Strange how someone could describe themselves as neuro atypical and yet question the validity of disabled representation in the very same thread, your guess is as good as mine
I'm glad to hear life is a little easier for you these days
News Discovery New Character Breakdowns
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
Strange how someone could describe themselves as neuro atypical and yet question the validity of disabled representation in the very same thread, your guess is as good as mine
I'm glad to hear life is a little easier for you these days
English is actually not my first language (nor my second...). So pardon me if I used the wrong word there. But it should have been extremely obvious from the context of the rest of my post, that I was talking about Star Trek being a future where all physical illness-es are curable. Not necessarily every complex sicknesses (like cognitive ones) or diseases (in fact, there are MANY diseases on Trek that aren't curable - but they're all alien. The common current ones wisely never get mentioned).
Putting people in somewhere just to fullfill some sort of quota without any regards for context or implication is NOT in any way progressive or helpfull. See my post above adressing that issue.
Well, theny try being a disabled sailor. It simply doesn't work that way. Star Trek has regularly made sure Starfleet officer on board a starship is a physical demanding job. Which makes sense, considering what could all go wrong on a spaceship.
No? You really should read up on the treatment of people with physical disabilities in the past. Just be warned - there is some ugly stuff that might suprise you.
I could be wrong, but I've never gotten the impression that there is any sort of positive sense of a mobility-restricted "community" in the way there is say the deaf community.
I mean, talk to a deaf person (likely through translation), and they will generally tell you that they feel like they are a part of a marginalized community, and do not feel disabled at all. Those who were born deaf or became such at a very young age often have no desire to hear whatsoever. Indeed, I have had deaf people tell me that they look at a cochear implant as being the equivalent of genocide, because its widespread usage among hearing impaired children means that the ASL community will begin to die out. Some who have genetic causes for hearing loss have attempted to use embryo selection to ensure their children will be deaf as well, which is a thorny issue for medical ethicists. Regardless, to these people, a future without deaf people is like a future without black people.
In contrast, since the mobility impaired usually have normal language function, and only become impaired later in life they are not a distinct community. I'm not aware of any polling, but I think that the overwhelming majority would want to walk again, if the cost (both physical and monetary) wasn't too high. I don't think they would look at a future with no one in a wheelchair as being genocidal.
You could do this for a lot of human diversity. For example, regarding neurodiversity, most everyone I have met who is clinically depressed would not want to subject anyone else to it. In fact they often purposefully don't have children out of fear of passing it on. On the other hand, many ASD people I have known are very vocal about their difference not being a disability.
I mean, talk to a deaf person (likely through translation), and they will generally tell you that they feel like they are a part of a marginalized community, and do not feel disabled at all. Those who were born deaf or became such at a very young age often have no desire to hear whatsoever. Indeed, I have had deaf people tell me that they look at a cochear implant as being the equivalent of genocide, because its widespread usage among hearing impaired children means that the ASL community will begin to die out. Some who have genetic causes for hearing loss have attempted to use embryo selection to ensure their children will be deaf as well, which is a thorny issue for medical ethicists. Regardless, to these people, a future without deaf people is like a future without black people.
In contrast, since the mobility impaired usually have normal language function, and only become impaired later in life they are not a distinct community. I'm not aware of any polling, but I think that the overwhelming majority would want to walk again, if the cost (both physical and monetary) wasn't too high. I don't think they would look at a future with no one in a wheelchair as being genocidal.
You could do this for a lot of human diversity. For example, regarding neurodiversity, most everyone I have met who is clinically depressed would not want to subject anyone else to it. In fact they often purposefully don't have children out of fear of passing it on. On the other hand, many ASD people I have known are very vocal about their difference not being a disability.
Last edited:
You know what they are not on? Active combat service in the front lines.
Again: With Detmer that was handled with care. I would have totally liked that scene with someone having prosthetic limbs.
But as the shameless pandering with a sensible issue - with the show completely behaving like a bull in a China shop and getting it entirely wrong - it was disgusting.
True enough, but considering the origin of the genre, one could argue it's original appeal was in large part based upon giving a social outlet to stay-at-home wives and mothers who desired more social contact than they were getting. I mean, talking about a soap is very much like real life gossip, if a bit more melodramatic.
