/strek/ - Star Trek

>>23036

>outside of Data

And Dr. Pulaski, forgot about her.

>>23036

>90% of it is better then 90% of TNG

This is just retarded right here. Every character is vastly inferior to their TNG counterpart.

>>23039

>Every character is vastly inferior to their TNG counterpart.

Every TNG character is a caricature. Only a few, like Capt. Jellico, were actually tolerable.

>Captain Speeches Goodiegoodie

>Commander Depressionbelly "Cry and pout if I don't get my way" Supergreatpenisman

>Doctor Ghostdicklover "ermagehrd we can't/we must do that muh feefees"

>K.I.T.T. the Black Science Man

>Token Klingaboo (got redeemed in DS9, for the most part)

>Crybaby Shall Not Be Named

>Somehow-a-Lt.-Commander Obvious

>The Wise Janitor Bartender

Only fucking Data was tolerable.

>>23040

To be fair, the characters of every non-TOS show are somewhat formulaic. Every Trek show has:

>two females

>one black male

>one unique special snowflake alien/artifical construct

>one alien that's Human+™

>one alien that's more about the social differences than the physiological

>>23036

I agree with your assessment. People like to focus on what VOY could have done better, instead of focusing on what they've done well. TNG gets romanticized because it feels the most Star Trekish, with Roddenberry still having influence on it and because it introduced the Borg which are the greatest villains Trek has come up with. VOY outperforms many aspects of TNG, Scorpion I+II is on par with Best of Both Worlds, Seven of Nine and The Doctor are just as good as Data, and, which ENT completely abandoned, VOY is the last Trek show that actually cares about moral and philosophical dilemmas. In some sense, VOY does a better job than DS9 even, because VOY keeps throwing interesting stuff at the crew whereas DS9 can be an absolute snoozefest for 4-5 episodes in a row.

What they should have done better in VOY was not to completely abandon TNG style episodes with the "ambassador of the week" or "alien with a forehead plastic of the week" kind of shit and be generally more exotic (it's the fucking Delta Quadrant). In the end, VOY was great, there so many great episodes.

>>23045

>TNG gets romanticized because it feels the most Star Trekish, with Roddenberry still having influence on it

TNG noticeably improved when Roddenberry's influence on it waned off.

> In the end, VOY was great, there so many great episodes.

There was some good episodes, let's not go full Katarina Krazy here.

>>23036

It's always curious to see how differently people react to Voyager. You're on the side of thinking it was a damn good series, even better than TNG and finding the characters interesting and more believable. Meanwhile, I'm struggling to get past season 3 and find it extremely dull and one-note, a poor man's TNG, if you will. Never had this problem with ENT, another series people have differing opinions on. As an aside, OP, are you gonna watch ENT next? Or TOS, if you haven't seen that yet?

>>23040

>Every TNG character is a caricature.

Well, let’s contrast them with their counterparts:

<insane female captain, poorly written and acted

<nigger vulcan with zero dimensional personality

<neelix

<comic relief doctor doing david hyde pierce impression

<angry negress klingon

<white guy ripped off from superior TNG character (Paris is based on the character from the First Duty)

<‘I am a native american first officer. I have no personality’

<eye candy who got Obama elected because she wouldn’t obey her husband

<Asian who died and was replaced by a doppelganger and no one gives a damn

>>23051

>There was some good episodes, let's not go full Katarina Krazy here.

By what standards? If I'm looking at the great episodes of TOG, TNG and DS9, they didn't have more great episodes than VOY. It's just a vastly different show than DS9. DS9 is politics, VOY is TOG style exploration.

>>23052

The first three seasons of VOY are their weakest (the fourth season is the strongest), but compare it with TNG. I'm having a hard time finding good epsidoes in the first two seasons of TNG besides Measure of a Man and Q Who, whereas I can name many great episodes of VOY in the first three seasons. The one where they send a message to that Romulan scientist, the one where the Doctor meets Barclay, the one where they go back to 80s Florida, the one with the Lizard people who turned out to be dinosaurs from earth, etc.

By the way the biggest criticism of VOY I have is the weak writing in the story episodes later in the series. Every episode with the Borg Queen is horribly written, it's utter garbage.

>>23054

>insane female captain, poorly written and acted

Mulgrew did a good job, it's true that Janeway flip-flopped on issues but comparing it to Archer in ENT I don't think she's a bad captain. She definitely had personality.

>nigger vulcan with zero dimensional personality

He's a Vulcan. You either ruin the Vulcans or you just go with it. The problem was that he got "replaced" in his function by Seven of Nine. People know the Vulcans, but an ex-Borg, that's something else. Although it did render Tuvoc useless.

>neelix

Agree, he's cancer.

>comic relief doctor doing david hyde pierce impression

The Doctor's epsidoes are the best in the series.

>angry negress klingon

She's a bit annoying, but first off she's white and second off the actress is quite hot.

>white guy ripped off from superior TNG character (Paris is based on the character from the First Duty)

He's just the resident chad who is in every Star Trek series (Kirk, Riker, Bashir, etc.)

>‘I am a native american first officer. I have no personality

I agree they could've given him A LOT more character development.

>eye candy who got Obama elected because she wouldn’t obey her husband

Excuse my lack of autism, but what the fuck are you talking about?

>Asian who died and was replaced by a doppelganger and no one gives a damn

I agree, Harry Kim is the Will Wheaton of VOY.

>>23059

>Excuse my lack of autism, but what the fuck are you talking about?

You don’t know the deal with Jeri Ryan? Her husband was Senator of Illinois. Their divorce papers (illegally) went public and it was revealed he took her to an S&M club and tried to have her do kinky shit. He resigned in embarrassment. Obama then ran more or less unopposed for his seat, continuing his streak of having victories handed to him by the Chicago machine.

>>23061

Holy shit, that's really fucking bad. However, I usually don't judge the politics of the actors of the characters I like. Otherwise I'd had to kill myself.

>>23052

>You're on the side of thinking it was a damn good series

Well, _damn good_ might not fit it too well, but it's much more consistent than TNG.

It's lows (Innocence, The Thaw, The Fight, Barge of the Dead) are a bit less low then TNG's (Night Terrors, Sub Rosa, etc) and the highest points might be _just_ or _just not_ as good as TNG's, but I find it to be a much more _fun_ show to watch.

TNG took itself very seriously, even some of the more "what the fuck even" concepts (fucking ghost rape) and attempted to portray everything as 100% serious-do-not-fun (only exception that comes to mind being Fistful of Datas which was fucking 10/10), while the apparent immaturity of Paris and Neelix (and Kim too, but less so) can be interpreted as a coping mechanism for the solitude of the DQ (especially Neelix as morale officer).

VOY took the same concepts and made them much more campy at times, while also hitting home some more heartfelt points (Naomi Wildman being a good humanizing tool in the more serious episodes, and got a great episode in Once Upon a Time).

DS9 did the same thing with a lot of goofy episodes that might not be the epitome of storytelling, but they're _fun to watch_. And bitch all you want but most ST writers keep forgetting they're also writing something people need to watch, and if the director also thinks he's the new Spielberg…

Some examples on the top of my head:

>Spirit Folk (inb4 "but they did that in TNG already")

>Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy

>Live Fast and Prosper

>The Killing Game (Nazis vs Klingons was stupid as hell but _c'mon_, also, it *does* have a proper core story, and a sequel episode showing what'd happened when they gave out the tech)

>Author, Author (Rapey nazi Doctor was fucking amazing to see)

>DS9's Ferengi episodes, In the Cards, Take Me Out to the Holosuite

Did it have a fuckload of unused potential? Yeah, more then DS9, but does that make it a bad show? No.

