TNG - Half a Life

[SFDebris]

Ironically, some of the faceplamingly idiotic responses on YT are likely to drive me to an early grave.

[Frustration]

Even if there is not explicit coercion (violence etc.) the social pressure compromises consent.

This kind of thinking is dangerous. Other people are entitled to their opinions of your actions, and choices come with consequences that arise naturally instead of being imposed. If you take a decision that lots and lots of people disagree with, you're going to have to live with their disagreement. If you're not willing or capable of doing that, you're a slave to mass opinion.

[Frustration]

In fact, I find it laughable that it's supposed to be open to interpretation, so that the viewer can make up their own mind, when it is so very clearly, demonstrably, wrong on all counts.

There is a difference between something being objectively wrong, and having a strong negative response to that thing. And I believe you are mistaking one for the other.

I have lots of strong negative responses to many things real-world societies do, including my own. Most of them probably don't offend most of y'all the way they do me. And if I tried to forcefully argue against most of them, y'all would tell me to mind my own business.

That's just life.

The principles which dictate that the Federation should not interfere in the internal matters of other civilizations, including but not limited to the "Prime Directive", aren't needed to protect decisions that the Federation approves of. By definition, those decisions don't NEED protection. The principles exist for the cases where the Federation disapproves of the actions, views them as abhorrent.

Sadly, there is no lack of people who sincerely believe the world should be remade in a form acceptable to them, using force if necessary. We've yet to develop culturally to the level of the fictional Federation.

[CharlesPhipps]

Ironically, some of the faceplamingly idiotic responses on YT are likely to drive me to an early grave.

Turning off comments is a matter of survival for many.

[CharlesPhipps]

The principles which dictate that the Federation should not interfere in the internal matters of other civilizations, including but not limited to the "Prime Directive", aren't needed to protect decisions that the Federation approves of. By definition, those decisions don't NEED protection. The principles exist for the cases where the Federation disapproves of the actions, views them as abhorrent.

Sadly, there is no lack of people who sincerely believe the world should be remade in a form acceptable to them, using force if necessary. We've yet to develop culturally to the level of the fictional Federation.

It is of course a principle that breeds isolationism and also complete disdain for other races as the assumption that they cannot survive contact with other one is born from a misguided sense of superiority.

The ironic part is in this episode we're supposed to agree that the society is wrong and the system should be abolished but the system is what has worked for this society and no attempt is made to understand why the society is the way it is. It's that sort of short sighted, knee jerk reaction that the prime directive is supposed to protect against. You might say that Lwaxana isn't in star fleet but she is listed as a federation ambassador so she should be held to the standards of the federation even more than a pseudo-military officer. This is exactly what the prime directive is supposed to govern even if the show seems to believe that it's mostly about moralizing while letting primitive people die.

I think the episode really failed to realize what it was presenting since its not euthanasia when it's forced by society and they would rather die than accept help from a member. Its ageism and abelism to the extent of eugenics. Which is not actually a comparison I normally throw up but the society is explictly of the view the elderly are a burden and to be exterminated.

Mind you, my grandparents had a dozen siblings so I watched a lot of them go through horrifying slow death with a variety of diseases. I never wanted any of them dead, though. I just wanted to find a way to help them.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The principles which dictate that the Federation should not interfere in the internal matters of other civilizations, including but not limited to the "Prime Directive", aren't needed to protect decisions that the Federation approves of. By definition, those decisions don't NEED protection. The principles exist for the cases where the Federation disapproves of the actions, views them as abhorrent.

Sadly, there is no lack of people who sincerely believe the world should be remade in a form acceptable to them, using force if necessary. We've yet to develop culturally to the level of the fictional Federation.

It is of course a principle that breeds isolationism and also complete disdain for other races as the assumption that they cannot survive contact with other one is born from a misguided sense of superiority.

I don't think it's a matter of surviving, just influence to a significant degree. I don't really like how such knowledge seems to be a rite of privilege for contact in order to fulfill one's socialistic or technological needs, but I get the merit in no influencing highly problematic developments to a society. I think a bit more of this comes into light when you consider the conflicts that the Federation takes to the face.

[AllanO]

Even if there is not explicit coercion (violence etc.) the social pressure compromises consent.

This kind of thinking is dangerous. Other people are entitled to their opinions of your actions, and choices come with consequences that arise naturally instead of being imposed. If you take a decision that lots and lots of people disagree with, you're going to have to live with their disagreement. If you're not willing or capable of doing that, you're a slave to mass opinion.

I think the two sentences before that one in that paragraph of my statement are kind of essentially to understand what I mean. "In this case adding back a little nuance the thing that strikes me is that it is unclear that the planet here is really practicing ritual suicide. This rule sounds so stark that it sounds suspiciously like all the people don't voluntarily kill themselves." Context matters.

