TragicBTW current results on youtube: 1.7kand 1.2k
.
Season 2 Episode 1 is free to watch on the CBS All Access Youtube Channel (USA Only)
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
^^^
Hahahaha! You are either too young, or don't recall all they "Hey look Star Trek put an "Angry Black Man" ™ in charge of DS9 comments the Alt-Right had in the day; or how they look at TNG now IE:
- Hey they have a Black Engineer tending to the ship's engines...
- They have a Black bartender serving drinks in 10 Forward...
- They have a Black person playing a Klingon animal person...
(Yes, people are wondering why the Alt-Right has a problem? It's that they now see a character they can't stick into a menial sounding trope. That's how we now have Star Trek fans claiming SJWs are 'ruining Star Trek')
You literally just did what I sarcastically challenged folks to do (claim hatred, thus dismiss), and then claimed a vote tally rally by hundreds of Disco fans means something.
His timeline, in reality, is completely accurate. Can you speak to that point?
By preferring individual justice untainted by racism at all, for one.
This thread seems to be heading into Neutral Zone territory. I think 'alt-right' is such an ill-defined term that conflating it with 'conservative' and whatever other terms people use is, at the very least, a short sighted way to discuss these topics. It just propagates the narrative propagated by certain circles that 'conservative' = 'alt-right' = 'neo-nazi'.
I know many conservatives who identify with certain things labelled as 'alt-right' who nonetheless denounce racism. On the other side of the coin I know many so-called 'progressives' who feel justified in saying the most outlandishly racist things because of the ills of the past.
Maybe we should not paint people with a broad brush based on our own biases about what we assume 'certain kinds of people' are thinking.
I know many conservatives who identify with certain things labelled as 'alt-right' who nonetheless denounce racism. On the other side of the coin I know many so-called 'progressives' who feel justified in saying the most outlandishly racist things because of the ills of the past.
Maybe we should not paint people with a broad brush based on our own biases about what we assume 'certain kinds of people' are thinking.
I fail to understand why these people cannot simply not watch. Find something positive to do with their free time.
Social Justice is against racism.
I don't think all criticism about Discovery is done by Alt-Righters. No one else should think that either. But, if you're criticizing DSC and are Alt-Right or Alt-Right Leaning, then it doesn't help your case. At all. And I do question why those people ever liked Star Trek in the first place since it seems to go so against their beliefs.
The only conclusion that I can come to is that they weren't initially alt-right, stumbled onto that ideology, grew into it, but also can't let go of the series they loved in the past, so they rationalize and compartmentalize. So previous series get a pass because it was "different" but DSC doesn't because suddenly it's part of an "SJW agenda".
That's NOT to say at all that I think everyone who doesn't like Discovery feels that way. Not at all. But if you don't like Michael Burnham being the lead, having so many women in the crew, insult L'Rell willy-nilly, and don't like that Burnham, Georgiou, and L'Rell found a way to end the Klingon War because the boyz couldn't do it, then I do think there might be some sexism involved in why some -- I said some -- don't like the series.
Also the Mary Sue thing. You say Burnham. I say NuKirk. Cutting-and-pasting something I several months ago about how I think Burnham is being held to a different standard...
What I said nine months ago below:
NuKirk graduates from the Academy in three years, goes from Cadet to Captain in one mission, and is offered a promotion to Admiral less than five years later. NuKirk isn't generally called a Mary Sue. And the same people who think NuKirk is the Ultimate go on complaining that Burnham sucks.
Burnham joined the Shenzou, and seven years later she was First Officer. Seven years. Not an unreasonable amount of time for someone Georgiou took under her wing. She then gets stripped of rank. Spends six months in prison. Then she's found by Lorca who sought her out on purpose, is made a Specialist with no rank, and then regains her original rank roughly a year later (the nine months they skip over plus the few months most of the season actually covered) but still didn't regain her original position as a First Officer.
And there's no guarantee that her Vulcan Hello would've worked. So there probably would've been war with the Klingons no matter what. Only now she had the stigma of an attempted mutiny, which was later rescinded basically for "good behavior". And yeah, she won a medal, but so did everyone else and it's not like Kirk and Spock didn't have medals. Kirk especially as "Court Martial" shows.
So, I think Burnham is being held to a different standard. Which is entirely separate from whether or not someone likes the character. You can dislike a character because of the actor, the character's personality, their choices, they just plain rub you the wrong way, anything. But it's not the same thing as Burnham being held to a different standard than Kirk or Spock without people consciously realizing it.
One more thing: Micheal Burnham was born in 2226. Spock was born in 2230 (which is reinforced in Star Trek Beyond, by the way). Throw Sybok into the mix and, yeah, Spock is the baby of the group.
