_NetNomad

for longer drives i queue up albums or an audio book, but for shorter drives i always use the radio. there’s something fun about “fishing” for a good song and those morning talk shows are stupid but endearingly so in small doses

when i lived in buffalo, we had this amazing station WECK FM that was what an oldies station was back when what an oldies station is now was modern, so like all 50s and 60s early rock and pop. five years living there and i was somehow still constantly hearing stuff i’d never heard before

the obvious, surface level answer is that you can’t seperate supporting the art from the harm that the artist does. if you’re either forking over cash or simply doing free advertising by talking about ir, you’re supporting the artist and their ability to do harm. the end consequence of that idea is that you can ethically enjoy a bad person’s art if and only if you can source it for free and keep it entirely to yourself

i think there’s a deeper level to it, though. there’s a quote saying that “art holds a mirror up to nature,” and I think that’s half true. art isn’t a mirror image so much as it is an image seen through a prism, which naturally colors and distorts the image. if i remember correctly, Harry Potter doesn’t deal with gender transition or gender non-comfority at all, but it is an image of the world reflected through the lens of a cruel and bigoted person, and that manifests itself in other ways in the story (two obvious ones off the top of my head being the goblin bankers and the house elves). you can’t seperate art from artist because the artist shapes the art. the shape imposed by the artist is what makes art art and not merely information or a representation. none of this is to say that the mere act of reading harry potter is immoral, but what it is is dangerous. there’s no avoiding doing dangerous things in life sometimes, but trying to look at art in a vacuum is like driving a car with a blindfold. driving with your eyes on the road is a managble danger, an acceptable risk- driving blindfolded much less so!

the one driving factor behind libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, or the NAP. the idea is that the only justified use of violence or force is to respond to someone else’s violence or force. in simpler terms, “do no harm, take no shit.” the problem is how you define “harm” and “shit” which is how you end up with right libertarians and left libertarians who each see the other’s “taking no shit” as the initial “doing harm”

if John Nestlé (name chosen for no particular reason) comes to town and takes all the water in the lake, bottles it up, and sells it, and then people start dying of thirst and fight to get their water back, who is doing harm and who is taking no shit? left libertarians say that the townsfolk are well within their rights to get their water back, but right libertarians would say John Nestlé’s business is well within it’s right to defend itself from them. both of those viewpoints come from the non-aggression principle, just going in with wildly different postulates. right now in america the capital-L Libertarian party is mostly right libertarians, so the term has come to be synonymous with them here

if you consider hierarchies to be a form of violence and believe that the only justifiable use of hierarchy is to destroy hierachy, then you are an anarchist and a libertarian. but with the conmotation the word has come to take on, they would certainly avoid calling themselves that

Part of it is that Voyager has the unenviable role of being one of TNG’s two successor shows. The other was DS9, and everything looks bad sitting next to DS9. Part of why DS9 was able to do the wild things that it did was because the writing team had minimal supervision and were allowed to go buckwild- paramount were keeping a closer eye on first TNG, and then Voyager. Because of that, Voyager plays it safe and worships the status quo even when the fiction is begging to go in another direction, and the whole series has this feeling of having been written by committee. This even frustrated the writers, one of whom left the show out of frustration to go write the Battlestar Galactica reboot, which is essentially gritty, serialized Voyager

that said, I watched the whole thing and largely enjoyed it. you kind of have to meet it where it is, and accept that major plot details get glossed over and everyone takes turns holding the idiot ball. for me, the characters are what salvages the underwhelming plot. being a smaller ship, younger characters like Kim and Paris are able to be movers and shakers, giving the show a coming-of-age quality not found again until LDS and Progidy. Janeway is great when she’s not holding the idiot ball, it was really awesome seeing a captain who came up through science instead of command. When the blue or gold shirts give most captains a solution to a problem, they’re glad the problem it solved, but Janeway would get excited about the solution itself, sometimes even finishing Belana’s sentences.

Neelix had never so much as heard of starfleet, and had none of the training or skills even a crewman would need, but his good nature and see-a-need, fill-a-need ethos arguably makes him the most starfleet person on the boat. Kes is similar, with the added twist of dedicating herself to a voyage she won’t live to see the end of.

the doctor is an interesting inversion of the good idea/meh execution pattern because his concept is unremarkable- essentially a rehash of Data learning to be human, just accidentally and with sarcasm- but the execution was incredible. later on when 7of9 joins the cast, she displaces him as The Data but he remains a main character and takes on a mentorship role which allows him to develop even further

all in all, it’s a show full of then-new and brilliant ideas that regularly fumbles the execution. and that isn’t for everyone, especially with the plethora of other great trek out there. but if you watch it and are able to forgive the not great scenario writing you might enjoy it nonetheless