How Do Social Conservative Star Fans Enjoy Star Trek?

[Qonundrum]

Allegories are outdated. They came from a time when you COULDN'T depict various things on television. You can now, so they do.

And they're more difficult to write for, while conversely also being cleverer to be able to weave multiple concepts through a single idea. Was it always about what they could or couldn't say, since the idea wouldn't have been allowed regardless? They're also a greater example of the "show versus tell" prose/trope. There are other possible reasons, quite a few, but that becomes a completely different topic on its own.

 

[Forbin]

But, would a solid Kennedy supporter identify as a Democrat or Republican today?

If you think about it, liberals will eventually become conservative, at least based on the basic definition of the terms. Liberals typically want change or push for change quickly while conservatives resist change or prefer change to happen slowly. So, once a liberal sees or realizes the change they hope for become a reality, they stop pushing for further change and begin to prefer the (new) status quo.

Remember, it was the Republicans that freed the slaves. The Democrats were the ones supporting succession and the CSA. It was only after the Civil War that the Republicans dropped the racial equality fight and the Democrats picked up the banner.

The NRA used to be about gun education and safety as their primary message. Now they are focused first and foremost as gun rights and Second Amendment protection.



I used to devout Steve Shives Star Trek commentary, spurred on by the Ensigns Logs podcast cohosted by Jason Harding. In one of Shives' Trek YouTubes he came right out and said basically "if you are a conservative, stop listening to me." He made it clear he wanted absolutely no dialog with anyone who expressed conservative viewpoints. He was not interested in any opposing views.

In short, he expressed intolerance towards any views contrary to his.

Im sorry, but that's not Star Trek. If Trek has taught anything, it's the evil of painting everyone with the same brush. Not all liberals are Marxists and not all conservatives are Trump supporters. There are loud and proud homosexuals that vote Republican (or did prior to Trump).

Some people are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

I used to watch the TV police procedural "Lincoln Heights". I one episode one of the main characters states "being black is not a monolithic experience". The same is true about being LGBTQ, Conservative, Liberal, or whatever.

How Do Social Conservative Star Fans Enjoy Star Trek? The same way social liberals do. They watch the show, draw from it what appeals to them, and tolerate what doesn't.

Not every conservative is a homophobic mysoginistic bigot.

Thank you for this post. The whole thread was making me uncomfortable and I didn't know how to respond, but you said it very well. I'm just a few degrees to the right of center, but this thread makes me feel like a different species to be carefully examined from afar.

 

[Oddish]

Aesops fables were allegories of sorts and were written a very long time ago circa 600 BC. Many other old stories and legends are allegorical, another early example is the medieval Everyman and the Faire Queene. More recent examples include Animal Farm written by George Orwell which is an allegory of the Russian Revolution, and also Lord of the Flies written by William Golding which is an allegory of the fine line between savagery and civilization. I stand by the idea that the concept of allegories in Star Trek is an important creative story writing method, not an outdated literary art style or form of censorship. Star Trek has the ‘props’ in which to express allegories, making subjects accessible to a wider audience and encouraging discussion. I believe that it takes a lot of creativity to write an allegory and that this story telling method should not be consigned to television, or Star Trek’s, past.

A great many of the parables of Jesus were also allegorical in nature.

 

[BillJ]

...but this thread makes me feel like a different species to be carefully examined from afar.

That's how we've always felt about you, @Forbin!

 

[Commander Troi]

First, I want to thank EVERYONE for their thoughtful and thought-provoking posts. This has been wonderful for understanding a bit more about you crazy people I spend so much time talking with.

"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.

You make a good point here, but I'm not sure what "properly" means in this context. As has been pointed out by others, there are differences in the definition of those terms depending on what country one is in and whether one is discussing social or fiscal issues and so forth.

 

[Shawnster]

You make a good point here, but I'm not sure what "properly" means in this context

When I was in high school the idea taught was the spectrum of political thought and was expressed as a line divided into 4 main points. Those segments were Radical Left, Left (liberal), Right (conservative), and Reactionary Right.

The extreme edge is the fringe. Both far left and right are the fringe or the extreme. I watched a youtube recently interviewing I think it was Bill Maher where he basically said that both Republicans and Democrats are afraid of their fringe. I get it. I understand what he's saying. The vocal, violent minority can drown out the majority.

So, at the end of the day people like Steve Shives only sees all conservatives as reactionary Trump supporters because those who aren't that extreme are pushed out of the picture. The end result is believing anyone slightly right of center is a gun loving, homophonic, mysoginistic bigot.

 

[Commander Troi]

Well said!

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

W

So, at the end of the day people like Steve Shives only sees all conservatives as reactionary Trump supporters because those who aren't that extreme are pushed out of the picture. The end result is believing anyone slightly right of center is a gun loving, homophonic, mysoginistic bigot.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Citiprime]

The extreme edge is the fringe. Both far left and right are the fringe or the extreme. I watched a youtube recently interviewing I think it was Bill Maher where he basically said that both Republicans and Democrats are afraid of their fringe. I get it. I understand what he's saying. The vocal, violent minority can drown out the majority.

So, at the end of the day people like Steve Shives only sees all conservatives as reactionary Trump supporters because those who aren't that extreme are pushed out of the picture. The end result is believing anyone slightly right of center is a gun loving, homophonic, mysoginistic bigot.

We live in a 2-party system. Sure, there's a spectrum. But at the end of the day, 94 PERCENT OF REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED TRUMP IN 2020. The vast majority of Republicans either supported Trump or were willing to enable Trump. So the argument that not all Republicans are "that" far-right is moot.

