Thoughts on the Borg Secret (SPOILERS!)

[BillJ]

^If, if, if. The meaningful question is, is it likely? What are the odds that some charismatic megalomaniac looking to start trouble would pick that particular issue to stir people up over? I mean, charismatic tyrants rarely rely on anything so complicated to win over the masses.

"Humanity is our enemy because they created the Borg!"

"Uhh, excuse me? The Borg existed thousands of years before humans went into space."

"But the humans went back in time!"

"Why would they do that?"

"Look, it was an accident! There was a Caeliar time vortex that went wrong."

"Who are the Caeliar?"

"They were a superpowerful race that joined with the humans to become the Borg."

"So isn't it the Caeliar we should hate?"

"No, dude, the humans are totally to blame because they sabotaged a Caeliar city and triggered the time vortex."

"Why did they do that?"

"Because the Caeliar were holding them prisoner!"

"So... again, doesn't that make it the Caeliar's fault?"

"The Caeliar aren't here anymore!"

It's too feeble. Too complicated to rationalize. Charismatic warmongers rely on Big Lie propaganda, and the first principle of that is to keep your rhetoric simple, to appeal to the lowest common denominator. You don't want some complex chain of causality that you need to explain in order to justify the conclusion that humanity is the enemy -- you want something simple and obvious, something the listener can pick up on right away and relate to viscerally. If you want them to hate humanity, you need to give them a more immediate, less complicated reason. Say, they're trying to take over the galaxy, or they spread disease, or whatever. Blaming humans for the Borg just doesn't cut it as a propaganda tool, because it's not straightforward enough. It's also hard to justify when the immediately evident fact is that humans played a key role in eradicating the Borg once and for all. That's the big headline, the sound bite that the listener can easily grasp. And that's going to be more effective for propaganda purposes than some convoluted history lesson that can, at best, only feebly implicate humanity in the Borg's distant origins.

Obviously you don't pay attention to the nightly news, where a sound bite is all you get. You also conviently do not factor in op-ed pieces and spin doctors or the fact the the millions that are now disenfanchised may not have access to all the data.

Here's another soundbite that is easy to grasp, "Humanity creates Borg". Not necessarily true, not necessarily untrue. But it is something someone could run with. The hungry masses in Germany after World War I didn't seem to remember that they started it and bought into Hitler's propaganda pretty quickly that it was the Jews fault. All you need is that 'boogey-man' to get the ball rolling. No matter how illogical it may seem.

And how much information do you allow to get out there? The contact in 2063? The contact in 2154? The Hansens chasing the Borg 15 years before anyone else knew about it? The fact that a starship captain let two chances of possibly taking down the Borg go by. Plenty of juicy stuff to work off of.

 

[Sci]

Here's another soundbite that is easy to grasp, "Humanity creates Borg".

But that's bullshit. Humans were the Borg's first victims, not the Borg's creators.

You're presuming that the galaxy is just a large Weimar Republic waiting for a Hitler to come along and stir them up, but you're doing so on the basis of no particular reason other than Because You Say So.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Better hope the Typhon Pact doesn't find out about this.

 

[BillJ]

Here's another soundbite that is easy to grasp, "Humanity creates Borg".

But that's bullshit. Humans were the Borg's first victims, not the Borg's creators.

You're presuming that the galaxy is just a large Weimar Republic waiting for a Hitler to come along and stir them up, but you're doing so on the basis of no particular reason other than Because You Say So.

Bit of a over-reaction there...

Didn't say it would come to pass. I just said not to dismiss the possibilty so easily. Also noticed that you left a ton of my post out. Which only serves my point about people with agendas only using the information that supports their argument.

 

[BillJ]

Here's another soundbite that is easy to grasp, "Humanity creates Borg".

But that's bullshit. Humans were the Borg's first victims, not the Borg's creators.

You're presuming that the galaxy is just a large Weimar Republic waiting for a Hitler to come along and stir them up, but you're doing so on the basis of no particular reason other than Because You Say So.

And without humanity's meddling there would be no Borg. Right or Wrong? So that makes humanity its' creator, even if by accident.

 

[Thrawn]

I would find a novel in which such a thing took place entirely plausible, if written well. I would also find a universe in which such a thing was never mentioned entirely plausible.

This being a fictional universe, stuff like this is pretty much always plausible to exactly the extent that an author writing that story would want it to be. I find debates like this rather pointless.

 

[BillJ]

I would find a novel in which such a thing took place entirely plausible, if written well. I would also find a universe in which such a thing was never mentioned entirely plausible.

