How Do Social Conservative Star Fans Enjoy Star Trek?

[fireproof78]

The Far Right and Far Left have just poisoned there proverbial wells, with people looking at ALL people as Far whatever side, when most are in left or right of middle wringing there hands at each side as they go further off the rails.

Indeed, and it's very frustrating. It's no longer a dialog but people assuming that "Oh, you're on this side? I can't talk to you."

It's very frustrating to me that things like Star Trek can't be a uniting factor, but instead a "How can you, a conservative, like Star Trek?"

 

[Oddish]

Indeed, and it's very frustrating. It's no longer a dialog but people assuming that "Oh, you're on this side? I can't talk to you."

And first, how many of us are purely liberal or conservative? If you named ten issues that are divisive (immigration, guns, abortion, the environment, LGBTQ rights), I think the typical person would be all over the place. I'm pretty far left on environmental issues, for instance, but I swing right on guns.

It's very frustrating to me that things like Star Trek can't be a uniting factor, but instead a "How can you, a conservative, like Star Trek?"

Well, you can use my post at the top of Page 2 to provide an explanation. It's not comprehensive, but I think it's a start.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, you can use my post at the top of Page 2 to provide an explanation. It's not comprehensive, but I think it's a start.

1000% agree with that post. It was an amazing post. It's why I find labels to be a mental shortcut, and not a pathway to conversation. Yours is a better pathway to conversation.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

TOS at least is a utopian-oriented encouragment to friendly interstellar relations which tends to conclude with impressive fight scenes. That certainly brought in young males from the get-go. But I'd say TOS bridges the gap politically and intentionally. You don't have to be a right-winger specifically to enjoy FRIDAY'S CHILD or SPECTRE OF THE GUN, among many others.
And you need not be a lefty to appreciate CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER.

 

[Oddish]

Indeed. And, you can enjoy a show even if you're not totally politically aligned with its protagonists. I watched MacGyver, for instance, and enjoyed it despite its anti-gun message.

 

[Nyotarules]

"Citiprime, post: 14669119, member: 90858"

"I think there are a boat-load of white......people who don’t mind people-of-color as long as they act like white people"

(Fixed that for ya)
Trek is a reflection of parts of society.

Best I ain't racist or prejudiced test, Give them a 'Guess who is coming to dinner' set up with one of their children. Not only white people will fail it.

 

[Nyotarules]

No. I'm talking people who stubbornly insist the ST of 1960s-1990s weren't well ahead of their time.

They would be right about 1990's Trek, it was not well ahead of its time for a T.V. show. As far as I am aware, TOS was not the first 1960's TV show to have nonwhite people in non servile roles e.g I Spy or an interracial kiss (and that was forced on the characters anyway)

 

[fireproof78]

They would be right about 1990's Trek, it was not well ahead of its time for a T.V. show As far as I am aware TOS was not the first 1960's TV show to have nonwhite people in non servile roles e.g I Spy or an interracial kiss (and that was forced on the characters anyway)

True.

Trek rests on laurels that are not 100% true. 90s Trek was far less progressive than even comedy shows like Night Court or Golden Girls. Far more open in the conversation than the couched language of TNG or VOY.

 

[comsol]

Ah, ok. I don’t know that guy.

Lucky you.

 

[valkyrie013]

My first thought after reading the First post question, How do social conservatives enjoy star trek??

I enjoy it just fine like the rest of ya'll..
Its a loaded question that assumes social conservatives HATE Star Trek as the norm. Or Trek is the most Socialist progressive show on the TV.. How can Neo Cons like it when it goes against everything they stand for??

Or, Discovery has a gay couple, A Lefty might think the whole Right is going to froth at the mouth and spew posts against it.. well.. no. Most of us are like, cool, hope there good characters that are well written. Doesn't matter a fig whom they are or with.

 

[Farscape One]

On the other hand, Bashir also has a "die with dignity" example when he refuses to prolong Bareil's life any further in Life Support. It's not as direct as what Trevean does in The Quickening, but it does show that Bashir's take on it is not black and white.

Regarding this, the reason why Crusher ranks as my least favorite CMO in the franchise is because she pushed her values onto Worf. A patient's wishes are above the doctor's, period.

While Bashir may not agree with suicide as an option, he doesn't force someone to live with a disability if they don't want to. (It's also why Bashir is my favorite of the doctors.)

 

[fireproof78]

My first thought after reading the First post question, How do social conservatives enjoy star trek??

I enjoy it just fine like the rest of ya'll..
Its a loaded question that assumes social conservatives HATE Star Trek as the norm. Or Trek is the most Socialist progressive show on the TV.. How can Neo Cons like it when it goes against everything they stand for??

Or, Discovery has a gay couple, A Lefty might think the whole Right is going to froth at the mouth and spew posts against it.. well.. no. Most of us are like, cool, hope there good characters that are well written. Doesn't matter a fig whom they are or with.

