Star Trek: Discovery Nearly Cracks Pirate Bay's Top 10 In Less Than 24 Hours (ew.com) 390
Yesterday was the season premiere of the first new Star Trek TV series in 12 years. While the first episode aired on the CBS broadcast network Sunday night, the second episode -- and all the rest to come -- was made available exclusively on the CBS All Access streaming service for $6 a month. Naturally, this upset Trekkies and led many of them to find alternative methods to watch the show. EW reports that Star Trek: Discovery "is on the verge of cracking Pirate Bay's Top 10 most illegally downloaded shows in less than 24 hours." From the report: The Discovery pilot is currently at No. 11 on the list (apparently at No. 15 just a few hours ago), the pilot is up there with the likes of HBO's Game of Thrones, Adult Swim's Rick and Morty and, for some reason, TNT's The Last Ship. The show's second episode is at No. 17, which is a tad surprising as that was the one that wasn't free. Ever since the distribution plan was first announced fans have resisted with some vehemence the idea of paying for "yet another streaming service just to watch a single show" (there's more than one show on All Access, CBS is quick to point out, and then a debate over the relative merits of NCIS and MacGyver repeats ensues).
This is what TV viewers wanted, free from packages (Score:5, Insightful)
re: the show, can't say it interests me, I am more the sort who wants to see time-line furthered post DS9, rather than re-hash original Trek timeline. And fuck Kirk, Sisko was King.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure CBS is positioning this to be one of the numerous streams you subscribe to on your Apple TV, thereby participating in the "a la carte" ecosystem.
And you are mistaken, Kirk was the Bomb. I mean other than Picard, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
A la carte would be more like The Pirate Bay. Has everything, pick what you want and pay a reasonable fee for it. Ideally a flat monthly fee but per episode might be okay too, as long as it's not silly prices (hi Amazon, I'm not paying 2.99 per episode of Dexter, maybe 0.10).
Re: (Score:3)
Can't help but notice the dislike of the "single producer streaming source" essentially conflicts with the quite-recent desire for "ala carte" cable without enforced packages.
What is replacing cable is certainly not "ala carte" by any means.
Example: I want to view exclusive content on Netflix. So now, I have to pay them for that right while ignoring the other 90% of content they offer that I have zero interest in. Tell me again how that is any different than being forced to pay for 200 cable channels I'll never watch in order to get access to desired content? Rinse and repeat this stupidity for the other dozen "exclusive content" providers, with more on the way.
In the end, co
Re:This is what TV viewers wanted, free from packa (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't help but notice the dislike of the "single producer streaming source" essentially conflicts with the quite-recent desire for "ala carte" cable without enforced packages.
I think you might be misunderstanding the complaint about wanted "a la carte" cable. The precise problem isn't that they have too many channels available to them. The problem is that the price of cable packages are high and rising, and people are saying, "If I'm paying $120 for 500 channels with thousands of shows, but I only watch 20 shows on 4 of those channels. Why can't I save some money by only getting the shows and channels I want?"
So now the content owners are saying, "Oh, you want a la carte, do you? Ok. We'll take those 20 shows that you want, put them each on a different streaming service. We'll charge $10/month for each service, and then in order to justify that price, we'll pack the service with a bunch of other shows that you don't care about. That's what you want, right?"
But no, having a la carte cable wasn't the goal, it was the means. The goal was to save money without losing access to the shows they want to watch. The idea was that maybe they could save money by sacrificing access to the crap they don't want. It doesn't help to give them a new distribution model that finds a different way to bundle crap we don't want, that ends up costing even more when you add it all up.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't help but notice the dislike of the "single producer streaming source" essentially conflicts with the quite-recent desire for "ala carte" cable without enforced packages.
In cable television, a la carte reasonably refers to the practice of being able to purchase access to channels, because that's how cable television is organized; channels, and bundles of channels. In internet "television", a la carte reasonable refers to the practice of being able to purchase access to episodes; not only because this is how we're used to handling digital media, but also because this is how digital media has traditionally been sold.
