Much as I like Avery Brooks, he never got a handle on the Sisko character until he shaved and went back to being Hawk but with a son. They should have let him do that from the beginning.

If you call them PanoPods you can probably get venture capital funding and then just go buy a train and paint it with a cool design.

Maybe there should be four buttons:

• Upvote-good comment
• Upvote-agree
• Downvote-disagree
• Downvote-unhelpful/rude

Which could be used for more filtering options.

Or maybe a separate agreement/disagree metric. I wouldn’t mind seeing the consensus on a topic separate from the measure of usefulness.

It’s just that it’s boring. I’d rather have an interesting debate. Downvoting everything you simply disagree with just leads to groupthink forums.

And then getting downvoted by people who just disagree with your opinion. I’m one of the Reddit refugees so I don’t know if we brought that with us or Lemmy was like that before but it’s sad to see.

What. I was in the middle of something. What do you want? You know what? Nevermind, I’m just going to go back to what I was doing.

Holy crap. I have Tidal on my phone and Plex at home. I didnt know I could connect them. Thank you!

Reagan was the literal actor hired to play president by a group of Machiavellian assholes, many of whom were also behind the scenes of both Bushes, Nixon, and lots of Republican Congress members. Not disagreeing that Reagan is where they really got traction on their dreams of power, but Reagan wasn’t the architect.

I said “option” to retreat not “duty” which is an important distinction I think. And there’s also the option of other reasonable force. I don’t think killing to protect my TV is reasonable, but fighting back possibly even causing injury might be. If I lived in a place where the intruder wasn’t likely to be armed, I’d probably whack his hand with broom handle, and I wouldn’t even feel bad if I broke his wrist because some use of force to keep a stranger from entering my house is warranted. When it comes to lethal force though the standard should be higher, which is why I prefer the self-defense/defense of others test. Did the guy have good reason to think the person breaking in was an imminent danger, that he might be armed and therefore escalation to firing a gun was reasonable? I don’t pretend to know, but I think that’s the test that should be used. That test should take into account that it was his house being broken in to, and that there was another person present he might have wanted to protect, because that definitely affects your perception of danger. We don’t need a set of principles that say you automatically get a pass when it’s your house, I think it’s better to look at each case individually.

Do Renaults often figure into your thinking? ;)

No disagreement. I’m a commie pinko by American standards, which is to say slightly left by European standards. I support gun regulation but it won’t solve the proliferation until we face up to this weird fetishization of guns we have.

I do not agree with the castle doctrine. It’s too easily used to justify lethal force when retreat is an option, however self-defense is a valid justification and from the description given I think that’s completely plausible. An unknown person breaking the glass and potentially armed could be a threat. It sucks that a guy who possibly did nothing wrong has to defend himself in an investigation, but we should have a high bar on lethal actions for civilians and cops (the standard should be higher for cops).

Lower Decks is stuffed full of funny references to other Treks and specific episodes. Being an incurable Star Trek geek I get all or most of them and it’s part of the fun. That said, all of those references are treated as throwaway lines and aren’t important to the story, so I think it’d still be a good show if you miss those. It might even be more fun when you later watch that one TNG episode and go, “oh that’s what they were talking about”. Either way I recommend Lower Decks. It manages to be silly and fun while not mistreating Trek or its characters.

I might have been in a bad mood when I read it, but I just remember it as not as good as the originals. I think it was just rushed out.

Of course. They’re patient. They chipped away at abortion for decades before finally getting it overturned in Dobbs.

Similarly they went from Masterpiece Cake Shop to the Creative LLC case which widened the exception further because it’s a “creative endeavor”. Don’t for a minute think they’re not queing up a case to deny medical services based on a “sincerely held religious beliefs”.

“against your Christian religion”. Fixed that for you.

Of course. And if the parents dress them in that and keep them isolated the kids will pass that on to the next generation. If the kids go to school and see there are other options, maybe they’ll choose to be different when they’re independent or raise their kids differently. This is why cults always seek to isolate their members – exposure to diversity breaks the cycle.

He’s the male Gwyneth Paltrow selling brain pills instead of Goop. He promotes alt-right and far-right conspiracies. He told people not to get the COVID vaccine. If he just interviewed people – even people from all sides – I’d be fine with it. Problem is he promotes dangerous conspiracies and usually ignores fact checking. He’s using his influence and authority to do harm. And worst of all, I think he just does it for the ratings.

I don’t know the law in France, but I’d worry it’ll cause religious parents to just keep their kids out of state school and do some form of private religious education, causing a greater divide. The best counter to these attitudes is exposure to diversity and other viewpoints. Maybe the kids going to school and seeing that there are other ways is better.

Yeah I didn’t hate the premise, it just felt rushed and incomplete. It’s kind of like I went to a lunch place where I’ve had a lot of good meals but today I got a basket of cold fries with too little salt.