Oh man, I saw these guys a few times back when I was in high-school, but I haven’t thought about them in years.

Definitely something punk…either the Interrupters Take Back the Power or Flogging Molly’s What’s Left of the Flag.

I like watching old sci-fi to see how the tech of the day was reflected in the tech or the, “future.” The original Enterprise looks like it was run on colorful 8-tracks. The TGN Enterprise looked like it was full of microwave touch-screen interfaces. The Abrams Enterprise…looks like an Apple store with a big chrome throttle. The original Alien movies probably hold up the best; aside from the CRTVs, that technology still seems like a plausible future.

For me, what becomes even more dated than the old tech are the cultural attitudes. The original series is supposed to be an egalitarian, utopian society, but they men treat the women like it’s an episode of Mad Men. TGN, on the other hand, is trying so hard not to be sexist that the romance scenes sound like they were written by a virgin who only learned about sex from HR meetings.

I didn’t mind the first Abrams movie. I thought the story was pretty mediocre, but it looked good visually, and they captured the characters nicely. The second movie went off the rails, though. They invented interplanetary transporters and cured death. It feels like that would have had massive, status quo changing consequences for the entire franchise, but I guess not.

The original movies certainly have more action in them than the series (though they’re definitely not as action-packed as the Abrams movies), and they’re also not as interested in exploring sci-fi concepts as the show, but to me, they’re defined by fan-service more than anything else. They found an excuse to put the characters in modern times, let Kirk create peace with the Klingons, and literally met God.

A lot of Star Trek fans didn’t like them. Star Trek trends more towards, “traditional,” sci-fi, which is more focused on exploring scientific and philosophical concepts in fiction (think Jules Verne or Isaac Asimov). What Abrams produced was basically just an action movie in a futuristic setting. It’s sorta like how, even though Star Wars is set in an advanced galactic civilization, it has more in common with the fantasy genre than traditional sci-fi.

That doesn’t necessarily mean classic Star Trek is better or smarter than the Abrams movies or Star Wars. In fact, a lot of Star Trek is cheesy, dated, and kinda dumb (and not just the original series; even TNG has a lot of cringe in it). However, it does mean that the Abrams films were a pretty big genre shift that put a lot of fans off.

That’s a great example of something they shouldn’t have done, not some they should have done. Believe me, there’s plenty of intervention that I wish the military and intelligence communities hadn’t done, but the way the comment is framed, it seems like this person is implying we should have done more, not less.

Why would the U.S. have started trying to expand democracy after the Cold War? They were willing to support anti-Democratic coups in Iran, Syria, Brazil, Iraq, Bolivia, and probably dozens of others I’m forgetting. America was promoting capitalism during the Cold War, not democracy.

The Last Dinner Party’s Prelude to Ecstasy.

Yeah, that’s my thinking as well, although to be clear, I’m not saying that intelligent life would be humanoid, just that it’s the most reasonable real-world explanation I can come up with for why fictional aliens look human. I’m not an exobiologist, and I have no idea what the leading theories are on what intelligent life might look like. I’m just saying that, whenever I’m watching some sci-fi with a bunch of human-looking aliens, my go-to head cannon to explain it away is Convergent Evolution, and it at least feels like a reasonable explanation.

I mean…what did you want us to do? Invade Europe?

If you’re asking why it appears in our sci-fi, you were correct in assuming it was mostly about cheap costuming and special effects. If you’re asking for a general canonical reason for it, there isn’t one, but many sci-fi shows have come up with unique ones (for example, Star Trek had the Progenitors, a species of humanoids that seeded world with their DNA). If you’re looking for a possible real-world explanation that could account for it, Convergent Evolution might explain why intelligent species wind up being bipedal tetrapods.

I don’t know what you’re talking about, I play three of these systems regularly.

They call this design philosophy, “Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology.” Basically, “using old tech we understand very well in new and innovative ways.” For example, they were slower to get their 16-bit console to market, but while working on it, they used their expertise in 8-bit consoles to release the first cartridge-based handheld system.

Everyone has this drawer, but this one is too organized. It appears to be 100% kitchen tools. You need to add a deck of playing cards, a bunch of soy sauce packets, a few half-used books of matches, a few take-out menus, and some loose keys in order to do this drawer properly.

I’m mostly saying it because I don’t know the mods on this sub or if/when they’re gonna start nuking posts and comments like the News mods did. But also, I don’t want to be responsible (or at least feel responsible) in the unlikely event that an unhinged person sees this and does something stupid.

Like…look, am I weeping because a man who profited by denying people healthcare is dead? No. Am I happy to see billionaires suddenly afraid of the people they’re exploiting? Yes. But does that mean I want people who see this meme to start gunning people down in the street? In all seriousness, no, don’t take this as a call to violence.

I know there’s some hypocrisy in that statement, but that’s kinda the point I was getting at with the post: “I can’t condone this action, but damn, it appears to have been very effective at enacting change.”

Most people are referring to the fact that boomers were born into the strongest social safety net in American history and then allowed Regan to gut it for short-term gains. The original aphorism may not be true, but I can’t think of a generation it applies to more.