So, everyone has opinions on stuff. It's a fairly base part of the human condition. Most opinions in my experience tend to be about the same (at least for an individual's class level in whichever society they are a part of).
So what's the point of this page? From what I've just said (and what's on the rest of my site) most of my opinions are going to be rather obvious anyway, but I'll list a few anyway.
Why is this a thing? Science fiction vs. Science fantasy. Similar in that they are both set in space... and that's about it. Outside of being in an escapist fictional universe, they are not competing against other.
Star trek is a mix of quasi-utopian hopes, a little bit of SJW storytelling, a lot techno-babble that tries to follow fringe physics. It tries it's best to show us the best we can either be, or a possible path to that best.
Star wars is a dungeons and dragons story in space. It is still awesome, but makes no substantial attempt to relate to real-world science for its future-tech. It is pure (and great) fantasy story telling.
Woe is us, modern star trek is ruining the franchise, how dare it be remotely different to TOS.
This is more an ENT/DISCO vs. TOS argument that I keep hearing, mostly on how can they have these newer series showing more futuristic looking tech than TOS ever had?
It couldn't possibly be that our own technology (not counting space flight) has caught up, and in many places surpassed that shown in TOS. The expectations of future tech in the 1960s and the expectations of future tech now - the 2010s/2020s - is vastly different, and the new shows still need to reflect that they are in our future. Can we really have a science fiction show, set hundreds of years in the future, that has spaceships using lower-tech interfaces and controls than modern day cars? That's not even comparing the space ships to modern day battleships or submarines (that are starting to use xbox controllers - way more advanced than banks of toggle switches).
Can you really cry about 'cannon' when doing so would make a 3 year old car have a more technologically advanced interface than spaceship set 250ish years in the future? These are stories, told the best way we know how with regards to our current understanding of physics, where bleeding edge technology looks to be pointing, and CGI capabilities. This was true for TOS and is just as true for DISCO.
Stop hating just because it doesn't match how you want it to look (would a brand new series that looks like it was done using 60's budget and idea of future tech really work for modern audiences?), and enjoy the stories for what they are.
P.S. Star Trek has always been SJW. Look at the social commentary and messages in TOS. Same goes for Doctor Who.
Let's start this bit with a quote:
“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannise their teachers.”
That sounds like it's from any politician, town council member, grumpy modern adult.
It's from Socrates. That ancient Greek guy. From 400ish BC.
Ancient Greece fell around 146 BC. 250 years later. Way past any influence of the youth of Socrates era. It would be like people today saying that the youth of the 1770's (the Georgian period, the time of the American Revolution, and the voyages of James Cook) have caused all of today's societal problems. Not the adults or the wars, but specifically the children and adolescents.
That'd be ridiculous.
Standard opinion for anyone not in the upper class. DON'T PRIVATISE IT!
It is currently treating people for the sake of making them get better. A health service based on insurance will be treating people for the sake of making money. People who 'are not lucky enough' to be born into the upper class will start dying due to easily preventable conditions, purely because the currently readily available treatments will be priced out of their reach. Source: USA healthcare industry. Read that again. Industry. Not 'service'.
When the NHS is getting just 1% of the amount set for the national defence budget and still being told that it's too much from the public purse, then something is very wrong with national priorities. Or there are high level politicians who stand to make a lot of money for themselves by selling out a service respected and copied worldwide.
This trend of Tory privatisation is very much looking like a government for the upper class, for the already-rich, and not for the other 95% of people in the country.
First, links:
Initial comments on the 'debate':
The Tories who were there to defend the Leave campaign left incredibly early and without actually bringing an argument.
The consensus for those who stayed was that EVERY SINGLE leave option would leave the country worse off for both their area, and the UK as a whole. The only people who would benefit are the top >1%.
The official final response was that '2016 referendum is binding we can't hear you'. There was no response to any of the points put forward regarding how detrimental EVERY expert has said it will be to our country. No response to that the Leave campaign broke many laws during the referendum. That the Leave campaign has admitted that they only won because they LIED and BROKE THE LAW. No response to that the climate today is not the same as it was three years ago, and the extent of what Brexit actually means and is capable of changing is nowhere near what was claimed during the referendum.
So the Remain people came in with researched, educated, well presented points, while Leave came in, said '2016 Ref, 2017 election, get over it', gave the figurative finger and left. That is a massive slap in the face by a group claiming to support democracy to the 6m who signed the petition, all of the people who took part in the last two years of official opinion polls (all showing support for remain or second referendum over leaving, and by more than a 2% difference), and the 17m who voted to remain in the referendum.