That's not to knock people who enjoy soaps. But it is a niche in the dramatic market, not the mainstream.
My wife struggles wit this daily and it is a battle.
In the TOS era the common cold could not be cured
Why shouldn't they be in an age where combat is fought from a computer console?
Maybe not in the US, but try looking up Eastenders, Coronation Street or Emmerdale in the UK, they are literally the pinnacle of primetime tv and have been for decades. Star Trek is niche viewing by comparison.
Additionally, is there any reason the demographic of socially restricted people somehow less valid?
My understanding is British soaps are very different from the U.S., in that they have a significant comedic component. Comedy works much better than drama for "slice of life" style shows IMHO.
Not at all. I just think that it's a false statement in general to say that all a show needs to be successful is good characterization. Premise matters. Imagine the following:
The Sopranos, without the Mafia
Mad Men, only in the present
Breaking Bad, without the crime drama
The Wire, without all the crime-related stuff
Game of Thrones, but no fantasy, and set in the present day
The Walking Dead, with no zombies
Dexter, but not a serial killer
House of Cards, but without the focus on politicians
The West Wing, but not actually about the White House
Orange is the New Black, but not in a prison
Oz, but not in a prison
ER, but not in a hospital, with no doctors.
And yet millions of people tune in to those soap operas every day, millions in a country much smaller than the US.
Honestly I'm not satisfied with the concept of using old technology if it is unnecessary. It would be simply inconsistent. I hope it isn't an old wheelchair.
I tend to agree with you if it requires 'props' that do not fit. Like I don't think any one in this thread is objecting to disabled characters at all as long as they do the job the role (on board) requires. In active duty the disability has to be overcome to the same level as others are expected to perform. If being in a 'wheel'chair is acceptable by Starfleet for a vessel like Discovery then so be it. This isn't about current technology or visuals, incorporating our limitations is dumb.
Most illnesses are physical. So again I think you're using the wrong words. Your statement was:
That's not true. Now you want to backtrack it to excepting "alien" diseases. And Star Trek is not a "perfect" utopian future, especially in TOS. And there might lay your problem. You see the disabled as a detriment to your perfect utopian future. So they can't exist.
That's an assumption on your part. You want it to be a negative for some reason. I see it as a positive. Just as Uhura and Sulu were positives. What I like to call "matter of fact inclusion".
What makes you think the disabled aren't physically fit? ever hear of the Paralympics. I'm guessing most if not all are more fit than me.
My sister has been disabled since birth. I'm no stranger to how the disabled have been treated. But the inclusion of a disabled character in Star Trek is not the same as the inclusion of a black character in the Confederate Army in a Civil War film.
You seem to want a "back of the bus" approach to seeing the disabled. I guess that's better than the "they don't exist" approach you started with .
Last edited:
Watching TV isn't social. Talking about what you saw is.
Night time shows like Dallas and Dynasty were soaps and very big hits. Most of the arc based shows we see now owe a lot to soap operas
I don't know what your deal is here, but there was nothing in his comments that deserved this escalation into personal territory. His remarks were perfectly calm and rational. Dial it back, please.
Trek spends most of its time inside ships with artificial gravity for the sake of production simplicity, but your insistence that wheelchair-bound people should not be shown serving as astronauts sort of misses the point that they'd in fact be ideal candidates for working in long-term micro-gravity environments, since they're more used to being dependent on moving around with their hands and your legs often just get in the way in space.
https://habengirma.com/2017/10/08/houston-prepare-for-astronauts-with-disabilities/
Maybe the wheelchair-bound Starfleet crewman does space walks and/or works on the artificial gravity systems of the ship and thus spends a lot of time working outside the ship, in areas where the artificial gravity has failed, and in the "sweet spot" of zero-g aboard the ship as shown by Travis and Trip in ENT. Maybe they're from a lower gravity planet like Melora Pazlar from DS9 and can't adjust or need time to adjust to Discovery's 1g Earth-normal environmental settings. Maybe they're a disabled veteran crewman visiting old comrades at the party. Maybe they're being transported to a new assignment. Maybe they were wounded or injured on a mission or while working and are temporarily recuperating in the wheelchair (or in it permanently or until they can get a prosthesis or exoskeleton or surgery). Maybe they're a computing or communications or cartography (like Pazlar) or science specialist or some other specialty where having functional legs is not the most important quality.
