Minor things that bother you

[vdeane]

The fact that modern Star Trek is still re-creating scenes from the 2009 movie.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm probably in the minority on this forum but I liked the J.J. Abrams era alternate timeline Star Trek movies.  They are approachable popcorn science fiction flicks that don't require a deep lore knowledge of the series.  One of the most annoying things about Star Trek anything is having to listen to people who take it way too seriously.

[Rothman]

I'm probably in the minority on this forum but I liked the J.J. Abrams era alternate timeline Star Trek movies.  They are approachable popcorn science fiction flicks that don't require a deep lore knowledge of the series.  One of the most annoying things about Star Trek anything is having to listen to people who take it way too seriously.

Beyond sucked.  The other two were fun.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm probably in the minority on this forum but I liked the J.J. Abrams era alternate timeline Star Trek movies.  They are approachable popcorn science fiction flicks that don't require a deep lore knowledge of the series.  One of the most annoying things about Star Trek anything is having to listen to people who take it way too seriously.

Beyond sucked.  The other two were fun.

Beyond was definitely the worst of the three movies.  It didn't make much money and pretty much killed off the prospect of a fourth movie. 

Edit: I had a look at the gross versus budget for each three movies.  Not even Into Darkness made $500 million.  The budget for all three movies were all pretty high.

[kkt]

I like the Star Trek TV shows a lot better than the movies, even the TOS movies.
A movie is so expensive and it MUST appeal to a broad audience, so they can't use the background that fans learned from watching the shows too much, and they have to explain a lot that slows things down.

[hotdogPi]

Did any of you sue for watching the wrong Star Trek?

[kphoger]

I'm probably in the minority on this forum but

I'm probably in the minority on this forum but I haven't seen a single star Star Trek -related show in more than a quarter-century.

[1995hoo]

The Star Trek discussion prompts me to recall the time a couple of years ago when my office received a job application packet in which the cover letter referred to something along the lines of the relationship between a Jedi and his padawan; the writer then said that his current supervisor was a Star Trek fan and didn't understand the reference.

Dumb move, kid. While I've watched both Star Wars and Star Trek and I understood the reference (I enjoy Star Wars more overall), the fellow I work for has never watched Star Wars nor any Star Trek beyond the original series, not even the movies. He had no idea what the reference meant and the comment about a Star Trek fan not understanding the reference rubbed him the wrong way because he felt it suggested somehow there was something wrong with watching Star Trek. Good rule of thumb: Unless you really know your audience, avoid pop-culture references in business communications.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm probably in the minority on this forum but

I'm probably in the minority on this forum but I haven't seen a single star Star Trek -related show in more than a quarter-century.

I haven't watched a Star Trek show regularly since I was in my teens.  The last science fiction on TV that grabbed my attention enough to watch were Stargate SG-1 and the Battlestar Galactica the remake.

I have on occasion watched an episode or two of newer Star Trek shows.   Nothing really has grabbed my interest. 

[Max Rockatansky]

The Star Trek discussion prompts me to recall the time a couple of years ago when my office received a job application packet in which the cover letter referred to something along the lines of the relationship between a Jedi and his padawan; the writer then said that his current supervisor was a Star Trek fan and didn't understand the reference.

Dumb move, kid. While I've watched both Star Wars and Star Trek and I understood the reference (I enjoy Star Wars more overall), the fellow I work for has never watched Star Wars nor any Star Trek beyond the original series, not even the movies. He had no idea what the reference meant and the comment about a Star Trek fan not understanding the reference rubbed him the wrong way because he felt it suggested somehow there was something wrong with watching Star Trek. Good rule of thumb: Unless you really know your audience, avoid pop-culture references in business communications.

The only thing my wife can recognize about either series is Captain Kirk and Darth Vader.  The thing that is strange to me is that she is a huge Big Bang Theory fan (a show I dislike).   She rarely gets any of the super nerdy jokes about both series but laughs at them anyways. 

[kphoger]

The Star Trek discussion prompts me to recall the time a couple of years ago when my office received a job application packet in which the cover letter referred to something along the lines of the relationship between a Jedi and his padawan; the writer then said that his current supervisor was a Star Trek fan and didn't understand the reference.

