@tomhead1978

Tom Head

Ask @tomhead1978

Sort by:

LatestTop

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) is an order of magnitude worse than Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. However, do you think the premise (that human technology sent into deep space could become a vehicle for alien contact) is viable?

I think Star Trek V is worse, but I've actually gone back and forth on that question. What redeems STTMP for me is the way it defines the character arc for Kirk that we see over all of the TOS films and into Generations—e.g., that he really is getting too old and too infamous and too *big* for this sort of thing and there's a selfishness involved in his decision to keep doing it, so there's a cost to his presence and he has to find ways to make himself worth that cost. Without Kirk, Decker becomes captain and probably merges with V'ger with less loss of life, Khan has less reason to go on a rampage, Spock never dies, Kirk's son never dies, etc. So the entire TOS movie cycle becomes a redemption arc for Kirk, which is a very different story from what we saw in the TV series. It was a gutsy decision.
Insurrection is worse than both of them, though.
I definitely think human technology sent into deep space could become a vehicle for alien contact, but we have to ask ourselves why the alien civilizations in question wouldn't already be familiar with us by way of our radio pollution and so forth. So I think the most plausible stories involving human technology being a vehicle for alien contact are probably closer to the TNG episode "The Inner Light," where they can be epitaphs for our civilization if we've been wiped out or wiped ourselves out and contacting us in the present tense isn't a possibility. I think when Sagan designed the Voyager Golden Disc, he thought of it as more of an epitaph than a greeting (he didn't *say* that, but judging by what he chose to put on it, I think that's what he was secretly thinking).

View more

Liked by: Sevin Eleven

How much do you live by this quote: "you reap what you sow"? Why?

This can sometimes be true in terms of bad decisions coming back to haunt us, but I don't think most people really reap what they sow. Life isn't that fair.

'True strength is not letting other people bring you down, whilst at the same time bringing them up" - How do you interpret this quote and how much do you agree with it?

I agree with what I think it means—be proactive rather than reactive, live your values on purpose, etc.—but it speaks to some sensibilities that are alien to mine, e.g. I'm not interested in figuring out what true strength is, I think that if I'm reacting negatively to someone else's personality I'm the one bringing myself down, other people bring themselves up and I can only help that process along, etc. So I don't disagree with it but I don't think it's for me, if that makes any sense.

Related users

What does happiness feel like to you?

SophiePinkie’s Profile PhotoSophie Pink
Happiness for me is a fundamental, elemental, irreducible emotion—I can tell you what kind of happiness I feel, but I can't break it down. It's sort of like describing the subjective experience of sweetness, or harmony, or the color blue. It just is.

You can erase any horrible experience from your past. What will it be?

This was basically the premise behind the worst Star Trek movie, and my answer is the same as Kirk's: I'll keep my pain, because I don't know who I'd be without it.
The most frustrating thing about Star Trek V is that it was ALMOST great. Laurence Luckinbill did a fantastic job with Sybok, the basic topics and themes were overdue for a major-picture Star Trek treatment, and some of the "cute" elements from the script that get panned by critics—like the Uhura-Scotty relationship—were actually kind of brilliant. And there were great lines like "What does God need with a starship?" It could have easily been the best film in the franchise; it had so much wasted potential.
You can erase any horrible experience from your past What will it be

Post a picture of your derpiest derp face!?

"Derpiest derp face"? Really?
Fun fact: In 10 years, this Question of the Day is going to sound about as progressive as a racial epithet.
Here's a picture of a cute puppy instead.
Post a picture of your derpiest derp face
Liked by: Jamly Shreya

Do you fathom that behind every page here, as bland as they might be, there's a person, a whole world of pain, love, struggles, wills, needs, etc? That is also true behind every anon. Your thoughts on this?

I feel like in some of these forums there's a sense that an "anon" is an identifiable or oppressed community, and that seems a strange way of describing whoever the last person was to use the "Make this question anonymous" checkbox.
Liked by: githaranisha;

What do you think of the idea of a universal basic income, paired with near total automation in manufacturing and service?

The UBI has been a good, and affordable, idea for a long time. The argument against it is (1) that rich people want to stay 100% rich and not just 80% rich and (2) without "incentive to work" (read: artificial scarcity) there aren't going to be enough people in the workforce to keep the economy propped up. The former point is disgusting but the latter may have some truth to it, though nobody should be working more than 40 hours a week unless there's an unforeseeable short-term crisis and/or they're having a good time.
In 75 to 100 years I'm sure we'll have a UBI or something functionally indistinguishable from it, and that most people will still choose to work.
Liked by: Nolan Sullivan

"Everything happens for a reason" - But aren't the reasons part of everything?

I don't know that the phrase "everything happens for a reason" has ever escaped my lips, but if I believed that I imagine I'd have to believe in at least one uncaused Person who (being uncaused) never happened, and isn't a thing.

Isn't it sad that parents should accept and support their child's true identity, yet they deny it and claim they're sick! People are really cruel :(

Parents can be incredibly selfish and shortsighted. Here in Mississippi I hear regularly about teenagers who are thrown out of the house for being gay and/or trans, and it's heartbreaking.

I find it frustrating that people treat questions differently depending on who's asking them. Do you find this to be true on ask.fm?

