top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 83 points 8 months ago (20 children)

TOS came out at a time when people still talked of Columbus discovering america.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    TOS came out at a time when Columbus was still being held in high regard. :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    Quick search suggests that the people of Columbia are still pretty happy with the name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    Meanwhile the people of Ohio's capital aren't

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I live in NYC and no one is actually pushing to get rid of Columbus Circle.

    otoh, Trump has a Building right on Columbus Circle, so maybe we should ask Mamdani to rename it Obama Circle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • That's the part of the story I can find funny. Columbus made four trips to the New World, set up colonies, and explored. He never set foot on the American mainland but he saw it with his own eyes, sailing up and down the Mexican coast looking for the Singapore Straight, which he obviously never found because it was busy being on the other side of the planet. He went to his deathbed believing he'd visited Asia. It wasn't until Mr. Vespucci made it all the way to Argentina before going "Dudes...there's no fucking way we're in the Philippines. There isn't a landmass thousands of miles long in the Philippines."

    And he was right, which is why AMERICA! FUCK YEA!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (3 children)

    I've only driven through Columbus Ohio once via highway, so I don't have a complete picture of it, but all I remember about it is it had the worst highway layout of any I've experienced, and it had the ugliest, most souless corporate signage along the road that I've ever seen as well.

    I also stopped to get some fast food, and immediately had a couple people loudly mock me for wearing a mask after I let them ahead of me while I was looking at the menu.

    The place just left me with really bad vibes, honestly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I lived there for a time and love it for what it is. I've had many a fun night in the old north and occasionally was able to afford some time in the short north. I love their main library and to this day one two three of my favorite bars of all time is there. Hell I got married at their lesbian bar. They've also got/had some other awesome and unique stuff in some alternative scenes.

    But yeah, it ain't a pretty city outside certain parts. They hid one of their rivers, the city is dominated by the highways, they've got abysmal public transit, and large portions of the city have strip mall feel. But also night time bike rides through the city with a group felt magical.

    And yeah they've got some shitty folks but plenty of places do. I guess I partly love it because I had to work hard to get there from even worse parts of Ohio.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Thanks for sharing your experience there, glad to hear it's much better than my very brief trip through it seemed. I guess it kinda stood out to me as negative from the highway, since other cities that I've been through happened to look really cool even passing through on the highway, like St. Louis (though they had the big Arch thingy right in view from the highway, which gives them a pretty unfair advantage :p).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    That's totally fair lol. It's not a beautiful city, especially compared to Cincinnati or Cleveland, and there's nothing about it that would drive a person driving through to think "I bet this city has been a long time hub of alternative lifestyles to the point it's a destination for people in certain communities as far as Kentucky." Even Peoria IL is more beautiful to drive through. But Columbus is a city where a lot of organizations refuse to address it by name and instead call themselves "central ohio" and where the state government keeps having to wash paint off the statue of the namesake.

    Also it's long been a meme there to want to rename it to flavortown after everyone's favorite person from the city, Guy Fieri

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    You talking about that guy who sailed around the world, but didn't make it very far, then told the people they were Indians and the people were like "¿Qué, bro?", and then claimed himself the founder of an inhabited land that he never even touched? Did something scandalous recently come out about him that made him fall from grace?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    which makes no sense, because even then, we knew Columbus wasn't the first person there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    So I suppose Star Treck are just the Colombus of space

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Yes? the whole show is based on naval exploration, mercantilism, colonialism. That is why they have that whistle when an officer enters the ship, that is why there are no seatbelts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I've seen a lot of far-fetched arguments over the years, but I've never seen anyone tie together mercantilism and seatbelts.

    I have to say I do like the cut of your jib, sir.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Because even in a tea clipper there would be no needs for seatbelts, and seriously, a red alert should also mean "Buckle up". no more flying round the bridge at every torpedo hit, and how much voltage goes though those terminals? they should not explode, put some breakers maybe!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    "One hand for the ship and one for yourself" is an old naval motto.

    They actually tied guys to the helm all the time. Usually because of the weather, and sometimes because they'd been away from land for too long.

