How Do Social Conservative Star Fans Enjoy Star Trek?

[at Quark's]

Well, Starfleet is the closest they seem to have to a military, so if any of them will be armed, it's them. Even in countries that require licenses to obtain guns, I'd expect military and ex-military professional personnel to be among the more likely members to actually hold such licenses. Guinan may be a civilian, but still one on a 'military' ship. We don't even know whether she's a Federation citizen or not.

I'll agree though that Trek certainly doesn't seem to espouse an anti-gun stance. Just not sure it swings all the way to the other side.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Guinan may be a civilian, but still one on a 'military' ship. We don't even know whether she's a Federation citizen or not.

I'm sure she is. She has lived on Earth for a good portion of her life, after all. Why wouldn't she be considered a Federation citizen?

Back in the day there were rumors that Guinan would appear on ENT as a United Earth government official. I don't know if that was ever actually considered, or if it was only a rumor.

One actually wonders how they were able to scrounge enough Starfleet personnel to establish martial law the way they did... maybe they enlisted local authorities in other areas.

There was indeed going to be a bit in Homefront/Paradise Lost where local United Earth forces are "federalized" by Jaresh-Inyo (as is his right as Federation President) to deal with the changeling crisis, but that got cut out.

Oh, and y'all can add one more to the "Very well, thank you" list.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

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.

It's tough for me to read Star Trek as having any kind of pro-gun message when the fictional weapons within the world of Star Trek have stun settings.

 

[Bea Jonas]

The right-wingers that I know who profess to like Star Trek are really into the hardware aspects (ships, weaponry, tech) and the command structure of Starfleet. The episodes they counted as their favorites usually tended to be action-packed, with ship-to-ship battles, instead of Trek's introspective examinations of what it means to be human.

This never surprised me, as studies have shown those with fascist leanings usually favor military values, unquestioning obedience to authority, discipline, and physical strength over such qualities as compassion, empathy, and kindness. Fortunately, I've always found more of the latter qualities to be present in the majority of Trek fans I've encountered over the years. The militaristic bunch are merely a noisy minority.

 

[fireproof78]

It's tough for me to read Star Trek as having any kind of pro-gun message when the fictional weapons within the world of Star Trek have stun settings.

I'm pro gun and would love to have a stun setting. I've been fascinated by nonlethal rounds for a long time (as long as I can remember playing various games with friends, including Star Trek).

over such qualities as compassion, empathy, and kindness.

I value those things, as well as individual freedom, choice and responsibility.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I value those things, as well as individual freedom, choice and responsibility.

There are plenty on the left who value those things as well. But I suspect our definitions of them are rather different than those on the right.

 

[fireproof78]

There are plenty on the left who value those things as well. But I suspect our definitions of them are rather different than those on the right.

Maybe.

Few ask those questions though.

 

[mindx2]

There are plenty on the left who value those things as well. But I suspect our definitions of them are rather different than those on the right.

Why? Have you ever asked or just assume? I truly believe that's where the problem in having a conversation with people of differing views is they will differ on every view. There aren't just two sides as social media seems to want it to look like (darn algorithms!).

 

[Commander Troi]

Sadly, few people in general seem to question themselves and their values.

 

[Commander Troi]

Why? Have you ever asked or just assume? I truly believe that's where the problem in having a conversation with people of differing views is they will differ on every view. There aren't just two sides as social media seems to want it to look like (darn algorithms!).

True. I've even managed to find common ground on some things with my parents, and we differ on A Lot of Things.

 

[Lord Garth]

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.

I don't think of you as an enemy and I said I thought you wouldn't make a post like the example I gave.

And I've made the case you should be able to post on Steve Shives' channel.

 

[Oddish]

I'm pro gun and would love to have a stun setting. I've been fascinated by nonlethal rounds for a long time (as long as I can remember playing various games with friends, including Star Trek).

Less lethal 12 gauge rounds are readily available online. Red pepper, rubber buckshot, or beanbags seem to be the most common.

Regardless, while phasers have stun settings, they also have kill settings. It's possible that civilian models are limited, i.e. you can't get a phaser that will destroy a building (the way a Type-II can, see "Frame of Mind"). But we never actually hear of any restrictions.

 

[Timofnine]

Trek has gone "obvious" because the conservatives either ignored or didn't get the subtle wokeness of the 1960s-1990s ST.

Nu-Trek has forgotten how to do ‘allegories’. Allegories were often a part of Star Trek’s charm, IMHO. I only realised that Star Trek was allegorical earlier this year… I was still charmed though, nonetheless.

 

[Tuskin38]

Rios had a bunch of phasers on his ship, but he was also flying an unregistered starship, so he may not have had them legally.

Nu-Trek has forgotten how to do ‘allegories’.

No it hasn't, it just does them less often.

 

[fireproof78]

Less lethal 12 gauge rounds are readily available online. Red pepper, rubber buckshot, or beanbags seem to be the most common.

Yes, as well as paintball rounds.

Those are on my shopping list.

Nu-Trek has forgotten how to do ‘allegories’.

Hardly.

And it's not like Trek did them well always either. Nu-Trek does them like old Trek did; sometimes well, sometimes not, and a mix of reactions from audiences.

 

[The Wormhole]

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)

Plato's Stepchildren wasn't even the first interracial kiss on TOS.

Nu-Trek has forgotten how to do ‘allegories’. Allegories were often a part of Star Trek’s charm, IMHO. I only realised that Star Trek was allegorical earlier this year… I was still charmed though, nonetheless.

Star Trek's allegories have always been painfully obvious, so I'd argue if Trek ever knew how to do one in the first place.

 

[Oddish]

I don't think of you as an enemy and I said I thought you wouldn't make a post like the example I gave.

And I've made the case you should be able to post on Steve Shives' channel.

I TOTALLY understood, believe me. I was just saying that if I was a YouTuber and someone made a post like that (which I know was hypothetical, and neither of us would do so), I'd leave it, because the poster had done a better job making themself look like an idiot troll than I ever could.

In any case, most of my posts were positive or humorous, so all Mr. Shives missed out on was a little ego-stroking.

 

[Kor]

Just anecdotal, but I recall as a wee lad circa early 1990s, TOS and TNG being seen as generally "family-friendly" fare that didn't "push" any uncomfortable ideas that might rock the status quo, or whatever. Stuff like a whole interstellar society with no money? Well, it's a far-future fantasy that's never going to happen, anyway.

Kor

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I will say only one thing in this thread.

"Conservative" and "Liberal," when the terms are used properly, describe moderate points of view. A true liberal is neither a leftist nor a revolutionary; a true conservative is neither a reactionary nor a counterrevolutionary.

 

[Oddish]

I will say only one thing in this thread.

"Conservative" and "Liberal," when the terms are used properly, describe moderate points of view. A true liberal is neither a leftist nor a revolutionary; a true conservative is neither a reactionary nor a counterrevolutionary.

Under that definition, I'm probably still a conservative. Not red or blue or even purple, but sort of a... mulberry hue.

Unfortunately, in most circles these days "conservative" means "Trump follower".