Stargate, Dune (1984), and the Riddick films

I like those too, in particular Dune and the Chronicles of Riddick, but they all have audience scores above 60% (and Stargate and Dune are from the last millennium if we’re sticking to that requirement).

Reign of Fire only has a 42% (Critics), 49% (Audience) rating on RT, but I enjoyed it quite a bit. The visuals and sets create a nice moody post-apocalyptic vibe, and the actors deliver decent performances imo.

Both the popular article linked in the op as well as the actual paper seem to use the terms “liberal/conservative” and “leftist/rightist” interchangeably. Quote from the paper:

It is necessary to note that, first, similar to previous studies on this topic that consider the left–right dimension equivalent to the liberal–conservative dimension (Fuchs and Klingemann, 1990; Hasson et al., 2018), throughout this paper, the terms leftist and liberal (and similarly, rightist and conservative) were used interchangeably. The liberal–conservative dimension is often used in the United States, whereas the left–right dimension is commonly used in Europe and Israel (Hasson et al., 2018).

There were “only” 55 participants, but I assume that if some of them identified as socialist, they would already be included under “leftist/liberal” for the purpose of the study.

Zuvor hatten bereits zwei Autofahrer versucht, die Demonstranten gewaltsam von der Straße zu ziehen.

Kennt sich jemand hier bisschen mit Jura aus und kann einordnen, ob die sich damit strafbar machen? Wenn ich den Artikel richtig verstehe, war die Richterin wohl der Meinung, dass diese Art von Protest durch die Versammlungsfreiheit gedeckt ist. Wäre das also als Versuch zu werten, die Protestierenden an der Ausübung eines Grundrechts zu hindern? Vielleicht sollte die Staatsanwaltschaft da mal ermitteln, zumal “gewaltsam” auch danach klingt, als ob es sich um Nötigung handeln könnte (aber kenn mich mit Jura wie gesagt nicht super aus).

Thanks! Tbh I don’t care much about the first reason. I’ve been planning to eventually get around to watch at least ENT and some of the newer shows, so I probably won’t be finishing with DS9 regardless. So far I’ve been following more or less the “start with TNG” ordering in the OP, and am now in season 3 of DS9. Do you think it would still be a gain to start VOY or am I already through the looking glass, i.e. does the latter add more to the earler seasons? If it’s mostly about the world building and not the story I might give a rough version of the “chronological viewing order” a try and see if I enjoy it.

Can you give a (spoiler free if possible) reason for why you would recommend watching VOY before DS9 instead of the other way around? I assumed that VOY might contain spoilers for DS9 since it aired later.

Just read the second (or the first, but that is more technical) link I shared. Some native speakers do in fact seem to say “should of” even when the “of” is stressed, so in their dialect it would be grammatical.

While it is true that “should of” etc. can easily originate from a confusion between “‘ve’” and unstressed “of”, which sound identical, the statement

“Should of” is incorrect

itself is at least a bit misleading and prescriptivist in its generality.

Interestingly, there seem to be at least some native English speakers who genuinely do say “should of” (with a stressed “of”) sometimes. This paper for example argues that people who say “should of” really do use a grammatical construction of the form modal verb + of + past participle. One argument the author mentions is that this would also explain the words “woulda”, “coulda” and “shoulda”, since “of”->“a” is quite common in general (e.g. “kind of” -> “kinda”), but “'ve”->“a” basically doesn’t occur elsewhere (e.g. no one says “I’a” or “you’a” instead of “I’ve” or “you’ve”). Another is that the reverse mistake, i.e. using “‘ve’” in place of “of” (e.g. “kind’ve”), is much rarer, which is a clear difference to e.g. the situation with “they’re”/“their”/“there”, where people use these words in place of the others in all combinations frequently. I recommend this blog article for a much longer discussion.

Also, whether genuine mistake (which it almost certainly is in many cases, although probably not all) or different grammatical construction, YSK that “should of” etc. didn’t just become popular recently, but have been used for centuries. E.g. John Keats wrote in a letter in 1814: “Had I known of your illness I should not of written in such fiery phrase in my first Letter.”. Many more examples (some older as well) can be found e.g. here or here.

TL;DR: While in many cases “should of” etc. can well be a mistake, originating from the fact that it sounds identical to “should’ve” when unstressed, there is some interesting linguistic evidence that at least in some dialects of English native speakers really do say “should of” etc. (i.e. in those cases it is not a mistake, merely non-standard/dialectal).