>As an aside, OP, are you gonna watch ENT next? Or TOS, if you haven't seen that yet?

Am in a rewatching of all ST atm. Already rewatched TOS-TAS-TNG-DS9 + movies.

They aired ENT, TNG and TOS here on the Sci-Fi channel (but out of order, so I didn't really follow it) so I only didn't see DS9 and VOY when I was younger, they were completely new to me.

Loved TOS and TAS, loved DS9 but there were a few "eh what the hell" moments (the few nigger rants, Maquis going underused).

>>23054

<insane female captain, poorly written and acted

Poortly written? Yes. Poorly acted? No.

Unless by poorly acted you mean "doesn't give a speech every other scene"…

<nigger vulcan with zero dimensional personality

Tuvok got visibly annoyed at times, could be snarky, and did have a personality.

However, I do agree that he got practically zero development.

<neelix

Was a good negotiator and while he could be goofy, he actually had a sneaky side to him that came out every few episodes when the Plastic-Face of the week underestimated him.

<comic relief doctor doing david hyde pierce impression

The Doctor is literally _the_ reason why VOY's cast is better than of TNG's.

<angry negress klingon

Okay, you got me here.

<white guy ripped off from superior TNG character (Paris is based on the character from the First Duty)

And made a whole lot more bearable than "ow yiss let me self-fellate how great I am".

<‘I am a native american first officer. I have no personality’

As I said, he was underused as fuck too. Should've put the moves on Janeway after her fiance decided to marry another and he should've taken command in Equinox after she went off the rails).

<eye candy who got Obama elected because she wouldn’t obey her husband

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Her arc was handled terribly but she was an interesting character in concept and a good foil to the more idealistic Janeway.

<Asian who died and was replaced by a doppelganger and no one gives a damn

At least he gets some damn character progression and his doppelganger is literally him, why would anyone give a damn? Naomi Wildman is too, but they're just alternate-timeline versions with the same exact history.

>>23040

This.

Jellico is the only TNG character I like.

He got shit done.

>>23065

>Poorly acted? No.

Yes. All she could do was growl her lines out.

>>23065

>¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Get out.

And_stop_putting_underscores_around_random_words.

>>23085

>more like him

more like them*, my bad.

>>23059

>Resident Chad

>Bashir

Is that what you guys call rape-u-gees on /strek/?

>>23085

The EMH was a limited person doing his best to expand his horizons and improve himself. Data just wanted to gain emotions at the end and be a real boy as you said. Honestly as a character he had the most growth. In a weird way the EMH was a good example of how humans evolved over their basic functions and if the writers were aware of what they were doing would have caught on and expanded more on that aspect.

>>23062

Her "politics" are basically "don't do girl/girl in front of an audience while your cuck husband jerks off" which is a position I can respect if not fully agree with

>>23584

>I'm watching Voyager for the first time now, and frankly I fucking hate it.

Don't worry, this is a perfectly normal reaction.

The best episodes of Voyager are /easily/ on par with the best ones of TNG. People just feel nostalgic about the TNG characters, which is stupid. Picard, Data and Worf are great creations. Riker is okay-ish and a rip-off from Will Decker from TMP. Crusher has no personality, we all no what Will Wheaton is, Diana Troy is trash, La Forge is boring.

Voyager did some things wrong, like that they didn't go far enough to protray the Delta Quadrant as an exotic place, or that the ship is never in desperate need for supplies and fuel (great potential here for moral conundrums that was only tapped into in "Equinox") or that they ruined the Borg - let's be honest though, Borg were already ruined by late TNG.

Honestly, I could make it easier through a horrible episode in VOY than I could make it through a horrible episode in DS9 (the fucking Rom subplots, Jesus Christ, just kill him already). I feel there is some tranquility in Voyager but the problem was that they didn't have the balls to deviate from your Trek routine - manifested in Janeway's constant flip-flopping. It's like, they wanted to go somewhere else but they had such an established casual viewership that they wouldn't dare, instead we got face plastic ambassador and subspace ghost of the week. Similar to the first season of TNG, where they just ripped on TOS, but then managed to develop their own, updated ideas. This wasn't possible with Voyager, because TOS relied on many outdated SciFi tropes that were super novel in the West during the 60s, and TNG profited from an emerging geek/SciFi scene with more hard SciFi novels and shows coming out, also, technology has progressed since the 60s, so they incorporate new ideas like a hive mind - it's hard to imagine Roddenberry or the writers of TOS coming up with the idea of a hive mind or an android having dreams. Back in those days, it was already spectacular enough to have a ship that's in space and meets new species.

Voyager can not draw from new SciFi ideas yet to be exploited as tropes in ST. That's why it's just a carbon-copy of TNG. How you explore new ideas in SciFi is currently demonstrated by Westworld.

>The best episodes of Voyager are /easily/ on par with the best ones of TNG.

This is the dumbest statement on the board, and that’s even considering that communists post here.

Nothing in Voyager is even close to Inner Light

>>23605

>This is the dumbest statement on the board, and that’s even considering that communists post here.

I am a commie. It's funny how the majority of this board is /pol/ considering what a left-liberal circlejerk Star Trek is (except DS9 which sometimes had Zionist/Necon undertones).

>Nothing in Voyager is even close to Inner Light

Inner Light is indeed a great episode, but that was largely due to Patrick Stewart being in his element. The episode was a tribute to him. It's one of these episodes that was build arround the lead actor, like Sisko in "Far Beyond the Stars". Janeway could never live up to Picard or Sisko so they couldn't do that there.

That's actually one of the critcizms you could raise against VOY, that it never really explores deeply emotional themes like DS9 or TNG did. However, most other good TNG episodes had brilliant counterparts in VOY, "Best of Both Worlds" has "Scorpion", "Measure of a Man" has "Latent Image", "The Wounded" has "Equinox", etc.

VOY ruined Q and the Borg, I give you that. All Borg episodes sucked except Scorpion

>beam a torpedo on board

>borg hate this one simple trick

>>23608

Remember that the Ferengi went Keynesian SocDem in the end.

>Remember that the Ferengi went

By way of lazy writing, complete asspull magical brainwashing which even the Prophets in the end of that specific episode agreed was a bad idea and took it back, and retardation from Moogi. Even in fiction and with pozzed writers they knew in some level that space communism like any other communism is a failure.

>TNG gets romanticized because it feels the most Star Trekish, with Roddenberry still having influence on it

>VOY was great, there so many great episodes

>>eye candy who got Obama elected because she wouldn’t obey her husband

>Excuse my lack of autism, but what the fuck are you talking about?

>as tropes in

>I am a commie.

Shocking, who could have guessed someone spouting stupidly ignorant opinions trying to make it sound as commonly held facts would be a commie. What a twist.

>>23622

But that's not really leftardpol'sl BO! :^)

>>23607

>It's funny how the majority of this board is /pol/ considering what a left-liberal circlejerk Star Trek is

That's only here on h8chan. Literally everywhere else you go to discuss Trek, it's not like this at all.

>>23673

Only idiots think Trek is a commie wet dream. Roddenberry himself had to explain constantly that a post scarcity society where they can literally turn shit into food would be socially different than modern Earth. When you actually look at the sort of world he envisioned, it's a "separate, but equal" future where everyone went back to their own damned countries, sorted their own shit out, celebrated and invested in their own cultures, then came together and went to space.

