How Do Social Conservative Star Fans Enjoy Star Trek?

[at Quark's]

The same way social liberals watch STAR TREK: as pure entertainment with an allegorical bent.

A dangerous way of putting it. If I didn't know any better, I'd almost start to think you wanted to describe conservatives as (nearly) human and not extremely unlike us enlightened human beings.

Sarcasm aside (and the sarcasm isn't aimed at you in the first place since I agree with you), I'm worried about how wide the rift seems to have become in recent years- at least for some people. Even the way the topic question is asked seems to be evidence of that.

(EDIT: changed order of two words)

 

[Ragitsu]

Isn't the point to ensure that everyone's needs are guaranteed to be met (regardless of an individual's ability to contribute and/or characteristics) while simultaneously allowing everyone various opportunities to pursue their wants? Not every want will be satisfied (though a greater amount will be realized than today), but no one is going to, say, starve or die of exposure even if failure is the outcome. Is this a particular political stance?

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

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

And ''tone'' of some postings, if it at all exists, can be quite misconstrued.

 

[fireproof78]

Sarcasm aside (and the sarcasm isn't aimed at you in the first place since I agree with you), I'm worried about how wide the rift seems to have become in recent years- at least for some people. Even the way the question topic is asked seems to be evidence of that.

This is my great frustration is the insistence that one side must not only be wrong but evil and therefore cannot like the things the other side likes, and if they do its because of a very warped sense of entertainment.

Reminds of a song lyric:
"What a field day for the hedons;
A thousand people in the streets.
Singing songs and they're carrying signs;
Mostly saying "hooray for our side. "

 

[Oddish]

If you ever want to see an example of equity taken to a ludicrous level, you should read "Harrison Bergeron", a short story by Kurt Vonnegut.

Equity in its ideal form is shown in a poster I saw recently at one of the schools I pick up from... it had a tall man, an average sized woman, a child, and a paraplegic. Under EQUALITY, it gave all four identical bicycles. The woman was riding comfortably, the tall guy was painfully hunched over, the kid couldn't pedal while sitting, and the paraplegic wasn't even trying, for obvious reasons. The EQUITY picture had three different sizes of bicycle, plus a hand-operated one, enabling all four people to ride comfortably. That's the right kind of equity; it acknowledges that the tall guy is probably going to pedal a lot faster and farther than the other three (and doesn't stop him from doing so), but all four have the opportunity to perform as well as they can.

The problem is to extrapolate that relatively simple illustration into a complex world. And to deal with the people who think they "deserve" a motorcycle because they don't want to do any pedaling.

 

[Sci]

Thats a slightly combative way to phrase it.

I don't think it's combative -- it's just stating what right-wing politics's goal is without using rhetoric that also justifies that goal.

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.

That is indeed one example of a logical syllogism employed by right-wing politics to justify a social hierarchy. But the desire for a hierarchy preceded the logical syllogism constructed to justify it.

That's the dividing line between the left and the right -- the left a priori wants equality in all things because it a priori views people as all basically equal. The right a priori wants hierarchy because it a priori views people as fundamentally unequal. You can build logical syllogisms for either view.

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.

Yep, that's a major part of how Star Trek squares the circle of creating a future that looks appealing to both leftists and rightists -- avoiding showing most of future society and how it functions, and instead focusing on this small slice of life (a space paramilitary) while insisting that progressive politics have triumphed back home where the camera does not go.

If we were to see a series like Star Trek: Federation President or Star Trek: Domestic Law Enforcement or Star Trek: Dilithium Miners United or Star Trek: Queer as Folk, shows that depict a broader view of Federation society, I think ST would have a harder time pulling off its all-things-to-all-political-orientations trick.

Edited to add:

If you ever want to see an example of equity taken to a ludicrous level, you should read "Harrison Bergeron", a short story by Kurt Vonnegut.

"Harrison Bergeron" is a good example of why saying that right-wing politics is characterized by a desire for social hierarchy and left-wing politics by a desire for equality, is not prejudicial in its rhetoric, just factual. Wanting both hierarchy or equality can become oppressive.

