The worst “Star Trek” piece you’ll read today. Or likely any day.

AARRRGH, blather, Crazy, Forward!, Gah., history, Hmm..., Meh., politics, science fiction, Worldwreckers, ಠ_ಠ No Responses »

Jul 092023

‘Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’ Introduces Another Love Interest for Kirk That Still Isn’t Spock

The whole thing is some weirdo perv’s bleating demand that Kirk and Spock be made gay, because reasons. These people are sad and pathetic, but unfortunately they often have the ears of those in charge. Consequently, they often have the power to see to it that beloved cultural icons – Luke Skywalker, Jean Luc Picard, Indiana Jones – are converted into sad pathetic wretches, their legacies trashed and trod upon. The purpose of doing so falls somewhere between “the narcissism of a mentally ill person” and “the need to see civilization destroyed.”

One of the “arguments” that is made is that Kirk was a “lothario,” a “womanizer” who was nailing any female alien who wasn’t nailed down. And that is kinda the reputation the character has. However, if you look at his actual history of romancing the women on the show, there’s a whole lot less of it than you might remember. From HERE: a list of Kirks love interests. I’ll trim out the non-canonical stuff from the nuTrek movies:

Ruth (Star Trek: TOS, “Shore Leave”): she’s not real, but a robot made in the image of a *past* romance of his.
Dr. Janice Lester (Star Trek: TOS, “Turnabout Intruder”) : a *former* interest of his. No interest in the episode.
Dr. Carol Marcus (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) : a *former* interest of his. No interest in the episode.
Doctor Janet Wallace (Star Trek: TOS, The Deadly Years) : a *former* interest of his. No interest in the episode.
Lt. Areel Shaw (Star Trek: TOS, “Court Martial”) : a *former* interest of his. No interest in the episode.
Lenore Karidian (Star Trek: TOS, “The Conscience Of The King”) : ok, kinda
Edith Keeler (Star Trek: TOS, “City On The Edge Of Forever”) : Ayup
Miramanmee (Star Trek: TOS, “The Paradise Syndrome”) : Ayup, though his memory has been wiped. Is it really *him?”
Shahna (Star Trek: TOS, “The Gamesters Of Triskellion”) : Ayup… but is it real romance, or a means of escape?
Antonia (Star Trek Generations): his off-screen wife. Is it “womanizing” to get married?

Not in that list:

Dr. Gillian Taylor (Star Trek IV): Flirts, but seemingly goes no further than that. For the purposes of saving the world.
Yeoman Janice Rand (TOS: “The Enemy Within”): Sorta. the “evil” Kirk assaults here. So, ummm…
Lt. Marlena Moreau (TOS: “Mirror, Mirror”): Kinda. Alternate universe, he plays along with the Mirror Kirk’s relationship as a way to survive/escape
Sylvia (TOS: “Catspaw”): not really… he puts the moves on her as a way to escape
Dr. Miranda Jones (TOS: “Is There In Truth No Beauty”): Naw… he flirts a bit, but gets nowhere.
Rayna Kapec (TOS: “Requiem for Methuselah”): Ayup: he falls for and puts the moves on a robot.
Elaan (TOS: “Elaan of Troyius”): Not really… he is *drugged* and mind controlled.

So by my count, there are approximately four “Ayups” in all of Star Trek. Does getting lucky four times (and it’s not entirely clear he actually got *that* far with any of them) over a span of 20 or so years make Kirk a “womanizing” “lothario?”

But more than that: there are around a dozen and a half examples of Kirk being interested enough in a woman to do something about it. In all those episodes and movies, there are zero incidents suggesting he had any such interest in a *male.*

Which games, specifically?

Crazy, dumbassery, Forward!, Gah., news, politics, Worldwreckers, ಠ_ಠ No Responses »

Jul 072023

The “weak man creating hard times” in France speaks out:

After days of destruction, Macron blames a familiar bogeyman: video games

Uh-huh. Which video games?

“European Invasion and Conquest: 2022?”

“Border Dash 3?”

“Street Fighter Marseilles?”

“Boko Haram Book Burning Simulator 2023?”

“Final Jihad Fantasy XVI?”