Unfortunately, DRM really ruins that. You have to trust that
Re: (Score:2)
getting a starship close to the ATMOSPHERE, nevermind *IN IT* was a cause for major concern!!!
I guess you missed the pre-reboot movie where the Enterprise landed in Golden Gate Park.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no (Score:2)
That was Fox [wikipedia.org], not SyFy. No less despicable for that. Firefly was the best SF-ish series show I've seen. Ever.
I wouldn't risk it. (Score:5, Insightful)
A show like this is going to be too hot. Anyone downloading without using a VPN client is risking a $3,000 fine and possible loss of their internet connection.
I like star trek. But I'm simply not going to watch it.
I have too many other forms of entertainment anyway.
If it's good- perhaps it will be available thru less expensive or less risky delivery methods.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone downloading without using a VPN client is risking a $3,000 fine and possible loss of their internet connection.
Maybe in USA. Everyone else in the world can watch it via Netflix - it's streaming, not free-to-air, so it has to be downloaded to be watched.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone NOT downloading it risks a $3000 "fine". Those companies are incompetent, they just send threats to random people and hope they don't contest it.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone downloading without using a VPN client is risking a $3,000 fine and possible loss of their internet connection.
Under the rule of which draconian dictator?
Why surprising? (Score:2)
"The show's second episode is at No. 17, which is a tad surprising as that was the one that wasn't free".
You're forgetting about the "Rest of the world" -- that massive populous outside of the U.S. of A (which is only about 22 times the population of the USA, so probably doesn't register for you) that don't have CBS (and probably many in the US that also don't have access to CBS), and thus have no other way to view the pilot. It makes sense to me that more people will download the pilot to watch before dow
Also on Netflix (selected countries) (Score:2)
Actual Top10 link (Score:2)
Pretty useless to link articles without linking the actual top10: http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/... [uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion]
(alternate link may also work: https://thepiratebay.org/top/2... [thepiratebay.org] )
It's at the 6th place at the moment.
why the editorializing last ship? (Score:3)
Last Ship is a fun show.
Characters without character don't make a show (Score:2)
What bothered me most was the ungloved fist-like introduction of the characters. And all of them, without fail, stereotypes. Hello, I'm the nonstandard captain. Hello, I'm the faithful sidekick. Hello, I'm the nonbinary genderfluid ... well, that has to suffice for a character. Hello, I'm the alien.
That's not characters. You could get away with that in a TV show in the 1950s where the Indian was the Indian and the Cowboy was the Cowboy, but PLEASE, TV writing went a wee bit further by now. Who the heck desi
Re:Binge watched anyone ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
Touchy-feely crap? Everyone's actions seemed to be dictated by logic, protocol or violence. Where was the touchy-feely stuff? Have you even seen it?
The Klingons were the worst aspect... Bad make-up, making it very hard to act and deliver lines, bad costumes and ships, lacking the depth and political intricacies that they developed for the Empire in the 90s.
It's a shame the captain died, she was one of the most interesting characters.
Re:Binge watched anyone ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What, specifically, did you consider "touchy feely bullshit" in their dialogue?
About the closest it seemed to come was when Michael was having PTSD flash-backs to when her school was bombed by Klingons.
Re: (Score:3)
You can argue with people all you want but if they hate it, they still won't watch it. The cheetos crowd will watch anything. Sci fi lovers, need stories not sy fy bullshit. When they try to stick cheetos crap on sci fi lovers, they end up pleasing no one. Trying to push sci fi on a larger audience, filling it with touchy feely crap, just puts of sci fi aficionado and the touchy feely types can get what they crave from soap operas without, to them, the science nonsense. They can show that broader appeal bul
Re:Binge watched anyone ? (Score:5, Funny)
The klingons were obviously played by reman actors.
My guess is that CBS bought this series from the Romulan Propaganda Directorate.
Re: (Score:3)
The advice given by Sarek was that when the Vulkans first met the Klingons their ship was destroyed. From that point on they decided to attack first, which eventually lead to the Klingons respecting them enough to agree to peace.
He then advised her to consider the ramifications of that policy carefully, i.e. that many people would inevitably die.