Like it or not, Burnham would get to do things first. Not that Spock is a slouch. If "The Cage" is anything to go by, it looks like he's Second Officer of the Enterprise within a year of graduating from the Academy.
The only conclusion that I can come to is that they weren't initially alt-right, stumbled onto that ideology, grew into it, but also can't let go of the series they loved in the past, so they rationalize and compartmentalize. So previous series get a pass because it was "different" but DSC doesn't because suddenly it's part of an "SJW agenda".
That's NOT to say at all that I think everyone who doesn't like Discovery feels that way. Not at all. But if you don't like Michael Burnham being the lead, having so many women in the crew, insult L'Rell willy-nilly, and don't like that Burnham, Georgiou, and L'Rell found a way to end the Klingon War because the boyz couldn't do it, then I do think there might be some sexism involved in why some -- I said some -- don't like the series.
Also the Mary Sue thing. You say Burnham. I say NuKirk. Cutting-and-pasting something I several months ago about how I think Burnham is being held to a different standard...
What I said nine months ago below:
NuKirk graduates from the Academy in three years, goes from Cadet to Captain in one mission, and is offered a promotion to Admiral less than five years later. NuKirk isn't generally called a Mary Sue. And the same people who think NuKirk is the Ultimate go on complaining that Burnham sucks.
Burnham joined the Shenzou, and seven years later she was First Officer. Seven years. Not an unreasonable amount of time for someone Georgiou took under her wing. She then gets stripped of rank. Spends six months in prison. Then she's found by Lorca who sought her out on purpose, is made a Specialist with no rank, and then regains her original rank roughly a year later (the nine months they skip over plus the few months most of the season actually covered) but still didn't regain her original position as a First Officer.
And there's no guarantee that her Vulcan Hello would've worked. So there probably would've been war with the Klingons no matter what. Only now she had the stigma of an attempted mutiny, which was later rescinded basically for "good behavior". And yeah, she won a medal, but so did everyone else and it's not like Kirk and Spock didn't have medals. Kirk especially as "Court Martial" shows.
So, I think Burnham is being held to a different standard. Which is entirely separate from whether or not someone likes the character. You can dislike a character because of the actor, the character's personality, their choices, they just plain rub you the wrong way, anything. But it's not the same thing as Burnham being held to a different standard than Kirk or Spock without people consciously realizing it.
One more thing: Micheal Burnham was born in 2226. Spock was born in 2230 (which is reinforced in Star Trek Beyond, by the way). Throw Sybok into the mix and, yeah, Spock is the baby of the group.
Like it or not, Burnham would get to do things first. Not that Spock is a slouch. If "The Cage" is anything to go by, it looks like he's Second Officer of the Enterprise within a year of graduating from the Academy.
Last edited:
Unless I've missed something, you don't post hate, only critique and opinion. It's a world apart from a lot of rather vile or mindless comments out there.Hope springs eternal? At least it does in my case.
This.
Agreed.
Pretty much this. Finding a character boring is one thing. Declaring the character is poor because of her displayed abilities while ignoring other characters with the same features is ridiculous.
Mary Sues are perfect and infallable. Kirk had some spectacular disasters on his watch, and admitted to Spock he was out of his depth and just doing his best.
Burnham fucked up too, with her botched mutiny and then revenge-killing T'Kuvma when taking him alive was her idea.
Because it used to be fine for them so long as white leading actors played Kirk/Spock and Picard/Riker fighting Klingons, Romulans and Borg. There was DS9, but you could easily ignore it as it was always accompanied by another Trek show featuring white leads. DISCO is the only show currently, and having a character like Connolly get killed equals “White Genocide”.
There are some out there that lumps anyone critical of Discovery in with the haters.
Nobody is lumping you among them unless I’ve missed that.
I like the show, it I'm extremely critical of the idea that it's the same world as TOS. I'm sure if some only read the continuity threads they'd think the same of me.
No. His timeline is completely untrue and invented to hate. She ignores the available information. For example about the peace conference and the signing of the treaty. But that would not fit the purpose of this text.
For instance, an exemplary fragment to illustrate the quality of the text:
In this fragment there are so many erroneous assumptions that you can simply see in it why this text was written.
There are many such examples in the review (e.g. the nonsense time of Discovery's stay on earth or the moment of exchanging uniforms or the assumption that Enterprise had to return to Earth to get a mission) so any discussion with such intellectually dishonest text would not make any sense.
Well, mass lumping of any side is easier than actually thinking.
Similar threads
- Sticky
