Memory Alpha's riot timeline:
Early in the morning of September 1st, a fight between a guard and a dim sparked a riot, wherein the ghosts led by B.C. attacked the Sanctuary guards and quickly captured the Sanctuary Processing Center as well as the rest of the district. Armed with the weapons of the overpowered guards, the ghosts took six center employees hostage, including Vin, Calvera, and Lee. They were joined by "Gabriel Bell" and Michael Webb, who acted as the voice and face of the riot while dealing with police negotiator Detective Preston.
Chris Brynner, who owned Brynner Information Systems (which operated Channel 90 on the net), was convinced by Dax to break the law and to reconnect the Processing Center after the police cut it off. Reconnected on September 2nd, many Sanctuary residents (such as Henry Garcia) were able to tell their stories of imprisonment to the outside world. As a result, the American public became aware of the great injustice that had been hidden from them and further riots broke out in Sanctuaries across the US.
Despite protests from Detective Preston, the governor of California ordered National Guardsmen to retake the Sanctuary by force on September 3rd at 0500 hours. In the melee, hundreds of Sanctuary residents were killed, including B.C. and Michael Webb. "Gabriel Bell" was shot, protecting Vin and the other hostages (all of whom remained unharmed).
Well, you replied to the original poster so that’s hardly a mistake :)
The thing is that I agree. I don’t see Star Trek being a realistic future in any way, unfortunately. Now, the Terran empire on the other hand, minus the space faring stuff? Can’t be too far away. Doesn’t change my thoughts about violence though.
Based on nothing else than "nothing ever goes well"? You do remember that even in Star Trek, the early 21st century was garbage, historically?
There's the post-atomic horror, but we get to meet a few aliens who will help us slowly get back on track.
Just like with the bad predictions about the internet, if one were to jokingly interpret ST as prophecy, one could say that maybe they had the gist of it, but the details wrong. It's probably not Vulcans we'll meet, but perhaps we can manage to upturn the prohibition of ecstasy, LSD, shrooms etc and through that, we'll notice a marked difference in the world when people aren't getting drunk anymore and fighting, but rolling, being nice to everyone, etc. Deep cultural paradigm shift that's comparable to meeting Vulcans (who are more or less human).
Maybe don't give into the apathy and it won't win as easily.
This is a far larger discussion than I’m willing to get into, and I know it’s not one that’ll cheer me up too, so I’m going to bow out of it while in agreement with
That’s why in a many countries we still have a right to vote. :)
Elections don't make a democracy. Fair ones can do, though.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-parliament-elects-xi-jinping-chinas-president-2023-03-10/
Because I said you shouldn't give into apathy...? No. Because you think people haven't given into apathy? "It's not as shit as it COULD be"? Because I think that is a somewhat strong indicator that you're already an apathetic pessimist.
"I'm not willing to get into it" <--- case in point
You need so much stuff besides the elections that it's not even clear if elections are the result or a causal element of democracy.
I don’t consider voting just for show as actually voting, so when I say that I mean fair elections. Voting is how you don’t give in to apathy (about this stuff anyway), as the entire concept is there to allow some action, a push for change.
Quite the sugar coating, but yeah. That is correct.
So would you that for instance in the US, most people vote "for show"? (As a reminder the US doesn't use direct presidential elections unlike other western democracies, but uses the electoral college, and has had several presidents who have lost the popular vote.)
Because I shouldn't think so, and I know there's several states which have/are getting legislation saying their electors will be bound to follow the popular vote. Which would all but do away with the electoral college.
Why'd you omit the "apathetic" part about the pessimist? Because it is what you are. You're an apathetic pessimist, even if you say you're not.
I'm not sugarcoating anything. I'm trying to make you stop sugarcoating this to yourself. You're apathetic, even if you go and vote every 4-6-8 years.
This is part of why I intended to bow out, I’m not great at explaining myself. The thing about voting is about the meaningfulness of the act: if you get a vote to annex a region, and everyone knows what the result will be, then that’s not being given an option to vote, it’s a show that has been set up. Look, your definition of fair is likely the exact same of what I mean. And if somewhere people are allowed to vote, but it’s not a fair one, then that doesn’t count for me. That part was about the functionality of a vote, not the act itself: country A has a change in something after a vote, that’s what I called “many countries”. Country B has the results pre determined regardless? Ehhhh…
Because I’m not convinced about that. I think it’s more along the lines of all consuming existential dread, you say “things aren’t as bad as they could be”, I think that realistically things aren’t yet as bad as they will be.
Or if they're allowed to vote, but the candidate who lost the popular vote is still elected? That would count as unfair, surely? That would be quite literally disregarding the will of the people. Right?
You are, by definition, apathetic. "Things aren't as bad as they will get." Well what are you doing about it? Nothing? Wallowing in apathy, perhaps? Sure, some things will probably get worse. But most things have gotten better, historically. Look at crime stats and health stats. Aside from modern societies ills of capitalist shitfuckery and the exploitation of the labour classes, the world is doing pretty good compared to say, 50 years ago. So why won't you accept the possibility that things might in fact improve?
I know the definition of apathy, and that’s why I disagree with it applying to me. If you informed me that climate change is happening, I wouldn’t go “meh”, or “mainstream media fake news”. It would be along the lines of “thanks, I hate it”. I care, I worry. I do something about it when I can, maybe it’s not much but…
Also, you say 50 years ago. I say go back 100, with an asshole trying to make his country great again and invading a nearby one. With the rise of ultra nationalism, xenophobia, and uniting the people against a common enemy in the form of a minority/group. Or look at how governments criticize China, but it’s for the ideology rather than the actual reasons to criticize that government… nah, those are good ideas to copy and pass as original. Civil rights have improved a lot, no doubt about it. And that’s why they’re trying to take them back. Separation between church and state? “Christian values” are totally not reeking of god emperors. In Europe we’re doing a lot of good for the rights of people to their information! And there’s continued attempts to get mass surveillance going on, because “terrorists and child predators”. That, by the way, what is a terrorist? You could easily argue it’s someone trying to cause damage and panic by destabilizing a government. Freedom/freedom of speech? Absolute, cannot compromise on that! Obviously the others that think/look different from me are dangerous and need to be silenced, that’s not the same.
All that aside, you keep mentioning the popular vote thing. Well, that’s a thing I literally learned about moments ago, the main thing I understood is that it’s a really complex topic about good intentions and unforeseen consequences, and as such, because I know effectively nothing, I’m abstaining to discuss it. Best case scenario I’ll say something dumb, worst case something painfully wrong. Please take my argument about voting in the context of ignorance of this specific topic.