I thought it was one of the most interesting parts of the show, how it wasn't clear how much was Vulkan logic and how much was her PTSD and hatred of the people who
Re: (Score:3)
The vulcan gave the very non-vulcan advise to skip any diplomacy but to shoot first.
I haven't seen anything of Discovery yet so I could be speaking out my arse. The Vulcans in ST:E were nearly as trigger-happy and duplicitous as the Romulans, especially when Andorians were around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your opponent only respects force, it's quite logical to show him force.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but (Score:4, Interesting)
Discovery is not SF. It's fantasy. Bad fantasy.
No even slightly competent science advisor got anywhere near these plot lines.
Between that, the angst, the rather awesome lack of discipline and order among the bridge crew, the pointless nattering when serious matters needed addressing, and O lord, the inundation with commercials...
Ugh. Terrible. Bye bye, CBS-all-access.
Re: (Score:2)
No even slightly competent science advisor got anywhere near these plot lines.
So, you're saying that it respects established Star Trek canon?
Re:Agreed, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... You paid for an on-demand streaming service... And there were commercials!?!
Fuck that, it needs to die in a fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that light itself would be actuallyslower than you. The "tunneling" phenomenon already starts when you approach light speed, where the amount of stars you see becomes fewer and fewer, with the stars behind you going into redshift and eventually (at light speed) vanishing entirely while stars ahead of you blueshift until at lightspeed even a brown dwarf's low infrared radiation hits you like hard gamma rays. What that would mean at speeds faster than light I have no idea.
By that logic alone, a
Re: (Score:2)
. . .not to mention that the Klingons apparently are Reavers now, strapping the bodies of their dead to their ships.
And after watching the premiere, I was surprised that there WEREN'T ads for the wonder drug Retcon, that allows you to forget previous show histories and canon. . .
Oh, and trying to do an "Best of Both Worlds, Part I" ending ? Really ?
Re: (Score:2)
The captain was very much in the standard Star Fleet mould, wanting to try peaceful resolution with force as a last resort. Yet, still willing to take risks and be daring when the potential pay-off and seriousness of the situation justified it.
They did it deliberately to show how sometimes doing the right thing, the moral thing doesn't always work out. Sarek offered a contrasting opinion too, with the revelation that the Vulkans decided to always attack first after their initial encounter with the Klingons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it is fucking awful. way too much touchy feely Janeway type crap
Back in the Captain Kirk days, Star Trek was always touchy feely; albeit, in the Donald Trump kind of touchy feely way with women. Kirk's onscreen, campy womanizing would incite screams of outrage if filmed today. Even Bill Clinton would blush when watching that.
The only remotely likeable characters are the klingons
Well, are the Klingons the modern heavy metal African-American Klingons, or the original Hispanic ones? The producers could save a fortune in make up costs by just going back to Klingon actors that you can pick up off the street in L.A., and star
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
albeit, in the Donald Trump kind of touchy feely way with women. Kirk's onscreen, campy womanizing would incite screams of outrage if filmed today. Even Bill Clinton would blush when watching that.
Nah, actually he wouldn't. He'd be telling the women they're too old, and then ask for the lolita express for some underage action. [washingtontimes.com]
Well, are the Klingons the modern heavy metal African-American Klingons, or the original Hispanic ones?
Neither. They writers decided to double-down on stupid, and inject some type of hybrid of political-cancer-aids-retardeness into the klingons [ew.com] while screeching over identity politics. I wish I was kidding, but as an avid trekie the episodes were beyond terrible and I hope that these idiots have learned something from it. But considering the other BS that they've been trying
Re: (Score:3)
It's kind of sad that you have become such a sensitive snowflake when it comes to anything political or social related that your enjoyment of Star Trek is ruined now.
I can only assume you have somehow managed to block out all the political and social commentary in every other Trek series. Given time, perhaps you will be able to do the same with Discovery. Maybe someone will make a special censored edit for sensitive types like yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
I've asked this like five times now, but fuck it let's try again: What SPECIFICALLY about these two episodes was "SJW bullshit"?
