How Do Social Conservative Star Fans Enjoy Star Trek?

[Weyoun 251]

My point. If I say "in at least one way, Chakotay was a better captain than Janeway: he promoted people", you can do one of two things...
1. Explain your perspective, as you did.
2. Accuse me of hating women, which you did not.

Your response was the reasonable one, and the one that allows for meaningful dialogue or debate. Irrational accusations don't.

There is a 3rd option - posit the totally not insane idea that Janeway was a huge fan of the show Community as was actually performing a psychological experiment similar to Prof Iain Duncan's from Social Psychology | Community Wiki | Fandom and was trying to see at what point Harry would break

 

[Sci]

The more I think about it, the more I think the question posed by the thread is a false dichotomy.

There's plenty in Trek for a social conservative to admire: bravery, compassion, heroism, and so on.

Bravery, compassion, and heroism are apolitical values, not conservative values.

Plus, the messages in episodes are often conservative-ish: a recurring theme in Trek is that utopia is unobtainable or even undesirable (see: Kirk's rejection of the bliss given by the Omicron Ceti spores, the crew's rejection of the idle luxury offered by Mudd's androids, and so on. Trek canon also involves the concept that life can be separate from physical form... in other words, souls are a thing in the Trek universe. That's a concept taken from religion.

The ideas that utopia is impossible and that souls are a thing are not conservative values. Plenty of liberals believe that there will always be political conflict and that people have souls.

So, really, I reject the idea that Trek stands in opposition to what we call conservatism.

Of course it doesn't. It's a show about benevolent space cops doing benevolent space colonialism that consistently depicts membership in a rigidly hierarchical paramilitary institution as the highest possible virtue. Star Trek has always had a right-wing subtext alongside its leftist subtext.

What Zapp said, in a nutshell. Trek has always been a lot more conservative-friendly (politically and socially alike) than many people realize.

This is true. No work of art is perfect.

 

[Oddish]

Bravery, compassion, and heroism are apolitical values, not conservative values.

But they're attributes that conservatives value. So if you're trying to establish that conservatives "shouldn't" enjoy Star Trek, that doesn't do it.

Plenty of liberals believe that there will always be political conflict and that people have souls.

Plenty of conservatives believe that all people are created equal, and should be treated as such.

Star Trek has always had a right-wing subtext alongside its leftist subtext.

But Trek's commitment to diversity and equality doesn't exist opposite its quasi-military subtexts. Rather, they form a cohesive whole.

This is true. No work of art is perfect.

Perfection in art is subjective.

 

[Weyoun 251]

I think mate, with regard to your first point, that there can often be a misconception (from both sides) that those are considered to be solely or predominantly right wing values.

I know you don't think that way but when written it can be perceived as those values being contra to the left wing ones rather than shared ones.

Curse of the internet and how sometimes intent is hard to read

 

[Commander Troi]

Exactly. The values we think of as "heroic" have been built up over thousands of years of storytelling. Those values tend to be shared culturally, no matter where we fall politically. It's why so many of us can enjoy Star Trek, Star Wars, BSG, superhero movies, etc.

 

[Weyoun 251]

There used to be a respect across the divide too where even if you didn't agree with their methods you respected that those of the opposite political bent believed they were doing the right thing - which feels like a very Trek approach

The actions of some people in power (and it has been the right more recently in UK and US but then the left in places like Venezuela) though has made this far harder to believe - the actions of a Johnson, Braverman, Trump etc on the right for example makes it hard to accept that those making up the right leaning parties are not in it for themselves.

Has created a polarisation between regular people that is unfair in many cases - there are a multitude of reasons to believe various things and the world is one huge Venn diagram rather than distinct blocks so more patience with others and finding commonality rather than difference would make for a happier place

 

[Citiprime]

I just want to be able to watch a show and then discuss it here without being accused of being a racist, sexist or homophobic because I disagree with something on the show. People are complex and don't necessarily fit into specific categories of thinking no matter how much you try to force them.

I think at the root of some of this is how the conversation about "wokeism" has been used by conservatives (at least in the United States) over the past 5-7 years, and how that's poisoned the well.

There are legit reasons to criticize Star Trek: Discovery, and God knows I have my problems with the show. We can have a discussion on the substance of issues when it comes to plot, characters, and pacing. However, there's the not-so substantive trend among conservatives to get outraged over "woke" media which has been present and gone after Discovery since season 1.

No one is under any obligation to like anything, but if we're being honest about this there's a segment of people who call themselves fans of Star Trek that dislike Discovery for the sole reason that it has a black woman as its lead, and there are LGBTQ characters and actors in the cast. They won't admit it, and maybe they can't even admit it to themselves, but when your argument devolves to arguing about "Woke Star Trek" and woke media which has happened on a lot of conservative blogs and YouTube channels, it becomes a set of dog whistle statements about the evils of diversity as a bad thing.