    [jk]

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 8 months ago* (15 children)

    To be fair, it would be a boring show if they didn’t.

    Ship enters orbit of a planet

    ‘Spock, what do our scans show?’

    ‘Intense geologic activity, no atmosphere, no life signs.’

    Ship spends the next 3 months in orbit collecting data, moves on to the next target

    ‘Spock, what do our scans show?’

    ‘Planet is frozen, no geologic activity, no life signs.’

    Ship spends the next 3 months in orbit collecting data

    Realistic sci fi is waaayyy too boring for a general audience.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] [S] 25 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I choose to believe that it's usually like that, and we're just seeing the days where something interesting happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    I'm glad you made this comment because I was about to.

    Starfield, a surprisingly great framework for a game from Bethesda, but they forgot to put the actual game inside it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Todd spent all their time and money making sure the game was utterly impossible to see without a 3000 dollar OLED monitor (that LUT was a monstrosity).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I fully agree with this, but at the same time I just sort of assume any Bethesda game is gonna require a kind of baseline mod setup just to be comfortably playable, so that almost felt like par for the course to me 😅

    More power to them, but I will genuinely never understand how people can play Skyrim or Fallout 4 unmodded or on console. I can see New Vegas unmodded, but that ain't Bethesda anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I did use Neutral LUTs when I tried it, which at least made it not give me a splitting headache, but sadly it did nothing to fix the other issues. I got like 10-15 hours into the main story so I'd like to think I at least gave it a fair shot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Or Mass Effect 2 at times.

    Probe launching noise

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    What pissed me off about ME2, amongst other things, was them saying they're not going to "make you go to every planet just to extend gameplay". Only to force you to go to other planets to launch probes and gather materials...just to extend the game play

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Yeah it was annoying but the sad thing is Mass Effect 2 was still an improvement over Mass Effect 1 in that regard. As much as I can enjoy the planet sections they did overstay their welcome and actively annoy me. ME2 at least never pushed it's luck on that front.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago*

    realistic scifi can be fun for general audiences still. they just have to focus on the right bits.

    look at the early seasons of for all mankind. it's about the realistic process of achieving space flight goals. it spends 60% of its runtime on how the launch even comes to happen. then it shows the bits that go wrong and the ways they manage fix them and the political/personal drama of the decision making process on all sides.

    now, that's a very dry show for people that like science, politics, and history, but the realistic scifi could just as easily be wrapped in a funny show about dumb politicians and crazy rich people. use the same strategies, but make it about the engineers at space x having to work under musk. show them having to suddenly pivot away from lidar for no reason other than musk's ego. show them trying to talk about space flight with a podcast bro. create drama when one of the main character's lives is actually on the line because no one trusts the new valve gasket supplier musk brought in for political clout.

    the parts stat trek glosses over are the parts realistic scifi focuses on. like how they decide what planet to go to next. the episode always starts with them already there or randomly being drawn somewhere. or like what actual physics would matter in what they're doing and not "plasma phase inverter coils" needing to be "degaussed of subspace radiation".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    It was a list:

    • to explore strange new worlds
    • seek out new life and new civilizations
    • boldly go where no one has gone before
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Where no MAN has gone before. Therefore plenty of space chicks

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Just watched an episode where they literally went to a section of space completely absent of all energy and matter and still somehow met this

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    TBF in the ToS it was ”Where no man has gone before”, not “Where no one has gone before.”

    So if it was aliens then the statement was correct, we’d just have to skip all the weird human populated worlds they found.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    And, not take any women along, which of course was never an option on Kirk's ship.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    At the time "man" was often used to reference the human species as a whole. Like, when they'd say something like "the dawn of man" they were specifically referring to the earliest humans regardless of gender.

    Obviously this is not particularly representative of roughly half the species, which is probably why it's less common today. Taking that into consideration, though, TNG's intro is arguably more colonialist than TOS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 8 months ago (40 children)

    I mean the original line was "where no man has gone before" which at least made sense, although it didn't represent the female crew very well.

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 8 months ago (36 children)

    English uses 'man' and 'mankind' interchangeably.