Don't give me some vague answer about "touchy feely crap", give me specific examples of scenes or dialogue that you think are "SJW bullshit".
Re: (Score:2)
No it is fucking awful. way too much touchy feely Janeway type crap combined with moronic plot building and a captain and first officer that are suicide twins doing everything themselves regardless of how risky. I am hoping Michael gets the same treatment as the captain got in the next few episodes then perhaps they can start again. The only remotely likeable characters are the klingons
If you don't like plot building, there's always PornTube. Most of their stuff has little more than minimal variations of the same standard plot and much of the rest has no plot at all. The suicide twins thing is like classic Star Trek, the show just wouldn't be Star Trek unless all the command staff were constantly going off on dangerous missions that would normally be undertaken by on-board detachments of specialist technicians, scientists or marines on any normal warship. However, this raises the question
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
captians doing things themselves regardless of risk?
plot building?
in star trek?
NO WAY!
Re: (Score:2)
romulans warp technology so their ships could move at higher than sublight speeds (the original bird of preys were impulse only 'sub-like' patrol craft, as covered in... S3 of TOS
Season 1, Balance of Terror, but that episode was full of things that didn't make sense. Part of it was trying to show cold-war era audiences how advanced the modern weapons were by having them describe nuclear bombs as old, yet they still had a few of them on the Enterprise, in spite of having much more powerful (and stable) weapons. It also doesn't explain in any way how there could be a war between Earth and Romulus when the Romulans can only get a tiny fraction of the distance from their own star to t
Re: (Score:2)
The second episode was better than the first, but this show feels like it's trying to hard to be multi-racial/gender-whatever friendly. Casting the Klingon as a race of bald dark-skinned creatures with a lone character outcast for having light-skin -- yeah, not being ham-fisted here at all with the metaphors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm at least certain that CBS can boldly stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
Re:Binge watched anyone ? (Score:4, Insightful)
No.
The lead characters are all thoroughly unlikeable. All for different reasons; a ridiculously stereotypical scaredy-chicken science officer, non-descript (quite literally) secondary officers, an arrogant, egocentric and irresponsible first officer and gullible, emotional and passive captain. All thoroughly unlikeable nonetheless. The main protagonist especially.
The camera work also doesn't add; all dark, cold and gloomy. Will human spaceships really be more depressing than the inside of a WW2 submarine?
Orville gets the "feel" of the original ST shows a lot more even though it has it's own problems.
Re: (Score:2)
>Orville gets the "feel" of the original ST shows a lot more even though it has it's own problems.
Yep. Though I found it a bit cartoonish (not unexpectedly), I enjoyed the first two episodes immensely. The third however was offensively preachy and they completely avoided anything like common sense or logic (or an engaging story) in pursuit of their message agenda.
For now I remain on the Orville train, but a lot of good will was burned by S01E03.
Re: (Score:2)
Episode 3 was preachy (but so were plenty of ST episodes), but it did bring up an interresting topic.
The biggest problem with it, IMHO, is that it didn't dare to resolve the issue. Even if it would not have been resolved to my own moral choices, it would have been better than this "out of our hands; undecided" state.
Re: (Score:2)
The camera work also doesn't add; all dark, cold and gloomy. Will human spaceships really be more depressing than the inside of a WW2 submarine?
It makes me wonder with all the themes of gender equality, atheism and so forth that it is social commentary on an oppressed progressive group thus all the dark and gloomy. Perhaps they're supposed to show everyone that they're the light and everyone else is the darkness. Could we just make something fun instead of political for once? Roddenbery did a good job of balancing both of those. I don't know that the torch has been carried well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very much my question - is it worth the money, not to mention the effort of turning on the telly? If the recent Star Trek movies are anything to go by, it will be little more than special effects, testosterone and a thin story line from a soap opera. IMO, what made the old Star Trek good was the fact that they were a bit provocative - even challenging - for the time and dared to address slightly difficult issues; they weren't just entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll need to watch it for yourself to see if you like it. You might if you can forget about all prior Star Treks (or not care) and look at this as its own timeline and very weird alternate universe. The Klingons are very weird in this series and don't align with Klingons from any other Star Trek movie or series. Like I say, some screwed up weird alternate universe. They also don't seem to speak more than the same 5 words repeated over and over with subtitles for 95% of their dialog.