And if Star Trek: Discovery is bad because it's woke, what is it about TOS that doesn't make it woke and ok to those conservatives? Well when you strip away all of the "outrage" over diversity casting you end up with someone butthurt because the lead is not a white guy.

 

[Oddish]

I think at the root of some of this is how the conversation about "wokeism" has been used by conservatives (at least in the United States) over the past 5-7 years, and how that's poisoned the well.

I consider wokeism to be a legitimate problem, both in our society at large and (to a lesser extent) in the media. But I do not consider mere concessions to diversity to be wokeism. Especially on Star Trek, which has always pushed the boundaries of diversity (featuring an Asian, a Russian, a black woman, and an alien in the main cast).

No one is under any obligation to like anything, but if we're being honest about this there's a segment of people who call themselves fans of Star Trek that dislike Discovery for the sole reason that it has a black woman as its lead, and there are LGBTQ characters and actors in the cast. They won't admit it, and maybe they can't even admit it to themselves, but when your argument devolves to arguing about "Woke Star Trek" and woke media which has happened on a lot of conservative blogs and YouTube channels, it becomes a set of dog whistle statements about the evils of diversity as a bad thing.

I stopped watching DIS for reasons unrelated to the cast. Indeed, the one episode I did make a special point of watching was the one that brought Culber back. If I was acting on hidden homophobia, I don't think I would have bothered.

Well when you strip away all of the "outrage" over diversity casting you end up with someone butthurt because the lead is not a white guy.

Regarding Michael Burnham, I see her the way I did white American Jonathan Archer: a serviceable protagonist, but not a personal favorite.

 

[Commander Troi]

What do you consider "wokeism"?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Especially on Star Trek, which has always pushed the boundaries of diversity (featuring an Asian, a Russian, a black woman, and an alien in the main cast).

And we have yet to have a proper Asian lead Captain to helm an entire TV series.

I was excited for Michelle Yeoh being the first one to do it, but we all know what happened to her character.

There's still hope in the future for that, but still.

 

[tomalak301]

And we have yet to have a proper Asian lead Captain to helm an entire TV series.

I was excited for Michelle Yeoh being the first one to do it, but we all know what happened to her character.

There's still hope in the future for that, but still.

One of my issues with Discovery early on was how they dealt with Yeoh's character. I don't think she was big enough yet at the time (Only being in a handful of movies like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and Tomorrow Never Dies) so having her be a captain was actually a great idea. Then they killed her off in the second episode and in the first season as a whole they killed off the asian character and a black gay character and then brought both of them back. If you wanted them to be on this series, don't kill them off, especially coming off the heels of the "Bury your Gays" troupe (And having being a fan of Orphan Black, I just had to go through a storyline like that with Season 4). I think the first half or even first few episodes showing Burnham and Georgieu together would have been great, because it develops Burnham a bit more before the mutiny and I thought they both had great chemistry. Both those deaths sent mixed messages on what I thought new Trek was going for at the time.

 

[Sci]

But they're attributes that conservatives value. So if you're trying to establish that conservatives "shouldn't" enjoy Star Trek, that doesn't do it.

I never said they shouldn't enjoy ST -- I said that bravery, compassion, and heroism are apolitical values rather than values unique to conservatism.

Plenty of conservatives believe that all people are created equal, and should be treated as such.

And yet the throughline that unites all right-wing values is a belief in the moral legitimacy of inequality. Different versions of conservative favor different versions of what kind of inequality they support, but that is the one common thread that all forms of right-wing political philosophy have in common. From the original right-wingers in the French Revolution who supported the monarchy, to Edmund Burke, to Benjamin Disraeli and Tory democracy, to Andrew Jackson and the early Democratic Party, to John C. Calhoun, to Bismarck to Churchill to Nixon to Thatcher and Reagan, to Bush and Cameron and Merkel, again and again what we see in conservative thought is an assertion of the moral legitimacy of some form of hierarchy. Sometimes it's monarchism vs. democracy; sometimes it's arguing that only white men who own property should have the right to vote vs. thinking all white men should; sometimes it's preserving slavery; sometimes it's preserving imperialism or colonialism; sometimes it's preserving economic inequality against movements to redistribute wealth; sometimes it's saying women shouldn't get to vote; sometimes it's saying one religion should get preferential treatment by society; sometimes it's saying that homosexuality is a sin or that only heterosexual couples should get to marry. But it is always, always about preserving some form of hierarchy as morally legitimate.

