He earned it over a decades spanning career. Don’t you think it’s nice to acknowledge that?
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
He earned it over a decades spanning career. Don’t you think it’s nice to acknowledge that?
So not for acknowledging Arthur as King of the Britons?
Pull the other one.
I'll call him Sir because he was Knighted. Just like I'll call someone Doctor if they had their PhD. It's an honorific that goes in front of the name.
The whole Section 31 thing, the Federation isn't evolved. It just likes to say it is and it projects the image it wants to project. Kind of like America. Sorry. Sure there are Picards and Bashirs, but there are also Sloans and Nacheyevs.
Nacheyev in "Descent" (TNG) told Picard that the next time he had a chance to obliterate the Borg, he was ordered to take it. So, it wasn't just a DS9 thing, and I was not surprised that the Federation had something like Section 31, even back in 1998.
Plus we're talking about the late-'90s. The X-Files was at the height of its popularity. They even had a movie that came out in '98, that I went to the theaters to see with some friends. I even bought the soundtrack. (The X-Files: Fight the Future is right up there with Escape from LA as one of my favorite soundtracks from the decade. Great playlists! But anyway... ) Section 31 was Star Trek keeping up with the times and not taking "everything's better!" for granted.
Sisko, Bashir, and O'Brien were against S31. Ross, being an Admiral, was pragmatic about it, even though he didn't like it. So it's not as if Section 31 was being portrayed in a positive light. At worst, they're villains. At best, they're anti-heroes. Many parts of America are villainous, so I can accept that parts of the Federation are villainous.
The Federation is supposed to be an analogue for the United States of America, not just the parts that look good. Right down to the Federation considering relocating a Native American colony in "Journey's End" or manufacturing enslaved androids in "The Measure of a Man". Both are from TNG, and one of them -- "The Measure of a Man" -- is from when Gene Roddenberry was in charge, not Rick Berman!
Star Trek has to be brave enough to look at the parts that are both good and bad if the Federation is to be a true analogue. Otherwise: it's not an analogue, it's an idealization.
Nacheyev in "Descent" (TNG) told Picard that the next time he had a chance to obliterate the Borg, he was ordered to take it. So, it wasn't just a DS9 thing, and I was not surprised that the Federation had something like Section 31, even back in 1998.
Plus we're talking about the late-'90s. The X-Files was at the height of its popularity. They even had a movie that came out in '98, that I went to the theaters to see with some friends. I even bought the soundtrack. (The X-Files: Fight the Future is right up there with Escape from LA as one of my favorite soundtracks from the decade. Great playlists! But anyway... ) Section 31 was Star Trek keeping up with the times and not taking "everything's better!" for granted.
Sisko, Bashir, and O'Brien were against S31. Ross, being an Admiral, was pragmatic about it, even though he didn't like it. So it's not as if Section 31 was being portrayed in a positive light. At worst, they're villains. At best, they're anti-heroes. Many parts of America are villainous, so I can accept that parts of the Federation are villainous.
The Federation is supposed to be an analogue for the United States of America, not just the parts that look good. Right down to the Federation considering relocating a Native American colony in "Journey's End" or manufacturing enslaved androids in "The Measure of a Man". Both are from TNG, and one of them -- "The Measure of a Man" -- is from when Gene Roddenberry was in charge, not Rick Berman!
Star Trek has to be brave enough to look at the parts that are both good and bad if the Federation is to be a true analogue. Otherwise: it's not an analogue, it's an idealization.
Last edited:
To play "Devil's Advocate" and steal from Aaron Sorkin, what is the virtue of a proportional response in an interstellar war where presumably billions of people are dying and entire planets are being conquered?
The Section 31 virus is the proximate reason the Founders capitulate. The cure and Odo's return to the link are the bargaining chips which facilitates the Dominion's surrender.
How would it have been somehow more virtuous for the Federation, the Klingons, and the Romulans to have fought their way across Cardassia, probably killing millions of civilians in the process, rather than forcing their capitulation with the targeted killing of the Dominion leadership, which the Founders/Changelings are?