All logic is thrown out
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Star trek Discovery is available on Netflix in Europe.
It really wasn't very good (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I wanted to see this show. So the show - the visuals, I mean - was very pretty, the acting was terrible, the plot was positively drowning in angst (not uncommon for shows these days, sigh), the Klingons ridiculously slow to communicate (a warrior race that can only speak at turtle-like rates is pretty damn disadvantaged against humans) and the presentation was wounded mightily by commercials. Plus, what, yet another version of Klingons? Good grief. And the incompetence and lack of discipline on the part of the bridge crew, that was just... well, I'll call it "highly unlikely" in order to keep my language clean.
So we cancelled our CBS all-access subscription and will wait for the show to come out on bluray, assuming that happens (I expect it will.) We might even buy it at that point. Maybe the pain of the problems with these two episodes will have faded from memory by then...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they aired the same time, it's likely they were available on TPB at the same time, too. And people downloading ep1 will probably start downloading ep2 too, why wait?
I think the deciding moment will come when Ep3 comes out, where people will actually have seen the first two and decide based on this whether or not it's worth their bandwidth.
Because if it's not even worth the bandwidth, I doubt many would consider it a subscription...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they aired the same time, it's likely they were available on TPB at the same time, too. And people downloading ep1 will probably start downloading ep2 too, why wait?
Not everyone has a magical internet connection. And the disparity between the download numbers is trivially explained; after downloading the first episode, most people felt no need to download the second. CBS has a huge flop on its hands, and may well kill Trek on TV dead. Thanks, Jar-Jar!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: That gender fluid main character... (Score:5, Interesting)
Whatever it was, it was ugly.
Well guess what uncomfortable men of slashdot?
The spirit of Star Trek has always been quite radical since it's 1966 introduction. It had an African American woman playing. Many TV producers at the time refused to air series showing professional African Americans as it would offend white southern TV viewers. She was also a woman which back then was controversial as well.
Star Trek also had the first interracial kiss which really shocked people the most as you could be beaten up and mobbed if you did this in the south back then. Martin Luther King was a Trekkie as it showed an alien, Russian, Chinese, and African all working together in harmony with racial differences involved. He even flew down to the set and pleaded with the actress who played Uhara to not quit and be an inspiration to both women and Black Americans.
Transgendered folks as much as they make you uncomfortable are here. Star Trek wants to portray them in a future where we overcome differences which is the spirit of the series.
Re: That gender fluid main character... (Score:5, Insightful)
it isn't "radical" to take a pro lgbtqxyz position right now, that is the current default position of establishment in west.
i think what you mean is star trek has a history of siding with the "liberal" "progressive" ideological position. doing that was once radical and risky. now that progressive liberalism is the ideology of establishment, it is neither risky or radical.
Re: That gender fluid main character... (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans control both houses. Republicans are not progressive.
Trump controls the White House. He is definitely not progressive.
Seems to me that the political establishment is fairly far to the right in the US. Even the Democrats are on the right by European standards.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes very progressive in the media and university establishment. And look at the government, so progressive in Europe. I mean just think how much shilling they go out for to protect islamists, covering up those rape gangs, burying their head in the sand over extremist imams. The same ones who'd turn around and kill that trans individuals or gays. And just look at that progressive media in the US, the ones not reporting on the mass murder by Emanuel Samson. You know the black guy, who's the equivalent of
Re: (Score:2)
The GP said the WEST is progressive. That goes beyond just the US (or the UK with Brexit).,
It's a nice idea, but the west is centrist.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, transexuals are mentally ill, by definition.
Re: That gender fluid main character... (Score:4, Informative)
It is a mental illness, that's why it requires psychiatric counseling before you can get your junk cut or be put on any type of medication and so on. Argue all you want, but if a person has gender dysphoria or body integrity identity disorder aka amputee identity disorder you have a mental illness. There is no fundamental difference between the two besides the individual "wanting to have a part cut off" or "believing that they aren't the same sex as their body."
