GoodbyeBlueMonday

joined 2 years ago
[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This could be the cover for a cyberpunk Far Cry 7

Yeah, I'm reminded of one of the things the Emissary himself tried to explain to the Prophets. In this case, however, the past experience guiding Pike's choices in the present is already in the future...

Prophet - OPS OFFICER: You have no regard for the consequences of your acts.

SISKO: That's not true. We're aware that every choice we make has a consequence.

Prophet - CAPTAIN: But you claim you do not know what it will be.

SISKO: We don't.

Prophet - JAKE: Then how can you take responsibility for your actions?

Sisko: We use past experiences to help guide us. For Jennifer and me, all the experiences in our lives prepared us for the day we met on the beach, helped us recognize that we had a future together. When we married, we accepted all the consequences of that act, whatever they might be, including the consequences of you.

Cited from: http://www.chakoteya.net/DS9/401.htm

[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is anyone here calling for it to be canceled outright? If it's canceled because people don't want to watch it because they think an actor sucks as a human, that's just the free market, right? If it was a better show/actor, they'll still do alright (look at Tom Cruise or any number of problematic actors).

They would have had the money and time for the CGI if they didn't spend so much in footage for all of Morn's damn monologues.

Oh agreed: I just thought the meta-nature of the players themselves being unsure of the veracity of character information might make things weird for folks uncomfortable with gossip. In any case I think it sounds like a fun idea!

[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You're getting dragged, but I think I get your point: that it might seed suspicion and distrust among not only the characters but the players?

I think it should be Rule 0 that the DM and players all respect each other's boundaries, so consent is always part of the equation IMHO. Likewise, if everyone at the table insists on playing a certain way that I'm uncomfortable with, then it's time for me to find a new table.

[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You just don’t realize how good we have it here, even if it means we have to work hard sometimes and get up early and spend five days a work working for someone else. That’s an opportunity millions of other humans can only dream of having.

Do you ever reflect on the fact that "we" have it good "here" because other people are suffering?

We are incredibly fortunate, but it comes at a serious cost. The cheap electronics and clothing and tchotchkes we drown ourselves in is made on the backs of folks less fortunate (not to mention the biosphere as a whole). We didn't sign up to be on the side of exploitation, and we don't want to live in ignorance of what supports our way of life.

[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've got some student loans....

[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry, I took a more international route with the terminology: I meant state as in The State, not an individual state in the USA. Federal laws restricting the purchase of a firearm is IMHO the State interfering with the Second Amendment, if you're taking a severely strict interpretation of it.

So that's my question: is it OK to have the Federal restrictions on what you can buy (e.g. requiring a permit!), and from disallowing Felons? I'm a gun owner myself, but if you go back to what I opened with: the discrepancy between "The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun" and seemingly OK with some Federal oversight is a hangup for a lot of us. If a handful of laws are common sense (no felons), why can't we enact other common sense laws?

[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If I can barge into this comment chain, the confusion seems to stem from your initial comment.

It’s not really “common sense” though. The Constitution clearly says you have a right to own a gun.

The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun.

It’s a Right, not a “right”*.

Isn't the application of an FFL the state requiring a permit to own a (certain kind of) gun? Likewise, the state telling folks they can or can't own guns just because of a few measly felonies...isn't that against a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment? Doesn't that deny them a "Right"?

In addition to what others have said (all those examples are equally misleading IMHO), given that its the 25th Anniversary of Half-Life, a lot of us are primed to hope for news of a new game from Valve.

I don't know what days I don't need that.

view more: ‹ prev next ›