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).
No, but Star Trek shows us we can change for the better. I’m not saying I have a solution to offer, but violence shouldn’t be encouraged or pushed higher up in the list of things to try…
Yes, and I also realize that there’s a message about being better, even if we’re going to have ups and downs. Past that, it’s an entertainment product: what tells you that hypothetical Bell Riots wouldn’t just lead to increased surveillance and armed law enforcement?
Whops I responded to a wrong comment before.
Anyway.
Data on political violence
Lt. Commander Data : But if that is so, Captain, why are their methods so often successful? I've been reviewing the history of armed rebellion, and it appears that terrorism is an effective way to promote political change.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard : Yes, it can be. But I have never subscribed to the theory that political power flows from the barrel of a gun.
Lt. Commander Data : Yet there are numerous examples when it was successful; the independence of the Mexican state from Spain, the Irish Unification of 2024, and the Kenzie Rebellion.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard : Yes, I am aware of them.
Lt. Commander Data : Then would it be accurate to say that terrorism is acceptable, when all options for peaceful settlement have been foreclosed?
Captain Jean-Luc Picard : Data, these are questions that mankind has been struggling with throughout history. Your confusion is... only Human.
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.
"Rise of"
You do recall that 50 years ago segregation had just been abolished in the US? So you want to go back to times in which black people weren't allowed to use the same schools, doors, fountains and pools, seats on buses? That's when you think the US and the world was "great"?
Not only are you mired in apathy, you're also fantasising about the past.
You didn't even know — despite being an American (although I do assume there) — that you don't have direct presidential elections?
No.. Ignorance isn't an excuse. If you use it as an excuse online where there's literally all of human information, you're not being just ignorant, you're being willfully ignorant.
I’m not fantasizing about the past, I’m seeing the same mistakes being made, and the only thing that seems to have been learned (maybe!) is that there is a belief of getting away with it without getting lynched at the end. So basically what I’m saying is that you see things improving here and there, I see a trend that will get rid of most of it by bringing back a century ago. But I see where the misunderstanding came from, I said “go back 100 years” meaning as look at that, not 50 years ago, as things were eerily similar as where we are heading. Again, that thing about not explaining myself clearly as being part of my initial idea of bowing out of this…
This is the one thing we’ll agree immediately, without need of argument: born in and never left Italy. And as ultra nationalism rises, I feel less and less happy about it.
"Things improving here and there"
Everything has improved in the large scale.
Things have gotten worse "here and there". Like my gen and buying houses. Not something that has improved in the past 20 years, but I would argue that the people are better informed of that specific problem than they were, so...
Things were not better 100 years ago.
And that’s why I’m saying it’s going all bad, because we’re headed back there.
"We're headed back there"
"I'm not an apathetic pessimist"
Pick one
You're taking the "history repeats itself" a tad too seriously.
Even if we looked at the US as the new Nazi Germany and Trump as the new Hitler, he hasn't even remotely got the health or intelligence for even half the shit Hitler pulled off, and Hitler was not a stable genius in any sense of the phrase. Not stable, nor a genius.
What's your evidence of "were heading back there" if you can't use a saying as proof?
Sure, easy. Italy’s current government is the most far right we’ve had since the end of WWII, the yearly celebration of the end of fascism is becoming controversial because “we’re the only ones that could celebrate defeat”. The xenophobic separatist party that has been (and still is!) the butt of the joke since the 90’s is basically what we’re getting, except it’s ultra nationalism instead of considering 2/3 of the country inferior. There’s a literal invasion going on at the doors of Europe, not everyone condemns it (globally, not specifically here). The EU council was to vote on a proposal to require… chat content moderation? I think that was the name, basically a “privacy conscious” on device automated check of at least media before it is uploaded. People cheered when they decided to not vote on it. I despair because of the reason: there was no clear majority. It’ll come back once they’re confident it will pass. Roe vs Wade overturned.
I thank you for the conversation, but as it’s been a day already, and it’s also close to an argument, I am going to bow out. It speaks volumes about the quality of Star Trek communities that I had no need to ignore ad hominems. You’re a good person.
Those are the worrying trends. We know to worry about the rise of the far right. Even globally. Global communication on this level was not a thing 100 years ago, and neither was fearing the far-right as much.
I could list hundreds of positive things which have happened in the world which definitely weren't a thing 100 years ago. Thousands even. But those aren't worrysome. Those don't make you nervous. So they're easy to ignore.
I'm not trying to say the far-right and their popularity isn't an issue, but it's an issue differently than it was 100 years ago.
It's easy to throw hands up in the air and say "I'm out."
I always preferred a challenge.
You couldn't possibly know that, but it feels good nonetheless, true or not. Thanks.