>>23691

Nowhere else can you say that the Bajorans are kikes who made up the occupation, like the holocaust.

>>23691

http://boards.420chan.org/1701/

>>23702

>Communism is leftism and liberalism and racemixing and everything /pol/ doesn't like

You might have a point, if it weren't for Kirk fucking every green and blue alien chick he met in TOS.

>>23703

>made up the occupation

<even the Cardassians call it an occupation

You spoonhead cocksuckers never give it a rest, do you?

>>23711

Cardassians wouldn't have occupied their world anyway if it wasn't for the Federation annexing badly needed resource rich worlds on the Cardassian border.

>>23710

You raise an excellent point. How accurate are these "universal" translators? Do they eliminate problematic concepts and words automatically, or do they need to be programmed to do that?

>>23723

> Do they eliminate problematic concepts and words automatically, or do they need to be programmed to do that?

They need time to adapt to filtering out problematic words. That's the real reason it took so long for the UT to start working on the aliens in "Sanctuary"–obviously it's not due to difference in the language, as in TNG it was able to translate crystals living in mud almost right away–the Skreeans were spouting dangerously anti-Federation ideals, which if heard might inadvertently give some of the officers the red hypospray. In an effort to counteract this, the computer and the UT reframed the Skreeans as matriarchal "refugees", an image much more conducive to Federation policies. Who knows what they were talking about originally?

>>23702

I specifically said left-liberalism, not commumism. Star Trek's "communism" is literally just post-scarcity (I hope not even the craziest lolbert would argue that something that replicates by the pressing of a button within 0,5 seconds would have any sort of exchange value), whereas everything else is traded with hard currency like gold-pressed latinum. Within the Federation, specifically Earth, they use "credits", like "transporter credits", which is what Marx descibed as the lower phase of communism, as these credits are labor vouchers. They are not accumulated or exchanged like money as they are destroyed after usage, so they are a system of distribution, not exchange. This is a bit odd since labor vouchers only work if they have some sort of equivalent, as in a product that was created by human labor in a certain amount of time, so your own labor through which you attain those credits can be measured against it, after a part of your labor was deducted for the common funds. Since replicators only need energy, which seems to exist in abundance unless you are at the frontier, this makes no sense and you wonder how the Feds actually calculate this.

But my main argument as to why Star Trek is left-liberal and not communistic is the constant moral faggotery. Communism is materialism, and appeals to morals are considered idealism in Marxism as morals just serve a specific superstructure. Yet in Star Trek, they constantly "solve" problems by sticking to their allegedly superior moral code, and deep issues are resolved in debates about ethics. This is the typical Roddenberrish hippie fantasy, that we all just can get together and all the hard differences between us just vanish and we usher into an utopia - no violent struggle needed. What would have happened if Cochrane met the Romulans instead of the Vulcans first?

DS9 was a step forward regarding this, as Sisko is forced to throw his moral code out the window a couple of times, as the real, material predicament increased. What I totally didn't like where the Necon undertones like in Pale Moonlight that reminded me of a fucking US false flag ops to start a war.

>>23726

>I hope not even the craziest lolbert would argue that something that replicates by the pressing of a button within 0,5 seconds

No, the lolberg case for realistic Trekonomics is somewhat different, as outlined in the posts you so steadfastly refused to engage: >>22349

>>23726

Thing is, if Trek is left-liberal, what's STD? Where are my mini-skirts, Eurocentrism, and negroes without a "street" dialect? Trek carries the hard bigotry of high expectations.

>>23726

>Yet in Star Trek, they constantly "solve" problems by sticking to their allegedly superior moral code, and deep issues are resolved in debates about ethics

You say that if half the episodes (and three quarters of VOY and 95% of ENT) wasn't about violating those morals selectively, or if half of DS9 wasn't about deconstructing those morals and describing at length why they were bullshit, and as if the Federation isn't essentially ALWAYS AT WAR with someone or another.

And FUCK YOU, Pale Moonlight was a masterpiece. Just the look on Sisko's face when he had to accept that all his machinations and plans and schemes and layers of keikaku were outdone by a mere tailor who knew which back to stick a knife into.

>>23735

left garbage dump?

>>23036

I'm currently rewatching. 3 episodes in. Forgot how pleasant to watch the show was.

>>23757

That still covers just about all of leftism without narrowing down to STD specifically though.

>>23822

text is too read-able. use a scribblier font in maybe lime green.

>>23829

Calling that chickenscratch cursive is an insult to calligraphy and handwriting in general.

>>23822

>Most Asian cartoons

This is bait.

>>23837

Can you name a scifi anime that isn't at least slightly right of center?

>>23822

>firefly further right than starship troopers

I remain skeptical

>>23874

>Left wing - how people work is bad and should be changed

>Right wing - how people work is natural and shouldn't be changed

^ These are the actual definitions, I hate it that 0% of people I talk to are aware of that fact. It seems everyone has their own shitty definitions.

Anyway the key theme in Firefly is right wing, whereas starship troopers has a variety of themes.

>>23592

>reset button

This can be told for most of Trek.

What president in TNG?

Except the one death of one character.

To what exactly are you compering VOY? It was basically a TNG 2.0

>Let's make the moral of the story about how sometimes you can't do anything no matter how hard you try

Not only a shit load of TV is like this its a Roddenberry's propaganda

>Atheism = smart

>Religion = stupid

>trolley problem don't exist or if the show up the characters make speeches how they will not sacrifice anyone and then the plot makes this problem go away regardless how illogical it is.

>Technology solves everything

>Optimism

>reset button

>>23607

>VOY ruined the Borg

The Borg on TNG are a joke and I think most of you pretend like they never happened or believe some alternative version fan fiction of the borg on TNG.

<Borg = Big super enemy unstoppable

< Q saves you from them

And the next things are absolutely ignored

<Show up next to earth

>Aw shit we can not stop them

>LOL we can deactivate all the Borg independence day style TROLLOLOLOLOLOL

<Borg only did send this 1 cube

Its like you pretender this borg episodes never happened.

<Next borg encounter

<Hue

<WE can destroy the collective by making a computer virus

You see what a joke the Borg are here do you?

>Lets teach this one drone about individualism instead.

Its like you pretender this borg episodes never happened.

<This literally destroys the collective because the speaking about individualism is like a mental virus and made all the Borg rebel and then die because they did not have organisation

<ignore the fact that Locusts did not infect the collective with Picards individuality or some shit

<Also ignore the fact that the borg did have a way to disable individuality

<Actually pretend Locutus never happened

Its like you pretender this borg episodes never happened.

<Borg are literally remnants and a joke at this point

<Some remnant drones start obeying Lore.

How exactly did VOY ruin the Borg?

If the Borg on VOY are miles above the

>you talking to one drone about individuality will collapse the collective

crap from TNG?

Borg on VOY kicked ass and where the best incarnation of the borg in ST.

>>23889

>These are the actual definitions

Dude…

>>23894

Obviously the Borg in TNG needed their Achilles' Heel like Superman needs his Kryptonite. Too powerful.

By VOY the Borg didn't have these weaknesses anymore because they have already been nerfed by conventional means. Superman doesn't need Kryptonite if he can get beaten up like anybody else. The fact a Star Fleet standard issue EMH outsmarts the entire collective by modifying nano probes against Species 4275 makes you wonder why the Borg havn't been obliterated by any powerful species in the Delta Quadrant (as there are some).

