General idiocy concerning SW vs. ST

[Dark Hellion]

Since the former thread has been locked, I thought I would recreate it, as well as adding a small anecdotal account of why the stereotypical "trektard" can think like he/she does.

In my experiences dealing with trektards, fundamentalists, and idiot conservatives I have noticed a similar set of axiomatic assumptions that color their debate scheme and thinking. The first and foremost axiomatic thought is a deep equation of factual correctness to moral good, factual incorrectness with moral wrong/bad, and commutatively the equation of the moral good with factual correctness. Secondly, they primarily assume that they are morally good. When combined with the first they are required to rationally assume that they are factually correct, because to say that they are factual incorrect is to say they are morally bad. This is why continuous disagreement that they have no canned rebuttal for makes them extremely angry, and they view it as combat. To them, being proven incorrect is a personal attack. You are saying they are bad. Why such belief sets seem to go with the three groups above I haven't really devoted much thought to yet, but I have little experience dealing with all three, and perhaps others with better experience could help color this theory a little.

[Darth Wong]

There's definitely some truth to that: many Trekkies seem to feel that there is some moral issue involved in upholding the supremacy of Star Trek, presumably because Star Trek supposedly promotes enlightened morality (and we know it's enlightened because Picard says so).

Personally however, I still think that simple tribalism plays a larger role in their thinking. They think there are teams, and they're at war. For them, it's all about loyalty to their group, everything else be damned. That's why the worst Trekkies seem to have a permanent love-in, and you don't see much in-fighting among them.

[Peptuck]

Personally however, I still think that simple tribalism plays a larger role in their thinking. They think there are teams, and they're at war.

This is not war. This is pest control.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

[BountyHunterSAx]

I recently had a chance to watch Star Wars Vi in full HD (a treat that I would highly recommend to anyone able to indulge..though III is better for the purposes) and it left me with a new appreciation for the power of the TL.

I will freely admit that when I'd first seen the Star Wars series as a kid blasters and TL shots seemed like little more than pretty 'laser-guns' - the equivalent of a phaser. But upon-re-watching the Battle of Endor I just gained a new appreciation of the effectiveness of TL shots. We literally see trees blowing apart and left charred and flaming. Small wonder the whole "hiding behind packing-crates" argument is such a sticky-wicket for those who seek to wank ST weaponry.

-AHMAD

[skies]

Since the former thread has been locked, I thought I would recreate it, as well as adding a small anecdotal account of why the stereotypical "trektard" can think like he/she does.

In my experiences dealing with trektards, fundamentalists, and idiot conservatives I have noticed a similar set of axiomatic assumptions that color their debate scheme and thinking. The first and foremost axiomatic thought is a deep equation of factual correctness to moral good, factual incorrectness with moral wrong/bad, and commutatively the equation of the moral good with factual correctness. Secondly, they primarily assume that they are morally good. When combined with the first they are required to rationally assume that they are factually correct, because to say that they are factual incorrect is to say they are morally bad. This is why continuous disagreement that they have no canned rebuttal for makes them extremely angry, and they view it as combat. To them, being proven incorrect is a personal attack. You are saying they are bad. Why such belief sets seem to go with the three groups above I haven't really devoted much thought to yet, but I have little experience dealing with all three, and perhaps others with better experience could help color this theory a little.

Too true. I've noticed that denial of reality is a new wrinkle in this sort of behavior. Just think of Bush Co's 'we define reality' attitude which is basically the belief that reality HAS to conform to their world view, and any facts that don't fit are to be ignored. It's an intellectually lazy mind set that is all too apparent in your average Trektard. I.e. It doesn't matter how powerful Turbo-lasers are, their still just lasers so they can't penetrate our navigational deflectors!

[Darth Ruinus]

The space portion of the Battle of Endor is really great, I noticed a TL hit an ISD (in the background, when Ackbar says something about protecting the starfighters) and it goes up in flames.

That, and I just love Star Wars all around. Except the crap idiocy in the EU.

[Ritterin Sophia]

What's really wierd is the projectionism, I was on ST.com talking about China becoming a Superpower and Dr. Gojira (The dumbass troll from those ST.com Debates that refused to actually make or rebut any points and would refuse to shut the fuck up) comes in attempting to rebut me but goes on to start talking about Star Wars, then later he says I'm the one who brought it up.