Dumb move, kid. While I've watched both Star Wars and Star Trek and I understood the reference (I enjoy Star Wars more overall), the fellow I work for has never watched Star Wars nor any Star Trek beyond the original series, not even the movies. He had no idea what the reference meant and the comment about a Star Trek fan not understanding the reference rubbed him the wrong way because he felt it suggested somehow there was something wrong with watching Star Trek. Good rule of thumb: Unless you really know your audience, avoid pop-culture references in business communications.

I once worked in the warehouse at a Christian publishing company.  My boss had business cards made that listed his job title as "Tisroc".  It's a pretty niche crowd that would get that reference.

[1995hoo]

I once worked in the warehouse at a Christian publishing company.  My boss had business cards made that listed his job title as "Tisroc".  It's a pretty niche crowd that would get that reference.

Heh. I know what that means without looking at the link, but my colleague definitely would not. He might not even know of the source material.

In that vein, I know a guy who parodies the "parenthetical pronoun" fad by putting "(Marklar/Marklar)" on his LinkedIn profile (although, to be technical, that word was used as a noun, not a pronoun, in its original setting).

[hotdogPi]

I really don't like the idea of joke pronouns. There's an entry field for it on Discord, and it's quite common there. I often can't tell the person's actual gender.

It might be a bit less of an issue on LinkedIn because you can also see their first name.

[kphoger]

I really don't like the idea of joke pronouns. There's an entry field for it on Discord, and it's quite common there. I often can't tell the person's actual gender.

For telling the person's actual gender, it's no worse than their leaving it blank, is it?

[1995hoo]

I really don't like the idea of joke pronouns. There's an entry field for it on Discord, and it's quite common there. I often can't tell the person's actual gender.

It might be a bit less of an issue on LinkedIn because you can also see their first name.

The fellow to whom I was referring would respond that in his case, his name is quite obviously a masculine name and you can readily tell he's male. I know there are people who believe that there is no such thing, but that would be his response.

[vdeane]

I'm probably in the minority on this forum but I liked the J.J. Abrams era alternate timeline Star Trek movies.  They are approachable popcorn science fiction flicks that don't require a deep lore knowledge of the series.  One of the most annoying things about Star Trek anything is having to listen to people who take it way too seriously.

Beyond sucked.  The other two were fun.

Eh, the first is a bit of an action flick against a cliche revenge villain, but it's entertaining and did its job in setting up the new timeline.  Where I soured on that trilogy was when Into Darkness scuttled its interesting plotline with Admiral Marcus half-way through in favor of a Khan rehash (including months preceding the movie when the film makers were outright lying to the fans, since everyone figured out the "twist" beforehand) while repeating the exact same action beats from the first movie, including the "dangerous high-speed space jump" and unnecessary "Enterprise loses power after saving the world and falls into a gravity well, only for Scotty to save the ship at the last second", along with "Kirk is forced to take command after Pike is incapacitated even though he recently got into trouble" plot line.  I think many fans prefer the third for at least trying to do something different, even though they didn't quite hit the mark.

[kphoger]

The fellow to whom I was referring would respond that in his case, his name is quite obviously a masculine name and you can readily tell he's male. I know there are people who believe that there is no such thing, but that would be his response.

It's crazy how many women I know named Mark, Kevin, or Randall.

[Scott5114]

I really don't like the idea of joke pronouns.

I normally take it as a red flag that I probably won't like the person very much if they think that's something worth making fun of. Usually means they have no interest in considering why people think it's important, which is often because they're not a very considerate person in general.

[kphoger]

I normally take it as a red flag that I probably won't like the person very much if they think that's something worth making fun of. Usually means they have no interest in considering why people think it's important, which is often because they're not a very considerate person in general.

Wait, I thought freak/sardine/salad were your joke pronouns.

[Max Rockatansky]

I normally take it as a red flag that I probably won't like the person very much if they think that's something worth making fun of. Usually means they have no interest in considering why people think it's important, which is often because they're not a very considerate person in general.