TODO:
Gov polls
Current cost to economy from gov source
EU economic predictions from gov source
Include timescales in years and number of generations
Immigration policy options gov source
WTO vs EU (vote strength, veto etc.).
Privatisation becomes one here. NHS ruined?
Politicians betting against the pound? (treason?)
Education and research downturn
"We got through the war"
A lot of people didn't
the economy was in a horrific state,
we were still paying X per X for it until 201X,
the economic upturn only properly took off after EU (graph/gov source),
most of the people alive today didn't personally experience the war to have 'got through it',
and most of few who did were children for it (inc. timescales) and age stats for 80+ yrs old (born during of the war), 95yrs old (mid-teens), 100 years old (old enough to fight in it).
The arguments I've heard, that aren't covered above, are:
The 1974 referendum to join in the EU was for common market only, and now we're in this legislative conglomerate.
2016 referendum (won by X votes, X% of total population - using that figure because people too young to vote will be affected) and all the law breaking mentioned above.
2017 General Election, where neither party had a Remain policy, but both parties had a controlled leave policy.
So what arguments are there for leave? What benefits are worth all of these guaranteed hardships and high risk hardships - not just for you but your children, grandchildren, and more.
This isn't even getting into the differences in behaviour between supporters from the two sides, from the very public to the general demeanour in more individual 'discussions', though people from both sides resort to similar petty name calling.
Damnit. A actual serious one.
Being blunt, brexit is stupid-ass decision and should be ignored. Just like 'Boaty Mcboatface' was ignored.
My main gripes are:
The leave campaign broke the law, purposely misled the public, and then flat out lied to public. Their punishment? a slap on the wrist and a bit of a fine.
If an athlete cheats, then they are disqualified and medals revoked. If a business or individual breaks the law - such as obtaining goods or services through deception - they are taken to court and proceeds from their actions are forfeited and/or substantial fines in proportion to the gains they made through such deception.
HOWEVER
In this case that has not happened. The results of the leave campaign was allowed to stand, contrary to what would happen in any other business action or competition.
The leave campaign - prior to the results being released - DEMANDED a second referendum if the result was, and quoting actual numbers from them, 52% remain to 48% leave. When those numbers were reversed they fought every attempt for the opposing party to follow through with that very action they were adamant for if the result was reversed.
The referendum was an opinion poll, specifically set up to be non-binding for the government. Just like the opinion poll in the HoC to rule out a no-deal brexit that while it got a overwhelming majority of votes, was ignored by the Tories because it was just an opinion poll.
There were no result rules set in place, for example a minimum turnout percentage, or that an overwhelming majority (or any figure) would be needed to change the status quo.
The politicians who backed leave have quietly gone out getting dual nationalities for them and their families with remaining EU member nations. Getting the EU free-movement and business benefits that brexit will deny the vast majority of the UK population.
We can't better ourselves by becoming smaller. When companies shut down locations and become smaller it is never touted as a good thing.
We can't become more influential globally by becoming smaller. We are already riding far more on historic respect and influence than our current economic power. This is going to reduce our global respect. Going from a big fish in a mid-size pond to the only fish in an puddle... not great.
Every multinational company that has given a statement has said brexit will make the economy worse for the UK
Most of these companies have moved things like HQs, manufacturing, finance etc. out of the UK to remaining EU member nations.
Every economist with international experience outside of the UK (and most economists within the UK) agree that this will make the economy worse for the UK for at least 50 years. Most likely far far more. Do you know how hard it is for these people to agree on anything? Yet they all agree on that.
It isn't going to change how immigration or asylum works. EU is trade and work, not economics or humanitarian stuff.
Every country and trading block we have 'negotiated' with has offered a worse deal than we currently get through being part of the EU trading block. We are one country negotiating with other individual countries or multinational blocks. The EU is a block of 27 countries negotiating as one. Which is more powerful? Which is going to get a better deal out of trade agreements?
Our leaving will have less impact on the EU than it does on us (how can it not, they have 26 countries to spread the 'burden' of us leaving over). The EU sees that quite clearly. The EU can also see how terrible this is going to be for the UK, and repeatedly offers us a chance to change our minds AT NO COST, with no renegotiation. But the people running things here are being stubborn, and in trying to save face are damning us all.