cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/1505645
Alt text: Screengrab from Star Trek: TNG showing Data saying to Picard "the Irish Unification of 2024"
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
123 points (98.4% liked)
Risa
6921 readers
30 users here now
Star Trek memes and shitposts
Come on'n get your jamaharon on! There are no real rules—just don't break the weather control network.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Jesus christ that episode...
I dare anyone to Watch that and tell me casual racism against the Irish died out a long time ago...
let’s 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 isn’t a criticism, just an observation about the glibness of the meme as compared to the seriousness context.
Sometimes it is effective. Just ask everyone who salivated over the PATRIOT act.
Now whether is justified is an entirely different story.
that was Data’s whole point. Then, just as Picard was about to dish out a bunch of huffy, self-indulgent moral equivocation, 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.
In fairness, it's 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. It's sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened, or the 2015 Paris attacks.
That being said, it's still an interesting point that Data raises in the episode.
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
here’s 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 “the Troubles were worth it,” I dare say that they’d 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 such… an ambitious arguments yours.
And I certainly don’t support it.
edit: it’s 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, you're free to read up on the history of the troubles yourself if you like. As to the second, it's a matter of opinion, not fact, but considering that history, one that I feel is fair enough. As far as I'm concerned, comparing a single terrorist attack to a series of terrorist attacks is more than reasonable.
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
here’s the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true.
what does the following statement have to do with it?
Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive?
because, at no point, did anyone ask for evidence of nor call into doubt either of those claims.
It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove. A comparison isn't a statement of fact, it's 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:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
here’s the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true...The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate such… an ambitious arguments yours….come back with evidence to support your claims.
A comparison isn’t a statement of fact, it’s 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:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
because it wasn’t, for it achieved none of its intended goals. if it is your assertion that it did, it’s 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.
you’re not a victim because you made a terrible argument and got called out for it.
is that clear enough for you now?
There's 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 won't 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:
It’s 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:
It’s 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 you’re somehow unclear of why after I’ve explained it several times.
I’’m very sorry you can’t wrap your head around this. and, yes, it’s best you don’t respond again, as I’d just keep repeating myself.
"It's sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism." Sorry, I don't know how this could have been clearer. Take care!
if that’s what you meant, perhaps you should have said that at some point…
I don’t know how this could have been clearer
by saying what you mean and actually providing evidence to back up your claims, as I have said repeatedly.
That's... literally what I said...
except for the first time you said it in your last comment, show me where you said “9/11 was a terrorist attack" before. because what you were arguing before was:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
do you have amnesia?
That was a typo. I've edited the comment to show my original quote.
ok, so, you do have amnesia and have forgotten our entire conversation. well, then I suggest you go back to the beginning because I’m not walking you through this again.
In fairness, it’s 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. It’s 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 wouldn’t 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).
Interesting; I didn't know that! It's definitely an interesting subject to say the least.
Important context. Damn.
I got really hopeful during Brexit that Ireland would unite and Scotland would leave.
Scotland could never leave. Britain doesn't want to loose Scotland and Europe doesn't 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? You're gonna spark a fire if you do that. The politics and rebellions of the 80's are only dormant, the sentiment is far from gone.
This implies we could have gotten a TNG but someone changed the timeline
Year just started mate.
Starting the year out as an optimist I see!
Well, we also didn't get the Eugenics wars or WWIII, both of which killed millions, so this time line isn't all bad.
Americans need to stop cosplaying as Irish and acting like they even remotely understand the situation.
Before today, it was Fuedal Ireland. Just a bunch of Irish warlords vying for control.