For a long time, the starship Enterprise boldly went where no man had been before.
There came a point however when, back on Earth, Generation Snowflake got involved and decided that the Enterprise should be going not where no man had been before but where no one had been before.
However, if they'd really thought about it carefully, they might have realised that the change they suggested - and indeed enforced - discriminates against conjoined twins.
Think before you preach!
Quote: Rood Eye @ 3rd June 2019, 10:18 AMFor a long time, the starship Enterprise boldly went where no man had been before.
There came a point however when, back on Earth, Generation Snowflake got involved and decided that the Enterprise should be going not where no man had been before but where no one had been before.
However, if they'd really thought about it carefully, they might have realised that the change they suggested - and indeed enforced - discriminates against conjoined twins.
Think before you preach!
I never got into Star Trek as it isn't my thing.
However, back in the 1980s I used to go into a pub most nights. It was tiny - one of those old fashioned pubs in a row of terraced houses with three rooms each a bit like someone's small sitting room - and it was far too crowded for me.
Unusually, they had a jukebox in the even more tiny hallway.
So on my arrival I'd always stick in loads of money for the song Star Trekkin' on repeat. By about the fourth time, it was lovely and spacious in there as it drove almost everyone else out. It always brings back so many happy solo memories.
Quote: Rood Eye @ 3rd June 2019, 10:18 AMFor a long time, the starship Enterprise boldly went where no man had been before.
There came a point however when, back on Earth, Generation Snowflake got involved and decided that the Enterprise should be going not where no man had been before but where no one had been before.
However, if they'd really thought about it carefully, they might have realised that the change they suggested - and indeed enforced - discriminates against conjoined twins.
Think before you preach!
Bloody hell, they changed that in 1987 with the launch of Star Trek: The Next Generation. You need to pick something more recent to get outraged about! 
I once dropped a stink bomb in a crowded pub.
God they are smelly.
The pub quickly cleared with the landlord shouting he will bar the person responsible.
I scarpered too before he deduced the last man standing was probably the culprit.
Quote: chipolata @ 3rd June 2019, 11:42 AMBloody hell, they changed that in 1987 with the launch of Star Trek: The Next Generation. You need to pick something more recent to get outraged about!
A fair point but you have to realise that, 30 years ago, I was a lot busier than I am today.
Accordingly, when it comes to outrageous things to complain about, I have quite a backlog.
You'd better strap yourself in!
Probably done by a baby boomer, in any case.
Quote: Rood Eye @ 3rd June 2019, 10:18 AMFor a long time, the starship Enterprise boldly went where no man had been before.
But they'd often go to planets where there were human settlers.
Quote: Chappers @ 3rd June 2019, 9:58 PMBut they'd often go to planets where there were human settlers.
Indeed, and they'd often come across aliens who were in many ways very similar to humans - certainly to the extent that the males were men and the females were women.
I think where snowflakes and extreme feminists get it wrong is that they fail to understand that the term "man" refers to the human race as a whole and not simply to the male half.
In fact, it's a wonder that they tolerate the word "human" and don't insist that it be replaced by "huperson".
Quote: Rood Eye @ 3rd June 2019, 10:13 PMI think where snowflakes and extreme feminists get it wrong is that they fail to understand that the term "man" refers to the human race as a whole and not simply to the male half.
As far as I'm aware it's not a burning issue amongst snowflakes or extreme feminists! Although if you've got some evidence of this I'd be interested to see it.
On a broader note you have to remember one of the reasons for the change back in the eighties was that Star Trek has always been one of the most PC shows ever. Even the original series back in the sixties espoused tolerance and respecting diversity, so it's hardly a surprise when they came to re-launch the show they tinkered with aspects of it to make it even more PC.
In fact such is the PC nature of Trek I'm surprised alt-right snowflakes haven't launched some weird hate campaign against it, the way they did against Black Panther and Captain Marvel.
Quote: chipolata @ 4th June 2019, 11:51 AMAs far as I'm aware it's not a burning issue amongst snowflakes or extreme feminists! Although if you've got some evidence of this I'd be interested to see it.
Google is, as ever, your friend when it comes to looking for evidence of almost anything.
Several dictionaries refer to the objection to "man" in any context other than as a noun meaning "an adult human male".
My own experience tells me it's certainly an issue amongst snowflakes and extreme feminists. I've even had objections from members of the PC Brigade to its use as a verb meaning "to staff" or "to crew".
Again, Rood, it was done by a baby boomer the same age as yourself.
Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 4th June 2019, 12:53 PMAgain, Rood, it was done by a baby boomer the same age as yourself.
How do you know this? Have you been following me around? 
It's just logical.
Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 4th June 2019, 3:20 PMIt's just logical.
Logical or not, you may be right or you may be wrong.
The change from "no man" to "no one" may or may not been occasioned at the behest of a baby boomer but, be that as it may, a baby boomer can be just as much a feminist, a snowflake or a member of the PC Brigade as a non-baby-boomer.
Any person (baby boomer or otherwise) who caused or supported the change was displaying characteristics of a feminist, a snowflake and a member of the PC Brigade.
Quote: Rood Eye @ 4th June 2019, 12:37 PMGoogle is, as ever, your friend when it comes to looking for evidence of almost anything.
Several dictionaries refer to the objection to "man" in any context other than as a noun meaning "an adult human male".
My own experience tells me it's certainly an issue amongst snowflakes and extreme feminists. I've even had objections from members of the PC Brigade to its use as a verb meaning "to staff" or "to crew".
This isn't evidence, it's hogwash and hooey! I want articles and essays by these enraged snowflakes, froth-mouthed feminists and militant PC brigadists, not some vague anecdotes.
I repeat my original point, nobody really cares that much. You need to spend some more time in this reality and less time conversing with imaginary snowflakes in your head. 