There's nothing "bad" about that. Except for the people who believe it isn't a psychiatric problem, and would dissuade people from getting proper treatment.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No it's not a mental illness [webmd.com]. No more than being gay by definition.
Re: That gender fluid main character... (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah it really is a mental illness. [psychologytoday.com] Unless you want to argue that the entire branch of psychology is wrong.
So let's roll with this: The "conscious self" says one thing, the physical body is saying something else. Will you now argue that someone who wants to cut off a part of their body to gain a disability doesn't have a mental illness? Is that not the very definition of a psychiatric problem?
Re: That gender fluid main character... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "conscious self" says one thing, the physical body is saying something else.
From the very first sentence from your link:
Gender dysphoriaÂoccurs when there is a persistent senseÂofÂmismatch between oneâ(TM)s experiencedÂgender and assigned gender.
It doesn't imply that the mismatch is between a purely mental perception and a purely physical one. There are a huge range of conditions that cause parts of the body to more masculine or more feminine than other parts, including parts of the brain.
When people say it is a mental illness, they usually want to imply that it can be cured by talking therapies and the like, rather than by changing the person's gender. Most medical experts view that in the same light as "gay conversion" therapy.
Re: (Score:3)
Gay conversion therapy has actually worked for lots of people. The problem is its been mostly practiced by people who are unqualified to do so; so its got a bad name.
There are a huge range of conditions that cause parts of the body to more masculine or more feminine than other parts
While this may be true their frequency in the population does not come anywhere near the number of people who currently claim to be transgender. Essentially yes most of these people probably could and should be treated with a mixture of therapy and less invasive drugs like mood stabilizers, not the extreme measure of gender conversion. Whi
Re: (Score:3)
Worse when you call it an illness rather than a disorder it implies something different medically and legally. If you view someone being mentally ill it gives a green light for HR to fire him or her and not worry about being sued as this person is a threat to herself and others and had to be eliminated etc.
If it is a disorder then it is an acknowledgement that perhaps the brain is wired differently and now you can't fire someone from being trans or discriminate and need to make reasonable work accommodation
Re: That gender fluid main character... (Score:4, Funny)
It's a mental illness, just like religion
Re: (Score:2)
would dissuade people from getting proper treatment
Except that there is no "proper treatment" besides performing the operation.
If you had any clue about the topic you would not write such nonsense. Hint: read a bit how people end up in the wrong body, aka a body with the wrong sexual organs ... that might help.
Re: (Score:3)
You're confusing 'Republican' with 'conservative'.
Right now the Republicans are the conservatives. But when they did all the things you listed they surely didn't further conservative ideals.
Re: (Score:3)
History lesson: All the far right win democrats switched to the GOP. All but Byrd.
The right wing were historically democrats before FDR. THe left and center were republicans. FDR ran as a liberal democrat to win the south (which at the time refused to vote for the party of Lincoln) and being liberal could win northern states. The 1964 Civil Rights act switched politicians to opposite parties as the south said screw the no party of Lincoln mantra we need to discriminate and keep white power and joined the GO
Re: That gender fluid main character... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why so many people seem to think that Michael is gender fluid or trans or something. Bryan Fuller always gives his female characters male names, it's his signature move. It doesn't imply anything, all the previous ones on other shows have been cis females.
Considering how some people denounced the show as some kind of SJW bullshit before it even aired, the first two episodes didn't have any hints that a single character was gay, trans or whatever. Is just being female or non-white enough to trigger people now?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did not know this, but a quick google will confirm this.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0298188/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
Trade Marks:
All of his shows have at least one female character with a traditionally male name (Chuck in ''Pushing Daisies'', ''George in Dead Like Me'', Freddie Lounds in ''Hannibal'')
Re: (Score:3)
They have to be primed by social media first.
People knew what they thought of this show before they saw it. As they increasingly know what to say about any topic before they've thought about it; they even know the exact language to use.