Wait, I thought freak/sardine/salad were your joke pronouns.

The pronoun stuff wasn't something I was even aware was a thing until we had a workplace sensitivity training about it four years ago.  I saw some of it on forum signatures earlier but it went over my head before that class. 

Off the internet I don't recall the topic of pronouns being brought up as a conversation topic outside of that work training class.  Maybe I'm just getting too old or self absorbed in my own little corner of existence but it never feels as though I learn of things like this naturally.  When the old Roadwaywiz Facebook Messenger chat was still around I probably heard more about modern social happenings there than I had in the previous decade.

[Scott5114]

It's crazy how many women I know named Mark, Kevin, or Randall.

Not sure if this is meant to be a joke or not, but have you ever noticed how there's kind of a treadmill on which names are "masculine" enough to be boy's names? A name will start out as a boy's name, then at some point people will start giving it to girls, and it becomes a unisex name for a while, then people will start thinking it's not masculine enough and it becomes an exclusively female name. "Taylor" is an excellent example of a name that's gone through much of this cycle in our lifetimes—who's the first person you think of when you hear the name Taylor?

This can even happen with names like "Hunter" that were probably conceived to be the most masculine name possible—what's more rah-rah hairy-chest masculine than hunting—and yet now we have girls named Hunter. I've seen it observed that eventually people are going to start naming boys things like "Beer" and "Missile" and "Tank" and eventually those will somehow become girl names too.

Sometimes it doesn't take. At the casino I would sometimes run credit cards for an old woman named Gerald.

It's also worth remarking upon that you never see girl's names adapted to become boys' names. Nobody's naming a boy Phoebe. He'd be made fun of. So why doesn't anyone worry about girls being made fun of for having a boy name?

Wait, I thought freak/sardine/salad were your joke pronouns.

I am AFSSBP (assigned freak sardine salad by Poiponen).

[Rothman]

I'm probably in the minority on this forum but I liked the J.J. Abrams era alternate timeline Star Trek movies.  They are approachable popcorn science fiction flicks that don't require a deep lore knowledge of the series.  One of the most annoying things about Star Trek anything is having to listen to people who take it way too seriously.

Beyond sucked.  The other two were fun.

Eh, the first is a bit of an action flick against a cliche revenge villain, but it's entertaining and did its job in setting up the new timeline.  Where I soured on that trilogy was when Into Darkness scuttled its interesting plotline with Admiral Marcus half-way through in favor of a Khan rehash (including months preceding the movie when the film makers were outright lying to the fans, since everyone figured out the "twist" beforehand) while repeating the exact same action beats from the first movie, including the "dangerous high-speed space jump" and unnecessary "Enterprise loses power after saving the world and falls into a gravity well, only for Scotty to save the ship at the last second", along with "Kirk is forced to take command after Pike is incapacitated even though he recently got into trouble" plot line.  I think many fans prefer the third for at least trying to do something different, even though they didn't quite hit the mark.

I still like the first two new ones, although I do prefer The Wrath of Khan.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm probably in the minority on this forum but I liked the J.J. Abrams era alternate timeline Star Trek movies.  They are approachable popcorn science fiction flicks that don't require a deep lore knowledge of the series.  One of the most annoying things about Star Trek anything is having to listen to people who take it way too seriously.

Beyond sucked.  The other two were fun.

Eh, the first is a bit of an action flick against a cliche revenge villain, but it's entertaining and did its job in setting up the new timeline.  Where I soured on that trilogy was when Into Darkness scuttled its interesting plotline with Admiral Marcus half-way through in favor of a Khan rehash (including months preceding the movie when the film makers were outright lying to the fans, since everyone figured out the "twist" beforehand) while repeating the exact same action beats from the first movie, including the "dangerous high-speed space jump" and unnecessary "Enterprise loses power after saving the world and falls into a gravity well, only for Scotty to save the ship at the last second", along with "Kirk is forced to take command after Pike is incapacitated even though he recently got into trouble" plot line.  I think many fans prefer the third for at least trying to do something different, even though they didn't quite hit the mark.