Well there’s yer problem

blather, Crazy, dumbassery, Forward!, Gah., Hmm..., news, politics, wisdom, Worldwreckers, ಠ_ಠ No Responses »

Jun 212023

As is well known by now, Disney has been making a mess of many of the properties they’re in charge of. The Marvel movies/shows have plummeted downhill; Pixar movies stink; the endless CGI “live action” remakes are soulless cash grabs at best, and to all reports that forthcoming Indiana Jones movie is gonna be *terrible.* And then there’s the smoking ruin of Star Wars. Why is this happening? To an outsider, it looks a lot like sabotage… a vast organization that wants to tear down not only its own legacy, but poison the culture as a whole. That’s crazy conspiracy theory talk, of course. But then… there’s this:

Disney’s Chief Diversity Officer Latondra Newton Exits

The fact that Disney – or any corporation – has not just a “diversity officer,” but a *Chief* “diversity officer” is of course a stinging indictment about their wisdom and sanity. But there’s one line in the article that jumped right out at me:

Disney HR chief Sonia Coleman’s note to staff announcing Newton’s departure … She has been dedicated to ensuring every person sees themselves and their life experiences represented in a meaningful and authentic way.

Ah. No. That’s just… NO. Bad storytelling company. Bad. BAD.

I don’t want to see myself and my life experience in *any* sort of way in any sort of movie that Disney might make. I want to see stuff that would inspire me to emulate. I don’t want to see what I am; I want to see what I can become. Once again, there are two world views:

1: “Look, Captain Kirk is on TV. I want to be like Captain Kirk.”

2: “Look, Captain Kirk is on TV. I want Captain Kirk to be like me.”

Worldview #2 is the one known as “representation.” It is cancer. It should be mocked, spat upon, driven from polite society out into the wasteland to die shriveled and alone, huddled against some broken forgotten ruin of a statue of a long unremembered tyrant. “Representation” does not inspire people to greatness; at best, it inspires smug complacency. It does not bring people together; it only divides. Because if Person A finds themselves represented by Character A who shares all the “important” weird little identity politics quirks of Person A… then Character A does *not* represent Person B who doesn’t share those quirks. Character A will only appeal to a thin slice of the audience… and then will not inspire those people to much of anything, because Character A tells them how awesome they Already Are. You don’t need to change, because you’re perfect just the way you are. (Unless, of course, you need to go on a risky series of hormone treatments and lop off your dangly bits.) And if Character A *doesn’t* share your identities, and in fact is quite different or even opposed, then you will feel outraged that someone isn’t catering to you.

So, yay for Disney getting rid of this one little symptom of the larger problem. Now get rid of the entire department, and let not the precepts of DEI ever be spoken of again.

Nerds of the world, unite!

art, Crazy, dumbassery, Forward!, Gah., Hmm..., politics, science fiction, wisdom, Worldwreckers, youtube, ಠ_ಠ No Responses »

Jun 142023

Where the case is made that fandoms are composed not of people laser-focused on a single mono-topic, but who are *generally* nerdy, conversant in a range of fandoms, some related, some not, but all somewhat similar in having canon and lore and the like. The point being that when franchises and IPs are taken over by people who are *not* nerdy, they cannot relate to the fans, and end up making a mess of the product. They have fundamentally different worldviews.

The Dam

AARRRGH, Crazy, dumbassery, Gah., Hmm..., news, politics, russian empire, Worldwreckers, youtube, ಠ_ಠ No Responses »

Jun 102023

A convincing case is made that the Kakhovka Dam was destroyed not by military action, but through incompetence.

Defining “Woke”

blather, Crazy, Forward!, Hmm..., politics, religion, Worldwreckers, ಠ_ಠ No Responses »

Jun 062023

“Woke” has becoming an ever-present word in recent years, especially since the BLM/Antifa riots and city burnings of 2020. But what does it actually mean? The original meaning, apart from “past tense of wake,” as given by dictionary.com is this:

having or marked by an active awareness of systemic injustices and prejudices, especially those involving the treatment of ethnic, racial, or sexual minorities

That meaning was used for some decades by those on the left, in particular black people. But recently the word has been taken up by people on the right as a term of disparagement, the second definition at dictionary.com:

Disparaging. of or relating to a liberal progressive orthodoxy, especially promoting inclusive policies or ideologies that welcome or embrace ethnic, racial, or sexual minorities.

