A Private Little War is a very pro-Vietnam intervention story, surprising given Roddenberry position on the war, of course he didn't write the episode. Masterpiece Society (TNG) carried a anti-abortion message from the character of LaForge. The ENT one where Trip became pregnant had some pro-life dialog as well.
A similar notion exists in TNG where the crew would discover a "backwards culture", engaging in religious worship or some-such, and the crew throwing the Prime Directive to the Four Winds. "Justice" and "Who Watches the Watchers" come to mind here. Arguably, a very liberal stance against a religious culture regardless of what damage and social contamination it might do. Happens on both sides of the political spectrum, I'm afraid.
In those societies, people are happy because they are pretty much forced to be so. They are not ALLOWED to feel anything else. Better to struggle and have a choice in doing so, than to be happy because you're living in a bubble.
Actually, he did. Don Ingalls wrote the original story and teleplay, but Roddenberry did an extensive rewrite that resulted in him getting sole credit for the teleplay.
It seems there are a lot of conservative fans of Star Trek. Or at least fans that have anti-liberal views. Apparently they watch Trek like everyone else, but are really bothered by certain "liberal" ideas. That same sex kiss from Rejoined got a large number of hate calls. One station in the south is said to have removed the episode. And for Voyager, Paramount got death and bomb threats because of the decision to have a woman captain. From all this, one conclusion I draw is that Trek wants to be liberal, (and usually is) but has to make compromises--silently cater to certain conservative views.
The "is Star Trek liberal vs conservative argument" is, in my humble opinion, just as ill-conceived and useless as the "Star Trek stance on religion" argument. Regardless of Rodenberrys stance, or the stances of the actors, writers, etc...Star trek does a wonderful job of showing you BOTH SIDES of the coin and provoking thoughtful contemplation on either perspective. Anyone who tries to say that Star Trek was one thing or another is simply trying to rationalize their own beliefs. Star Trek rarely tells us how to think (which is the huge misconception a lot of fans make). It simply encourages us to do so while enjoying some great action-adventure-character stuff. The only thing it cosistently did for sure (or at least attempted to do) was portray a positive future where tolerance and diversity have generally been embraced.
Having dropped back recently and catching up on posts, the beauty of this place compared to others is that it has such a rich and diverse array of wit, humour, warmth, charm, fierce intelligence and a-holes. Just like Trek .
Talking about "liberal" and "conservative" Trekkies is always such a slippery slope, though I acknowledge that Gerrold's post is what set it off. One thing I do find interesting in this thread is how "both" types of Trekkies (as if there were only those two politically) have pretty vocal TrekBBS members when it comes to loving TOS/criticizing nuTrek. Talk about reaching across the aisle!
Or similarly when it comes to loving DS9/criticizing Voyager. Finding that conservationism matches you're own world view doesn't automatically mean that you are "anti-liberal." Simply means you don't support liberal philosophy.
One might find that a lot of people labeled as "conservative" are actually more Libertarian than anything else. As I grow older, I find that I like labels less and less, and prefer to take each person on his own merit. Unfortunately, as time goes by there are more and more labels to deal with. A lot of them come from Trek "fans," who should logically be going in the opposite direction. Most times I just shrug my shoulders and move on.
^ ^ True. I thought twice right after posting about whether I'm being unfair to conservatives, or whether it even was conservatives who were behind the complaints and threats. I then added 'anti-liberal' for a couple of reasons--one, that's the best way I know how to identify a way of thinking which may not be conservative at all, but is obviously against liberal ideas. The other reason is, I've seen a lot of comments in forums where a person, is call a "libtard" or just liberal simply for expressing a view. That leaves the impression that the person doing the name calling must consider him or herself a conservative, because of how freely that word is thrown around. (One of the complainers to the episode Rejoined, talked about family values and such) Either way, nutjob or wingnut sexist or bigot would do in this case
I agree with this point. I do not like pigeon-holing a person on anything, politics included. I may not agree with everything in conservative philosophy or liberal philosophy. I make up my own mind, though "conservative" seems to fit, most of the time. Same thing with Trek. Trek portrays a lot of different points of view, some pro and some con. The beauty of Speculative Fiction (SF) is the ability to regard those points of view and make up your own mind. Just because the Trek main characters are for something, does not automatically mean I have to support that.
marlboro, you do not know me from Kahless, but please let me advise you: Do not hate Politics, because it does not hate you, and hate, to paraphrase Yoda, leads to suffering, and comes from Anger, which comes from Fear, which is the path to the Dark Side. Having said that, get at smart a brain as you can about your local, regional, Federal, what have you, Politics, because it will run you right over if you do not see it coming!