>>23889

I was about to take offense to your "definitions", but then I realized something. You're kinda right. It's just that "how people work" naturally is as murderous rapist psychopath retard monkeys, and it's only a thin veneer of civilization and laws that keeps that in check.

If right-wingers want to roll back to the clock to when everyone lived in caves throwing rocks and shit at each other, that would explain a lot of their behavior.

Am I the only one here that thinks that the concept of the borg queen is utterly retarded?

>>23917

No, most people here agree that was shit.

>>23904

> The fact a Star Fleet standard issue EMH outsmarts the entire collective

TNG Borg are still stupider.

What is more stupid a collective that lacks creativity (they can only learn from assimilating) and is narrow minded (see Asgard, replicators and guns in Star Gate) or a collective who literally can shut down if someone chats to one drone about individuality?

I say this was once more the writers trying to say how great we individual humans are and how great we are and superior to all these alien intelligence things (computers, hive minds). A great example of this trope is Data being beaten in chess by Troy who used emotions to beat his logic(utterly ridicules), anyone can try this to a computer set on HARD in chess and see how hard he will fail.

In reality a clustered intelligence like the borg would outsmart any human and come up with everything a individual human can fast better and last year.

Also I say it was the Kryptonite of the borg in VOY or the crew will fail.

Not to speak the glaring problems of

<Muh we can not disconnect one drone its like cutting of our arm

<Every drone has admin privileges and can initiate sleep mode

Contrast to VOY.

>One cube has one drone going silent?

<Detonate cube

A far better demonstration of how indifferent something like the borg can be while having zilions of cubes and simply thinking one is a expendable firecracker.

VOYs borg solution involved a complicated maneuver to infect infiltration and future technology something more believable then.

<Grab Locutus make him initiate sleep mode on every drone

>Obviously the Borg in TNG needed their Achilles' Heel like Superman needs his Kryptonite. Too powerful.

Speaking of TNG not really, TNG has Q. After Q saved the crew at the last point the borg could be left to be some Cthulhu aliens somewhere far away, uninterested or incapable of coming to our part of the galaxy or being even in a different dimension etc.

So other borg encounters would require Q to help or magic them away.

However the writers decided to win over the borg by introducing quite silly ideas like chatting with one drone will systemically destroy the borg forever.

>>23917

>>23918

>borg queen is utterly retarded?

Its meh.

Having a true collective is more interesting.

However her basically ruling over all drones makes sense, remember even P2P networks have trackers and a server based architecture is something that shows up a lot of times.

Its interesting how in the computer world we keep reinventing chains of commands.

Also she is a nice face of the collective who can show the collective thinks.

What do you think is so retarded about her?

>>23928

I've always thought of the Borg Queen as being more of a figurehead, a face the Borg puts forward as a representative (ala the Mouth of Sauron), but even in the beginning that was debatable. The only really egregious mistake Voyager made was insinuating that there was somehow only one of them, as opposed to the Borg answer to limitless Weyoun clones. Then again, seeing how the Star Trek canon ended completely following Endgame (as the only entries to the franchise since have been prequels and reboots) we'll probably never know if the Borg just crapped out a new Queen following those events.

>>23935

I always assumed there was only one.

Actually I have a great theory that is near perfect if you think closely of the events of the borg from TNG and VOY.

Its actually a neat theory the jist of it is that after the borg collapsed in TNG and their remnants wanted to get back to the old unity that they started obeying Lore and his crazy experiments in another sector the drone that turned into the queen did have a different plan like the episode where Seven links together drones and forces them into a collective under her command (it looks like this).

She basically enslaved all the old borg and gave herself ultimate overwriting admin privileges in the collective and enslaved the other drones.

The funny thing all the old drones wanted this because they finely got unity. So she literally brings order to chaos.

The old collective was a democracy where everyone needed to agree on everything 100% of the time this collapsed after Hue brought in new ideas about individuality.

The Quean fixed this by making her will the only thing that is important.

Remember the TNG borg where ready to die in Lores experiments to get back what they lost.

I wanted to make a video theory on this subject.

>>23903

Fuck off.

>>23906

I wouldn't quite put it that way, but since you're a leftists I guess that's how you see things.

People naturally form some kind of hierarchy, either by ability, merit or some other classification. It's how our tribes are organized since we evolved.

Leftists claim that hierarchies of any kind are evil and want to change how people work so everyone is equal, like some insect colony.

Rightists claim that hierarchies are natural and there's no need to change them, because each persons position in a hierarchy is most of the time morally correct.

That's why people say that communism is a great ideology - its just applied to the wrong species.

>>23951

The problem is that literally every hierarchy ever made has allowed people in privileged positions (99.99% of the time merely because of what family they were born into) to control the entire life and fate of everyone else. Whenever this happens, they inevitably siphon off all the resources and wealth for themselves, to the detriment of the whole, and torture and kill the rest at their whim because they also control law. This is unavoidable because humans are greedy selfish hateful bastards. I would prefer a world where everyone is equal, to one composed of only a couple hundred kings and billions of slaves. The only way rightism/conservatism ever flies is because the kings have convinced the slaves that if they follow doctrine (either religious, or nationalistic, or quasi-moral [aka: hard work is always rewarded]) then someday they, too, may become kings. They want us to believe that it's actually possible for everyone (which is the same as saying: anyone) can become wealthy and powerful. It's a mindless, retarded delusion to believe that a person's position in any social hierarchy is based on anything other than blind, dumb luck.

The entire concept of a meritocracy is fundamentally flawed, because people AREN'T equal, and never will be. Even in a perfect system (which we are nowhere close to), where all success were determined purely by individual merit and accomplishment, it's still broken. Why does a person who was born less-intelligent deserve less happiness in life? Why does a person who was born with a body that naturally aligns with superiority in some arbitrary sports competition deserve more? Rightism would have you believe that success is due to something you DO, rather than something you ARE, which is really just an extension of Christian teachings that say that if you're a good person God will reward you with "luck". But then again, look what He did to Job, so maybe that's not even correct. But the point is, you KNOW that's completely bullshit. You KNOW that the reason you're in a house with a roof and running water, typing with fully literacy and intelligence on a nice computer (and not, say, starving to death in a slum in Somalia without water or electricity or the ability to read/write) is because of the roll of a cosmic set of dice. You didn't ACCOMPLISH your station in life; nobody does. You were born in it. And do you really, honestly believe the conservative tagline that says you can become a king, too, if you just work hard enough?

Come on. I know you're not that stupid.

>>23982

>99.99% of the time merely because of what family they were born into

Why is it morally wrong to pass your wealth/power to your children? Why even attain wealth or power if it dies with you? Why get up in the morning if nothing you do has an effect on your descendants?

>I would prefer a world where everyone is equal,

Why the fuck would you want a world where everyone is the same?

A world where everyone is equal might as well contain only 1 person, because no other person differs from anyone else in any meaningful way. And since that 1 person has no one to talk to, he might as well off himself.

It's a retarded desire.

>>23982

>And do you really, honestly believe the conservative tagline that says you can become a king, too, if you just work hard enough?

My greatⁿgrandchildren will one day. If I behave properly, teach my children how to behave properly, and how to teach their children the same lessons, this type of thing happens all of the time. Aside from blind chance which no one can control, it's the only way anyone really seizes power. Check out some case studies of rich people and their pasts. For example:

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

>>24056

You're just an idiot. You're mincing words to try to win an argument when you know goddamn well that wasn't the kind of "equal" I was talking about.