Exactly so.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Not all Oliver Stone fans are left-wingers. Some TV shows sensibly fly with both wings. In its own way, that's what A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR did.

 

[Lord Garth]

Ted Cruz said he thought that Kirk would be a Republican and Picard would be a Democrat.

link

Yet... I personally equate Kirk with Kennedy (a Democrat) and I think Picard looks like Eisenhower (a Republican).

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I commented on that video, but Mr. Shives is something of a snowflake, and he mutes those who disagree with him.

That's not him "being a snowflake." That's just him moderating his page.

That's one of the things I don't like about Steve Shive's Channel. "If you have X belief, I don't want you!" I agree with him on most issues (and, for the record, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries for both 2016 and 2020, so that's where I am) but if you're going to make a stand on an issue, you have to expect that someone is going to argue with you about it.

I'm sure he expects that. But someone arguing with him doesn't mean that he automatically has to listen to that person.

I'd rather win a debate with the opposite side than say, "No! You can't post here!" And, if I lose, then I didn't make my case strong enough. But if you're going to talk the talk, you have to be able to walk the walk. So he shouldn't mute people unless they're trolls.

But at what point does someone "win" a debate in a YouTube comments section? There's no moderator outside of the person or persons who runs the channel, and there's no set time when people are no longer able to comment. So it's just endless sniping. I don't blame him if he doesn't want to put up with that.

Hell, I've seen a TON of threads here get derailed because everyone wants to get in the last word, even after a mod says to cut it out. Most people in internet debates are strangers, so no one ever wants to back down or concede a point. Most disagreements on this BBS don't truly end until a moderator locks a thread.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm sure he expects that. But someone arguing with him doesn't mean that he automatically has to listen to that person.

True, but I'm expecting that @Oddish will have something to bring to the table that's more articulate than "STD Trek sucks! Alex Klutzman! They make Star Trek woke! SJWs everywhere!!!"

Hell, I've seen a TON of threads here get derailed because everyone wants to get in the last word, even after a mod says to cut it out. Most people in internet debates are strangers, so no one ever wants to back down or concede a point. Most disagreements on this BBS don't truly end until a moderator locks a thread.

If they have to stretch to make their point, or if they double-down on what they say while ignoring evidence to the contrary, they've lost the argument. If they state absolutes without providing examples to back it up or don't even bother when asked to, they've lost the argument. "The last word" means nothing to me.

 

[Tuskin38]

Primum non nocere (first do no harm) is a core tenet of medical ethics. Taking a person's life, even if they want to die, is obviously harm. More common nowadays is the DNR order, which doesn't end life, but allows nature to take its course.

It's possibly implied that the EMH is more tolerant... he says that he will not "take Mr. Tuvix's life against his will", suggesting that if Tuvix had chosen to be separated, it would not have been an issue for him.

Canada allows doctor assisted suicide (though I believe it's a province by province thing, not country wide).

Where I live at least, it's a case by case thing. When a patient requests it, they get a group to doctors to look over the case and debate it.
It's only done in very extreme circumstances, like for incurable illness/disease (not mental illness), advanced state of irreversible decline, and/or whatever it is causing intolerable pain or suffering that cannot be relived. The patient must also be informed of every treatment option for the condition before hand. The patient also must be able give consent with a clear head, no outside influences, obviously.

 

[Oddish]

That's not him "being a snowflake." That's just him moderating his page.

When I was a site mod (not here) someone once hit our message board (which catered to kids) with a barrage of shock imagery and gross-out porn. I deleted it, and our admin banned them. If the guy knew what we did, he might have called us snowflakes; I disagree with his assessment. And I'm going to disagree with yours as well.

But at what point does someone "win" a debate in a YouTube comments section?

Admittedly, I've been in online debates that got downright brutal, the verbal equivalent of a back-alley knife fight. But that doesn't mean I'm going to avoid such things by muting everyone who disagrees with me, especially if they are respectful about it.

True, but I'm expecting that @Oddish will have something to bring to the table that's more articulate than "STD Trek sucks! Alex Klutzman! They make Star Trek woke! SJWs everywhere!!!"

I'd probably leave that post right where it was, just to demonstrate the mental capacity of my opposition. As Napoleon said, never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.

 

[at Quark's]

Trek supports:

The right of civilians to bear arms.

Not really sure of that. (Not saying it isn't either, by the way). Granted, there are a few examples of civilians taking up arms, but this is mostly in situations where this is to be expected (e.g. on outdoor frontier planets where they have to fend for themselves). Not sure whether this would be true on Federation planets in general for civilians, e.g. Earth.

 

[Oddish]

There's never any reference to the right being restricted, though. And, no one gives Guinan any crap about having a rifle behind her bar.

More to the point, people regularly benefit from being armed, such as Geordi having a phaser in his nightstand when that alien dog blob attacked him. If a show is trying to produce an anti-gun message, that sort of thing won't happen. On MacGyver, even lawfully armed good guys (like the police) were never actually saved by having guns.