you’re probably an idiot. I know I am.

  • 0 Posts
  • 223 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle




  • This misses what makes Star Trek special and what makes the Nu-Trek shows such a failure, in my opinion.

    What make Star Trek what it is is that in a world filled to the brim with hopeless dystopian stories and prudent allegorical warning signs in story format, Star Trek offered a uniquely hopeful Utopian view of the future. No, things were not perfect, but it’s clear that many of the trivial problems of our world as well as nearly all scarcity issues were effectively “solved.”

    Meanwhile, Nu-Trek seems actively and solely focused specifically on tearing down or critiquing that Utopian view. I’m not opposed to critical consideration of a property, in fact in most cases it’s an excellent way to re-evaluate a property. But in the specific case of Star Trek all it really accomplishes is turning this uniquely hopeful thing of beauty into just another generic and cynical piece of mild social commentary in a field absolutely crowded with exactly that sort of content already.

    I’m not precious about Star Trek, I’m not above the idea of critiquing and reevaluating it, but when doing so accomplishes only taking away what makes it unique so it becomes just another interchangeable piece of Sci-Fi in the crowd… Well I guess I just have to ask “What was the fucking point?”





  • Vespair@lemm.eetoMemes@sopuli.xyzRip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    As I said in a other comment, I think “they didn’t live long enough” is a bit of misconception. I’ll repeat my comment here rather than writing it out again:

    "So I’m no expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but it’s my understanding that while average ages were much lower in the past, this number is heavily skewed by infant mortalities and deaths due to preventable disease. As I understand it, the expected age of an otherwise healthy individual was pretty comparable to us today. More people died young, but those who didn’t lived about as long as us. So I don’t think not living long enough for skin cancer to take effect really jives with my understanding of history.

    But again, I’m not an expert and the likelihood that I’m just an idiot who is wildly misunderstanding things is, frankly, high."


  • Vespair@lemm.eetoMemes@sopuli.xyzRip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    I mean I definitely see your point, but as I understand it even field workers are encouraged to use sunscreen and farmers and others who spend a lot of time outdoors are at greater risk of long-term damage, not lesser, despite this supposed acclimation.


  • Vespair@lemm.eetoMemes@sopuli.xyzRip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    Those make sense to me, but I’ll be honest with you, where I struggle is with the idea of sunscreen. How did our ancestors live outside constantly without any sunscreen but if I’m outside for more than 2 hours in the summer without it I come home looking like a burnt lobster?

    I’m sure the answer is that I’m ignorant, or the “natural causes” of yesteryear were really just undiagnosed skin cancer or something, but I have to admit it does seem like a real negative adaptation here from the viewpoint of my uneducated mind.





  • Subtext. It’s the suggestion that these terms are so incomprehensible as to be overwhelming in the first place. The subtext is that the younger generation is exhausting, specifically in their nonsense or otherness. There’s assuming good faith and then there is intentionally ignoring the forest for the trees, and I think your suggestion is more for the latter than the former, frankly.