(He/him) I’m a Marxist-Leninist amateur writer. I like cats, foxes, science fiction, science fantasy, and Pokemon Mystery Dungeon. Message me for my roleplay ideas!

  • 413 Posts
  • 404 Comments
Joined 2Y ago
cake
Cake day: Aug 14, 2020

help-circle
rss





TNG, "The Measure of a Man": Riker should not have been forced to argue against Data.
In the TNG episode "The Measure of a Man", Data's right to autonomy and status as a sentient (technically, sapient) being is called into question. A starfleet admiral holds a trial requiring the first and second officers of the Enterprise to act as counsel. Picard is assigned to defend Data which he gladly accepts. Riker is assigned to argue against Data's personhood, and he initially refuses, stating that he would never argue against Data's personhood, because he would not believe in what he's arguing, and that Data is his friend. The admiral pontificates that sometimes people will be in situations where they "need" to argue for a position they don't personally hold, and that if he refuses, she will summarily rule against Data. This always bothered me but I couldn't put my finger on it the first time I watched the episode. Now, I realize that the issue lies in the concept of a conflict of interest. In real legal systems, a lawyer generally cannot have conflict of interest in the case they're arguing. If they truly don't believe in what they're arguing, or if they have a personal relationship with the person they're arguing against, those absolute would count as conflicts of interest. It wouldn't be fair to the person they're representing, and wouldn't result in a completely fair trial, which people should have the right to. Even if they genuinely make every effort to block out their personal thoughts on this case, it will still subconsciously affect their performance. In this case, yes, as Riker says in the episode, they'll have to find someone else do fill the position. And what's with ruling summarily if Riker refuses? Imagine if that happened at a real life trial: "Oh, your opponenr can't find a lawyer that will represent them? Guess they win!" That shouldn't happen. What's stopping them from deferring the trial until they can find proper counsel? Why the rush? Actually, that was the excuse they used for forcing Picard and Riker, who aren't trained lawyers, to represent this trial in this first place, that the starbase they're at is brand new, and there isn't enough staff for a proper hearing. Then wait for more staff? If you want a fair trail, you can't rush through it? You need to wait until you're capable of holding a fair trial! And even if you say "oh Starfleet is a military organization, and military trials are different from civilian trials". Except they're not currently at war, so they have no logistical reason to hold any sort of emergency tribunals, and also, rulings relating to human rights (or android rights) should absolutely not be made in a military court. It probably shouldn't even be made in a regular trial court, but by the supreme court. All in all, even though this was still a very powerful episode due to what actually happened in the trial, the opening and premise didn't make much sense. A proper legal system shouldn't have operated like that, let alone a Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communist society. The trial should have waited until the proper staff can be acquired. What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Why or why not? Other thoughts? Here's a video a real lawyer made on this episode, which also addressed this issue: https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=XVjeYW6S8Mo
fedilink


That might not be half bad. International conflicts would be solved by the respective leaders wrestling instead of, ya know, war.


They’ll probably screech something about “Russian bots” and go back to distilling foreigners to stereotypes or cheering on Nazis.


Because the other ones are doing the scruteny so they obviously exempt themselves from it.



that SCP stuff is licensed under creative commons, so maybe it could be called the SCP Foundation still.

I’m more worried about tratrademark litigation than copyright litigation. Even if SCP is creative commons, they most likely still have a trademark on the name.


The hour hand fell off and landed on the page number of the book below.


That time of day for a broken clock it seems.


usually a white saviour complex embedded in the Foundation or GOC

One of my biggest in-universe issues with the SCP Foundation is that they contain literally everything that’s vaguely “supernatural”. If an entity doesn’t pose a danger to humans, no matter how supernatural it is, who exactly are you protecting by containing it? This wouldn’t necessarily be problematic on its own, but is when you consider that most of their objects seem to possess some degree of intelligence. In that case, don’t they deserve rights? IMO, this is “human supremicist”.


Chemical and Biological weapons are illegal, but I also don’t see the moral use case of them from people who are supposedly liberating their fellow worker, so imo that one would contradict them.

I’m curious if you think there’s a difference between, say, poisoning an entire building or city’s water supply, versus targeted person-specific poisoning of key ruling figures to quietly assassinate them and eliminate them from being able to aid the reactionary State (which is the kind I was getting at). Would both be contradictions? What would set the former apart from assassination with a gun for example? (BTW I don’t claim to support either IRL, obviously that would be different from fiction.)