It's not morally wrong to secure a future for your own children to a point, but it is wrong to do so in such a way that guarantees everyone else's children starve to death. It's also painfully hypocritical because all these rich fuckers make so much ado about people on welfare getting "handouts" when they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and are protected from the consequences of their actions. A young adult with parents of meager means can fuck up royally and end up homeless; but if this happens to someone who has wealthy parents, they'll bail him out.

The USA was founded upon the idea of escaping tyranny by royal bloodlines. Turns out they just created a brand new tyranny, except without the title or responsibilities attached to it. Families of kings with no crowns, hoarding all the wealth for themselves, and who always manage to dodge the guillotine.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

>>24057

>My greatⁿgrandchildren will one day.

Well, you know what? Your great-grandparents definitely thought the same thing, but YOU'RE STILL POOR. Funny how that works out. Why do you think it'll be any different this time…? It's a delusion, nothing more.

>>24065

That is exactly the kind of equality you were talking about! Equality of opportunity still leads to a hierarchy, you were specifically talking about equality of outcome. In other words SAMENESS.

I'm not trying to win an argument, or even convince you, I'm just making my position clear so no one ever confuses me for you.

>veryone else's children starve to death

Who's being melodramatic now? Merit based economics have practically erased famine and even malnourishment.

>It's also painfully hypocritical because all these rich fuckers make so much ado about people on welfare getting "handouts" when they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and are protected from the consequences of their actions.

That's their prerogative. Being that stupid about the outside world also ensures they lose all of their wealth within the next generation as well.

"inb4 buh but the bailout!" that was a strictly top-down government ordained socialist measure and the majority of people were against it

>A young adult with parents of meager means can fuck up royally and end up homeless; but if this happens to someone who has wealthy parents, they'll bail him out.

How about instead of focusing on your jealousy you focus on not fucking up. There's only three things you have to do in America to not become poor: Finish high school, don't get pregnant, and get a job. None of these are monumental achievements, all can be easily managed even by people on the brink.

>amilies of kings with no crowns, hoarding all the wealth for themselves

http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/

Only in systems with controlled economies do the wealthy keep their wealth, because in a controlled economy they can use their money to grab the reins. Which makes your desire to control the fucking economy to benefit poor people all the more hilarious.

>Your great-grandparents definitely thought the same thing,

Correct, which is why I'm not poor, moron. In the 1800s a majority of Americans lived on less than a dollar a day This is inflation adjusted, it would be $0.034 a day in their money Currently in America no one lives under $2 a day, which is the international definition of poverty.

So we are better off with a merit based economy both comparing ourselves to ourselves, and comparing ourselves to others.

Funny how effective this delusion is at erasing real poverty.

>>24073

>real poverty.

Key point there and agreed. There is some fucked up definition that imo dilutes what that means. And I've lived in places where you see 3rd world level street shittah poverty so I don't exactly sympathize when someone bitch and moans that they're poor because they can't get the latest iPhone.

>There's only three things you have to do in America to not become poor: Finish high school, don't get pregnant, and get a job. None of these are monumental achievements, all can be easily managed even by people on the brink.

I think sometimes it's a handicap and harmful ignorance that people do not realize is trapping them. I never liked my highschool but I still finished it. I also know people who dropped out but still got their GED. There are too many shitty schools with shit teachers who are teachers in name only, that should not be an excuse to not get educated and get some learnings. (I've used that excuse when I was younger and foolish, things did a 180 the moment I chose to take responsibility for my actions.)

>don't get preggers if you are too young and can't afford a child,

Should be a no brainer but incredible how fucked up things have become. It's one thing to not shame a single 'parenthood' (let's be blunt though, we're really talking about way too young single mothers and way too often, niggers) because I don't know the whole story behind why and how they became a single parent. It's another to fucking glorify that shit as a virtue.

>and get a job.

This one I'll say some people need to get off their high horse and just get any job as long as it's a legal and safe one. Christ I knew of one dude who made breddy gud bank by being an uber\lyft driver at the right place and time. And don't overlook trades, a white collar job is not the end all and be all of everything. Even a wal-donald's job is still better than no job and can teach someone some personal responsibility, time management and discipline, get something to get the fuck off welfare or NEETdom. It doesn't mean they have to stay in that type of job forever, but everyone has to start somewhere. There is way too many entitled fucks I've seen that believes in the 'lol if u work ur a wagecuck' meme.

polite saggies for slightly off topic buttfuckit it's yet another shitty VOY thread anyway, if someone can get their shit together from this discussion it will at least do something constructive.

>>24076

>There is way too many entitled fucks I've seen that believes in the 'lol if u work ur a wagecuck' meme.

But that's absolutely true. People with real wealth don't work for a wage.

>>24073

>If everyone is allowed to earn a living wage then that makes everyone the same

You're a retard.

>Rich people will lose their money if they do stupid things because I believe in karma

A BIG retard.

>If you graduate high school you won't be poor because there's enough jobs for everyone!

A giant, heaping pile of shit from a thousand retards.

>Nobody in American is poor if we use a standard definition of poverty for African countries

I have literally, in my entire life, never met anyone more retarded than you are. And I've met Down's kids who drool on themselves while they stare at the sky and shit their pants.

>>24087

>He thinks rich people trade their own stocks instead of hiring some Indian to do it for him, or just use a computer program

Here's the thing, dude. Once you have a significant amount of money, you can invest in all SAFE ways, and even if you're only making pennies per dollar, you're investing so fucking much that you pull in millions per year. It's mathematically guaranteed success unless there's a huge market crash. I used to work in finance, and guaranteed-return stocks are everywhere, if you're willing to accept a bare few percentage points of growth per year. But you don't need to be a finance expert to know that 3% of a billion dollars is a shitload of money.

>>24095

If the indian is good at it, he'll rob you, if he's bad at it, you'll lose. People who hand over their stock portfolios to third parties always end up having a shitty surprise.

No one can get their hands on utilities and other such stocks because no one is willing to sell them. There is really no safe way to invest, not over a term long enough to matter to generations. Anyone who has been in finance knows "low risk" stocks aren't called "no risk" for a reason, they only generate stable income for a few years before market crashes or something else horrible happens.

>muh billionaire

There are 500 billionaires in America, about 0.000016% of the population, most of whom made their wealth abroad and came to America to invest. If you're comparing yourself to a fucking billionaire with maybe 20 generations of "doing the right thing" behind him — without conversely comparing yourself with the 500 poorest people in America — you will always be depressed.

It's going to kill your brain.

If we're talking about a slightly more sane number of the top 1%, their income is around 350k a year. Put a couple of kids through private school or uni and that's a drain of over 100k a year, have a decent sized home and a couple of cars the loans are a drain of 20k a year. That money evaporates pretty fucking fast, even without the threat of your wife fucking off with half your shit at any moment. If we are talking about the top 10% or the 20% which liberals consistently want to raise taxes on…. that's ALREADY in the middle class!

>3%

Lets say inflation is 2% (though it has been as high as 6%), it means you're really getting 1% returns. For the top 1% income earners it means they need to invest around 35 million, and to get that initial income cash would take them 100 years to earn if they stayed in the top 1%. So it's a self-defeating problem, you see…

Once the "safety" of their stock runs out, which is five years on average, they'll either crash to trailer park levels, or have to enter the middle class. tl;dr you're complaining about a person who struggled to the 1%, stayed there 100 years, then collected free 1%-level investment cash for the next five years of his life. I would find such a person extremely admirable since they've done the impossible.

https://www.cato.org/blog/high-turnover-among-americas-rich

>According to research from Cornell University, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives. Over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners (i.e., people making at minimum $332,000 per annum) for at least one year.