So I don't mean any or every kind of social pressure is somehow negating consent or volition. I am saying the kind of universal obedience (the implication of the episode as I remember it is that in hundreds of years no one ever did not commit suicide when they turned 60) to this tradition suggests that the enforcement of this must be at the level that it means there could not have been normal straightforward consent.

There is some point at which sanctions cease to be explicit coercion and start to be social pressure. I am not sure where to draw them. I have a hard time believing having other people just express their disagreement is that limit of social pressure and everything beyond that is explicit coercion as you apparently think (since apparently that is the only thing social pressure can mean to you). Like to me some level of being a pariah who people will avoid interacting with is still just social pressure (and indeed seems like the amount of pressure exerted on this guy in the episode), how far are they taking it to get this 100% compliance?

What about pariahdom where the pariah is not interacted with at all by anyone, forced to live on the edge of society, subsisting on scraps, wearing rags etc. I think that falls on the side of explicit coercion, but I could see someone taking the view that no it is merely really effective social pressure and I could by that level of "social pressure" could get the 100% compliance rate with this rule (or at least close to it add some more "social pressure" and I'm sure we could clear up the rest). Also I'm not sure where I draw the line so there is going to be a fuzzy area where I'm like, this seems different from locking up the non-compliant but not by much, so social pressure on that line is going to leave me wandering can someone really whole heartedly consent at that point.

Also by compromising consent I mean to encompass making it less complete not just negating it altogether. As when mitigating circumstances lessen culpability for a crime, but the essential culpability remains. Treating consent as a simple binary is also a dangerous line of thought.

[Sir Will]

Ironically, some of the faceplamingly idiotic responses on YT are likely to drive me to an early grave.

Turning off comments is a matter of survival for many.

Probably better to just not look at them. He needs all the engagement he can get for the algorithm.

[Swiftbow]

No option we had for the bulk of 2020 to avoid lockdown did not sound like it had come out of an eugenics textbook: kill the old and the sick so that the young and healthy may flourish. And I don't think we'll have the answer by the next pandemic either although hopefully by then we'll have better methods of curing viruses.

Other countries locked down, *really* locked down for two months, and universally wore masks, and cleared out all their cases, 100%.

We could have licked it in a single month if everyone just ACTUALLY done what they were supposed to. Don't make "wear a damn mask" a political issue. But its too late to fix that mentality now.

Name one? I think the only one that came close was New Zealand, and they're a small island, so they were able to basically seal the borders. And they still have lockdowns. Meanwhile Sweden is a country that had no restrictions... and about the same numbers as anywhere else.

The lesson from Covid is that we can't let fear drive policies. Especially unfounded fear. This was never a deadly illness for 99% of the population. Even the vulnerable had a death rate of less than 2%. All the lockdowns did was slow the spread of herd immunity and give the virus more time to mutate. (I'm not saying it wouldn't have mutated anyway... but the naturally immune are still immune to the new permutations. The vaccinated are only resistant.)

For context, my wife and I had Covid last February. After getting better at home, I went back to work. It felt like the flu, though actually a little less severe.

[CharlesPhipps]

Name one? I think the only one that came close was New Zealand, and they're a small island, so they were able to basically seal the borders. And they still have lockdowns. Meanwhile Sweden is a country that had no restrictions... and about the same numbers as anywhere else.

The lesson from Covid is that we can't let fear drive policies. Especially unfounded fear. This was never a deadly illness for 99% of the population. Even the vulnerable had a death rate of less than 2%. All the lockdowns did was slow the spread of herd immunity and give the virus more time to mutate. (I'm not saying it wouldn't have mutated anyway... but the naturally immune are still immune to the new permutations. The vaccinated are only resistant.)

For context, my wife and I had Covid last February. After getting better at home, I went back to work. It felt like the flu, though actually a little less severe.

I think that statement falls apart when fear is driven by people dying. It's kind of like, "Fear should not drive us to avoid jumping off bridges." Mind you, I am of the fact that as bad as Covid-19 has been, it would have been explicitly much worse if we hadn't shut down the economy and isolated for months.

I mean the death rate of 2% in the United States so far is that 1 out of every 500 people has died. 730K is as many that died in the Civil War. People trying to downplay that shit are fooling themselves.

Also, that's not how herd immunity works. The primary way to achieve herd immunity is through vaccination and the best way to achieve that is to wait until you have a vaccine and not die until then and implement universal vaccination.

https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/co ... d-immunity

Oh and a final point, my wife is immune compromised. So, uh, people wanting to spread this shit so they can get back to partying can fuck themselves.