Star Trek Discovery

[Chekov's Phaser]

Teach any strawmen?

If STD has a cast of hundreds or as many students you have taught then of course there will be plenty of volume with which to represent every circumstance. It won't.

Trying to represent every possibility over maybe a dozen characters? That strains believability.

Ha, the strawman! Clever.

It's the reality of our world and the fictional world we are talking about. It's not an unbelievable scenario that a society (the Federation) that represents trillions would be extremely diverse. Even in this world, if we picked 12 people randomly, those 12 people would be far more diverse than your standard hollywood or tv production. But I guess it's easier to argue "checklist!" and "social justice warrior!"

Representing diversity is not a checklist. It's a fact of life.

 

[aloha62]

You've engaged in little else.


There's a ridiculous either/or.


Only to folks who think women, homosexuals, people of color, and such unbelievable.

If you have a valid argument then please make it. None of my posts have been 'strawman', please look up the term if you don't know what it means.

There are over 30 gender identities, over 30 race sub groups and around 50 sexuaulities (depending on which group recognises them), would it really be believable to have complete representation of such a diverse group on a TV show?

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

You guys are aware that you are on a site based on a show that did exactly what you don't want. Gene, for all of his many faults, understood the power of representation. But I don't see many decrying Roddenberry for including a black woman or Asian "just so he could." And yeah, he did it for exactly that reason.

 

[Gov Kodos]

If you have a valid argument then please make it.

Ironic, you've yet to make a valid argument.

None of my posts have been 'strawman', please look up the term if you don't know what it means.

Mini-modding doesn't work, by the way.

There are over 30 gender identities, over 30 race sub groups and around 50 sexuaulities (depending on which group recognises them), would it really be believable to have complete representation of such a diverse group on a TV show?

Where has this been said would be the casting, other than by you. Why does having people of color, non-hetero sexualities, such disturb you?

 

[aloha62]

You guys are aware that you are on a site based on a show that did exactly what you don't want.

Who says I don't want a full and reprasentavive cast? I didn't. Will there be a bisexual Anglo-celt? I hope so that's me represented but give me believable and immersive characters first and above all.

 

[Mudd]

Racism - racist, terms that are so overused. Unfortunately they are used now to shut down dissention. Can they not see the irony of their own intolerance?

There's no irony in declining to be polite about bigotry. The folks who are made uncomfortable by that need to find a new cliche to replace the "hypocrisy of the supposedly tolerant" one - it's a tired, logically flawed untruth.

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

Who says I don't want a full and reprasentavive cast? I didn't. Will there be a bisexual Anglo-celt? I hope so that's me represented but give me believable and immersive characters first and above all.

And no one said that we must have a representative of every group imaginable. That is the strawman.

People just want to see more diversity. And if that means that Fuller crafts character's around that notion, like Roddenberry did, then that isn't some "full-retard social justice warrior" shit that is so abhorrent to some. That's Star Trek.

 

[Long Syntax]

There's no irony in declining to be polite about bigotry. The folks who are made uncomfortable by that need to find a new cliche to replace the "hypocrisy of the supposedly tolerant" one - it's a tired, logically flawed untruth.

Just because you don't see the irony doesn't dismiss it. I've see enough social justice vigilantes who have declared themselves judge, jury, and executioner that I know the difference between "...declining to be polite..." and intolerance.

 

[Trekkin]

Just because you don't see the irony doesn't dismiss it. I've see enough social justice vigilantes who have declared themselves judge, jury, and executioner that I know the difference between "...declining to be polite..." and intolerance.

I actually disagree with Dennis here. Coz I can certainly see the irony in someone accusing people of 'stifling conversation', whilst using said accusation to complain about people doing the mere act of presenting their views in an argument.

Irony of the dramatic kind. Present in the thread. It is.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Racism - racist, terms that are so overused. Unfortunately they are used now to shut down dissention. Can they not see the irony of their own intolerance?

Because we wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of racists and bigots, would we.

Just because you don't see the irony doesn't dismiss it. I've see enough social justice vigilantes who have declared themselves judge, jury, and executioner that I know the difference between "...declining to be polite..." and intolerance.

Be nice to the intolerant bigots and racists.

 

[BillJ]

Be nice to the intolerant bigots and racists.

Because it is obvious they can't take what they dish out.

 

[aloha62]

And no one said that we must have a representative of every group imaginable. That is the strawman.

I apologise if that came across as such an argument, I meant it in a way that (as said in my first post on this) over representation becomes detrimental and a distraction ala 'torchwood'. Give me characters who don't feel like they are there just to check groups off a list.

 

[Long Syntax]

I've said my piece and therefore I'm not going to go on arguing the same point. You can choose to accept that there is a differing valid opinion and show some growth yourself or not -- in which case you will have become the thing you hate.

(not directing this at any particular person - unless it applies)

 

[BillJ]

I've said my piece and therefore I'm not going to go on arguing the same point. You can choose to accept that there is a differing valid opinion and show some growth yourself or not -- in which case you will have become the thing you hate.

Bigotry is not a valid opinion.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I apologise if that came across as such an argument, I meant it in a way that (as said in my first post on this) over representation becomes detrimental and a distraction ala 'torchwood'. Give me characters who don't feel like they are there just to check groups off a list.

Not enough straight white folk is a problem.
I have seen that kind of thing said in some quarters.

 

[BillJ]

Give me a kick-ass captain that gets into physical brawls with aliens once in a while and I'm good. I don't care what color their skin is, who they sleep with or what genitals they have in their underwear.

 

[Mudd]

I've said my piece and therefore I'm not going to go on arguing...

Works for me. Buh-bye.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Things that will make the new Series "bad":

1) Bad writing
2) Bad acting
3) Bad directing
4) Bad production values

Things that will not make the new Series "bad"

1) LGBT actors or characters
2) Minority actors/characters
3) "Progressive themes"
4) Timeline placement
5) Ship design
6) Lack of devotion to "canon"

 

[Jedman67]

Give me a kick-ass captain that gets into physical brawls with aliens once in a while and I'm good. I don't care what color their skin is, who they sleep with or what genitals they have in their underwear.

This. Don't cast only for PC, and don't write just for PC. Just write a damn good captain and crew, and get good actors/actresses to play them!

 

[Tuskin38]

Hasn't Star Trek always been about social progressiveness? Except when the producers wouldn't allow it?

This. Don't cast for PC, and don't write for PC. Just write a damn good captain and get a great actor/actress!

That is what they're doing. Or at least that is what they say they're doing.