There are hundreds of reasons why having a person in a wheelchair is perfectly natural aboard ship. And contrary to it being out of place because it's the future, having greater technological opportunities would open up greater possibilities for people of all abilities to live and work in space. Not everyone would choose or is medically capable of using all treatment options, so perhaps a wheelchair is their preference or only remaining option.
I hope this wasn't your intent, but the way this comes off is like you're saying that disabled people are no longer sexual beings and that "trying to get laid" is a completely alien experience to them, or that they're completely undesirable to others and shouldn't even bother going to a party. Because that's not true.
Others have already tackled the misconception that disabled soldiers can no longer play a part in active duty service even in our present day, and those opportunities would only increase with the greater technological advantages of the future.
Showing inclusiveness, even if it's done purely for the sake of it and not for some deeper storytelling purpose, is not a "cheap move", as it demonstrates to other people who share those attributes that they have a place in the future.
To address the second part of your quote above, not to get into a touchy tangent that tends to draw out the bigots, but yes there were in fact some free black soldiers who served in the Confederacy, albeit in relatively small numbers, so showing that would be historically accurate. Contrary to racist and Confederate apologist rhetoric, most of them were not Confederate supporters but were rather conscripted as laborers or joined out of fear of reprisal and were pressed into combat as a last resort and under threat, and often escaped or switched to the Union side at the first opportunity.
So, yes, you wouldn't just want to show that without providing the context that the vast majority of them were not there willingly, but I don't really see how that applies to the disabled Starfleet crewman situation. What extra context needs to be added there to show them for the sake of inclusivity and to demonstrate that they still have a role to play in the future? They're not being exploited or pressed into service against their will, so it's really apples and oranges compared to the black Confederate soldier analogy.
It's rather ironic that a franchise that had representation and inclusion as a core element and having that is one of the reasons it is remembered, celebrated and still ongoing to this day because of it has fans who are dead against representation and inclusion of minorities.
When did I question the validity of disabled representation in the same thread?Strange how someone could describe themselves as neuro atypical and yet question the validity of disabled representation in the very same thread, your guess is as good as mine
I think you've confused me with another poster, because I never said any such thing.
Actually, I advocate for disabled people to be included. The website I was on before coming here tonight is one of the Canadian news sites, where I'm trying to get through to some extremely myopic and willfully obtuse conservatives that there are definite barriers affecting disabled voters, and one of them is the simple fact that in the 2015 election, some of the advance polls were held on the 2nd floor of buildings where the elevators were not available. This was over Thanksgiving weekend, and nobody bothered to make sure the elevators could be used.
Able-bodied voters could use the stairs. Many senior citizens and mobility-disabled voters were screwed.
There are other voting-related issues that affect disabled voters, and I spent a lot of time last election, getting the word out to people who didn't realize that disabled voters, if they're citizens, have every right to vote and need to refuse to take NO for an answer from some ignorant/officious Returning Officer who doesn't want to bother with the extra paperwork and time it takes to ensure these people can vote.
So given all this, why would I have any reason at all to not want disabled representation on Star Trek? Just because I consider DiscoTrek to be utter crap as a series, that doesn't mean I don't want any disabled characters to be included.
Thanks.I'm glad to hear life is a little easier for you these days
See my above comment re: the election issues. Granted, it's not a community in that sense, but all mobility-challenged people do face some common issues and frustrations.
For instance, would you consider it acceptable to pick up someone's crutches and move them out of reach for your own convenience, without even asking them? Probably not. Ditto a wheelchair, or at least I should hope not.
But an awful lot of people seem to think that if I'm sitting in a chair and my walker is beside me, they can just move it anywhere without asking me (and usually don't move it correctly; some parts are not strong enough to support its whole weight). That's like running off with someone's crutches or wheelchair, and it's really damned inconsiderate and rude. I've told people, "If my walker is in your way, tell me and I will move it. Otherwise, leave it alone."
Of course we'd love to be fully mobile again, and if I ever had a kid (very hypothetical, given that I'm over 50 now), I would want that kid to be as healthy as possible. But "community" means different things, so kindly don't dismiss it, 'k?