I’m thinking of something like /c/left_scp or /c/socialistcontainprotect (not sure if the last one exceeds character limit tho).

Or maybe we should ditch the “SCP” name and come up with our very own org name? Especially since then they can’t sue us if this ever gets big. To that end, I’m thinking of something like the “Ministry of the Supernatural”, the “Yāoguài Institute” (Pinyin of 妖怪, Mandarin Chinese for “monster”, “goul”, “demon”, or supernatural entities in general), or the “Bytiye Institute” (Romanisation of бытие, Russian for “being”, “entity”, or “existence”). Thoughts?

@PropagandaBot@lemmygrad.ml, do you have any thoughts? I definitely want you on board if a community gets created!


Question about the ethics of war and war crimes during a socialist revolution
I'm worldbuilding a fictional universe centred on communist societies, and I want to write the socialism/communism aspects as accurately as possible. So if a country is currently monarchist, fascist, imperialist, etc but with a socialist revolution is underway, there is certainly going to be extreme resistance from the existing State. In a situation like this, do you think the socialist revolution should do things that help them, but would be considered unethical in war, aka "war crimes"? For example, things like poisoning key figures of the existing State, using "cruel weapons", torture, etc. Especially if the existing State is already acting in that way? Would this contradict socialist philosophy or morality? What if the revolution is in danger of being extinguished by the State?
fedilink

Question about the ethics of war and war crimes during a socialist revolution
I'm worldbuilding a fictional universe centred on communist societies, and I want to write the socialism/communism aspects as accurately as possible. So if a country is currently monarchist, fascist, imperialist, etc but with a socialist revolution is underway, there is certainly going to be extreme resistance from the existing State. In a situation like this, do you think the socialist revolution should do things that help them, but would be considered unethical in war, aka "war crimes"? For example, things like poisoning key figures of the existing State, using "cruel weapons", torture, etc. Especially if the existing State is already acting in that way? Would this contradict socialist philosophy or morality? What if the revolution is in danger of being extinguished by the State?
fedilink

I don’t live there and this isn’t my picture, sorry.



Also, anyone here know about Mother Horse Eyes? If we were to do a Leftist SCP, I propose we also incorporate some aspects of that series, it sure sent a chill down my spine first time I read it.


Yes! Hell yeah! I love worldbuilding and fictional “scientific” writings, and I’ve been itching to write or roleplay with leftists!

I have a number of writings similar to SCP format already if you want writing samples for onboarding! You can see my favourite works here! and here!

Is there a Lemmy community for this?






It’s nothing like 1984 or Animal Farm! Those are the two canonical communisms!


He can’t feel discomfort he IS discomfort.


I bet, I JUST BET that she would defend to the death the US’s war crimes in Vietnam and Korea because “HURR DURR THE COMMIES WERE ATTACKING OUR FRIENDS!”


The elephant in the room: “Northern” Ireland.








Meanwhile, [the US gets away with merely "insufficient"](https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/), and [the UK is apparently "almost sufficient"](https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/uk/)? [At least Canada is also "highly insufficient", which yeah, as a Canadian, I couldn't agree more.](https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/canada/) Also, without delving into their methodology, something tells me that the biggest reason for these results is that they're not considering or not sufficiently weighing population size/density *or* the fact that countries trade goods and services with each other (for example, the majority of China's manufacturing is done exclusively for the West, so shouldn't the carbon footprint of those be apart of the West and not China?) Just a hunch, but if true, it essentially invalidates their entire dataset because, get this, the world is not magically divided into discrete countries as far as the climate/environment is concerned!
fedilink

Meanwhile, [the US gets away with merely "insufficient"](https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/), and [the UK is apparently "almost sufficient"](https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/uk/)? [At least Canada is also "highly insufficient", which yeah, as a Canadian, I couldn't agree more.](https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/canada/) Also, without delving into their methodology, something tells me that the biggest reason for these results is that they're not considering or not sufficiently weighing population size/density *or* the fact that countries trade goods and services with each other (for example, the majority of China's manufacturing is done exclusively for the West, so shouldn't the carbon footprint of those be apart of the West and not China?) Just a hunch, but if true, it essentially invalidates their entire dataset because, get this, the world is not magically divided into discrete countries as far as the climate/environment is concerned!
fedilink