I definitely treat questions differently depending on who's asking them, because I read other people's histories and personalities into the question. If you ask me if I believe in God and my local pastor asks me if I believe in God and Richard Dawkins asks me if I believe in God and my mother asks me if I believe in God, you're all asking me completely different questions and my answer will vary a little depending. This is what makes writing difficult: I never just write to a generic audience. There are always specific people I envision reading my work, and they're not always—maybe not often—the ones reading it.

"If you have built castles in the air your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put foundations under them." - Henry David Thoreau. How do you interpret this quote and how much do you agree with it?

I used to love this quote; I think he means it's OK to dream and plan, and that it doesn't make you impractical to do so. But Thoreau has always struck me as a little bit of a wanker, so in his case all I can think about is how much he depended on other people over the course of his life and how little gratitude he showed towards them.

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating" - How do you interpret this quote and how much do you agree with it?

I take it to mean that enjoying something and contemplating it are two different things, and you can't get to one by way of the other.

What's your reaction to the words "We need to talk.."?

Depends on who says it. I'm lucky to be in the kind of relationship where if she says we need to talk, end of sentence, she just has a good story for me or something of that nature, and I'm the same way with her. No anxiety at all. But for most people, these four words mean we're headed to Dramaville.

Why is it OK for men to be obsessed over women with big asses, but not women with big boobs?

I don't know that there's anything wrong with being attracted to either—it's how and when you express that attraction that matters—but there are two factors that make it a little more subversive to be attracted to big asses vs. big boobs:
1. Big asses as a trait have historically been associated with women of color, who were fetishized for this reason (see the story of Saartjie Baartman for a particularly heartbreaking example). So openly admitting you like big butts, and you cannot lie, can be empowering in some social and artistic contexts (or fetishizing in others).
2. There is a very real obsession in the modeling and entertainment industry with reducing body mass to the point where it negatively impact women's overall health, so by openly admitting that you like big butts, etc., you are subtly speaking out against that standard. Or fetishizing a specific group of women again.
tl;dr Liking big butts can be interpreted in some contexts as dissent against white supremacist and fatphobic standards of beauty, but you have to be careful how you express your preferences. In general men who "obsess" over specific women's physical traits are gross.
tl;dr2 I've never understood "boob men" *or* "leg men"/"butt men," to be honest, but that's another rant.

View more

How do you visualize the portrait of insanity? Why?

I was going to give a flip answer to this, but the truth is that when we're talking about insanity I don't think we're talking about mental illness. We're talking about unpredictability and unreliability. Many clinically "sane" people are unpredictable and unreliable, and the majority of clinically "insane" (i.e., severely mentally ill) people are at least within the ballpark normal range of predictability and reliability. I think if we can acknowledge that what we generally call sanity and insanity describe behavior, not mental health, we may be closer to an accurate definition of what mental health is. But I'm not holding my breath.
A good example of an "insane," but relatively mentally healthy, character: The Joker in the Batman comics, who is evil and has "crazy" motives but is quite obviously unhampered by mental illness in any recognizable sense. A good example of a "sane" character who is portrayed as having symptoms of several real-life psychiatric disorders: Batman. This is not an unrealistic dichotomy (the world we live in frequently pits good people who have clinically significant disorders against terrible people who don't), but the fact that the comics insist on portraying their relationship as having some sort of bizarre confrontational therapist/client dynamic effectively obfuscates most of the meaningful lessons we might otherwise be able to draw from it.

View more

Is it more correct to consider a work of art's creator interpretation as the correct one, or can it be given any interpretation by anyone and it would be as much correct?

That depends on what you're interpreting. If you're interpreting the artist's intentions, the artist's stated interpretation is the most important one—not the only one (you can always accuse an artist of possessing limited self-awareness, and there are some cases where this is an obviously valid criticism), but always the most important.
On the other hand, if you're interpreting how *you* see the work, your interpretation trumps everybody else's.
Case in point: No matter how much Peter Gabriel may claim otherwise, *The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway*—as I hear it—is not about sex. That may have been what was in his own mind when he composed and performed it, but it isn't in mine as a listener.
Does a work of art have an objective meaning beyond the ones we attribute to it? Maybe, if you believe in God(s); I don't see how otherwise.

View more

Liked by: Nolan Sullivan

How do you maintain your personal image on social media and why?

I don't know how well I do, to be honest. Branding is important for writers but I don't think I'm particularly good at it.

What can you say about those people who are against and judge same sex marriage?

I don't really like people who do that, as a rule. It strikes me as sadistic behavior.

Let's say, when someone msgs you on fb privately and you don't reply to them yet you keep on replying to their comments on your posts... what is that mean? does it mean something like you just want your own space or what?

It probably means I don't know what to say in the private message yet, and I do know what to say in the public comments. Or that I haven't loaded up Messenger. Or that the public conversation interests me more at that particular moment. It could mean any number of things, none of them really important. I'm a terrible correspondent and much better about replying to public stuff than private stuff.

The greatest measurement source to a person's intelligence is his/her ability to simplify things. Agree or disagree? Why?

I don't really believe in quantifiable intelligence, but as definitions of intelligence go this isn't bad.

Next

Language: English