- cross-posted to:
- memes@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- memes@hexbear.net
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”
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”
that was Data’s 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.
From Memory-Alpha:
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.
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.
what does the following statement have to do with it?
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.
I made myself very clear:
which you failed to do spectacularly by comparing two things which bear no resemblance in the way you suggest:
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.
no you then used this straw man instead:
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).
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 have quoted you several times saying exactly that.
you may have intended to argue that, but you clearly argued:
and now you keep insisting that:
when you very clearly said this:
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.
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.