Looks more like Russian propaganda for gullible idiots to me.

Good gosh, you’ve understood nothing in the slightest, if that’s all your takeaway.

Thanks for commenting, and I was hoping it might lead to some interesting discussion.

If I may ask-- did you feel like Gerrold was too harsh in particular towards Roddenberry?

Ohh, you’re so clever…
You got me, pard!

OH!
My poor little one… :-(

Evolution doesn’t care about ideal mechanics- only good enough. Rape was common in the ancient world. Rape happens today despite the long term survival favoring long term pairs.

There’s certainly some facts & reality there, professor, but that still doesn’t change the fundamental point which Adams’ made, and I defended. It’s like you’re freely swinging from ‘matters of proportion’ to binary values in order to fit your argument.

So attributing nobility to what is really a lack of ability is like attributing nobility to a rock.

Which was a poor analogy from day one, considering the many permutations.
Also-- that’s a pretty weird, tight-ass understanding of what Adams meant by “nobility.”
Like, seriously…?

A rooster would plot and murder its neighbors if it had the intelligence and opposable thumbs to make weapons.

Okay, you win on that one-- I fear you’re exactly right there; ala chickens being such unnecessary assholes towards each other and other creatures.

Tell you what, though-- feel free to have the last reply.
It’s like you dance around a smidgen of a circuitous argument, but can never actually figure out what you’re actually trying to say. (or think) Good luck, you.

That doesn’t refute the poster above. Humans have evolutionary imperatives too.

It does when you put it in context, tho, that being that the poster above did not refute Adams’ point in any meaningful way. Specifically-- rape isn’t ordinary in terms of two-sex species, and is likely a poorer long-term survival mechanism compared to courtship species.

That’s not nobility as the original Watership quote implies but a simple lack of capacity to conceive and implement evil. The original quote could equally wax poetic about how rocks don’t try to spoil other creatures lives.

That’s not correct. Higher animals certainly possess more self-awareness than rocks, and have (as you say) a spectrum of capacity for self-awareness, for reflection, and for modifying one’s behavior.

The real point is this-- unlike all known animals, we collectively have the information available to us of how terribly our existence and practices are fueling one of the greatest extinction events in Earth history… on track with causing civilisation to collapse, likely causing most of humanity to soon die out, if not go entirely extinct. We have not just that info based on the science, facts & reality, but the average mental capacity to understood and take necessary action to prevent all this. Or at least, we “had.” Instead we’ve collectively chosen to pursue our individual lives and let things sort themselves out. Well, good luck with that.

Adams’ quote was perfectly fair IMO.

People are not automatons that are obligated to no longer think a behavior is fucked up just because that behavior benefited these animals in terms of increasing the liklihood of them passing down their genes.

Sure, that’s fine. Label and condemn as you like.
My point is, that’s not a relevant rebuttal to Adams’ quote, as most sexually dimorphic animals do not behave that way. I.e., females generally select their partners, and are not commonly raped. Indeed, that’s part of the whole long-term survival point-- that ‘courtship’ species have better chances for genetic diversity & fitness for their environs.

As for one species empathising with another, that is a far cry from empathising more with another species than your own or being willing to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of another species. I WAS NOT saying that no species empathises with another.

*shrug*
Okay, if you say so. It sure sounded like it, but maybe I misread.

So much of that is dead wrong:

Cats: torture their prey to death as a form of play.

“Play” isn’t just an idle pursuit. It’s also a form of safe practice of one’s life pursuit. In the case of cats, they evolved to be almost 100% carnivores, so it’s natural for them to live, breath, and yes practice / play at honing their pursuit and kill skills. It is literally their fundamental job that separates them from dying off.

Dolphins: you dont want to know.

Let’s not forget two things here: 1) much of the rapey stuff (as with ducks) also serves the fundamental life model of reproduction being one of the highest natural priorities, however its accomplished; 2) dolphins are hella smart, just like us, and if anything, it goes to show that smart species with idle time can devise some pretty wild pastimes.

If a person did half the stuff animals do, no one could look at them the same again.

To compare the lifestyles of a single animal species (humans) with all the others is a fool’s mission. In fact, most animals live fairly predictable, innocuous lives. They have their classic interactions with the world and don’t tend to bother other species-- mainly because it’s not worth their time.

People do some awful things but we are also probably the only species that has members that sympathise with other species above ourselves.

Nonsense. Pretty much all higher social / tribal animals can pretty easily sympathise / empathise with other species, such as our fellow apes, dogs, cetaceans, corvids, elephants, parrots, and even domestic cats.

@fsxylo@sh.itjust.works

I don’t know when the shift happened exactly, but I don’t believe Gallagher draws Heathcliff the same way he did earlier in his run.

To me, the cat’s more like a generic character now, and doesn’t have some of the more distinctive physical style he used to.

Also maybe do something with some teeth, not just empty words.

