letās just ignore how the pretext for this line was Data observing how, sometimes, terrorism is an effective vehicle for social and/or political change.
edit: just to be clear, this isnāt a criticism, just an observation about the glibness of the meme as compared to the seriousness context.
that was Dataās whole point. Then, just as Picard was about to dish out a bunch of huffy, self-righteous moral indignation, their conversation got cut off by an incoming message or some other rather convenient interruption. Trek was often bold in how it approached controversial sociopolitical subjects. And, sometimes, it scampered off without honestly addressing them.
this occasion was one of the latter.
edit: although, one could argue that, due to the fact that Data got his comment in before Picard was able to give a self-righteous counter-argument, the writers, in fact, were quite brave. The comment was so controversial, in fact, the episode was banned in several markets which refused to air this episode, and it still remains banned in some places to this day.
Due to political sensitivity, as Ireland was still in the midst of the Troubles when āThe High Groundā aired in 1990, the reference to Irish unification and terrorism in the episode resulted in its removal from first-run in the United Kingdom. To date, some syndicating networks will not air the episode, and it was only in 2007 (fifteen years after its first run, nine years after the conflict ended in a peaceful manner) that it was broadcast on the BBC.
In fairness, itās less controversial and more that the line is outright offensive. At the time, people were being murdered by acts of terrorismin in the troubles, so to wontonly say that those attacks are effective and will get results was extremely insensitive. Itās sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened, or the 2015 Paris attacks.
That being said, itās still an interesting point that Data raises in the episode.
Itās sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
hereās the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true. if someone, very boldly, were, today, try to make the argument that āthe Troubles were worth it,ā I dare say that theyād have a good case for that argument, despite the heavy controversy which would come with it. The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate suchā¦ an ambitious arguments yours.
And I certainly donāt support it.
edit: itās a matter of factual and evidentiary support. come back with evidence to support your claims.
Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive? As to the first, youāre free to read up on the history of the troubles yourself if you like. As to the second, itās a matter of opinion, not fact, but considering that history, one that I feel is fair enough. As far as Iām concerned, comparing a single terrorist attack to a series of terrorist attacks is more than reasonable.
It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove. A comparison isnāt a statement of fact, itās to illustrate how two things are similar. I further explained why I feel that it was fair to compaire them. If you want to keep picking things apart for the sake of it though, have at it.
It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove.
I made myself very clear:
Itās sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
hereās the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely trueā¦The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate suchā¦ an ambitious arguments yoursā¦.come back with evidence to support your claims.
A comparison isnāt a statement of fact, itās to illustrate how two things are similar.
which you failed to do spectacularly by comparing two things which bear no resemblance in the way you suggest:
Itās sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
because it wasnāt, for it achieved none of its intended goals. if it is your assertion that it did, itās your job to prove that, which you have not.
I further explained why I feel that it was fair to compaire them
no you then used this straw man instead:
Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive?
then you used a series of unrelated equivocations rather than addressing the flaw in your logic: the lack of efficacy of the 9/11 attacks as a tool for social or political change (the entire premise from the start).
If you want to keep picking things apart for the sake of it though, have at it.
youāre not a victim because you made a terrible argument and got called out for it.
Thereās no reason to be rude. I strongly suggest you reread what I said and consider the context of the thread. I never said that 9/11 was a successful use of terrorism, I said that the statement Data made about the troubles being successful was offensive and would be similar to saying the same thing about other terrorist attacks. You then aggressively began demanding evidence for something that was never a statement of fact, making it unclear what you were talking about. When further questioned, you became genuinely insulting for absolutely no reason. I wonāt be responding again, but please take some time to consider how you approach discussions in the future.
I never said that 9/11 was a successful use of terrorism
I have quoted you several times saying exactly that.
I said that the statement Data made about the troubles being successful was offensive and would be similar to saying the same thing about other terrorist attacks.
you may have intended to argue that, but you clearly argued:
Itās sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
and now you keep insisting that:
You then aggressively began demanding evidence for something that was never a statement of fact, making it unclear what you were talking about.
when you very clearly said this:
Itās sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
and now are acting indignant that I have to keep reminding you of that and how youāre somehow unclear of why after Iāve explained it several times.
Iāām very sorry you canāt wrap your head around this. and, yes, itās best you donāt respond again, as Iād just keep repeating myself.
except for the first time you said it in your last comment, show me where you said ā9/11 was a terrorist attack" before. because what you were arguing before was:
Itās sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
ok, so, you do have amnesia and have forgotten our entire conversation. well, then I suggest you go back to the beginning because Iām not walking you through this again.
In fairness, itās less controversial and more that the line is outright offensive. At the time, people were being murdered by acts of terrorismin in the troubles, so to wontonly say that those attacks are effective and will get results was extremely insensitive. Itās sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened, or the 2015 Paris attacks.
I mean I get that it is a pretty touchy subject, but honestly at the end of the day the 9/11 attacks were stunningly effective at doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do, get involved in a long drawn out war that undermined the stability of the US and accelerated its collapse.
The asshole literally wrote this all out in a letter and I am glad it made the rounds recently because we took the bait hook line and sinker. If as a society stories had trained us to think of terrorism not as some existential evil that comes from satan but rather a brutal political/military strategy enacted to accomplish certain logical political aims we might have been more equipped to deal with a 9/11 response more rationally. Specifically maybe we wouldnāt have just signed off on US warhawks throwing Iraq into the mix for absolutely no good reason than imperialism (Bin Laden must have been whooping and hollering happy when he heard the US decided to get itself stuck in TWO endless wars because of his actions).
Scotland could never leave. Britain doesnāt want to loose Scotland and Europe doesnāt want to split up all the British kingdoms and have them join one by one.
Northern Ireland has a chance to leave the shithole that is brexit by joining Ireland, but does Ireland want that? Youāre gonna spark a fire if you do that. The politics and rebellions of the 80ās are only dormant, the sentiment is far from gone.
Wait let me get this straight. The two countries sheās trying to pin on anti-genocide activists are two of the biggest contributors or genocide? Get fucked Pelosi.
Network cable also doesnāt do male to male lol what? You do mean patch cables yes, like cat#? Rj45 ends definitely require a female end, and you surely arenāt splicing the wires together with dolphins i hope.
A male to male electrical cable with wall socket plugs is a fire hazard. There are some made to be used to connect a generator to a house but it's a really bad idea.
First micro was an Acorn Atom around 1981. First home built PC in around 1988.
Used Windows from the very early days of 3.0 when (Xerox?) Gem became the less useful competitor.
Around Win 2003, XP era they started taking useful functionality out or burying it and taking the useful KB articles off the net.
About that time I wanted to look at VoIP and stumbled into VoIP@home which was hosted by CentOS and I, initially, ran in a Win 2000 VM.
Not long after MS bought Hotmail and found that Windows servers couldnāt keep it going and they had to replace it with UNIX. Maybe that timeline isnāt quite right.
Started transitioning away from Windows that that stage and am so glad I did. I think Win 12 will just consist of a start button and everything else will require daily subscription.
From being a Win fanboy to just wishing heād have taken the whole thing to that Epstein island with him and left it there.
hexbear.net
Active