This becomes an argument of "both sides" have extremes so it's not so bad. Well, only one side has launched an insurrection against the government. And only one side seems willing to enable the people who did that to return to power.

 

[Oddish]

We live in a 2-party system. Sure, there's a spectrum. But at the end of the day, 94 PERCENT OF REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED TRUMP IN 2020. The vast majority of Republicans either supported Trump or were willing to enable Trump. So the argument that not all Republicans are "that" far-right is moot.

Hence my rejection of the Republican party: a party that trades in morality should not be led by a morally bankrupt individual. But I think that the vast majority of voters in both sides of the 2020 Trump vs. Biden crap-show (and despite my near-total unwillingness to swear online, I'm tempted to use the real term) were voting against a candidate, or a party. People voted for Trump because his agenda worked with theirs, and the Democrats' agenda did not.

This becomes an argument of "both sides" have extremes so it's not so bad. Well, only one side has launched an insurrection against the government. And only one side seems willing to enable the people who did that to return to power

Actually one side launched one violent insurrection, and it was horrific and disgusting and wrong. The other side, during the BLM riots, launched multiple violent insurrections in cities across the nation, and they were also horrific and disgusting and wrong. In this matter, neither side is without sin, and both are furiously throwing stones.

Getting back to Trek, the reason conservatives like it is that it appeals to them, just as it appeals to liberals. The people who created it knew how to read the political zeitgeist, and tailor their product for the mass market. That's why Star Trek has been a staple of pop culture in several very different decades.

 

[Sci]

To be reductive, liberals and those on the right enjoy Star Trek because it's a vision of the future where there is no more racism, sexism, classism, bigotry, poverty, or otherwise inequality -- and conservatives and those on the right enjoy Star Trek because it's a show about space cops in an intensely hierarchical space paramilitary doing space colonialism.

 

[Sci]

Actually one side launched one violent insurrection, and it was horrific and disgusting and wrong. The other side, during the BLM riots, launched multiple violent insurrections in cities across the nation,

They were not insurrections. No attempt was made to overthrow the legitimately-elected government by BLM protesters.

and they were also horrific and disgusting and wrong.

Funny how citizens of a country founded upon violent rebellion against a government for merely taxing them without voting representation insist that it's somehow immoral for people who are routinely subjected to extrajudicial executions by the government for having brown skin to riot in response to fundamental oppression.

 

[fireproof78]

and conservatives and those on the right enjoy Star Trek because it's a show about space cops in an intensely hierarchical space paramilitary doing space colonialism.

Extremely reductive.

 

[Oddish]

To be reductive, liberals and those on the left enjoy Star Trek because it's a vision of the future where there is no more racism, sexism, classism, bigotry, poverty, or otherwise inequality -- and conservatives and those on the right enjoy Star Trek because it's a show that values courage, responsibility, duty, helping those in need, devotion to family, the spirit of adventure, and other traditional values that made this nation great.

Fixed that for you. And yes, I could have denigrated the left like you did the right... but I chose not to.

Funny how citizens of a country founded upon violent rebellion against a government for merely taxing them without voting representation insist that it's somehow immoral for people who are routinely subjected to extrajudicial executions by the government for having brown skin to riot in response to fundamental oppression

Because our constitution provides a legitimate alternative. The British government gave the colonists none.

They were not insurrections. No attempt was made to overthrow the legitimately-elected government by BLM protesters.

The overall behavior was the same: violence, destruction, and mayhem. Show videos of the two events, the only real difference is the location and the skin color of the participants.

 

[Sketcher]

One was born out of the never ending frustration of another black person brutally killed by cops.

The other was an attempted overthrow of government....because.... feelings were hurt?

 

[1001001]

Honestly I’m surprised this has gone so well for this long.

Let’s keep it at least tangentially related to Star Trek.

Thanks

 

[Sci]

Fixed that for you. And yes, I could have denigrated the left like you did the right...

Political conservatism is at its heart a political philosophy based upon the preservation of social hierarchies. That's just reality, and that's a significant part of why those ST shows that aren't based on a paramilitary hierarchy like PIC S1 have been particularly unpopular with conservative fans.

 

[valkyrie013]

Political conservatism is at its heart a political philosophy based upon the preservation of social hierarchies. That's just reality, and that's a significant part of why those ST shows that aren't based on a paramilitary hierarchy like PIC S1 have been particularly unpopular with conservative fans.

S1 of Picard sucked because the writing was sub par.. Not because of a lack of uniforms. And the suckaage has to me not been limited to right leaning. All my lefty freinds think it sucked to for the same sub par writing reasons.
Again it's trying to label and box in people. When it doesn't really work to well.

 

[Oddish]

Political conservatism is at its heart a political philosophy based upon the preservation of social hierarchies. That's just reality, and that's a significant part of why those ST shows that aren't based on a paramilitary hierarchy like PIC S1 have been particularly unpopular with conservative fans.

Whatever. I'm sure the appeal of Star Trek to liberals could be described with the same negative bias as your "intensely hierarchical space paramilitary doing space colonialism" line. I just felt that would be counterproductive.

My point was to explain why liberals like Star Trek, and why conservatives do as well. It is very clear to me that it has features that appeal to people all along the political spectrum. And, given the explanations featured in this topic, it should be clear to anyone.

Since I don't want to hijack the thread into an off-topic argument, I will merely say that there is no "obviously" about it. Feel free to PM if you (anyone) want further clarification.

I will take a leaf from this wise woman's book and not discuss the BLM riots further here. If you want my thoughts, you can PM me, or we can debate it en masse in the Miscellaneous forum.

 

[Forbin]

That's how we've always felt about you, @Forbin!