>Just how high? Some 94 percent of Americans who reach “top 1 percent” income status will enjoy it for only a single year. Approximately 99 percent will lose their “top 1 percent” status within a decade.

>Rich people will lose their money if they do stupid things because I believe in karma

The fuck does karma have to do with it? If you do stupid things with money, you'll lose it. That's not karma, it's how money works. And it does provably happen all of the time.

>If you graduate high school you won't be poor because there's enough jobs for everyone!

First of all, the reason why there aren't enough jobs for everyone is because minimum wage prices people out of the market.

Second of all, you're missing the most important part - don't get pregnant out of wedlock or before finishing high school! A baby is too much of a drain on finances if both parents don't have a GED, its hell if there's only one parent without a GED.

Third of all, you're only doing all three things so you can escape the lower class and join the middle class. If you're fine being in the lower class (which isn't real poverty), then you can do only one or two of those things and still be pushing the boundaries.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/

>Nobody in American is poor if we use a standard definition of poverty for African countries

$2 a day is the definition of poverty around the globe by UN, it's adjusted for everyone, and it doesn't count the welfare sheck which in the UK catapults you in the middle class lol. the <$1 a day is a measure that applied to America itself before capitalism took off.

Comparing America to the world average, we are better off.

Comparing America to itself in the past, we are better off.

Who are you comparing America to?

>>24104

Sorry, I've run out of patience for debating with a crying baby retard.

>>24109

And yet for all your being truly "redpilled" about how financial reality is, you're just as poor as everyone else. What's the matter? Why can't you use your woke genius to game the system like (((they))) can?

What's the point of being self-aware if it doesn't fucking change anything? You're just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic of your own psyche. At this point, it appears completely obvious that you're standing in the middle of a bunch of people stuck in a cesspool, but considering yourself smug because you care a little less about being covered in shit.

>>24115

>Sorry, I've run out of patience for debating with a crying baby retard.

Start arguing anytime, lad.

>And yet for all your being truly "redpilled" about how financial reality is, you're just as poor as everyone else.

>if you understand gravity Newton's law of gravity so well, why haven't you solved the Grand Unified Theory overnight? Checkmate atheists

>if you've passed high school geometry why aren't you a professional-level billiards player?

>if you understand laminar flow why can't you get a plumbing license overnight?

I seriously you're not this much of a dumbass.

>>24122

>No it does not.

Wow, you sure showed him. Truly there are few arguments more convincing than "price floors don't real because I say so."

>Lack of skills

It's disingenuous to bring up lack of skills when talking about jobs at or below the minimum wage, as these are almost exclusively positions for unskilled or minimally-skilled labor.

>outsourcing jobs

Outsourcing only kills jobs in industries where the domestic sector is noncompetitive anyways.The cost savings translates to more disposable income, which is an impetus for domestic firms to grow, which causes a net increase in jobs in the markets that are more competitive. If you have an argument that disproves comparative advantage I'd be very interested in hearing it.

>flooding the labor market with people

Also disingenuous because you don't specify what you mean. Spics pouring over the border for gibs is obviously going to be a drain on the economy. And spics that work can also be a net negative because they're a pain the ass to live near, for reasons I'm sure you already know. Both of these issues are solved by removing market restrictions–take away public schools and welfare, and most of the spics have no reason to cross. Take away minimum wage laws, and unemployed Americans can do the jobs that spics are doing illegally, below minimum wage. Take away antidiscrimination laws, and almost no one will rent to or hire the few that remain. I will grant that none of these things are in the overton window right now, while immigration restrictions are. And as long as that's true I'm in favor of immigration restrictions, but that's still a very suboptimal solution.

>The average /pol/lack is nothing more than a useful idiot for the real National Socialists out there.

'useful idiot' implies they're actually being used for something, and both nu-/pol/ and the "real" NEETSocs are just shitposters on a Chinese cartoon website, and aren't doing anything meaningful to change anything.

>You repeat these libertarian talking points possibly oblivious that libertarianism is Jewish economics

It would be much easier to take you seriously if you explained 1) what "jewish economics" is 2) how it differs from "regular" economics" and 3) why "regular" economics is better.

>>24115

>but considering yourself smug because you care a little less about being covered in shit.

That's not necessarily a bad thing; in fact it's an enlightened approach to chaos and futility

>>23607

>Janeway could never live up to Picard or Sisko so they couldn't do that there.

I liked Janeway, she just had really stiff competition. Avery Brooks, Patrick Stewart, and DeForest Kelley were really superb actors.

>>24123

>I seriously

I seriously hope*, fucking palm rejection on this laptop.

>>24122

>Lack of skills, outsourcing jobs, and flooding the labor market with people prices people out of the market.

Actually these things would just lower your entry price, but you'd still be able to work for $6 or $4/hr. If it wasn't for the minimum wage, which makes hiring you at those prices illegal…

>>24137

>you'd still be able to work for $6 or $4/hr. If it wasn't for the minimum wage

Yeah, and you'd have to work 80 hours a week just in order to survive.

Here's the thing I don't understand about the whole minimum wage argument. It goes: because everyone is being paid minimum wage, then the employer cannot afford to pay the best employees more than minimum wage. Okay, fine. But what if some of them ARE paid more than minimum wage; that would mean that some others must be paid LESS to make up that difference. In the meantime, the simple fact is that minimum wage is the MINIMUM required to survive. Otherwise you're relying on the charity of your employer to pay you more out of the goodness of his heart. Which is a fucking joke, because ain't nobody becomes a business owner by being nice with their money; they become one by pinching pennies and paying the least they possibly can, to maximize profit. They're not going to lower their prices because they are making more money. What kind of fucking retard does that? So abolishing the minimum wage will just allow every employer, everywhere, to pay $1/hr and there would be absolutely nothing you can do about it. Unions don't exist for the majority of jobs, workers' rights don't exist for the majority of jobs, and if you don't like it tough titty because every other job is also paying the same amount.

>>24138

>minimum wage is the MINIMUM required to survive

NO

Shelter, food and water is free in America, no one has to work for "survival" in America or any other developed country.

Besides it's possible to massively cut costs simply through sharing. If you share an apartment, TV, car with four other people, suddenly your living, entertainment and transport costs are cut by 4x.

A person would have to go below $3/hr to even hit the inflated poverty line of 11k a year, which assumes a single person inhabiting a single low income rental, with a car, entertainment, and all of the amenities beyond simple "survival".

>ain't nobody becomes a business owner by being nice with their money

He's not paying better workers more to be "nice", he's doing it to encourage good work. Fucking moron.

>They're not going to lower their prices because they are making more money. What kind of fucking retard does that?

The kind of "retard" who actually has an education in business and wants to undercut his competitors.

>So abolishing the minimum wage will just allow every employer, everywhere, to pay $1/hr and there would be absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Then why isn't every single job today paying minimum wage? Why do the vast majority of jobs pay more? You are the dumbest fucking person I have ever seen on the internet.

>>24138

>So abolishing the minimum wage will just allow every employer, everywhere, to pay $1/hr and there would be absolutely nothing you can do about it.

>whatissupplyanddemand.png

>Unions don't exist for the majority of jobs

That's a good thing,union formation just results in either jobs getting sent overseas or the price of goods becoming much higher.

>>24190

Nobody in the history of humankind ever said the climate was stable.

>40 hours a week

>50 weeks a year

So you expect to work only eight hours a day, get weekends off and even a two week vacation on top of that, despite working for $3 an hour?