But Trek's commitment to diversity and equality doesn't exist opposite its quasi-military subtexts. Rather, they form a cohesive whole.

I agree that its right-wing and left-wing subtexts coexist within the narrative... I also think there's a persistent tension between these two subtextual orientations. The UFP is supposed to be a society where everyone is equal, but Humans do seem to have more social power within the Federation than other species, for instance.

 

[Citiprime]

I consider wokeism to be a legitimate problem, both in our society at large and (to a lesser extent) in the media. But I do not consider mere concessions to diversity to be wokeism. Especially on Star Trek, which has always pushed the boundaries of diversity (featuring an Asian, a Russian, a black woman, and an alien in the main cast).

Here's an example of a review for Discovery from 5-years ago that goes after the show over it being "woke."

It's very careful to point out that Michael Burnham is a strong, intelligent black woman.

It's very careful to point out that Stamets is gay and in a relationship with a "Puerto Rican."

And it's very aggrieved that the villains are white men.

There are literally dozens upon dozens of attacks against Discovery online from conservatives that boil its perceived wokeness to be diversity plus white men not being represented well.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

And yet the throughline that unites all right-wing values is a belief in the moral legitimacy of inequality.

I'm not sure how to have an illuminating conversation with someone who starts from the first principle that he or she believes I like kicking puppies. As Feynman would say, this is not even wrong.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Here's an example of a review for Discovery from 5-years ago that goes after the show over it being "woke."

It's very careful to point out that Michael Burnham is a strong, intelligent black woman.

It's very careful to point out that Stamets is gay and in a relationship with a "Puerto Rican."

And it's very aggrieved that the villains are white men.

There are literally dozens upon dozens of attacks against Discovery online from conservatives that boil its perceived wokeness to be diversity plus white men not being represented well.

I recall a guy on this very site being unhappy that Discovery jumped to the future without a straight white male in the main cast!

 

[The Wormhole]

And we have yet to have a proper Asian lead Captain to helm an entire TV series.

I was excited for Michelle Yeoh being the first one to do it, but we all know what happened to her character.

Michelle Yeoh's casting announcement made it very clear she was only going to have a recurring role on the show.

 

[UssGlenn]

And yet the throughline that unites all right-wing values is a belief in the moral legitimacy of inequality.

Thats a slightly combative way to phrase it. In my view the key difference is that conservatives believe in Equality of Opportunity and Liberals believe in Equality of Outcome, usually referred to as Equity these days.

Conservatives believe Equity is unjust because bad actors will game the system, eventually causing the system to collapse. Thus their ideal society is one of no discrimination where everyone is given a fair shot, and the resulting hierarchy is natural consequence of a persons personal choices.

Now, to be overly simplistic, the real world has 3 things making that an issue, racism, billionaires, and poverty. Star Trek doesn't have any those (on Earth), thus allowing for a working system. Conveniently, Trek doesn't talk about the economy much, allowing everyone to ignore the Socialist Utopia underpinning everything.

Edit: Im aware that Equity and Equality of Outcome aren't actually the same thing, but equating them is very common.

 

[Forbin]

Conservatives believe Equity is unjust because bad actors will game the system, eventually causing the system to collapse. Thus their ideal society is one of no discrimination where everyone is given a fair shot, and the resulting hierarchy is natural consequence of a persons personal choices.

...and of their personal talents and abilities.

As put by Gutfeld:
Equality gives everyone an equal starting point to grow and excel.
Equity wants to stifle those who excel and bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, so those who didn't excel don't feel bad.
The result will be a stagnant society where no one can achieve anything of importance, and there will be no progress.

 

[Farscape One]

In life, we learn more from our failures than from our successes. Making it so that everyone gets the same result, whether you succeed or fail, is unfair to those who really worked for their win. It not only creates a lot of resentment for those who worked hard for their win, but it also creates a lot more people more willing to just skate by in life and do the absolute minimum, expecting the same result as their hard working counterparts.

It's like 'participation trophies'. How can children who were never taught how to learn or deal with failure be equipped to handle the real world when they become adults and face real failures or times they can't have something because someone else simply worked harder or was better at a job?

(And just to be clear, children should be taught that the efforts yield their own rewards, like how Data explained to Lal why he still attempts to learn humanity. One of those rewards, and probably the most important one, is the knowledge you gained during the attempt to win. A 'participation trophy' just doesn't seem like a good way to teach those truly important life lessons they need to be equipped with to handle life.)

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The UFP is supposed to be a society where everyone is equal, but Humans do seem to have more social power within the Federation than other species, for instance.

#HumanityFirst

Michelle Yeoh's casting announcement made it very clear she was only going to have a recurring role on the show.

Not Everybody paid attention to the details of the casting roll call.