That's exactly why I just canceled my Paramount+ subscription. I found that I couldn't both give that company my money and claim to care about the values Star Trek espouses.

I think that's a great start that probably doesn't go far enough. I'm increasingly convinced that we need to ban gambling as an industry entirely, including lotteries. Gamble small sums privately with friends, family, an office pool? Sure. Nothing life-changing, no middle-men, and it's nobody's job.

Yes, good. I sometimes say 16, but that's me compromising in advance because it's tied to a widely understood age milestone. I can make a case for "anyone old enough to know the difference between fact and fiction". Maybe my new compromise should be 10.

My question wasn't as much of a non sequitur as it probably sounded, but I just tried to make my point briefly and found it would have taken four or five posts, which is a lot for a conversation you already told me you didn't want to continue. As you said, we've heard one another out. :-)

Ah, I agree with your latter point, at least. :-)

I had a question for you on another branch of this thread, but it's not really important. Have a good day!

Have you read any Terry Pratchett?

Well, I assume that most people don't equate "the strictest technical accuracy in language" with "honesty" in contexts where that's neither fair not expected, yes.

You see how useless this hair-splitting is?

Using the word "impossible" in a less than strictly formal sense is not dishonest. By trying to frame it as such, you are by your own definition lying.

But see? You yourself are using language that is absolute in a way that is not strictly accurate to make your point here. I genuinely don't think that makes you dishonest or that I shouldn't hear you out on other issues. Rhetoric allows for informality and casual use of language. That isn't lying.

Demanding that the opposition party disarm itself by being so honest that *they can't even express themselves strongly* isn't upholding honesty, it's ceding the ground to the liars.

But it's not dishonest. Attempts to communicate politically don't need to constantly apologize for themselves or hedge so much that they become meaningless. A tunnel under the 401 spanning all of Toronto is *practically* impossible, and it's okay to shorthand that as "impossible" to make a point.

I think it's fine for Stiles to say "Impossible" and leave "Technically anything permitted by the laws of physics is POSSIBLE, but this is not practically achievable at the cost or in the amount of time being claimed, because X, Y, and Z reasons" for more detailed policy papers and so on.

Honestly? I think if news media, social media, Conservative politicians and conservative propaganda are going to flatten nuance to one extent or another, then I DO in fact want the leaders of the progressive parties to adopt language and strategies that will get their message out.

FATAL? As in, FATAL, arguably the creepiest and most morally repugnant TTRPG ever devised?!

That's true too! I think that consequences, immersion, and investment are on a spectrum. In some franchises, recasting is normal and easy to accept, and in some it isn't (and that changes as franchises and audiences evolve over time). Everyone now expects Bond to get recast every decade or so.

I wonder if Edgar is relieved or secretly just a little irritated that Elon didn't even try to read any of his books?

I think even Howard recognizes how little that has to do with being Italian. ;-)

It hasn't always bothered me, but I can't deny that Season 3 felt like it hit a "at least half the plots of original series episodes wouldn't have been necessary if literally anyone else serving on the Enterprise just told Kirk that they'd seen this before" tipping point.