    Grammatically, 'no man' makes more sense than 'no one.'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] [S] 23 points 8 months ago* (26 children)

    I've always thought it was an odd change. I get why they did it, but the original clearly wasn't being used in the way the change implies.

    It has the same energy as saying that you can't use the term "whitelist" and must substitute "allowlist", or "master bedroom" to "primary bedroom", or that time they changed "monkeypox" to "m-pox".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    "Master bedroom" being changed is such a silly one. That term wasn't even used until the 20th century and referred to the master of the household. It has nothing to do with slave masters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    It speaks to a larger cultural ignorance or poor literacy to even consider it, in my opinion. I've seen similar reactions to talking about "plantation-style" home architecture. It's as if many people have only ever heard these words in connection with slavery from their lessons in school.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    A place I worked out stopped carrying "Plantation" brand peanuts because somebody complained.

    Nevermind the fact that the word "plantation" existed long long before America ever existed and associated it with chattel slavery in the minds of Americans, or the fact that the peanuts in question literally come from a modern, active plantation still today!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    Yeah it’s be hard to argue TOS was excluding women in that sentence given the presence of female bridge crew members.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 8 months ago (17 children)

    You mean space secretary and space operator? The pilot had a woman as first officer but we couldn’t keep that for some reason…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    You mean the Yeoman and Communications Officer?

    Those are actual roles on warships that at the time women were not allowed to fill. How come when a woman is in those roles you reduce them “secretary” and “operator”?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    I don’t. The show did.

    As I pointed out there was a woman first officer, but we could not keep that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    The show didn’t, you did. The show put women into positions reserved for men at the time. The men in those positions weren’t called secretaries or phone operators, the female characters in Star Trek weren’t called secretaries or phone operators. The only person being reductive of their roles is you lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    It kinda seems like you’ve never seen the show. I’m well aware of what a Yeoman does on a ship and it is not limited to bringing the captain tea and having the log dictated to you (or you just stand there while dude writes it). Those are, however, things that a secretary did in the 60s. I’m not reducing their roles, there’s a reason that women were only given positions on the bridge that were traditionally filled by women in 60s offices and that the female first officer was removed from the show.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    But they weren’t given roles traditionally filled by women. They were given roles traditionally filled by men. They make a point of it in the show when Kirk is upset that the Yeoman they assigned under him is a woman.

    You keep talking like these roles were works of fiction, created solely for the women of TOS to keep them out of having an “real” role. I don’t understand why you refuse to acknowledge the unarguable fact that these are actual, real roles on real human naval ships, for men, that go back centuries.

    Why is it that despite these being real, traditionally male roles, when you see two women doing them you reduce them to “Secretaries”. Gene Roddenberry himself regretted not showing a female starship captain in TOS, but he didn’t denigrate the role the women played just because they were women.

    Like, are you really just trying to argue that there’s something wrong with Star Trek because despite how unprecedentedly progressive it was at the time, it’s somehow misogynistic because it wasn’t wasn’t unprecedentedly progressive enough?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I’m not arguing that there’s something wrong with Star Trek. I’m arguing that people are giving way too much credit to the 60s. They were not given roles traditionally filled by men, men could not even type in the 60s. It was seen as beneath them. That they had the woman answering the phone on the starship wasn’t seen as oh they gave a woman a traditionally male navy roll. It was seen as oh look they still have a woman answering the phone even in the future. Most of the people who watched the show weren’t in the Navy and weren’t drawing those kinds of parallels.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    They were not given roles traditionally filled by men, men could not even type in the 60s. It was seen as beneath them

    They were. These were men’s roles, that men were doing, in the Navy, in the 1960’s.

    It was seen as oh look they still have a woman answering the phone even in the future.

    No, it wasn’t, except by you lmao. You are projecting here.

    Most of the people who watched the show weren’t in the Navy and weren’t drawing those kinds of parallels.

    They absolutely were drawing those parallels. Everybody in the 1960’s was fully aware that women weren’t allowed posts like that on naval ships. It would have been implicitly understood by literally everyone that women being allowed these roles on a ship in the future was a progressive idea. The fact that women were allowed permanent posts on a combat vessel at all was a novel idea at the time, much less a woman serving as a commissioned officer on the bridge of the vessel.