LOL JUST LOL!

Your definition of "poverty" seems to be the middle class!

>>24149

>he trusts the curves

the curves lie

>>24192

>He expects people to work 16 hours a day, every day, just to survive, because once you let employers pay only $3/hr, they all will

How many hours per day do YOU work, fucko?

Wait, haha, trick question! You don't work at all because you're a fucking NEET living with your parents.

>>24201

>Unironically being a science-denier in current year +2

Oh, I know this one! It's the one where the lizard people are making the chemtrails that control the weather and you need a tinfoilhat to keep their mind-control rays out!

>>24236

>just to survive

You keep saying that. I don't think you understand what it means.

>because once you let employers pay only $3/hr, they all will

We "let" our employers pay us $7/hr, why don't they all do that?

>science-denier

Tell me more about how race and sex aren't real. Tell me more about how pharma melts your bones and pyramid crystal based homeopathy is the future. Tell me more about how NASA should focus on praising muslims instead of doing science.

Fucking liberals.

>>24236

<He expects people to work 16 hours a day, every day, just to survive, because once you let employers pay only $3/hr, they all will

Still waiting on that refutation of supply and demand, sweetie

>m-muh science

Yes, because blindly following the word of a few snake oil salesmen fishing for grants is the epitome of scientific discourse. Fuck off back to reddit with your LARPing.

>>24243

>A few scientists fishing for million-dollar grants has more political pull on the "truth" than Big Oil fishing for hundreds of billions of dollars

You were still just a dream in the prepubescent ballsack of your grandfather when Big Tobacco fleeced the world into believing that smoking caused no health problems, that it was unrelated to lung cancer, but it happened just the same. All the scientists, they said, were lying. And back then, the public all spoke like you are now.

97% of scientists believe anthropogenic climate change is fact. For your consideration, that's about the same number as believe plate tectonics is fact. Are you going to tell me next that you think THAT theory is all bullshit, too? Are you ACTUALLY a flat-Earther?

>>24243

>Still waiting on that refutation of supply and demand

That question was not directed to me. But since you're such a fucking retard that you can't even read IDs (as well as being unable to do math, or having any concept of paying taxes because you're a literal child) I don't have to care. I'm still waiting for you to answer literally any question I've made instead of instantly changing subject once I prove you wrong. Do you even realize how much of a dumbass I'm making you look, with plain facts like 4th grade multiplication problems, while all you can do is bitch and moan and offer half-hearted "uuuuuu, go back to reddit uuuuuuuu"? It's honestly hilarious. It's so hilarious I'm gonna double-post just because it will piss you off more.

Voyager was meant to be one long ass horror holonovel of a Federation Starship forced to go without coffee. Prove me wrong.

>>24254

>>24257

>97% of scientists believe anthropogenic climate change is fact.

Incorrect.

97% of climatologists who publish about global warming believe its a fact.

The study specifically removed climatologists who didn't publish about global warming, and every other group of scientists like geologists who actually have a deeper perspective of climate.

Not surprising you're wrong by the way, just like you were about confusing "survival" with comfort, claiming no one gets paid above $7/hr, and not believing race or sex exists.

> I'm still waiting for you to answer literally any question I've made instead of instantly changing subject once I prove you wrong.

That's literal what you're doing every time I blow you the fuck out in this thread.

>>24260

>97% of climatologists who publish about global warming believe its a fact.

It's even more spurious than that, actually. The study that attained that number included loads of papers that just so happened to endorse global warming, even though they weren't written by climatologists or anyone else with authority over the subject.

>>24260

>Straight making shit up

>Reddit spacing while he calls me a redditor — top kek

>Claiming he's been arguing in this thread for a while when his ID betrays the fact that he's only made two posts

Bitch, you are fucking terrible at this.

>>24265

>they weren't written by climatologists or anyone else with authority over the subject

And yet if Trump claims it doesn't exist, he CERTAINLY has authority over it!

>>24265

It's junk "science" the whole way through. There are a couple of these studies and they make the same mistakes every time.

Here's what the Cook study based its conclusion on:

>based on 11944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming

So 2/3 of climate science papers do not even acknowledge the existence of AGW but Cook just ignored all of those authors. Cook just focused on the 4014 studies that already agree with AGW, and asked those studies' authors. And surprise, surprise, 97% of those papers authors claim AGW is real.

Like I always said, I'm surprised it's only 97%. Considering they focused on people who already believe in AGW, it should be 100%..

>>24271

Nigger do you know what a DSL line is? Or posting from a phone?

>And yet if Trump

I'll take the word of the 15 million scientists worldwide that never even got asked if they supported this shit.

>>24271

>And yet if Trump claims it doesn't exist, he CERTAINLY has authority over it!

No one here has claimed that Trump saying one thing or the other is an argument. Don't project your compulsion to blindly follow whatever celebrities tell you to follow on us.

>>24243

> LARPing.

I don't believe that's the case here. I think you're seeing a true believer of Pop Science. The type who would unironically go to a #march for Science against Drumpf feel the Bern with Her 2020.

>>24309

>I think you're seeing a true believer of Pop Science.

That's exactly what a LARPer is though.

>#march for Science against Drumpf feel the Bern with Her 2020

Literally Live Action Role-Playing.

>>24311

I still see the acronym LARP in the original sense of people who throw ping pong balls while yelling, "Fireball level 5!", on some level some of them you would hope the people wielding foam swords and staves at the park at least knows they're just pretending.

With the leftist in this thread, they seem to really believe it. Unless you're using the term the way /tech/ does. Somewhat on topic for whatever that's worth, what's with commies latching on to VOY out of all the series. For retarded irony or trying to revise history, it's very strange, wouldn't TNG be more suitable for their brand of utopianism.

>>24313

Forgot to add if that is satire, I gotta say he did it quite well. If it isn't. Max hue.

>>24291

This is /tinfoilhat/ nonsense. Do you even know how statistics work, what a random sample is? Oh, but OF COURSE if you assume every single one of the unsampled papers took THE OPPOSITE STAND of the others, yeah, you'd be right. Except that's not the case. You fucking know that's not the case. Are you going to sit there and fucking tell me you really believe those 15 million other scientists all don't believe in climate change, just because they were never asked? If they were never asked YOU CAN'T FUCKING KNOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE!! Oh, but it's the msm and the Jew conspiracy and the lizard people with their mind-control rays.

Here's a fact you can take to the fucking bank: sea levels are rising, average temperatures are rising, hurricanes and droughts are getting worse. These are simple facts that you can confirm without scientists or papers or studies. Now, you can either accept the best theory we have for why this is happening, and — just maybe — do something about it; or you can throw your hands in the air and say, "Durrrrr, I dunno what it is, lol" and maybe doom the fucking planet for your grandkids.

What's your choice?

>>24362

Sean Murray sure got fatter and more homogay during his hiding period. Shit I thought bears were suppose to lose weight during hibernation not gain it.

>Fortnite

Ugh, literally not cool dude. You should play a more woke game, like Numale Sky. It's what all the planet saving cool kids are playing these days honest injun. :^)

>>24419

Polling and odds are not the same thing. It wasn't a 2 out of 100 chance that he'd win. It was that they claimed that 98% of voters sided with Hillary, meaning there was no way Trump could win, because that's how voting works.

>>24316

Airsoft AKs have the weight and distribution of an actual AK. Source: am do airsoft.