This being a fictional universe, stuff like this is pretty much always plausible to exactly the extent that an author writing that story would want it to be. I find debates like this rather pointless.

Can't be any more pointless than the hundreds and hundreds of posts I've seen about dead Janeway.

 

[Paris]

I would find a novel in which such a thing took place entirely plausible, if written well. I would also find a universe in which such a thing was never mentioned entirely plausible.

This being a fictional universe, stuff like this is pretty much always plausible to exactly the extent that an author writing that story would want it to be. I find debates like this rather pointless.

Can't be any more pointless than the hundreds and hundreds of posts I've seen about dead Janeway.

Janeway's dead???

 

[Nardpuncher]

^If, if, if. The meaningful question is, is it likely? What are the odds that some charismatic megalomaniac looking to start trouble would pick that particular issue to stir people up over? I mean, charismatic tyrants rarely rely on anything so complicated to win over the masses.

"Humanity is our enemy because they created the Borg!"

"Uhh, excuse me? The Borg existed thousands of years before humans went into space."

"But the humans went back in time!"

"Why would they do that?"

"Look, it was an accident! There was a Caeliar time vortex that went wrong."

"Who are the Caeliar?"

"They were a superpowerful race that joined with the humans to become the Borg."

"So isn't it the Caeliar we should hate?"

"No, dude, the humans are totally to blame because they sabotaged a Caeliar city and triggered the time vortex."

"Why did they do that?"

"Because the Caeliar were holding them prisoner!"

"So... again, doesn't that make it the Caeliar's fault?"

"The Caeliar aren't here anymore!"

It's too feeble. Too complicated to rationalize. Charismatic warmongers rely on Big Lie propaganda, and the first principle of that is to keep your rhetoric simple, to appeal to the lowest common denominator. You don't want some complex chain of causality that you need to explain in order to justify the conclusion that humanity is the enemy -- you want something simple and obvious, something the listener can pick up on right away and relate to viscerally. If you want them to hate humanity, you need to give them a more immediate, less complicated reason. Say, they're trying to take over the galaxy, or they spread disease, or whatever. Blaming humans for the Borg just doesn't cut it as a propaganda tool, because it's not straightforward enough. It's also hard to justify when the immediately evident fact is that humans played a key role in eradicating the Borg once and for all. That's the big headline, the sound bite that the listener can easily grasp. And that's going to be more effective for propaganda purposes than some convoluted history lesson that can, at best, only feebly implicate humanity in the Borg's distant origins.

Sometimes I wonder which there are more of, Christopher L. Bennett words in print or words on the Trek BBS.
Buddy, sometimes you can just let people have their say without trying to beat their opinion or example down

 

[Christopher]

Obviously you don't pay attention to the nightly news, where a sound bite is all you get.

On the contrary, that's exactly my point: that the "humanity is responsible for the Borg" notion is too convoluted to be justified in a mere soundbite, so no competent propagandist would choose that particular thing as his selling point for a "Kill All Humans" campaign. He'd choose something different, something more immediate that doesn't require an intricate history lesson to rationalize.

You're saying that someone theoretically could justify a hate campaign on the basis of this particular thing, and I don't deny that it's theoretically possible if someone tried hard enough. What I'm saying is that they wouldn't bother to try, because there are much easier ways to stir up anti-human sentiment. My point is not one of possibility, but likelihood. It's possible that a meteorite could land on someone's head and kill them, but we don't walk around underneath steel umbrellas all the time because it's not remotely likely. What's important isn't whether a thing is possible, but whether it's likely enough to be worth worrying about. That's a key principle of risk assessment.

Sometimes I wonder which there are more of, Christopher L. Bennett words in print or words on the Trek BBS.
Buddy, sometimes you can just let people have their say without trying to beat their opinion or example down

What I'm doing is engaging in debate by explaining my reasoning and evidence, by engaging with the ideas being expressed and offering counterarguments with justification fully explicated, which is how formal debate is supposed to work. That naturally takes up more words than engaging in debate through ad hominem attacks and insults.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Obviously you don't pay attention to the nightly news, where a sound bite is all you get.

On the contrary, that's exactly my point: that the "humanity is responsible for the Borg" notion is too convoluted to be justified in a mere soundbite, so no competent propagandist would choose that particular thing as his selling point for a "Kill All Humans" campaign. He'd choose something different, something more immediate that doesn't require an intricate history lesson to rationalize.

