Yes they are.
What would be a deal breaker for you in Discovery?
- Thread starter RomulanCommander
- Start date
- Status
Fascinating? More like, "contradiction in terms".
Trek has already done "Trump world." It's called the mirror universe.
I'll say it...
If the captain of the Shinzo starts grabbing her subordinates by the crotch I'm out of .......er...actually...I might enjoy that
You made an issue about it. Not me.
First you made the tasteless joke about sexual assault, which even if you didn't intend to offend the best response would have been to either apologize or just drop it and walk away. But you couldn't do that and felt the need to tell a woman to lighten up about it. Then you continued making it a problem after she told you to drop it. Then you dragged up an unrelated post from May 13th just so you can get in a dig at her expense about being sensitive after she told you to take it to PM.
Infraction for trolling. Comments to PM.
No, they were fairly successful. Trump World is that one where the racism metaphors lived, after it was burning.
If it's tyranny you're pointing to, that would have been the Obama admin.
I remember when he took everyone's guns and declared himself God Emperor. That was pretty baller.
I remember when he ignored a court order saying he could not suspend offshore drilling and just did it. I remember when he ignored the law and created the DACA program. I remember when, with the collusion of some Senate Democrats, acting as a politburo, he completely changed the treaty clause of the Constitution and made it 2/3 to abrogate, not 2/3 to approve the Iran treaty, the substance of which was a gift to the worst terrorist-sponsoring state in the world.
Shit.
Moderators, my sincerest apologies for opening up the can of worms.
Moderators, my sincerest apologies for opening up the can of worms.
No worries. You didn't do anything wrong.
Allow me to elaborate: On the nose attempts at social commentary lacking subtlety. Angst filled confrontations that seem out of place in a professional environment in any century. Star Trek almost always has taken a higher road in this regard. We don't see Sisko constantly dealing with racist admirals, or Janeway constantly dealing sexist crewman.
From TOS onward, race and sex are not made a flaming issue. All is equal already, and it's a given, and when prejudice is focused on, it's usually is handled in a more clever fashion, like the EMH early on, deals with a crewmember who won't look him in the eye when he talks to him. Star Trek doesn't flame bait.
That's probably why it's always been such a popular family show that everyone enjoys regardless of age, sex, political views, cultural views, etc.
It's hard to say what a deal-breaker is for me. I try to keep an open mind even though I love TOS; I still love some of the newer shows (heck I think I'm one of the few that enjoy "Enterprise). What will be hard to overcome for me is if they substitute political correctness for good story telling. For me the story is the key.
Man, I remember when tyranny was a lot sexier. Public executions, goosestepping, fashy uniforms. Now it's just boring shit like not persecuting undocumented immigrants, and having normal diplomacy.
I think we watched different shows.
Subtlety is not a Star Trek hallmark, especially in dealing with social issues. It's often done at a level that would even leave a middle-school student shaking their head. I've not seen too much "cleverness" when they try to make comments. It's often clumsy and at times embarrassing.Not sure what you mean by "flame bait".
I think explained my premise and reasoning well enough. After all, my original comment was merely agreeing with someone. Trek addresses the issues of sexism and racism often through not addressing them, as I used Sisko or Janeway as an example. That is clever and subtle in and of itself. And when they do overtly address prejudice, its done through allegory, like the guy that won't look at the Doctor when speaking to him. That IS subtlety also.
Flame baiting, as in being intentionally provocative to insight anger and division. And to force one's views on others for the purpose of insightment. To piss people off with differing sensibilities, and to anger and harden those with similar sensibilities against the former. Polemics.
You need to watch "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield".
I doubt the people behind DSC will be out to promote anger, just discussion. People might get pissed offed. It happens, but that should never be a reason not to discuss the issues within the context of the show. Or create a dialog about the issue outside of the show. Sometimes art will make you uncomfortable.
Last edited:
You need to watch "Let That Be You Last Battlefield".
[ /QUOTE]
Perhaps one of my favorite episodes for its "subtlety."
There are some other good examples as well..
TOS had a good one with the navigator who hated Spock because he was Vulcan and looked like the Romulans.
TNG had the episode where Data was given command of a ship and his first officer wanted a transfer because he didn't believe an android could be captain.
And both of those had the idea of prejudice being a bad thing front and center. It wasn't subtle and it wasn't allegory.
If Trek was as vanilla as that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think family show is a bit of stretch. It was dealing with some adult subjects. TOS was known for playing "what can we slip past the censors" especially when it came to women's costumes. DS9's war stories and things like Picard's torture aren't exactly stuff for the kiddies.
- Status
Similar threads
