let's start chronologically

DS9

For this show, the constant misogyny is nothing hard to see. But they still went out of their way to put some nasty things here and there.

The episode with Quark "becoming" a woman was interesting. Quark discovers a different point of view, gains insight and empathy, that's nice! Until the end of the episode directly says "no nevermind, he was like that because of hormones, and was just an overly emotional woman because of that". Because after all, women are hysterical, right? .

Other than that, we have the toxic relationship between Keiko and O'Brian, the toxic relationship between Dax and Worf, the toxic relationship between Odo and Kira, the toxic relationship between Sisco and his wife, Jake who constantly shows that when a teen boy is targeted by pedophiles, the teen is both responsible for it, and liking it (one second, I need to throw up in a corner), etc.

And of course there is the rest, between Cisco crimes against humanity, Bashir (that's all I'll say, nothing else needed), and the weird pro-religious message that doesn't make sense.

Enterprise

We already talked about their view of child/human trafficking which I think gives the tone of the show.

But of course that's not enough, so let's put some sexual scenes about the women in particular, rape scenes with TPol because who doesn't like rape culture, Malcolm "PoS" Reed talking like a creep about "bums", Reed and Tucker with their "haha lol, these alien women are ugly because you can't tell if they are women or not" and other toxic masculinity scenes, etc. Oh and I almost forgot about the sex scene between teen siblings that serve no other purpose than to show teens having incestuous sex.

Picard

What do we have here, more weird sibling sexual scenes, people getting manipulated mentally and sexually to extract information, murderers who get away with it because betraying the federation and killing innocents is fine if you're a scenario character (reminds me of something else...AhemelnorAhem)...

Oh, and I almost forgot the amazing scene with a white Picard in his white British empire colonist outfit, going on the planet of the tan refugees who hate the federation, kicks everything around and tries to show that he's the boss. I guess this show regrets colonies too, huh.

Discovery

Now I didn't finish this one yet, and it's hard.

We have klingons that start off as a weird racist stereotype of africans seen by colonialists from a century ago: black skin, tribal armors, weird "foreign" language that the show intentionally refuses to translate through the UT, and when they speak english it's with a strong guttural accent. And they're barbaric, scary cannibals who fight with sticks and knives, and are a bunch of disorganised tribes, with weird magic rituals that allow them to do weird brainwashing. I'm almost surprised they don't carry voodoo dolls while dancing around a bonfire. The fact that people describe this show as "woke" is funny to me.

We have very explicit rape and gore torture scenes, for what purpose, I don't know.

We have people forgiven of murder because it wasn't their mind, but then it is and everyone is fine with it.

And then there's more section 31 shit.

There's also the vision of asylum in this show that basically says "we grant asylum whenever we want, not based on the situation but on personal preferences", with Georgiou granting asylum despite the prime directive, and then Pike refusing asylum because of it. It's surprising that starfleet would allow that, but at least it's not Archer-level, sending people to death then blaming the ones who tried to help them.

SNW

As far as I remember, nothing as bad as the rest here. The take on eugenics and "augmented" individuals is really absurd though, showing starfleet hating on Una is fine because her species is augmented (like the denobulans who are in starfleet though, no?), but the stupid security officer who has DNA augmentations from a crazy evil dictator engineered to be violent and crazy, is allowed without any issue.

All of them

One thing that I struggle understanding is the constant of racist stereotypes. They're everywhere, because all the shows use them to define their characters.

Keiko wants to eat her traditional food in a kimono, Georgiou wears a big kimono-like dress that would barely fit in a Mulan movie, Elnor is a ridiculous samurai-ninja with the fitting outfit, etc. As if in hundreds of years, after earth is united and mixed with hundreds of alien species, "cultures" would not evolve and mix but instead go back to being very split apart and caricatural.

P.S.

I'm not saying that the shows are shit, but that I am worried about the lack of discussions concerning all those subjects. Star Trek is supposed to be progressive and show a better version of humanity, one that evolved and grew, and yet morals seem to not be a consideration of the shows anymore.

view more: next ›