Scotland could never leave. Britain doesn’t want to loose Scotland and Europe doesn’t want to split up all the British kingdoms and have them join one by one.
Northern Ireland has a chance to leave the shithole that is brexit by joining Ireland, but does Ireland want that? You’re gonna spark a fire if you do that. The politics and rebellions of the 80’s are only dormant, the sentiment is far from gone.
let’s just ignore how the pretext for this line was Data observing how, sometimes, terrorism is an effective vehicle for social and/or political change.
edit: just to be clear, this isn’t a criticism, just an observation about the glibness of the meme as compared to the seriousness context.
that was Data’s whole point. Then, just as Picard was about to dish out a bunch of huffy, self-righteous moral indignation, their conversation got cut off by an incoming message or some other rather convenient interruption. Trek was often bold in how it approached controversial sociopolitical subjects. And, sometimes, it scampered off without honestly addressing them.
this occasion was one of the latter.
edit: although, one could argue that, due to the fact that Data got his comment in before Picard was able to give a self-righteous counter-argument, the writers, in fact, were quite brave. The comment was so controversial, in fact, the episode was banned in several markets which refused to air this episode, and it still remains banned in some places to this day.
Due to political sensitivity, as Ireland was still in the midst of the Troubles when “The High Ground” aired in 1990, the reference to Irish unification and terrorism in the episode resulted in its removal from first-run in the United Kingdom. To date, some syndicating networks will not air the episode, and it was only in 2007 (fifteen years after its first run, nine years after the conflict ended in a peaceful manner) that it was broadcast on the BBC.
In fairness, it’s less controversial and more that the line is outright offensive. At the time, people were being murdered by acts of terrorismin in the troubles, so to wontonly say that those attacks are effective and will get results was extremely insensitive. It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened, or the 2015 Paris attacks.
That being said, it’s still an interesting point that Data raises in the episode.
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
here’s the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true. if someone, very boldly, were, today, try to make the argument that “the Troubles were worth it,” I dare say that they’d have a good case for that argument, despite the heavy controversy which would come with it. The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate such… an ambitious arguments yours.
And I certainly don’t support it.
edit: it’s a matter of factual and evidentiary support. come back with evidence to support your claims.
Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive? As to the first, you’re free to read up on the history of the troubles yourself if you like. As to the second, it’s a matter of opinion, not fact, but considering that history, one that I feel is fair enough. As far as I’m concerned, comparing a single terrorist attack to a series of terrorist attacks is more than reasonable.
It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove. A comparison isn’t a statement of fact, it’s to illustrate how two things are similar. I further explained why I feel that it was fair to compaire them. If you want to keep picking things apart for the sake of it though, have at it.
It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove.
I made myself very clear:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
here’s the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true…The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate such… an ambitious arguments yours….come back with evidence to support your claims.
A comparison isn’t a statement of fact, it’s to illustrate how two things are similar.
which you failed to do spectacularly by comparing two things which bear no resemblance in the way you suggest:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
because it wasn’t, for it achieved none of its intended goals. if it is your assertion that it did, it’s your job to prove that, which you have not.
I further explained why I feel that it was fair to compaire them
no you then used this straw man instead:
Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive?
then you used a series of unrelated equivocations rather than addressing the flaw in your logic: the lack of efficacy of the 9/11 attacks as a tool for social or political change.
If you want to keep picking things apart for the sake of it though, have at it.
you’re not a victim because you made a terrible argument and got called out for it.
There’s no reason to be rude. I strongly suggest you reread what I said and consider the context of the thread. I never said that 9/11 was a successful use of terrorism, I said that the statement Data made about the troubles being successful was offensive and would be similar to saying the same thing about other terrorist attacks. You then aggressively began demanding evidence for something that was never a statement of fact, making it unclear what you were talking about. When further questioned, you became genuinely insulting for absolutely no reason. I won’t be responding again, but please take some time to consider how you approach discussions in the future.
I never said that 9/11 was a successful use of terrorism
I have quoted you several times saying exactly that.
I said that the statement Data made about the troubles being successful was offensive and would be similar to saying the same thing about other terrorist attacks.
you may have intended to argue that, but you clearly argued:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
and now you keep insisting that:
You then aggressively began demanding evidence for something that was never a statement of fact, making it unclear what you were talking about.
when you very clearly said this:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
and now are acting indignant that I have to keep reminding you of that and how you’re somehow unclear of why after I’ve explained it several times.
I’’m very sorry you can’t wrap your head around this. and, yes, it’s best you don’t respond again, as I’d just keep repeating myself.
except for the first time you said it in your last comment, show me where you said “9/11 was a terrorist attack" before. because what you were arguing before was:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
ok, so, you do have amnesia and have forgotten our entire conversation. well, then I suggest you go back to the beginning because I’m not walking you through this again.
In fairness, it’s less controversial and more that the line is outright offensive. At the time, people were being murdered by acts of terrorismin in the troubles, so to wontonly say that those attacks are effective and will get results was extremely insensitive. It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened, or the 2015 Paris attacks.
I mean I get that it is a pretty touchy subject, but honestly at the end of the day the 9/11 attacks were stunningly effective at doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do, get involved in a long drawn out war that undermined the stability of the US and accelerated its collapse.
The asshole literally wrote this all out in a letter and I am glad it made the rounds recently because we took the bait hook line and sinker. If as a society stories had trained us to think of terrorism not as some existential evil that comes from satan but rather a brutal political/military strategy enacted to accomplish certain logical political aims we might have been more equipped to deal with a 9/11 response more rationally. Specifically maybe we wouldn’t have just signed off on US warhawks throwing Iraq into the mix for absolutely no good reason than imperialism (Bin Laden must have been whooping and hollering happy when he heard the US decided to get itself stuck in TWO endless wars because of his actions).
Add comment