[Peptuck]

Why such belief sets seem to go with the three groups above I haven't really devoted much thought to yet, but I have little experience dealing with all three, and perhaps others with better experience could help color this theory a little.

Its not limited to those three groups in particular; it happens to anyone who is a sufficient believer of a particular dogma or doctrine, or to anyone who combines both idiocy and fannish tendencies. Its this sort of mentality that results in pretty much any kind of fandom flamewar and why some vs. arguments get very, very bitter.

[Darth Nostril]

I cannot for the life of me remember where I read this to, maybe buried deep in one of Tom Clancy's novels, but it struck a chord and defined all forum interactions from there-on

Paraphrased from memory

"you can destroy all his beliefs and arguments, but you have not destroyed the person, and so they will continue to believe"

At first I thought that was total wank ... but over the next few years of interaction on several Poser sites I came to realise it was very true ... people draw battle lines that they will not cross, regardless of the facts .. they hold to their beliefs

[Straha]

Why such belief sets seem to go with the three groups above I haven't really devoted much thought to yet, but I have little experience dealing with all three, and perhaps others with better experience could help color this theory a little.

Its not limited to those three groups in particular; it happens to anyone who is a sufficient believer of a particular dogma or doctrine, or to anyone who combines both idiocy and fannish tendencies. Its this sort of mentality that results in pretty much any kind of fandom flamewar and why some vs. arguments get very, very bitter.

Just look at politics in any country. If you're part of the "other side" you're evil and you've planned everything to go wrong from day 1 for your own personal pleasure. Whereas if you're part of the good team you can do no wrong, and everything bad that happens is other people's fault.

[Zablorg]

This mentality is the same for any fanaticals. That "Evil Obama" thing that Poe linked us to? I signed up for it, and all these emails are acting like it's some sort of cult instead of a political preference.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

And there are morons like Jay who lurk for several days then spout random crap that has little to do with the topic at hand and expect to debate it. He takes shifting goalposts to a whole new level. And he also engages in Kosh-like tactics by accusing opposing members of being duals when he has no answer to their arguments

[EnterpriseSovereign]

It was only a matter of time, latest claim from the Trektards:

Maybe the phasers have a HUD that is advanced enough that the phasers no longer need sights.

Stupid

[Finagle]

It was only a matter of time, latest claim from the Trektards:

Maybe the phasers have a HUD that is advanced enough that the phasers no longer need sights.

Wow. Stormtroopers have a HUD in their helmets (well, they call it MFTAS which, IIRC, stands for Multi-Frequency Target Aquisition System, but it's essentially a sensor/HUD combo), and they still have physical sights on their weapons. I wonder why? Oh gee, maybe it's because they want to still be able to fire with some degree of accuracy in case there's any problem with their HUD (battle damage or anything else).

Aside from that, I haven't noticed Federation redshirts using any sort of visor or anything else that a HUD could be displayed upon. Unless they're projecting it directly into the eye, but even then they'd need some sort of equipment set up at an angle that would allow it to project into the eye. Or perhaps all Starfleet personnel are required to have cybernetic eyes implanted in order to sync them up with phasers for a HUD

[Aratech]

It was only a matter of time, latest claim from the Trektards:

Maybe the phasers have a HUD that is advanced enough that the phasers no longer need sights.

Wow. Stormtroopers have a HUD in their helmets (well, they call it MFTAS which, IIRC, stands for Multi-Frequency Target Aquisition System, but it's essentially a sensor/HUD combo), and they still have physical sights on their weapons. I wonder why? Oh gee, maybe it's because they want to still be able to fire with some degree of accuracy in case there's any problem with their HUD (battle damage or anything else).

Aside from that, I haven't noticed Federation redshirts using any sort of visor or anything else that a HUD could be displayed upon. Unless they're projecting it directly into the eye, but even then they'd need some sort of equipment set up at an angle that would allow it to project into the eye. Or perhaps all Starfleet personnel are required to have cybernetic eyes implanted in order to sync them up with phasers for a HUD

The targeting system must have also been designed by moles, given how often they're observed to miss, even at spitting distance.

[Darth Servo]

It was only a matter of time, latest claim from the Trektards:

Maybe the phasers have a HUD that is advanced enough that the phasers no longer need sights.

