this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
173 points (97.8% liked)

TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name

6832 readers
1034 users here now

/c/TenForward: Your home-away-from-home for all things Star Trek!

Re-route power to the shields, emit a tachyon pulse through the deflector, and post all the nonsense you want. Within reason of course.

~ 1. No bigotry. This is a Star Trek community. Remember that diversity and coexistence are Star Trek values. Any post/comments that are racist, anti-LGBT, or generally "othering" of a group will result in removal/ban.

~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen both on lore and preferences. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.

~ 3. Use spoiler tags. Use spoiler tags in comments, and NSFW checkbox for posts.
This applies to any episodes that have dropped within 3 months prior of your posting. After that it's free game.

~ 4. Keep it Trek related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.

~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love Star Trek stuff but 3-4 posts in an hour is plenty enough.

~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.

~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon'

~ 8. No Political Upheaval. Political commentary is allowed, but please keep discussions civil. Read here for our community's expectations.

Fun will now commence.


Sister Communities:

!startrek@lemmy.world

!theorville@lemmy.world

!memes@lemmy.world

!tumblr@lemmy.world

!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world

Want your community to be added to the sidebar? Just ask one of our mods!


Creator Resources:

Looking for a Star Trek screencap? (TrekCore)

Looking for the right Star Trek typeface/font for your meme? (Thank you @kellyaster for putting this together!)


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm done engaging with your stupid bullshit. If you want to keep talking nonsense, tell it to someone else. I find it hard to believe how anyone else on the planet would agree with you.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because you know you have no leg to stand on. You post the definition of terrorism, I show that what happens doesn't meet your own definition, and now you give up trying to defend your point of view.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not "giving up trying to defend my point of view." I've already demonstrated that you're full of shit on multiple levels and you just keep throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks and I'm tired of proving you wrong over and over again.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You haven't demonstrated anything, other than your inability to read a definition and understand it.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I already refuted like three of your positions. Every time you shift the goalposts and call it a "strawman" and if I refute your new position you'll do the same, because you're a clown.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You didn't refute anything, you simply expanded your definition of terrorism until it fit anything you wanted. When you came up with an actual definition of terrorism, it was clear it didn't support a false flag assassination of a government official.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Literally every single component of the definition I cited fits Garak's actions to a T. You kept insisting that I'm "expanding" the definition to include anything, yet completely ignored the question I asked you on every single example you brought up.

It doesn't matter. One comment you say it's not terrorism because people "didn't seem terrified." Another comment you claim it doesn't count as terrorism because of the location where it happened! I cut your arguments down again and again and you don't care. You will just shift your position over and over again, denying that you ever held the previous one even though the comments are right there. You're a completely shameless troll. You have to know how full of shit you are, I don't know who you think you're fooling.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Literally every single component of the definition I cited fits Garak's actions to a T.

Only if you don't know what a "T" is.

It doesn't matter. One comment you say it's not terrorism because people "didn't seem terrified."

Which you then claimed was my entire definition, in one of your famous strawman attacks. People being terrified is only part of what makes something terrorism.

because of the location where it happened!

Yes. You see, an explosion on a private "yacht" somewhere in the middle of nowhere is very different from an explosion in a public market. The location matters, because in terrorism, you need to terrify. If you're not potentially in danger, it's not terrifying.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I love how you simultaneously claim I'm strawmanning you and defend the positions I'm criticizing.

No, people don't have to be afraid for it to be terrorism, no, the location isn't relevant to whether it's terrorism (we've been over this, a bomb that goes off on a plane over international waters is still terrorism), no, the perpetrator doesn't have to take credit for it. None of those criteria are included anywhere in either your made up definition or the actual definition.

But again, it doesn't matter because you're a fundamentally unreasonable person. You don't care about logic or evidence or consistency. You'll just respond to this with another meaningless snipe like "oNlY iF yOu DoN't KnOw WhAt A t Is," because that's the highest capacity for thought that you possess.

You said "Terrorism is the use of violence against the general public to change behaviours or policies." Location is not in that definition. Whether people are terrified (which the Romulans were) is not included in that definition. Whether the perpetrator takes credit is not included in that definition. How on earth can you not see how completely full of shit you are when you keep adding new, arbitrary stipulations to exclude this one instance of terrorism??

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I love how you simultaneously claim I'm strawmanning you and defend the positions I'm criticizing.

Are you unable to read, as well as unable to think? I said your strawmanning was when you claimed it was my entire argument:

You:

Your whole argument was "it's not terrorism because they weren't terrified." Now you're admitting that it did, in fact, cause them to be afraid.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

It was the only objection you raised at that point, so yes, it was your entire argument. Whether you had some super-secret argument in your head that you weren't saying isn't relevant to the argument you actually made.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

You have trouble reading huh?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

God, you're so smarmy when you can't think of an actual point. Do you not realize how transparent it is?

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yes. It's obvious that you're acting smarmy to cover the gaps whenever you have nothing, to cover all the holes in your argument. It's like you think if you just act smug, people won't notice when you're cornered and have no actual response.

It doesn't work. It's transparent. You're not actually covering up the holes in your reasoning, you're just demonstrating that you don't care about how many holes there are in your reasoning, because you're intellectually dishonest.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I have nothing? I've shown that it wasn't terrorism, including by your definition.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

No, you haven't. I have shown that it was terrorism, even by your definition though. You don't care and just keep adding on extra stipulations that aren't in your definition.

He never took credit for that violence, in fact, he tried to pretend it wasn’t him

Nowhere in either definition, at all. Complete non sequitor.

He never made any demands

Nowhere in either definition, at all. Complete non sequitor.

Just like the location is irrelevant. Just like every extra stipulation you pull out of your ass is irrelevant.