What about creating some kind of govt program designed to help shoppers out?

For examples-- help with coupons, help with identifying best stores to shop at, help with delivery perhaps, help give incentives to customer-friendly stores, help shoppers best plan for cost & nutrition, etc etc?

Lol… in his own mind, perhaps.

Whoa… matttt’s great; haven’t seen one of his videos in ages.

But what is this… YewTube thing?
A frontend for YT I guess?

OMG, I haven’t seen that song/dance since the 80’s!

I love how you slipped it right in where I clicked.
HAHAHA… cleverest shizzle I’ve seen in ages!

Alright, what’s our plan!?
(let’s huddle together & plan)

Yeah the code you’ve mentioned is the standard for posting images within a comment.

Actually it’s a little more than just that. It’s a way not just to show the image auto-scaled down to the comment, but to create a popup option that can display a full-size version of that same image when clicked. Notice the hotlink option as you hover over the image, due to the image URL being listed twice, not once. I’ve rarely seen that method used on Lemmy, hence the share in case it was useful to anyone reading.

Anyway, I’m very interested in what you’re saying, so this will just be a drive-by comment for now.

If possible, maybe I can help you test and ponder this stuff so that at the very least, we can better-shape an efficient suggestion to add to the GitHub for a future Lemmy. Cheers for now.

Thanks, got it!
I personally hate it, but it’s always great to have options.

Btw, I was initially confused, and the code I mentioned above works inside posts, not from the list view.

This is how I’ve been doing it all along:

[![](https://i.imgur.com/tF1IMJV.jpeg)](https://i.imgur.com/tF1IMJV.jpeg) *Nightlife in Prague*

Nightlife in Prague

Could you tell me what the new method is?
@axus@lemm.ee

Haha, I think maybe I feel you on that.
Filmation worked so much better when it came to shades of comedy & farce, and for me, there was a tonne of understated comedy & farce in He-Man, hearkining back to lots of H-B farce. (never watched Godzilla personally, have no interest at all, sadly or unsadly)

So Filmation to me were mostly disappointing (and again, the damn limited budget) when it came to TAS, but they also had to walk a sort of line, just like Rankin-Bass with The Hobbit, and then the “Return of the King.”

The first one was fairly charming (and the songs were absolutely awesome), based on a children’s book, but the latter?

Yeah, that shizzle just didn’t work for a serious fantasy epic. Okay, I’ll admit it had its points, but Rankin-Bass was so *not* the animation studio to do RotK, other than bringing back the super-charming… Glenn Yarbrough (sp?) as the narrator-singer.

I both liked and disliked this series. I thought it so impressive that they got most of the original cast back together, had DC Fontana running it, and had some really top-notch writing talent. Also, with animation, there was the promise of doing all kinds of interesting special effects that weren’t possible with TOS.

The problem is that the animation budget was so limited! I didn’t mind that sections of scenes were recycled, something which also happened here and there in the original series, but that the Filmation art & technique was just so mediocre. As in, not nearly as interesting as some other studios were putting out, such as Depatie-Freling. Even some H-B series had far more interesting art & backgrounds, like Scooby Doo.

Another problem is that the weak budget meant that poor Jimmy Doohan had to voice virtually every male character outside of the core cast. Similar with Nichols & Barrett having to do all the extra female characters. It got pretty identifiably ridiculous even just a few episodes in, and was a shame, because Hollywood’s always had an amazing stock of versatile voice actors that worked surprisingly economically. (Mark Evanier’s blog is a good place to read about that sort of thing)

OTOH, I sort of enjoyed the animation bloopers, and there were many. One of my favorites was the way background characters would sometimes be larger than foreground characters. So, interesting to read that many of such ‘bloopers’ were in fact by design:

“There were also only so many layers you could use before the colors started changing. Sometimes, you’ll see a missing leg or something like that. It’s not always a blooper, it’s just that they only had so many cells that they could use.”

“If they wanted to have an animation on top of whatever was happening, sometimes they’d have to sacrifice something that maybe nobody will see this,” states Harvey. "At one point, Scotty’s doing something and he has no legs. He’s just a floating torso. For me, that’s part of the charm. It’s just the idea that this wasn’t just like, ‘Oh, we’re being caught careless.’ It was, ‘We have to make a decision on how we’re going to do this.’ That was the process. That’s a very abbreviated version of that process.

Fair, late-stage capitalism points. Of the two excellent channels I mentioned, I believe one monetizes by YT, and one by Patreon, but I think the latter method is indeed more popular now, perhaps for the reasons you mentioned.

Everyone should have left, yes, but considering how enormous YT’s storage and bandwidth is, I’m not sure how realistic that would have been in terms of single platform. Something like Daily Motion is a nice YT alt, but it probably would have been brought to its knees trying to serve all YT’s content. And/or simply bought out once again by Google or an even worse company, like Yahoo.