Yes, all my neighbors can relate to mad scientists, vampire hunters, mobsters, people who keep coming back from the dead, people who have identical cousins, children who are 5 one day and 15 the next, and so on.
Use whatever technology works. I still have an old wooden cane my grandfather used. I've used it myself on occasion, even though I've got more modern ones. The goal is to help me get around, and I'll take whichever one is handiest and works.
You didn't, I was remarking on the irony of someone else doing it, thought you would get that. Sorry!
Thanks for clarifying.
I've been following this thread in fits and starts, sandwiching it in around RL stuff and NaNoWriMo (today's the last day, so I'm really pushing the word count).
Are you kidding me?
You seem to have gone back to my original post, just to put up quotes out of context, you should have taken the time to read the whole thing. In case you didn't notice, my "backtracking" was already a big part of my original post: When I was talking about inclusion of disabilities done right. In this case, Geordies Visor.
This is exactly the point where I wish to throw out the board rules and throw one or two personal insults at you. Because right here, you would seriously deserve them.
What makes you think the disabled aren't physically fit? ever hear of the Paralympics. I'm guessing most if not all are more fit than me.
That's exactly the point, the nuace you seem to be so happy to completely hammer flat: Someone serving in active duty HAS to be physicall fit and able to perfom. Disabled or not.
In best of times, Star Trek includes people with disabilities that are fit to serve. Again: Geordie is a perfect example. IMO also Detmer, since her cybernetic extension are clearly war-related. Or Nog, when he was on hold in treatment without his leg.
I would be happy if they would show people with prosthetic limbs - again, like people in the Paralympics have. Because it would show that both 1) medicine has moved forward (it's the future after all) and 2) positive inclusion.
If they want to include people that aren't capable of moving themselves - again, like Dr. Erickson, or Cpt. Pike, wich were ALSO good examples - just take a bit of consideration in which situation you put them in.
You are really one of those guys that want to ban "To kill a mockingbird" or "Uncle Tom’s Cabin" from school lecture because it uses bad words and could make you uncomfortable, right?
Better pretend the 60's have all been perfectly fine for minorities and we should all remember them fondly and want to go back as a society there, right...?
I guess that's better than the "they don't exist" approach you started with .
Projection level over 100% right there...
You seem VERY BIG on sanitizing history to make you feel not too bad when reading/learning about it. I can just tell you, this is not an approach that works, and NOT one that will in any way improve things for anyone in the future.
It was damn tasteless.
It took my original post where I formulated my concerns in the approach DIS takes to display disabilities, which I will quote in it's entirety here again because I'm sick of someone taking it out of context:
...and turned that completely on it's head, to insinuate I somehow want to "bury" disabilities from the show, and pretend they don't exits. I don't care if he used "clean" words to do that, I don't let that stand.
This show has serious problems depicting anything with real-life consequences, wether it's their ludicrous cartoonish portrayal of war and violence with gore effects, or that they decided that the one turn-around sleeper agent they have on board HAS to be the muslim-looking guy, and their trivilialization of torture and the "haha, he deserved it"-approach to leaving civilians back to it. This show is NOT made by people who deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore, because they have already burnt too many bridges.
Which seems again like an excessive defense of "Melora", which was probably one of the most offensive episodes DS9 ever made, where they not just took the whole "The disabled person WANTS to be disabled, because it makes him special"-trope that's a signifier for the worst kind of movies, but also applied it on a case where she wasn't disabled in the first case. Which didn't stop them from treating it this way anyway.
This is completely fucking wrong, and I hope you know that. This is not about disabled people not having human emotions anymore. That guy was solely used as a prop in that scene. It was the American Pie-version of a party scene - not a real-life event - which they just padded with inclusiveness - there is also a lesbian couple - which is a GOOD thing normally, but it was obvious they just didn't care, and just throw it in to make their audience happy, without thinking about it at all.
This scene could have worked - if they had given him any kind of dialogue maybe, or a single scene. But as it was depicted, it had more in common with Horror movies that exclusively feature white characters, than throw a single black guy in it to avoid any accusations, but then don't let him have any dialogue at all and have him be the first one to get killed 5 minutes in, to focus on the "real" characters for the remaining majority of the movie.
