“The cult of understandable things”

Yeah ok bro, sure.

Who doesn’t like a gigantic shitty code that “just works” after all?

Well yeah, the reason for the recent support of Israel was just to kill the “arabs”

AIs are effectively destroying the word, causing huge social and environmental issues.

They might not have the same individual impact, but it is unequivocally and hugely immoral.

AI “programming” is not just something that people hate.

It’s something that is wrong on a technical, moral, ecological and social scope.

It’s like saying that you don’t want racists posts to be banned because “people always complain about something, some don’t like vegetables and some don’t like racism”

I think that it’s more a matter of means than of will.

I mean, even at the start with his “build a wall and make the mexicans pay for it”, I can guarantee that if he had the support of all of the US to enslave mexicans to make them build the wall, he would have. And as the other comment mentioned, he is actively participating in an ongoing genocide.

You think that if Trump had the power of Dukat, he wouldn’t have done much worse?

The whole show is garbage so I guess they just forgot to open the lid of the can

“More deserving” =/= actually deserving

If you write code without understanding what you’re doing, to the point where an AI is achieving better results, you should question your choices.

The guy literally said that he didn’t want to bother learning python and that it’s why he used this crap.

If that’s not intellectual laziness I don’t know what is.

Because anyone can fall for stupid shit.

Tldr, he’s fine with it because he was lazy

I don’t know, the actress also supports rapists and pedos so…

I mean, you can try freelancing but it’s not really a nice environment

Yeah so you’re really set on talking to yourself.

I am talking about objectification. The concept of showing someone as primarily an attractive body, as if they were nothing else.

And yes, just in star trek I mentioned instances of it, and I didn’t even get started on shits like Enterprise.

Of course comic books have an extreme tendency to show unrealistic body standards, and the fact that the idea of a “normal” guy now is a bodybuilder says a lot, but that’s not about objectification. When Star Trek shows Riker naked in his bathtub just for the sake of it, yeah, that is. And yes I’m against it.

I think you are so stuck in your vision of things that you just cannot admit that someone would see things differently.

Yes and sexism is about gender, not sex.

But sure, let’s continue on this bad faith argument, since my point was that I am against objectification of both men and women, so whether it is about sex and gender it’s the same since it’s related to neither. So how is it sexist?

Yeah, indeed.

Still waiting for you to explain how something is sexist when it’s not related to gender btw.

Her outfit matters as it makes the character incoherent. No one in the show wondered why a battle robot would wear heels. She didn’t say why either. As such, her character already doesn’t make sense. It is heels and a boob armor, it could have been a broom up her ass, either way it doesn’t make sense and it’s not about “her looks” but about the implications of the character deciding to wear something like this. Borgs are supposed to be ultra-rational, this makes her character stupidly incoherent.

And how is the fact that a kid is shown as being sexualized and romanced by adults characters about her looks? My point was that she’s a kid mentally, and yet portrayed sexually, how is that about looks? Of course, the underlying meta explanation is that she was just a sex object put in the show for her looks, but my point was precisely that characters in the show, since they don’t know that, are apparently fine with dating a kid. This is a horrible character, no matter her looks.

Overall, most of my points were not about her looks, but they do relate to it since the character was made badly just so that it could be objectified. To try to make you understand, her looks are not the problem, but the main reason that pushed the writers to make a bad, incoherent, shitty character. And of course I didn’t even start digging into the things you mentioned because they are too many and less bad than what I mentioned, but yes, her actions and choices are incoherent, her relationships weird and bad and basically child abuse, and her performance was pretty abysmal. I just focused on the initial, core problem of the character, which is that it was written lazily because they didn’t care about it making sense, about picking a proper actress, or about thinking about the moral implications of their choices, as all that they wanted was an object-woman.

Yeah so you’re ignoring most of what I’m saying on purpose.

I explained multiple times why the looks of seven, on top of being pure objectification which has negative consequences outside of the universe of the show, also have a pretty bad impact within the show, making it a bad character both from a meta and in-lore perspective.

I even said that if everyone was dressed like her it wouldn’t have the same impact (even though it would be far from fixing the character).

If you’re not going to debate in good faith there is no point, have a good day.

I am not attacking the character because of looks, but because of intention.

Seven is wearing heels and a boob armor as an objectification. The reason this is more significant than, I don’t know, some random action movie crap objectifying women, is that star trek (and I would say, especially voyager) was not overall sexual, but they went out of their way to make a character that is overly sexual compared to both the tone of the show and the concept of the borg.

My criticisms were not about her looks, but about the goal of her looks and the implications of them. As I said, it is not only gross to try to make a character just to make people get hard while watching the show, it is also incoherent with the universe of the show (as before, borg and heels don’t make sense) and extremely immoral (again, the character is shown as having the mind of a kid, not understanding sexual matters as you would expect from a kid, and yet the show is fine showing her as a sexual object).

The people responsible for the character are pieces of shit, the character is an abomination, and the looks are part of the package and a big symptom of why the character is bad. On their own, her looks wouldn’t be the problem, if it didn’t raise a lot of problems. As an example, if star trek was showing all characters wear overly sexual outfits like seven’s, then this would be a different matter; but this is not the case. TNG was a bit like that sometimes, with Picard and Riker’s pajamas that open down to the knees and weird stretching yoga sessions, and as such it’s hard to specifically pinpoint a character, as it’s just a general ambiance. Voyager doesn’t have that.

Also, you keep on talking about sexism, but complaining about objectification is not even related to gender so I struggle seeing how that even fits. Objectification is always bad, no matter the gender, it doesn’t make sense. The difference with seven is that her objectification wasn’t a “once in a while” thing, it was permanent, as it was the whole purpose of the character, and it’s not like the writing surrounding her saves anything.

This logic makes no sense.

Seven is a symbol of sexism by the fact that she was just here to be a sex object. I dislike the character (partly, as I mentioned there are a lot of reasons to hate this shitty character) because it is the typical product of sexism where the woman is supposed to wear hills and show her boobs, even if she’s a braindead robot.

I am judging the character by the purpose of it. There is no person that I’m judging, I’m attacking the concept and the people who made it.

Also, I struggle how it is sexist considering that it’s unrelated to gender. Harry Kim is an equally bad character that was just put here because the actor was elected sexiest man of the year or some other stupid shit like that; the difference being that he was not put as a central character, and didn’t completely destroy the coherence of the show.

On a side note, I really don’t understand what is the goal of trying to say that pointing out sexism is sexist. You’d rather have people not point out anything and let sexism happen freely? Now that sounds sexist.

So not liking a character that was just here to be an objectified woman is sexist?

How the fuck do you even reach such a stretch?

The character of seven was not just an objectified, sexual thing, she was also debatably a kid (mentally) being sexualized as, let’s not forget it, her individual growth was halted when she got assimilated.

And also, I’m waiting for anyone to try to explain to me why a borg would have heels and a boob-armor, which is obviously absurdly nonsensical and showing that she’s just here to make a bunch of creeps get boners.

If I had to describe voyager, I would probably end up saying “an okay show, if you manage to pretend seven doesn’t exist”