Social media have proven to be the greatest agent of social conformity in history.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but with the level of medical tech that the ST universe has adult edge cases like that would be almost unimaginably rare. Especially cases caused by extra chromosomes as that would be easiest to fix permanently during childhood.
Re: (Score:2)
Well guess what uncomfortable men of slashdot?
...assuming that women, of all people, *wouldn't* be disturbed by the 24th century society? :-p
Re: (Score:2)
Women generally are not freaking out and making life miserable for trans ladies. It is men as we are taught as young boys to bully feminine boys as they are weak. We then grow up and do the same to other adults who are different.
Ladies I talk to are mortified reading internet comments from guys. I guess feminine qualities are a virtue for them so they probably don't get it
Re: That gender fluid main character... (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't know I chose to be Autistic because it was trendy nor that the people who post comments like that know more than the psychiatrists?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't know I chose to be Autistic because it was trendy nor that the people who post comments like that know more than the psychiatrists?
Didn't you? That's okay, you can find plenty of "self-diagnosis" and "concerned individuals" who will tell you that you're autistic along with parents who will paint their kids the same for sympathy. Along with plenty of psychiatrists especially specializing in the upper-class who will happily do all of that for you. It's a booming industry in the latter case, especially in the upper-progressive class in most of the west.
But don't worry, I'm sure that this won't hurt the kids at all. Nope not at all, it
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know I chose to be Autistic because it was trendy nor that the people who post comments like that know more than the psychiatrists?
If you were autistic you most likely would not be able to make that coherent of a post. If you do have a condition on the autism spectrum it is probably Aspergers. It's a "high functioning" disorder on the autism spectrum. Yeah, some of us do know the subject matter. This is slashdot, news for nerds right?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Aspergers no longer exists. It is now part of the bigger Autism label in the DSM
Re: (Score:2)
Is that like saying "big boned" doesn't exist anymore, it's now under "obese"?
No wonder I'm getting less booty calls.
Re: (Score:3)
Aspergers no longer exists
You're cured! Seriously, you are arguing that doctors decided to reclassify your condition going from the DSM-IV to DSM-V. You still have whatever it is you have. Do you prefer the label Autism? You have a condition, it is unique to you, do labels really matter?
Sure they do. Labels (symbols) are how we communicate. In most cases, these labels are collaboratively constructed by the whole society, and evolve over time. If you want to communicate, you need to keep up. For example, while I don't use "sick" to describe something appealing or good, I understand it when my kids do. In cases of technical jargon, there is sometimes a professional body that defines the meaning of terms, which is definitely the case with autism and Asperger's Syndrome. If you want to communi
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you stopped choosing to be autistic for a moment you'd know!
/sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Because having a screaming fit when your pencils are mixed up is definitely a self-diagnosed super-power! Or are you just deciding your 'on the spectrum' because you're awkward and socially inept?
Only when I see people run bash.exe on Windows 10
Re: That gender fluid main character... (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to know nothing.
When young children say they are trans, they are supported to live as their correct gender but there is no medication or surgery. That only starts when they hit puberty, after they have been living as that gender for some years, and even then it takes many years of living as their correct gender and sticking to the hormone medication before surgery begins.
It's not something a person can simply decide one day because it's "trendy", it's something you have to commit to living with for years. And when they are only 10, living with it for 5 years is half their life.
Is it really so surprising that state healthcare covers well established medical conditions? Are you also outraged that it covers "non-essential" stuff like prosthetics for men who had testicular cancer? Or is it just that you think it's not a real condition, in which case why do you disagree with the majority of medical experts?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I seem to know nothing? Yet I can find plenty of examples of children under the age of 10 with parents pushing this on their kids as well. So can you, pick a search engine. You'll easily find those parents who're pushing their kids into it, show them off and "how proud they are" and so on. Not parents acting like a parent. Seems to me you know nothing on what's going on or that there's a push in this, that the media has made it into something trendy along with advocates of it.
That you can find news st
Re: (Score:3)
Yet I can find plenty of examples of children under the age of 10 with parents pushing this on their kids as well. So can you, pick a search engine.