Nobody has ever disputed that.
But yeah, it can be a a cheap move, if it is handled without care. There are enough movies about racism out there where the message boils down to "see, black people can be normal people, too!", which is so offensive, it would have been better if they didn't have made it at all.
You know, I absolutely don't think you are a racist. But with malice intent, it's absolutely possible to read this paragraph as you taking a pro-Confederate/anti-abolotionist stand, the same way someone can misconstruct my posts as being "anti-inclusiveness".
This is a complicated topic that needs nuance to be discussed properly. Taking a bulldozer over such a statement to say "You disagree with their portrayal of guys in wheelchairs, thus YOU must be predjudiced against them!" will not do the discussion any favour. And that is what has happened the last few pages, and which quite honest makes me angry.
Case in point. Context is important when depicting social issues. "I can't be racist, I have a black friend" is a common argument heard from the right. "I can't be predjudiced against people with disabilities, I once gave one a cameo on the show" is an equally weak argument, if the context surrounding it suggests otherwise. In those cases it's not even about malice. They see social issues and just don't care. It's the flimsiest excuse possible. Usually followed by "YOU are the real racist, you want to talk about race the entire time". In this case it's me talking about the presentation of disabilities. And that I see the way they did it as VERY problematic, and are concerned when they are proclaiming they want to double-down on that. And then you have to defend against the trolls "Oh, you talk about them showing inclusiveness so much. YOU are the predjudiced one". It just...doesn't work that way.
And yeah: I am NOT content with how Discovery displayed people with disabilities. It's not like sexual orientation, or race, which are natural and where the mere presence in fiction is already applaudable. This is still a suffering, where pure "acceptance" is not the only solution, but it's a condition where a cure - should it be available - would be preferable. This makes the situation more complex, and more complicated, and thus would need a more in-depth look than just mere presence as a sign of representation and inclusiveness. I hope that's what they are going for - it seems to be a larger guest appereance after all, not just a short cameo. But given their track record, I remain cautious.
/wall of text
Last edited:
@Rahul, I have stayed out of this conversation but as a mod I need to step in when things get unreasonably heated.
I understand that you are quite unhappy with how this conversation has gone so far and that you feel that your posts have been misrepresented.
That is not an excuse for personal attacks, though. Saying "I wish I could throw personal insults at you because you deserve it but alas..." is just a clever way of attacking somebody personally while trying to avoid an infraction.
Don't do that.
In your post, you are basically complaining that others have overreacted to your posts or misrepresented them. Wouldn't you say that the above quote is essentially doing the same?
Pretending the 60s were perfectly fine for minorities is clearly not what @Nerys Myk meant, in fact I think he meant the opposite when he suggested minorities shouldn't be marginalized at the "back of the bus".
There absolutely was no way to read @Locutus of Bored's carefully worded and nuanced post on black soldiers serving in Confederate forces as pro-confederacy.
Again, I get that you feel your posts have been misrepresented but you don't fix that by making these outrageous claims.
I suggest people calm down and give each other the benefit of the doubt here unless they want an infraction and/or the thread shut down if this can't be discussed in a civil manner.
I understand that you are quite unhappy with how this conversation has gone so far and that you feel that your posts have been misrepresented.
That is not an excuse for personal attacks, though. Saying "I wish I could throw personal insults at you because you deserve it but alas..." is just a clever way of attacking somebody personally while trying to avoid an infraction.
Don't do that.
In your post, you are basically complaining that others have overreacted to your posts or misrepresented them. Wouldn't you say that the above quote is essentially doing the same?
Pretending the 60s were perfectly fine for minorities is clearly not what @Nerys Myk meant, in fact I think he meant the opposite when he suggested minorities shouldn't be marginalized at the "back of the bus".
There absolutely was no way to read @Locutus of Bored's carefully worded and nuanced post on black soldiers serving in Confederate forces as pro-confederacy.
Again, I get that you feel your posts have been misrepresented but you don't fix that by making these outrageous claims.
I suggest people calm down and give each other the benefit of the doubt here unless they want an infraction and/or the thread shut down if this can't be discussed in a civil manner.
Similar threads
- Locked
