Something about these two seems...familiar... : startrek

I was thinking about this while watching Star Trek TNG the other night, more specifically Redemption Part I / II where Picard tells Data that he did the right thing in disobeying orders. Data broke protocol and made a smart move, and Picard told him he would note that in his log. Furthermore he told Data that Starfleet WANTS Officers who can think for themselves and that "blindly" following orders has caused great grievances throughout history.

It made me think about our current military and how that mantra is completely opposite - critical and independent thinking is frowned upon.

Not necessarily related to the post itself I suppose, but I just wanted to share. I feel like most Star Trek fans must be liberal, as in general the politics of the left espouse compassion far more than the right. Just my humble opinion.

permalink

[–]Cadaverlanche 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago

[–]darknessthatisnot 8 points9 points10 points 1 month ago

[–]stinkyp00t 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago*

[–]JJFO 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago

[–]Ua612 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago

[–]guy_who_wed_his_cats 7 points8 points9 points 1 month ago

We have been taught to avoid labels, but if the facts back it up then yes you can label a party's general "ideology" there is nothing wrong with that. Conservative politics in the USA are based upon individuals and not the group. Consistent tenants of the party include: Reduction of citizen-funded programs such as Social Security (which you only pay into up to $110k of taxable income), Retirement, and Medicare. Less rights for minority groups such as LGBT citizens (even those in the military). Welfare programs for impoverished or disabled citizens are frowned upon by the party. When pressed for solutions, vague ideas are presented such as "vouchers". At face value that sounds fine. In reality the voucher systems would be essentially coupons.

The above is simply factual. You want to tell me the right wing party of the USA has humanism even remotely close to the ideals espoused by their opponents? Then back it up with facts.

[–]themarknessmonster 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago

[–]calf 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago

[–]rogue780 -5 points-4 points-3 points 1 month ago

[–]mriojas 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago

[–]stinkyp00t 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago

[–]calf 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago

[–]rogue780 -5 points-4 points-3 points 1 month ago

[–]FAPSLOCK[S] 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago

[–]FluffRule 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago

[–]calf 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago

[+]rogue780 comment score below threshold (0 children)

[–]rogue780 -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago

[–]guy_who_wed_his_cats 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago

[–]rogue780 5 points6 points7 points 1 month ago

So, the Air Force has the IDEA program. The primary...idea...behind this program is to reward Airmen who come up with better ways to do things. An Airman will come up with a better way, submit the IDEA and if it is accepted, the Airman will receive a monetary bonus.

When I was in the Air Force, there was a serious problem with the way part of our mission was being kept track of. A buddy of mine and I worked on a new database and website that would be accessible to everyone on our intranet and made things better. Once we unveiled it my friend and I were given coins, were given our own team to help maintain and improve what we'd come up with and we received praise even from General McChrystal for what we did.

I can't speak for other branches, but where I was in the Air Force thrived on new ideas and better ways to do things. Even Airmen as low as E-4s were encouraged to contribute in many of the decisions in the way ahead.

Granted, there are of course times when and order must be followed immediately without question, so long as it is a lawful order. That sense of obedience, but not blind obedience is instilled in us from basic training all the way through.

[–][deleted] 1 month ago

[–]rogue780 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago

[–]rogue780 -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 month ago

permalink

[–]calf 14 points15 points16 points 1 month ago

[–]rogue780 3 points4 points5 points 1 month ago

[–]calf 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago*

[+]rogue780 comment score below threshold (10 children)

[–]rogue780 -8 points-7 points-6 points 1 month ago

If you're going to edit your comment so drastically, you should make note of it.

edit: grammar

Makes it seem like you previously had the same comment, but modified the grammar due to an error instead of saying

You are an idiot

or moron...I can't remember the exact word.

Regardless, you apparently did misinterpret what I meant by /r/politics, and by misinterpret I mean didn't read or comprehend.

/r/politics is a subreddit on this site that is largely a one-sided circle-jerk of "Liberals = GOOD! Conservatives = BAD!". In fact, it is nearly as bad as /r/atheism, but substitute Atheists with liberals and Christians with conservatives.

I by no means wish to censor discussion or any speech whatsoever, but I am allowed to voice my opinion on what is being discussed. To deny me that right on the grounds that i am trying to censor discussion is hypocritical at best and malicious at worst.

This post is a meaningless jab where pictures of two conservatives are juxtaposed with arguably two of the most evil characters in Star Trek.

Please look up the word "juxtapose". Really, I'll wait.

...

Good. Yes, there are several instances where real-life events and political conflicts are paralleled in Star Trek. The difference is that Star Trek does it with some tact whereas the creator of this image had none.

Instead of having a position, supporting that position and making an argument, the OP decided to make cheap points ala /r/politics.

In the future, I hope you read before you comment, and when you discover you've made a huge mistake, don't completely change the content of your comment and cover it up with "edit: grammar".

That is a very shitty thing to do.

Also, for posterity's sake, here is your comment in it's current form in case you decide to change it again.

[–]calf 1 point 15 minutes ago* (1|0)

Well maybe I misinterpreted what you actually meant by "r/politics". But politics has broad importance and it is possible to talk about it without making it personal. It would be a sad thing to censor ourselves of such topics, since many of the ideas covered in Star Trek are very much about politics. Many of the episodes speak to actual political events. You can't deny those.

edit: grammar

[–]calf 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago

[–]rogue780 -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 month ago

[–]calf 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago

[–]rogue780 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago

I am aware of ninja-editing, yes.

Also, you didn't have to be a mind reader to read /r/politics, which used to be a default subreddit. the fact that I didn't say "politics" but instead said "/r/politics" should have clued any observant reader into the fact that I was referring to a subreddit, whether or not you knew the content of said subreddit. The smart person would have either not commented on something he or she were ignorant of, or would have gone to /r/politics to educate his or her self on the allusion at hand before making a comment on it.

Don't tell me you've never misunderstood someone else's word choice or phrasing.

I have, many times, and here's the part where you really really pissed me off: After your ad hominem attack, you removed it entirely and replaced it with content that is completely different after I had read it. In doing so, you made no reference to your original comment with either a strikethrough or an apology that acknowledged what you said.

I am fine with ad hominem attacks. I use them frequently, in fact, but here's the difference: I either stand by them, or I apologize for them. Further, I never completely change the meaning of a comment that I make without saying so in an edit.

You, sir, are a moron.