Did you even watch the movie? I swear half the people on here are bots.

A "reply guy" (wikipedia) is someone who responds to posts/comments in an annoying (usually smug/condescending) way, like what you think of when you think of a "redditor". Big platforms like Reddit like reply-guys because they generate engagement (often someone telling the reply-guy to f-off) it's also not a behavior that an algorithm can recognize, so human mods/admins are needed to curb it.

Over time, if Reply-guys are not banned they tend to make the overall ecosystem too exhausting to participate in, and (authentic, desireable) engagement declines.

I think it has potential to be better in a way Reddit can never be, but the two biggest instances do so little moderation their userbase might as well be "people banned from too many subredits".

I assumed the killer feature of Lemmy would be "zero reply guys" but instance owners seem willing to tolerate them in the interests of faux-engagement. But the irony is this sort of "engagement" actually scares new users away.

IDK how I missed this thread but thank you for compiling it, this is awesome

In depth open ended thought provoking questions like should really be in DaystromInstitute

🙋‍♂️!!

Thanks for sharing this I will have to check out the whole thing later!

It was absolutely presupposed when I saw you you echoing the same tired racist "concerns".

I have not accused you of being racist, just pointing out that you are repeating the exact same "concerns" that racists frequently do.

It's just weird to me that you and so many others frequently direct these same criticisms only at this one specific character? Discovery is bad because it has a main character? It's bad because that character is "special?" Am I meant to understand that you don't like any shows with a main character or "special" characters? If so I apologize for the interrogation, but again, it just seems odd that I have never in my life until this one specific show heard the existence of a "main character" described as a bad thing.

If I can produce examples from the show of Burhnam being wrong would it change your opinion? Because while I'm sure you do not mean it this way, it feels icky to single out this particular character for the crime of "being special" when that "criticism" is (in my experience) almost never applied to other characters who's actors have lower amounts of melanin in their skin.

I get what you're going for, but any in-universe question that asks "why did the writers choose to..." can be answered the same way: "because the writers chose to do it that way". There is no evidence (as far as I know) that any of the writers were trying to communicate the idea that Federation ideals were not resilient to external forces. in fact, seasons 3 and 4 were explicitly about the Federation's ideals being able to sustain after one cataclysmic event, and be necessary to thwart another.

I thought returning the phaser form factor to a more gun-shaped form was also indicative of the show-runners’ head-space.

With all due respect, I think this is more likely an example of you looking for concepts to support your preconceived notions. Example A:

“one special person across time and space”

I believe you, but I also remember those exact same words being applied to Sisko and Kirk, and in my experience they were not ever presented as a bad thing when applied to Kirk.

I'm actually not a big Discovery fan, but my reasoning has nothing to do with the average screentime of a particular character.

That's not a counterpoint that's just like, your opinion, man.

I don't suppose you can elaborate on what makes a main character bad without using the word woke?

I am only one viewer but I view it REALLY hard

This is a really interesting chart. A lot of N64 games were $70 and even $80 at launch which is upwards of $150 today. Just crazy.

Nice. Read the headline and briefly worried it would be a year+ wait.

I'm glad they are not calling it "Season 3"! Does this mean Season 15/2 is finished?

I said mindless not stupid