Wow. Stormtroopers have a HUD in their helmets (well, they call it MFTAS which, IIRC, stands for Multi-Frequency Target Aquisition System, but it's essentially a sensor/HUD combo), and they still have physical sights on their weapons. I wonder why? Oh gee, maybe it's because they want to still be able to fire with some degree of accuracy in case there's any problem with their HUD (battle damage or anything else).

Aside from that, I haven't noticed Federation redshirts using any sort of visor or anything else that a HUD could be displayed upon. Unless they're projecting it directly into the eye, but even then they'd need some sort of equipment set up at an angle that would allow it to project into the eye. Or perhaps all Starfleet personnel are required to have cybernetic eyes implanted in order to sync them up with phasers for a HUD

Nothing new. Trektards were claiming the yellow flip-up pannel on the type 3 phaser rifle was a sophisticated sensor system years ago.

[Aratech]

In spite of the fact that they're only observed to use it half the time, and I don't think we ever see such a readout when seeing it from the POV of the redshirt in question?

[Finagle]

[quote="Aratech]The targeting system must have also been designed by moles, given how often they're observed to miss, even at spitting distance. [/quote]
Nah, just a faulty batch or two of clones... Same problem that afflicted the Asshole family in Space Balls I presume

[Aratech]

The targeting system must have also been designed by moles, given how often they're observed to miss, even at spitting distance.

Nah, just a faulty batch or two of clones... Same problem that afflicted the Asshole family in Space Balls I presume

Dude, the Spaceballs were more competent than the feddies, if only because they had seat belts, redundant safety protocols, and intelligently designed weaponry.

Which is really, really sad when you think about the fact that the Space Ball race was pretty much engineered to be the most incompetent goons around

[Darth Wong]

I love the way Trektards claim that phasers have the most fantastic imaginable technology for helping them hit targets ... and then shrug when you point out how often the Feddies miss targets. What the fuck is all of this imaginary technology good for, then?

It's amazing what a complex set of assumptions one can construct from the simple fact that the visual beam doesn't always line up with the axis of the weapon.

[Peptuck]

The targeting system must have also been designed by moles, given how often they're observed to miss, even at spitting distance.

Nah, just a faulty batch or two of clones... Same problem that afflicted the Asshole family in Space Balls I presume

Dude, the Spaceballs were more competent than the feddies, if only because they had seat belts, redundant safety protocols, and intelligently designed weaponry.

Which is really, really sad when you think about the fact that the Space Ball race was pretty much engineered to be the most incompetent goons around

Should probably start a thread on Spacebattles to see who would win in a hypothetical battle between Redshirts and Spaceballs.

Its rather striking when you consider that the badguys who are supposed to be a parody of Star Wars' mooks are apparently smarter and better armed than Federation regulars. I mean, they actually bother locking doors and require biometric scanners to bypass the locks, which is waaaaaaaaaaay more than one can say for Starfleet.

[Swindle1984]

The only in-universe explanation I can think of for why phasers sometimes shoot off-axis (or even change where the beam is hitting without the user moving the weapon itself) is that the firing stud has some directional thing built in, like the volume/scroll control on an iPod. Besides the horrible ergonomics and lack of any sort of sighting mechanism, this might explain why feddies miss so often; their thumb slips on the firing button and the beam moves off axis as it fires.

It's a reasonable theory, though obviously there's no statements regarding the existence of such a thing in the canon. Better still, it's far less nonsensical than any of the retarded uber-targeting computer/HUD/tricorder trektards wank about.

[Crayz9000]

I still prefer the shorter explanation of "without sights, a weapon is pretty close to impossible to aim."

[Batman]

I still prefer the shorter explanation of "without sights, a weapon is pretty close to impossible to aim."

Which, alas, doesn't do zilch to explain how phasers manage to fire off-axis as opposed to the user pointing it the wrong way thanks to the thing being unergonomic like nobody's business. The problem isn't the beam not hitting the presumably intended target. The problem is the beam not going in the direction the phaser happens to be pointed.
Oh, and Swindle, there's a goodly number of explanations for phasers firing off axis in universe.Chances are most of them have been gone over here before. One is simply shoddy manufacturing.

[NomAnor15]

I still prefer the shorter explanation of "without sights, a weapon is pretty close to impossible to aim."

Ok, this brings up a question which has been bugging me for a long time. Phasers look (at least to me) pretty similar to those little laser pointers that you can buy for about 10 bucks. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that it's pretty easy to highlight whatever you're pointing at with a laser pointer (which clearly doesn't have sights). So what makes phasers so different?