You're saying that someone theoretically could justify a hate campaign on the basis of this particular thing, and I don't deny that it's theoretically possible if someone tried hard enough. What I'm saying is that they wouldn't bother to try, because there are much easier ways to stir up anti-human sentiment. My point is not one of possibility, but likelihood. It's possible that a meteorite could land on someone's head and kill them, but we don't walk around underneath steel umbrellas all the time because it's not remotely likely. What's important isn't whether a thing is possible, but whether it's likely enough to be worth worrying about. That's a key principle of risk assessment.

Sometimes I wonder which there are more of, Christopher L. Bennett words in print or words on the Trek BBS.
Buddy, sometimes you can just let people have their say without trying to beat their opinion or example down

What I'm doing is engaging in debate by explaining my reasoning and evidence, by engaging with the ideas being expressed and offering counterarguments with justification fully explicated, which is how formal debate is supposed to work. That naturally takes up more words than engaging in debate through ad hominem attacks and insults.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

 

[BillJ]

Obviously you don't pay attention to the nightly news, where a sound bite is all you get.

On the contrary, that's exactly my point: that the "humanity is responsible for the Borg" notion is too convoluted to be justified in a mere soundbite, so no competent propagandist would choose that particular thing as his selling point for a "Kill All Humans" campaign. He'd choose something different, something more immediate that doesn't require an intricate history lesson to rationalize.

You're saying that someone theoretically could justify a hate campaign on the basis of this particular thing, and I don't deny that it's theoretically possible if someone tried hard enough. What I'm saying is that they wouldn't bother to try, because there are much easier ways to stir up anti-human sentiment. My point is not one of possibility, but likelihood. It's possible that a meteorite could land on someone's head and kill them, but we don't walk around underneath steel umbrellas all the time because it's not remotely likely. What's important isn't whether a thing is possible, but whether it's likely enough to be worth worrying about. That's a key principle of risk assessment.

Sometimes I wonder which there are more of, Christopher L. Bennett words in print or words on the Trek BBS.
Buddy, sometimes you can just let people have their say without trying to beat their opinion or example down

What I'm doing is engaging in debate by explaining my reasoning and evidence, by engaging with the ideas being expressed and offering counterarguments with justification fully explicated, which is how formal debate is supposed to work. That naturally takes up more words than engaging in debate through ad hominem attacks and insults.

I actually enjoy debating Trek with Christopher. He can seemingly come off the wrong way sometimes... but hey, it's the internet. We all come off wrong from time to time.

 

[William Leisner]

... but hey, it's the internet. We all come off wrong from time to time.

What's that crack supposed to mean??

 

[BillJ]

... but hey, it's the internet. We all come off wrong from time to time.

What's that crack supposed to mean??

I've got nothing.

 

[Nardpuncher]

The thing is if someone provides a faulty fact, then go ahead and shoot it down. Christopher doesn't seem to ever let even the most innocuous opinion go by without challenging it. Just check the first sentence of most of his posts.
And about the ad hominem attack, I don't think so. I am not concerned with the Borg story point, so I wasn't attempting to participate in the debate and then gave up and resorted to personal insults, I was just flat out telling him what I think.

 

[Sci]

The thing is if someone provides a faulty fact, then go ahead and shoot it down. Christopher doesn't seem to ever let even the most innocuous opinion go by without challenging it. Just check the first sentence of most of his posts.

You're seriously exaggerating his behavior. I've never seen him belligerent, and only when other posters are being themselves incredibly rude or when there's been serious miscommunication have I seen Christopher actually attack another person.

 

[Christopher]

And about the ad hominem attack, I don't think so. I am not concerned with the Borg story point, so I wasn't attempting to participate in the debate and then gave up and resorted to personal insults, I was just flat out telling him what I think.

You told me what you think about me. Not about the issue under discussion, not about the ideas or information, but about another poster. That is the literal definition of ad hominem argument.

 

[Nardpuncher]

And about the ad hominem attack, I don't think so. I am not concerned with the Borg story point, so I wasn't attempting to participate in the debate and then gave up and resorted to personal insults, I was just flat out telling him what I think.

You told me what you think about me. Not about the issue under discussion, not about the ideas or information, but about another poster. That is the literal definition of ad hominem argument.

First, I was seriously wondering if you have more words in novels or here on the Trek BBS. Of course I mean that in a slightly pejorative way, but you shouldn't take it that badly. the second part, about correcting or amending people's opinions, is more of a judgement about your behavior. Take it as advice perhaps, a way to grease the cogs of relationships both here and off the net. I wouldn't exactly say I insulted you personally, though you may not have liked it.

 

[Trimm]

But how is that even remotely relevant to the actual thread?

 

[LightningStorm]

Yes, let's get back on topic. There is a simple solution here, if you don't like the way another poster posts or don't like what they have to say you can utilize the BBS's ignore feature.