I prefer to assume that -- like in the episode (Picard and Tarses)-- only "men" were in danger, so a gender-specific term was justified in the fictional case from which the quote was derived.
Shatner Slams E.U. Censors Proposal to Ban Star Trek’s “To Boldly Go Where No MAN Has Gone Before "
- Thread starter Cpt. MAGA Man
- Start date
I prefer to assume that -- like in the episode (Picard and Tarses)-- only "men" were in danger, so a gender-specific term was justified in the fictional case from which the quote was derived.
And while we're at it, why do vampires exist?
Having dealt with them, I can assure you, they exist.
That's quite true. And, Guinan could have used the original dialogue in "The Dauphin", and say "a boy and a girl" when talking about romance, because she was talking to Wes, who was interested in a girl. But, Whoopi Goldberg insisted on changing it to "two people". It wasn't a huge deal, just a better choice of words.
If you mean the bats, evolution does some weird stuff sometimes.
Indeed, yes.
When I found that quote in my TNG rewatch I found it quite appropriate for the nonsensical political BS that gets thrown around from all sides.
Thanks a lot, Time-Traveling Obama.™
We're talking about EU gender equality censors. Post proof please of their existence.
I thought that was the responsibility of Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter?
Easier than ignoring ideas you don't like. I remember being a censorship proponent as a teen.
Again: Who, where, when?
I think you might have misunderstood the situation, there was not attempt that censorship, because no one was banning anything, or saying you can't say "no man", they were just saying that it's better to say "no one".
Which I wholly support, and yes I know saying "man" when you're referring to people in general has been the default for centuries, but it also goes back to eras where the default for people was almost aways a man, and I'm glad we're finally moving.
But then I'm the kind of person who felt guilty for assuming that one of the people who post stuff on an IG account I follow was a man because they were referring to their wife, when they're in fact a gay woman. This really opened my eyes to how even though I was always proud of myself for being open minded and a big supporter of the LGBTQ+ community, I still fell back on those kind of old assumptions.
And yes changing "no man" to "no one" might be a minor thing, but sometimes those minor things can be better at making you reconsider how you think about kind of things than someone screaming at you.
No can do. I don't live in the EU. But, can you prove that no one in the EU has ever been institutionally or legally punished in any way for not using gender-inclusive language? It's happened a lot here in the US.
I'll answer your three questions with one of my own... given my fondness for heated discussions and hot topics, why do you never see me in the one place on this board where those things are encouraged?
It's understandable. Knowing that something happens and completely absorbing it into your psyche (even if it's something you approve of) are two different things, and they occur at two different speeds.
I say "no one" strictly out of respect. If I used "no man" and someone screamed at me, I would probably just laugh at them and say "no man" again. We'll see whose vocal cords give out first.
OK.
That's not where the burden of proof is, here. The burden is on the people claiming that it exists. (In the situation posted about in the OP, it's been refuted.)
Post proof of that, then. Please do both: proof of legal punishment and proof of institutional punishment. If it happens "a lot," then it should be easy for you to do.
I love my pudding far too much to forgo meat.it's like an institute for veganism writing: "eat less meat", and you guys complaining "they wanna ban my own personal freedom meat everywhere!! and pull it forcibly from my mouth!!"
"Man" is still in TOS, TAS, many of the TOS Movies including being carved into a dedicatory plaque on the old wooden sailing ship steering wheel in the Enterprise-A's observation lounge and also ENT. It's not going anywhere, it's just being used less often.
If the government or a corporation is involved one can always assume a suggestion is more than a suggestion. Especially with how cancel culture works and social media. You also can create a issue that isn't a issue. The whole "To Go Where No Man(one) has Gone" is a issue that is something that was resolved in 1987. To bring it up now is only because you want to make it a issue again.
So they know people will now feel pressured to take a side based on their tribal politics so you can bet a bunch of people who didn't give a shit like 5 minutes ago are now going to feel the need to defend or criticize "To GO Where No Man Has Gone" again for the sake of not allowing the other side bully them by forcing them to go with the TNG or TOS version. This is how grifters work. They throw a match on issues, sometimes real and serious issues but often also on nonsense like this, and then profit on all the pointless outrage and defensive postures that come from it.
So they know people will now feel pressured to take a side based on their tribal politics so you can bet a bunch of people who didn't give a shit like 5 minutes ago are now going to feel the need to defend or criticize "To GO Where No Man Has Gone" again for the sake of not allowing the other side bully them by forcing them to go with the TNG or TOS version. This is how grifters work. They throw a match on issues, sometimes real and serious issues but often also on nonsense like this, and then profit on all the pointless outrage and defensive postures that come from it.
Last edited:
Challenge accepted.
