I feel like the big issue is the difference in how it's portrayed. In DS9 and even enterprise section 31 are the bad guys. They are portrayed as a shadowy organization that thinks it's doing the right thing but when confronted gets in the way. In DS9 they even lose. Section 31 arent an example of the end justifying the means being a necessary evil, they are something from within for the idealistic federation to overcome and defeat.
As a concept section 31 doesnt make a whole lot of sense lore wise because the federation is a paramilitary organization. Sure they are scientists, explorers, and philosophers at heart, but they are also very much a military Navy. We also see that starfleet does have a non section 31 intelligence complete with spies that go deep undercover get the trust of their enemies and sell them out. The federation knows the galaxy is a hostile place which is why they explore in heavily armed warships with a crew that follows a strict chain of command.
I think part of the wish fulfillment and idealism of the federation lies in the implication that they are also very powerful and able and willing to defend themselves with great force. Even the cruise ship Enterprise D was able to take on multiple enemy warships at once and win.
The major difference between section 31 and standard federation operating procedures seems to be their appetite for genocide and civilians.
It is a thing that has made me nervous about this new project since it was announced. Section 31 appearing as a bump in the road for our idealistic federation members to deal with works and allows them to stay the badguy. Them as the protagonists of a show or movie puts us in a situation where we get told stories where the ends justifies the means. And they either do this by making the federation seem naive and incompetent(which they arent they have a prime directive where they sterilize all life on a planet) or it has them justifying some heinous crap.
Yeah if its trigger again then I'll be down but otherwise I'm out unless i hear some big buzz.
The concept of a trek sitcom seems a little silly and much, but with lower decks eventually coming to an end it does leave an opening for more lighthearted comedy startrek. Still I feel animation allows for more and easier shenanigans.
It's crazy when you consider how many things even back in the gilded age were legislated as common sense that in the modern era are tied up in lots of trademark and copyright red tape because unlike the old thing it involves computers or an app.
Like libraries would not have become a thing if we tried to invent them in the modern era.
well their teeth collided but close enough
Yeah youtube can go suck on an egg. If they want to pay content creators more theyre free to do so without any help from me and honestly it's kind of shitty that they try to incentivize people to subscribe by going "well we'll pay them a nickel instead of a penny for your view".
Ublock on firefox, revanced on mobile, and I got all I need. If I want to support creators I can give them more money by sending them a few bucks on patreon.
Yeah I've definitely run into issues where case sensitivity causes problems. Especially in programs that are cross-functional between Windows and Linux. Like when I recently downloaded some bios files for a Playstation emulator and I spend time figuring out and troubleshooting why they weren't working until it finally hit me the door McFly it's cause the file name was in lowercase not uppercase. Than I cared to admit to figure out
Theres only so many animators and anime studios producing content. It's kind of a shame this is the kind of stuff that gets picked up.
Are those gaspumps in the convenience store?
Im sorry can we address the dickinmypants water mark?
Anyone else watching this series? It's really well done and does a great job of going over matches as well as the two shoes during the 90s. The host has a knack for good commentary and a dash of humor mixed in for good measure.
It certainly shows that the federation doesnt need a weird shadowy organization to skirt the rules and make morally ambiguous decisions.