    Would you also reduce O’Brien from TNG to an “Elevator operator”, or are these reductions of yours reserved for women only?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Okay well now you are just blatantly ignoring my point to make yours. I’ve literally talked to women, like my grandma, who lived through this time period and specifically asked them how they felt about these things. I encourage you to do the same. You don’t have to trust me, but I hope you don’t take offense to me trusting these people more than I trust you. My grandpa was in the Navy in the 60s and also felt this way about the portrayal. I hope you have a good day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    My mother and grandma both lived through the 60s and were a Navy family. They got me into Star Trek initially as they were big fans of the series. They, as well as many other women at the time very famously found Star Trek to be uniquely empowering for women among the TV landscape. The concept of women serving in science and technology and even leadership roles on a ship, as well as being treated as experts in their fields and with equal respect to the male crew was unheard of for the time. In fact it was a woman who started the letter campaign to get Star Trek back on the air for its second season. I guess your grandma didn’t tell you that.

    It’s disheartening to see that in the big 26 there are still men like you who want to denigrate women in those roles and the lasting positive impact they had on our society. Do better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    The reason was Gene Roddenberry had cast his mistress in a costar role, and wasn't yet the Lucas-esque TV god that could get away with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (6 children)

    That’s true, but they could have kept the part as a woman. There were other motivations in removing the role entirely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    They told Roddenberry he could keep Spock or Number One, but the network didn't think the 1960s audience was ready for both at once.

    Look it up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    I honestly don't know if Majel minded that much in retrospect; she's still the only actress to voice the Enterprise herself. She died in 2008 and most recently voiced the Enterprise D in what? 2024?

    Progress happened. Uhura wore Lieutenant's stripes so Janeway could wear Captain's pips.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Progress happening doesn’t negate my original point.

    Fun fact: The first on-screen woman captain was in The Voyage Home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Someone else posted that they didn't consider getting rid of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben as big wins.

    Most of the changes are performative and not material. imho.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    They were big wins the same way getting rid of the Redskins was a big win for Native Americans. It’s not about the specific instance. It’s about what growing up in a world that tolerates that kind of portraying of ethnicity does to young minds.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah I don't disagree, but that is still why they changed it. Using "man" to refer to all mankind (and even "mankind" for that matter) is going out of style.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    I hate pointlessly gendered shit. No one sounds much better to me and makes the same grammatical sense as no man. I don’t see it as any different than using they instead of he or she.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    It wasn't considered as gendered, as referring to humanity as "man" is a holdover from when "man" wasn't ever gendered; we don't have any recordings of it specifically referring to males until around 1000 CE.

    The old words for male/female were "wer" (see: werewolf) and "wīf", the latter of which diverged into "wifmann" ("female human"), later "woman", and "wife", specifically referring to a married woman. You still see "wife" used without implication of marriage status in words like "midwife".

    Anyway tl;dr "man" historically wasn't gendered, hence it commonly being used to refer to humanity as a whole even in modern use. Also it more accurately states that no humans have been there before, rather than discounting present natives.

    Edit: also, as another comment played on, this was used as wordplay in the Lord of the Rings, in which humanity is referred to as "the race of man", where a prophecy refers to no man being able to defeat one of the antagonists but doesn't specify that a woman can't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    wait, so are werewolfs trans people or intersex.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Very late response, but I was thinking back to this and realized that, to be pedantic, yeah, female lycanthropes should actually be called wifwolves, or something to that effect; a woman becoming a werewolf would include turning into a man, if the root words are taken literally.

    Kinda like how female automatons should technically be gynoids, not androids, because "andro-" means "male" in Greek, like "wer-" in English, but language doesn't always evolve neatly like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    There wasn't even coffee in the nebula

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    There are parts where no one has gone, but landing on a barren rock probably isn't a good story

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    I'm struggling to come up with an example of them landing on a barren rock and anything neutral or positive happening. It's almost always bad

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The people who were already there didn’t go there if they were always there

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    Just empire things.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Look, they are trying.
    They just keep getting distracted on the way and where overtaken.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    The further we go the more we find ourselves.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›