>>23822

>DR Who anywhere near the centre, let alone the arrow as a whole

Well unless you're talking about the show as a whole, I suppose, not just the recent shit. The Fourth Doctor hesitated only millimetres from genocide… and quite possibly because the universe would be boring as fuck without Daleks in it.

>>23057

>the one where they go back to 80s Florida

I don't think that's happened in any Star Trek ever. They went back to 1990's San Francisco in season 3 of Voyager which is one of my favourite episodes, however people criticize it for contradicting Canon because it doesn't show the eugenics wars.

>>24434

>It was that they claimed that 98% of voters sided with Hillary

No it wasn't. It's absurd that you would even believe that. If they ran a presidential race between the best candidate you can possibly imagine, and literally Satan, the first guy probably wouldn't even get above 75%. You were lied to, and you believed it.

>>24529

>>24434 is oversimplifying the way polls work (it's not 98% of voters, it's that Shillary was ((predicted)) to win 50%+ in enough states to get 98% of the necessary electoral votes), but he's more correct than you are, because he recognizes the difference between polling and odds. And (you) have already confirmed yourself as an "I Fucking Love Science" retard who can't fathom the idea that climatologists are one part shills and one part whoring themselves out for grant money.

Further, riddle me this: if you and the climatologists are really so pro-science, why is the first thing you jump to "consensus?" Blind ad populum arguments are the antithesis of the scientific method; in fact, most major discoveries have been the product of an extreme minority taking the "scientific consensus" of the current age and turning it on its ear. This is true of Copernicus, Pasteur, Gregor Mandel, Watson and Crick, and countless others who destroyed your precious consensus. Even if they were correct, the fact that climatologists and their sheeplike followers such as yourself use such unscientific arguments is proof that they aren't interested in finding the truth, but in browbeating anyone who acts against their political agenda; any overlap between this and the truth is purely coincidental.

>>24532

>A few climatologists fishing for a couple million dollars in grant money is more likely to be lying than Big Oil executives fishing for hundreds of billions of dollars

Uh huh.

Also, a consensus of people who actually know what they are talking about, who have studied the science extensively, who have performed experiments and studies on the matter, are not the "public". It's therefore not an ad populum. There is plenty of evidence that recent climate change is as a result of the increase in atmospheric carbon, and there isn't anywhere it's coming from except human activities. There aren't even very many people who are still saying climate change isn't happening at all, in the face of the obvious dramatic changes to global climate in the last few decades; one can only keep adding "this year" to the hottest ten years on record, over and over again, before the writing becomes clearly on the fucking wall. Most of them are only now saying it's something natural, and not anthropogenic. But the only evidence is that it's from the atmospheric carbon. There have been arguments that it's from something else like a variation in the Sun's cycle, but that's just a counter-hypothesis, for which there is NO EVIDENCE.

Oh, and some retard that claimed it was volcanoes, which you can easily debunk yourself with a simple google search; I won't spoonfeed you.

So if it's not human carbon emissions, what is it? And where's the evidence? Right now we've got one side with some evidence, and the other side saying "well, we don't know, but YOU'RE STILL WRONG!"

>>24551

<A few climatologists fishing for a couple million dollars in grant money is more likely to be lying than Big Oil executives fishing for hundreds of billions of dollars

>he thinks the scientists are throwing driving force and not just shills

Oh, my sweet summer child. Use your noggin for a few moments and think about the issue. Who and what do your climate scientists always endorse? Higher taxes, more intrusive powers to government agencies, and a further expansion of said agencies. And since, by your questionable logic at least, it is the entity with the most money that is the dishonest shill, the federal government is a far more likely culprit than oil companies, as their revenues are but a drop in the bucket (or a few gallons in the ocean) compared to what the feds take in.

Eh. Voyager wasn't as good as TNG. But TNG certainly had lower lows than Voyager. (As in, space salamanders > Crusher fucking a lamp ghost.) Distant Origins, Year of Hell, and most Doctor focused episodes are damn good though.

The biggest problem, the writers not being able to agree on how to write Janeway aside, is what they did to the Borg. Although it was First Contact that ruined them first.

Honestly, the hate is overblown. Not to say it didn't have wasted potential. We were going to get an entire season of Year of Hell but the execs stepped in. That would have been cool.

>>24555

Do you REALLY think the government is more controlled by climate scientists than oil interests? You really are an idiot.

>>24559

You sniveling retard, learn to reading comprehension. The state influences climate scientists, not the other way around.

>>24558

I love lamp

>>24619

>I'll never understand why they were so reluctant to keep doing what worked and felt like DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise all had to be radical departures from the standard Trek morality plays.

Because there's a limit to how many times you can do that well. TOS/TNG have some very, very good episodes but that comes with an awful lot of filler. Doing something different doesn't stop you from doing morality plays, but it does allow you to perform them in a different context with different >implications. DS9 did this well and played to its own differences. ENT figured how to do this around halfway through. VOY did the opposite of this and ignored the things particular to VOY as much as possible; not only were most of its episodes recycled ambassador-of-the-week TNG plots, they went out of their way to do bullshit like putting proto-injuns into the Delta Quadrant and having a random group of ayys kidnap humans from Earth and take them to the other side of the galaxy just for use as slaves, incredibly contrived nonsense to explain away a recycled plot that should only work in the Alpha Quadrant.

>>24561

Oh, I get it! That explains why, when the Trump administration started denying that climate change exists, all the climate scientists agreed!

Wait… that's not what happened??

>>24622

>the President is the entire government

wew.

>>24669

>An administration is an individual

You wanna know how I know you failed the reading comprehension section of your SATs?

>>23037

fpbp

she and data were like the only interesting, flawed characters. everyone else was perfect and boring.

voyager's cast (sans spirit nigger) were all fairly interesting because they were flawed.

also mccoy and scotty are the only good characters on tos for the same reason.

>>24683

>the president and his cabinet the entire government

wew. You see, I didn't bother mentioning your pedantic qualifier because it doesn't change my reaction. The fact that your arguments have been reduced to mere sophistry shows that you have none.

>SATs

Holy fuck, back to >>>/reddit/ with you.

>>24686

>also mccoy and scotty are the only good characters on tos for the same reason.

I never did get why Spock somehow know everything about Earth, it's architectural history, the patterns of Bach and Da Vinci, etc, to instaknow and instaspot everything Earth-related for someone raised on Vulcan and attempting to ignore and suppress his human side.

>>24693

Maybe the reason he tried to suppress his human side is because his mother taught him all of Earth's history and there was something in that history that made him hate humans.

>>24689

>I'm proud of being anti-intellectual!

Well, that explains a lot.

>>24705

>If you know how the navigate the memes of imageboards, you don't need any actual argument

>If I bully someone it means I win!

It doesn't matter what kind of metric for intelligence I used, the fact remains that you are nitpicking semantics and using ad hominem attacks, which are among the lowest possible form of debate tactics. You lost as soon as you sided with the beliefs of a corrupt administration that deliberately ignores facts. You still ACTUALLY believe that climate change is fiction, because you were TOLD to believe that way. If Trump told you to smell his farts, you'd be six inches up his ass.

>>24713

By the way, since you place so much stock into government-issued tests, I got a 34 on my ACTs, first try. That means I'm smarter than you and automatically win the argument right?

>>23045

>the Borg which are the greatest villains Trek has come up with

Nah, it has to be the Cardassians

Gul Dukat: A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness.

>>24771

>Cardassians

>villains

>implying

>>24693

because spock's a gary stu

what made mccoy interesting is he challenged spock on his pretentious vulcan bullshit that was borderline supremacist.