Amazing to have a second point that explains how you could have the guts to post the first point.

What a loser though.

I don’t go to your history, I just have tagged your account because many, many times when I see one of your posts or comment they have some form of creepiness to them. And so after seeing so many creepy posts with the same username, I started seeing the pattern.

And for example, this justification of “engagement” seems already pretty suspicious on its own.

If you are actually genuine, then you really, really need to work on the kind of things you’re posting and the way you present them, because they make your account look like a troll account of some sort. And you might need to search for interesting discussions, rather than engagement. Quality over quantity.

This account was always like that

This is how an update news should be done. Summarize the software, include the changelog.

You can spoof your mac address every 5 minutes if you want, what are they going to track?

Because who doesn’t want dead code in their apps huh?

So someone who was saying that violence, accidents, and rape are all in the same category, is now wanting to know how to hide a dead body? Yeah nothing suspicious here.

The opposite also works

There’s a lot of shit writing in all the star treks (less so in lower decks maybe) but discovery is consistently, deeply badly written, and in ways that often have a pretty bad underlying meaning.

And also, people complain on Discovery for different reasons. Nazis find it too woke because they don’t pretend that lgbt people don’t exist, I find it fakely woke but actually discriminating against minorities while pretending to defend them.

In a way, Discovery is a shittily written, enlightened-centrist version of star trek, so I think it’s good that people shit on it. Now people should obviously shit on a lot of other star treks like Enterprise and Picard, but I’m certainly not going to stop shitting on discovery in the meanwhile.

It feels a bit pulled out of nowhere though. If it was the plan from the start, it’s not very good writing.

The red angel, who is supposed to be either Burnham or her mother, and neither of them had a reason to go back in time to save a random church, and teleport it to a random planet. Also absolutely no mention of how they would achieve such a thing.

I mean, they were still trying to show it as James Bond-cool (which I mean, works if you see that James Bond is pretty problematic, but most people don’t)… They were shown as a bit evil, but also as the “cool, edgy dudes that do what needs to be done”, but other shows managed to do worse somehow.

Let’s not forget the part where they want to go in the future to stop control because they think they can’t destroy it, then control gets destroyed, then they go in the future anyway.

Also, I don’t think any star trek depicted section 31 in a way that didn’t make the show worse, but Discovery really went the extra mile

The church in Discovery.

I am convinced that they put it there without having an explanation yet, then forgot they did it when they made the explanation.

There’s been a bunch of accounts that all ask the same weird questions, that all seem blurrily related in a bad way. The names mentioned above are some of the ones that are quite definitely from the same person/bot.

They are also almost constantly not real questions, but statements said in a fake interrogative manner.

Removed by mod

So Reed is as creepy in real life or what?

So what account of yours got banned, that you had to make another one and say shit within less than a day of creating it?

Because people are brainwashed by capitalism, and so while they hate the rich (which is normal) they also admire them and feel like they got rich out of hard work. And then there’s the ones that are even more obviously not rich from any kind of work, and people see it as “unfair” and get even more involved.

In the end, it’s a toxic love-hate relationship that just shows how capitalism won by distracting and burying shit under more shit.

Like it or not, Windows is the dominant operating system. And it’s not even close. That means when we’re having a conversation about designing a User Experience on Linux-based operating systems, that conversation must be bookended by “how do Windows users expect this to work?” And we need to design for that or else everything falls apart.

Yeah the basis of the whole logic is bullshit.

This guy is doing the OS equivalent of the left parties trying to be less on the left, to appeal to the far right. It doesn’t work and just ends up with the shit propagating and everyone getting used to it and lowering their standards.