loom_in_essence

I love the first few episodes, I prefer babyface riker, and I think Dick Picard was a cool badass who I fully support.

But they should have kept Crusher, and the political conflicts were a ridiculous joke epitomized by the cartoonish ferengi. S3 gave us much better aesthetics and politics (though the new character driven storytelling might be a matter of taste).

I love the first two seasons for their episodic adventure structure. But I also greatly appreciate the character driven structure of seasons 3+ and I definitely think the aesthetic changes for s3 were an unadulterated improvement.

Oh she came for the beard ;)

Can you offer some examples of where "being vulnerable" led a man out of depression?

I do agree that there is a culture of masculine shame around mental health, and it can be unhealthy. But I've also seen that those who share their feelings don't get the promotion, tend to make coworkers uncomfortable, drive women away. Life is still a competition and vulnerability is genuinely risky.

I've seen bullies strategically share false vulnerability to garner sympathy. Genuine vulnerability often looks gross from a man, and is unlikely to lead to positive outcomes.

Most importantly, this new wave of mental health problems is not caused by a new wave of "not being vulnerable." It's a societal issue and must be confronted there, not shunted onto each individual man.

If they “disrupt pollution” by for example peacefully protesting at an oil rig, they risk life in prison on terrorism charges since that’s how insane the laws are, in exchange for little to no media attention

And there's a reason that actual disruption is illegal, and performative nonsense carries lighter consequences. The reason is that oil companies absolutely LOVE for protests to be ineffectual and just cause disruptions among leftists. Obviously these "gluing myself to stuff" protests have NOT helped the environment. Nobody ever actually thought they would.

Then they should disrupt pollution rather than something totally unrelated.

When you vaguely tell somebody to read more it's because you have no actual argument.

There is no connection to environmental issues. They are doing this to look cool to their friends.

No, but they should be coherent and meaningful. These fools (or possibly goons for oil companies) who attack paintings are only making environmentalism look utterly stupid. They are openly mocked by everybody because they're lashing out incoherently.

They're actively working against environmentalism. I really think they're bad, selfish, narcissistic, and stupid people. They don't care about the environment.

There is absolutely no reason to think their ridiculous behavior could possibly help the environment.

The audience responds en masse by tuning in, paying up, being changed, perpetuating the ideas back into the culture through the filter of their own personality, chatting about the thing, praising or criticizing the artist.

This is an appeal to purity argument. You've invented some higher standard

Nope. It has absolutely nothing to do with "purity." It has to do with humans doing the ancient human thing of making art. Dancing, singing, telling stories. You're bringing in the abstraction of purity.

Hollywood (in its crudest aspect) is already an AI algorithm for churning out trash. That's why I tune out already. Because it is not humans telling each other stories. It is pure corporate manipulation. More AI in the hands of producer-goons just means more corporate manipulation and less humans telling each other stories.

AI in the hands of an artist is a tool for exploring and creating. AI in the hands of corporate goons is the total opposite.

I'm looking for an interaction with the artists. I do not care what an AI produces... and I don't care what a marketing team or boardroom of producers produces. I'm looking for an artist's vision.