Finding examples of "parents pushing [gender transition] on their kids" with a search engine is problematic to say the least. You are talking about something that is a crime in most places, and which proving would require a detailed investigation that is likely to be beyond what a journalist could do on their own. It would need medical expert opinions at the very least.
All you get when you use a search engine is blogs making wild, unsubstantiated claims and some disreputable media sources that are little be
Re: (Score:3)
Can you provide just one single example of a confirmed case of this happening?
You mean like the case of Thomas Lobel? Which started at the age of 3.
It depends on the jurisdiction, but actually most places do try to involve children in medical decisions even when they are that young, or younger. I wasn't much older than that when I had to sign medical consent forms for surgery, and refusal would have resulted in my death (or legal intervention).
Yeah and in most places, you can't consent until you hit the "mens rea" age. In most places that's the age of 12, a few places it's as low as 9. Even in places where it's under the age of 12, the courts routinely rule that the child is incapable of fundamentally understanding the situation before them.
You seem to be saying that cancer patients should get priority, and if that means diverting money from other treatments then so be it because cancer is life-threatening and represents a greater need.
And they should, and that's not happening.
However, no sane healthcare system works that way. I'm also going to have to ask for a citation that there is a line and transgender people at at the front of it.
Oh so naive. And if you think it's just in Canada [www.cbc.ca], search in your own backyard and you'll fin
Re: (Score:3)
What is wrong with the Tammy Lobel case? It appears that she said she was a girl, her parents thought maybe she just made a mistake but she insisted. They sought medical advice, and eventually she started wearing girl's clothing, upon which:
"As soon as we let him put on a dress, his personality changed from a very sad kid who sat still, didn't do much of anything to a very happy little girl who was thrilled to be alive," Moreno said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09... [cnn.com]
How exactly is that her parents pushing her into anything, when they initially tried to discourage her?
As for your link, did you read it? There is a 2 year waiting list, that doesn't sound like "front of the queue" or priority over cance
Re: That gender fluid main character... (Score:4)
When young children say they are trans, they are supported to live as their correct gender but there is no medication or surgery. That only starts when they hit puberty, after they have been living as that gender for some years, and even then it takes many years of living as their correct gender and sticking to the hormone medication before surgery begins.
The problem is the whole idea of a "correct gender", or the idea that "living as their correct gender" means treating them differently from any other child. Children learn that some genders are good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate, and then take that idea and run with it to an illogical conclusion: that it is better to undergo drastic surgery and at minimum have to take sex hormones forever (if there are not other complications, as there often are with surgery) in order to pretend to be something they are not, because they're not happy with the way they were born. People somehow get the idea that there's something wrong with them because they don't feel the way they are told that someone of their gender should feel. Then they have to get the ol' hack n' slash done to their goodies in order to feel good about themselves.
How about we do away with the gender role bullshit that society forces on people, instead of promoting fixing everything with surgery? I'm about as liberal as can be, and I'm in favor of people having the right to reassign their gender if they want to, but the situation where we make people feel bad about their goodies and then end up paying for them to have them remodeled is sick from stem to stern.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what the problem with transgenderism is right now? That it's trendy, just like autism was trendy a few years ago, and having gay kids were a few years ago too
So what you're saying is our society is governed by pop culture and we make real issues part of that as pop culture "trends". Could this have something to do with reality TV? Nahhhhhh... Idiocracy here we come! If only there were a society that promoted free thinking instead of being programmed by media. "There's that fag talk again" (Idiocracy reference)
Re: (Score:2)
the bigot speaks.
even though no one really cares what drivel pours out of its mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
the bigot speaks.
even though no one really cares what drivel pours out of its mouth.
Don't worry, you wouldn't know actual bigotry if it tried to cut your head off. Or started screeching that they need those masks so they can beat you for holding an unpopular opinion.
Well now (Score:3)
I did, and was happy to do it, on the chance that it might have been a good show - it can happen, witness Firefly.
Of course, now that I've seen how dismally bad those two episodes of Discovery were in so many ways, CBS-all-access gets the boot.
Re: (Score:2)
*6 months later*
Now they canceled the show because you intolerant nazis didn't watch!