The Dominion War is basically Star Trek's World War II, and I always saw parallels between the Section 31 virus and the use of nuclear weapons to end the Pacific War with Japan. They're both tactics which when considered in the abstract are atrocities. But what was the alternative when the enemy fights on, has to be made to surrender, and all the other options involve greater death and destruction?
And to sound like Martok for a second, before anyone cries too many tears for the Changelings, let's remember that these are the same people responsible for infecting an entire planet with "The Quickening" virus that tortures an entire species for generations with slow painful deaths. I'm sure that species feels the Section 31 virus was poetic justice.
The Section 31 virus is the proximate reason the Founders capitulate. The cure and Odo's return to the link are the bargaining chips which facilitates the Dominion's surrender.
How would it have been somehow more virtuous for the Federation, the Klingons, and the Romulans to have fought their way across Cardassia, probably killing millions of civilians in the process, rather than forcing their capitulation with the targeted killing of the Dominion leadership, which the Founders/Changelings are?
The Dominion War is basically Star Trek's World War II, and I always saw parallels between the Section 31 virus and the use of nuclear weapons to end the Pacific War with Japan. They're both tactics which when considered in the abstract are atrocities. But what was the alternative when the enemy fights on, has to be made to surrender, and all the other options involve greater death and destruction?
And to sound like Martok for a second, before anyone cries too many tears for the Changelings, let's remember that these are the same people responsible for infecting an entire planet with "The Quickening" virus that tortures an entire species for generations with slow painful deaths. I'm sure that species feels the Section 31 virus was poetic justice.
The Jem'Hadar didn't seem to mind their line of work. Really, without the Vorta and Founders telling them what to do, they'd probably do even more fighting, just more indiscriminately.
I despise nobility and everything that derives from it and I refuse to use titles and honorifics that are part of that institution.
I usually don't call doctors Doctor either but that's a cultural thing, I'm not generally opposed to it it's just not usually done here. Doctors most of the time don't even introduce themselves as doctor but just with their names. Legally they also don't have the right to insist on being called Doctor as it's not part of the name but an academic degree and not addressing someone by degree is not even considered rude, on the contrary insisting to be called doctor is rude and people who do it will immediately be disliked.
Last edited:
I see. How original.
So? And because an opinion is not "original" is suddenly laughable or less valid?
With the picture you use here I could also say "Oh, a fan of the Young Ones? How original!"
Being anti-monarchist is a valid opinion. It doesn't devalue Patrick Stewart's impressive career as an actor.
I didn't vote for him.
That's my problem. These nigh unspeakable acts should still be carried out by Ordinary Federation by whatever acknowledged institutions they have available. You don't need Section 31, an organization so evil it might not even exist!
For all the secrecy and skullduggery that surrounded the Manhattan Project (Oak Ridge, Tennessee still fascinates the hell out of me) it was still Truman who said "Drop that f***er. Twice."
I thought it was controversial Star Trek opinions thread, not another monarchy/nobility debate sty.
Besides, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
Because nothing. This is not the thread for such a discussion and I won’t engage further.
If you don’t like a post I’ve made, you know where the report button is. Knock yourself out.
Exactly.
Last edited:
Well then follow your own advice next time and don't engage.
Thanks. I’ll give that all the thought it deserves.
It adds plausible deniabilty.
As Garth notes the Federation likes to project itself a certain way. 31 is that out for keeping that image.
Section 31 works if you don't show it very often. It's the secret police that many supposed as well as actual democracies employ to "smooth out the edges" of their societies and eliminate external threats without the general public knowing. It's when we see them every week for a whole season of a series or they take the main villain role in a movie that they just get tedious.
But the concept isn't bad from a dramatic storytelling P.O.V. What better to challenge the notion that you're a free society that abides by the rule of law than by showing that you sanction organizations that stand anathema to the ideals of both?
But the concept isn't bad from a dramatic storytelling P.O.V. What better to challenge the notion that you're a free society that abides by the rule of law than by showing that you sanction organizations that stand anathema to the ideals of both?
Agreed. Section 31 is a shadow organization, not one that everyone should know about... to the point they have their own special badges that people identify. It's one of the main reasons why I rate DISCO season 2 so badly.
Similar threads
- Locked