It’s that second definition that interests me. As written, it’s fair as far as it goes… but it doesn’t really go far enough.

“Woke” is kinda like “obscenity:” you know it when you see it. But a proper definition, reasonably accurate and objective, is important for all things especially when it comes to things that will be important for policy decisions. If some classroom assignment or book is “woke,” what does it really mean, especially if “woke” is meant to mean that it should be disallowed? The fact that some statement or book or person is an “inclusive progressive” is not sufficient to be defined as “woke.” To me, this seems better:

Disparaging. of or relating to a liberal progressive orthodoxy, especially promoting policies or ideologies that preference ethnic, racial, or sexual minorities and focus to an obsessive degree on largely or entirely imaginary oppression, threats, enemies or slights

A near-universal feature of someone that most regular people would look at and call “woke” is that they are multicolored, unhinged and divorced from reality. Often shrieking about how oppressed they are while their flags are flying from every government building for an entire month out of the year and they get to dominate any and all discussion, threatening the lives and livelihoods of those who not only express differing opinions, but who use “unapproved” words. it’s not about “inclusion” and “welcoming,” but domination and madness.

Thoughts?

Target Targeted

blather, Crazy, dumbassery, Forward!, Gah., Meh., news, politics, wisdom, Worldwreckers, ಠ_ಠ No Responses »

May 272023

It seems obvious by this point that a rational corporation would, when presented with the option of weighing in on politically decisive “culture war” topics, just stick their fingers in their ears and hum real loud until whatever -themed month it is ends, and spend their time trying to sell their normal merchandise to their normal customers. But, no. Due to the insidious and invasive influence of “woke” ideologies and diversity initiatives, companies have been led to believe that they *have* to build up their diversity social credit scores, or else… something.

Target stores are the latest to discover that attempting to appease a small group of weirdos ticks off a far larger group of people who don’t want to sterilize, mutilate and drive insane their children.A lot of customers have expressed outrage; a few by pestering the employees (these are just regular folk trying to earn a paycheck, leave ’em the frak alone); a few others by causing damage (come on, you’re not on the left… the law *will* go after you for vandalism). But by far, from Targets perspective the biggest threat to the corporation are the large number of customers who are simply not spending their increasingly thin dollars there. Apparently Target has lost about nine *billion* dollars so far. So Target has decided to move their displays of child-grooming-friendly products further back in the store where they’ll be less conspicuous. This, supposedly, is in response to threats to the stores, products and employees from customers who don;t like those products.

But now they’re getting threats from the *other* side… bomb threats from weirdos ticked off that Target is now attempting to appease right wingers.

You know who’s not getting bomb threats from *either* side? Companies that didn’t delve into goofy identity politics in the first place. There might be a lesson there.

Utah Target Evacuated After Reports of Trans Extremists Threatening to Bomb Multiple Target Locations for Removing Satanic Groomer Products

Republic? Democracy? Or something else?

AARRRGH, blather, Crazy, Forward!, Gah., history, Hmm..., I'm from the government, news, politics, Worldwreckers, ಠ_ಠ No Responses »

May 202023

So, what is the current form of American government? To the simple, it’s a democracy. To those who actually have *some* understanding of the theoretical workings of the US Federal government, it’s a representative republic. But to those who have watched how the Feds and a startling number of state and local governments work, a more accurate descriptor is one that most probably haven;t heard of… but rest assured, you *will* be hearing it a lot so long as the means of communications remain reasonably free and accessible:

Anarcho-Tyranny

Coined in 1995, “Anarcho-tryanny” is a form of government that is characterized by taking a hands-off approach to dealing with actual criminality at all levels… but exercising draconian oppression upon the average citizens. Sound familiar? Cities that let criminals loot and burn and protest and terrorize at will… but toss people who defend themselves into the hoosegow for show trials. States that do diddly to deal with gangs and murderers of all stripes, but ban common firearms and standard magazines. Federal law enforcement agencies that welcome in whole armies of invaders, and hire armies of armed bureaucrats to hunt down small business owners who might have made small mistakes on the deviously complex tax returns.

And then there are the “glowies.”

If you, as an average, law-abiding citizen who wants nothing more than to be left alone to live your life and pursue happiness, fear the government descending upon you more than the guy breaking into your car or shoplifting your store does… you may be in an anarcho-tyranny.