(I would, however, argue that hierarchy is more often oppressive and more often more intensely so.)

 

[Oddish]

Yep, that's a major part of how Star Trek squares the circle of creating a future that looks appealing to both leftists and rightists -- avoiding showing most of future society and how it functions, and instead focusing on this small slice of life (a space paramilitary) while insisting that progressive politics have triumphed back home where the camera does not go.

I more think that Trek seeks to paint the best of both worlds.
The liberal wants everybody to share equally, so that no one will suffer the pain of extreme hunger or want.
The conservative wants to be able to prosper, without outside interference.
In the future world of Trek, resources are effectively infinite. No one starves, everyone prospers. The conflict between liberals and conservatives is therefore irrelevant.

 

[Ragitsu]

*cough*

 

[Mudd]

There's a lot in older Trek that would be considered right of center now. I can see conservative fans having more trouble with the post-Berman shows.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

*cough*

Explain.

 

[Sci]

I more think that Trek seeks to paint the best of both worlds.
The liberal wants everybody to share equally, so that no one will suffer the pain of extreme hunger or want.
The conservative wants to be able to prosper, without outside interference.
In the future world of Trek, resources are effectively infinite. No one starves, everyone prospers. The conflict between liberals and conservatives is therefore irrelevant.

That's basically the in-universe justification, sure. In reality, certain resources will always be scarce and therefore there will always be conflicts about how to distribute them, and certain conflicts (like abortion) are fundamentally irreconcilable because they pit fundamental rights against one-another. ST squares that circle by never going into those questions too deeply-- it's all happening back at home off-screen, and whatever it is we're assured it's all very enlightened and evolved.

 

[1001001]

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.)

Are there a lot of participation trophies given out in Star Trek?

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Are there a lot of participation trophies given out in Star Trek?

Maybe when Majel Barrett's involved.

 

[Farscape One]

Are there a lot of participation trophies given out in Star Trek?

None that I'm aware of. I was just using a current real world thing to illustrate a point that was being made here.

 

[Mudd]

Are there a lot of participation trophies given out in Star Trek?

Well, all those captains serving on one ship in the TOS movies suggest some, ah, inflation.

 

[Sci]

For the record, I have never met a child who was not keenly aware that participation trophies are fake rewards that mean nothing and signify no merit. The idea that kids are getting a warped sense of the relationship between effort and reward because of participation trophies is just hogwash and always has been.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

If we were to see a series like Star Trek: Federation President or Star Trek: Domestic Law Enforcement or Star Trek: Dilithium Miners United or Star Trek: Queer as Folk, shows that depict a broader view of Federation society, I think ST would have a harder time pulling off its all-things-to-all-political-orientations trick.

Why can't we have Star Trek: "Slice of Life"

For the record, I have never met a child who was not keenly aware that participation trophies are fake rewards that mean nothing and signify no merit. The idea that kids are getting a warped sense of the relationship between effort and reward because of participation trophies is just hogwash and always has been.

Then why make those trophies anyways, if you lose, you lose. Why are there "Some Adults" who insist on making something to reward children, when there is no merit behind it?

Just accept it and move on.

 

[Shat Happens]

Explain.

he coughed

 

[Weyoun 251]

Especially with kids - is the fat kid who can barely kick a ball or run 100m but by the end of a week long football camp is now able to complete that run and complete more passes than they miss less deserving of their achievement being recognised that the kid who’s parents have had the spare time to practice playing football in the garden in the evening and have money for more nutritious food who is the fastest and best players but may not have notably increased their skill level over the week

“Participation trophies” tend to recognise someone stepping out of their comfort zone and making their best attempt so to recognise and encourage that rather than simply rewarding the naturally good at sports kid who may not have had to put much effort in

 

[Sci]

Why can't we have Star Trek: "Slice of Life"

I never said we couldn't! I'd love to see it. But if we got Star Trek: A Broad Depiction of Federation Society, then Star Trek as a franchise would have a much harder time pulling off its all-things-to-all-political-orientations trick.