No human should be treated as less than another. No human should be seen as offensive to another.

Why is Great Britain not getting so much fucking hate for how they historical contributed to this conflict? If people are wanting to legalize hate towards the humanitarian treatment of a whole territory and people, why is the nation that contributed to their existence not being criticized?

This is the exact bullshit we could brand someone that follows Islamist ideology with.

The major difference: Islamist groups purposely (as I recall learning in a college level North American religions course taught me) twist actual Islamic ideology while the Christian Right just doesn’t understand the religious text they claim to follow.

EDIT: Going to Trump rallies could be equated as the Christian Right version of terrorist training camps.

EDIT 2: My point about describing someone who assassinated people as “religious”, will place a false connotation on a group. It either paints the killer as misguided or followers of that religious faith as bad people. This is what happened with 9/11.

A talking Moopsy? Lol, I saw someone at STLV last year who modified theirs to do just that.

Think positively. We all knew this had to come to an end eventually. This is a prequel that leads into TOS.

Seán Ferrick of TrekCulture has pointed out that Game of Thrones’ final season was six episodes, half which were longer length. So there is a possibility that these episodes will be longer.

EDIT: I misspelled Seán’s name earlier.

I believe there is a joke in The Office about Todd Packer being able to name all the extant species, because there are only two.

Especially with true crime, the way things are presented could alter how the content is perceived. For example, Making a Murder took time to walk the audience through the entire trial (I’m not going to debate the perception the film makers left out important facts that influence the narrative).

On the flip side a more recent series like This Is the Zodiac Speaking, only focused on one suspect, never questioned the testimony of the children as being faulty memories or fact checked well known details about the crimes mentioned. My point is, this documentary was on a subject that was better well known and didn’t aim to present the children as telling their own side of events; it straight up makes the assumption what they said must be true because they personally knew ALA. On top of this, they featured Robert Graysmith, the author of the book Zodiac which is well known for being factually inaccurate, and doesn’t challenge his research. And at the end, the film makers failed to get the DNA test results for a test they commissioned. What deadline existed that they couldn’t tell the viewer what the result was?

Sorry, that documentary in particular irritates me for how factually inaccurate and onesided it was. My overall point is that true crime in particular seems to just be looking for whatever will get views. Not a lot of the documentaries that have come out in this period have produced well made series or ethically honest content. Is it entertainment or is it bringing awareness to what occurred or the people affected?

The problem I have is the quality of the film making. Regardless of the content, if it isn’t well made, probably wouldn’t see through the whole thing.

Hey, I am a janitor that struggles to open trash bags if I’m not wearing clean gloves. They refuse to open with bare hands or if my gloves are greasy.

Wow, this is exactly what someone who 1. doesn’t practice real Evangelical Christianity would say 2. would believe not having studied the most basic of United States history.

The separation of Church and State is exactly that. The Colonist came to North American because they didn’t like how the Church of England was being operated. In practice they might not have wanted other religious groups to have such freedom but if you try to take the Bill of Rights and Constitution at face value, then you as a person in the United States government have no reason to judge them for being a non-Christian. Much like how I much challenge you to prove you belong to a well regulated militia when you own a gun.

Hadn’t they been drinking Romulan ale at that point which he regrets?

Specifically in “Balance of Terror” he is telling Stiles that it was unacceptable to judge Spock for looking the same as a Romulan, fully knowing he was a different species.

EDIT: in STVI, I think the context is being angry for the death of David.

Going back to the Classic Trek tradition of multipart stories bookending and beginning seasons.

100 Baby Challenge failed.

I’m sure we are wanting this for very different reasons.

It’s just a cuff.

This isn’t licensed nor are these based on actual in-show designs, but Anne Gregory makes some nice ones you can get on Etsy. Maybe this would be a better alternative? I wouldn’t know how to make an earring. https://www.etsy.com/shop/AnneGregoryJewelry

Severance

Maybe it is something regarding the Bible? A Google search doesn’t bring an exact result for that quote but a bunch of different Bible verses are in the results however.

I have been a Trekkie long before I joined.

Pretty much my thing.

You can find this on the album Inside Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry was asked to give an example of network notes. For context, just know Gene was a Humanist. He framed The Bible as if it was the script for a television show. Everything pretty much would have been deemed inappropriate.

I know we tease people in modern times who would criticize Jesus of Nazareth for how he has been historically known, but it is wild how a religious text would not been deemed acceptable for 60s or 70s television.