I still like the first two new ones, although I do prefer The Wrath of Khan.

Benedict Cumberbatch was an odd choice to play Khan.  He wasn't bad in the role but I was expecting someone more like Ricardo Montalbán.  The whole thing with the actress playing Carol Marcus not even attempting an American accent was a little weird also.

[kphoger]

It's crazy how many women I know named Mark, Kevin, or Randall.

Not sure if this is meant to be a joke or not, but ...

Yes, that was a joke.

Some names work for both sexes, even if one of them is much less common than the other.  For example, my own name, Kyle, used to be more popular for girls in decades past, but nowadays it seems almost all the girls get named Kylie or Kylee instead.  Kelly used to be much more common as a man's name when I was a kid than it is now.  Likewise, Evelyn has an old history as a man's name, but it is almost exclusively a woman's name now.  Likewise, the actress who played the mother in The Waltons was named Michael, but nobody names their daughters Michael anymore.  Anyway, I tried to think of some of the boys' names that were least likely to be given to a girl.

... but have you ever noticed how there's kind of a treadmill on which names are "masculine" enough to be boy's names? A name will start out as a boy's name, then at some point people will start giving it to girls, and it becomes a unisex name for a while, then people will start thinking it's not masculine enough and it becomes an exclusively female name. "Taylor" is an excellent example of a name that's gone through much of this cycle in our lifetimes—who's the first person you think of when you hear the name Taylor?

This can even happen with names like "Hunter" that were probably conceived to be the most masculine name possible—what's more rah-rah hairy-chest masculine than hunting—and yet now we have girls named Hunter. I've seen it observed that eventually people are going to start naming boys things like "Beer" and "Missile" and "Tank" and eventually those will somehow become girl names too.

Pet peeve trigger!

Part of the problem is that both of those are surnames, and it irritates me when people give surnames to their kids as given names.  In my opinion, that's the type of name that's most likely to jump across the gender gap.  Taylor, Hunter, Carter, Madison, Lenox, Quinn, Presley, Reagan:  these names don't stick to just one gender as much as other names do because they aren't really first names at all.  They don't have centuries of history behind them as single-gender given names.  Both of the examples you gave didn't gain popularity as first names until the last hundred years, so it doesn't surprise me that they've floated from one gender to the other.

Then there are other names like Dallas, Arizona, Dakota.  I'm still waiting for someone to name their kid Fresno.  Place names like that don't really have a gender identity, so it doesn't surprise me when they float from one gender to the other in popularity.  And names that are just straight-up common nouns...  OK, I need to stop now.

Sometimes it doesn't take. At the casino I would sometimes run credit cards for an old woman named Gerald.

Yeah, I think that's just a more old-fashioned form of Geraldine.  According to nameberry.com, it peaked as a girls' name in 1931 and really fell off the popularity cliff in 1970.

It's also worth remarking upon that you never see girl's names adapted to become boys' names. Nobody's naming a boy Phoebe. He'd be made fun of. So why doesn't anyone worry about girls being made fun of for having a boy name?

Probably the same reason girls can wear trousers but boys can't wear skirts in our society.  Strength is an increasingly desirable trait in women, but the opposite is not true in men.  Now, maybe that's a good thing, maybe that's a bad thing, and it's not really a conversation worth getting into in this context.  But I think that's what's going on.

[Scott5114]

Part of the problem is that both of those are surnames, and it irritates me when people give surnames to their kids as given names.  In my opinion, that's the type of name that's most likely to jump across the gender gap.  Taylor, Hunter, Carter, Madison, Lenox, Quinn, Presley, Reagan:  these names don't stick to just one gender as much as other names do because they aren't really first names at all.  They don't have centuries of history behind them as single-gender given names.

I have heard that "Madison" became a female given name because of a 1980s movie where a mermaid washed up in New York City and needed a human-sounding name, and there was a sign for Madison Avenue nearby. I think that being considered a weird first name was even a plot point after that.

Probably the same reason girls can wear trousers but boys can't wear skirts in our society.

In your society. Vegas is different.