Where did all those people go? I think I recognized maybe two names in it. A few others but those were names that I haven't seen in awhile. I know people sometimes change their handle so I guess that might explain some of it.
Pre-2009 Star Trek and LGBTQI+ representation: simple disinterest or active hostility?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
- Status
Where did all those people go? I think I recognized maybe two names in it. A few others but those were names that I haven't seen in awhile. I know people sometimes change their handle so I guess that might explain some of it.
The issue I think always comes down to just how toxic the internet can be. One thing I notice is trolls who exist both on the right and left love to virtue single to their tribe when trying to own the other. Also to get clicks and attention. As much as right people love to roam the internet looking to anything they can call woke you do have those on the left always looking for racism and bigotry as well. The internet has turned lots of people into narcissistic assholes.
In the real world I think people still get along better and do still have tolerance towards each other. Maybe not in Washington DC but I think most people still show respect to each other even if they don't agree. And if someone makes a mistake few people don't get angry and start hurling insults. You more likely to have someone say 'Sorry about that. My bad" and the other person be like 'That's cool. simple mistake. No big deal." But on the internet people can act like assholes because they aren't interacting with the person so much as responding to someones written opinions.
Well, yeah, it did come out of nowhere in that Seven and Raffi's relationship was literally thought up by Jeri Ryan and Michelle Hurd the day the final scene of the S1 finale was filmed. Likewise, Seven being a bisexual in Picard was all Jeri Ryan's idea as it was her idea earlier in the season to play her scenes with Bjayzal as though Seven and her were romantically involved in the past.
Hard to remember the human with only 10 percent of the information presented.
Going back to Star Trek, while doing research for this post I found a couple of interesting trivia pieces:
Every TNG characters was hardcoded in such strong heteronormative way (the females where so feminine, the males were so virile) that every time someone distanced themselves from these stereotypes some of the fans wondered "Are they gay then???".
For example reading the Wikipedia I found that Tasha was considered by many a closeted lesbian and, although not in similar numbers to Tasha, some initially thought La Forge was gay.
Now, with modern eyes, there aren't all these signs in these characters that should indicate a sexual orientation other than heterosexuality in these characters. The only thing about Tasha that could be indicative was her short hair (which was the actress's hairstyle in real life). For the rest she was certainly not a stereotypical butch (for example, already from the second episode we saw that she could also be very feminine if she wanted).
Of course, she did a job that could perhaps be considered a male prerogative, but already in the 80s there were many policewomen and they certainly weren't all lesbians. As for Geordi, the only thing was that he wasn't as aggressively virile and assertive as the other male characters. It's interesting how the perception of what must be "naturally" masculine and feminine has changed and the concept that if someone strays from these paths then their sexual orientation must also be different from the norm.
The other things I found is in a newspaper gay and lesbian characters were announced for TNG - Season 5 (1991)
'Star Trek' Is on Another Bold Journey
It was published in the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper I think is quite reliable. In 1991 someone thought that LBGTQI+ characters might appear in TNG, and the world didn't explode.
Every TNG characters was hardcoded in such strong heteronormative way (the females where so feminine, the males were so virile) that every time someone distanced themselves from these stereotypes some of the fans wondered "Are they gay then???".
For example reading the Wikipedia I found that Tasha was considered by many a closeted lesbian and, although not in similar numbers to Tasha, some initially thought La Forge was gay.
Now, with modern eyes, there aren't all these signs in these characters that should indicate a sexual orientation other than heterosexuality in these characters. The only thing about Tasha that could be indicative was her short hair (which was the actress's hairstyle in real life). For the rest she was certainly not a stereotypical butch (for example, already from the second episode we saw that she could also be very feminine if she wanted).
Of course, she did a job that could perhaps be considered a male prerogative, but already in the 80s there were many policewomen and they certainly weren't all lesbians. As for Geordi, the only thing was that he wasn't as aggressively virile and assertive as the other male characters. It's interesting how the perception of what must be "naturally" masculine and feminine has changed and the concept that if someone strays from these paths then their sexual orientation must also be different from the norm.
The other things I found is in a newspaper gay and lesbian characters were announced for TNG - Season 5 (1991)
'Star Trek' Is on Another Bold Journey
It was published in the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper I think is quite reliable. In 1991 someone thought that LBGTQI+ characters might appear in TNG, and the world didn't explode.
I know some people got upset with seeing Troi's foot get massaged in "The Price" so I am thinking their would be some public outrage. I don't think that would be the case if we saw some gay characters on DS9 or Voyager around 1996 or later. The 1990's didn't really start until Clinton won in 1992. 1990 and 1991 was still basically the 80's.
That's the point of tolerance. It's ok. You don't have to be down with that.
But... you need to tolerate it.
I'm not down with it either. I see it as civility. I'll call you whatever you want. I'll also support anyone who decides its against their beliefs to do so. Ones beliefs are not more important than anothers. That's the issue.
If someone is truly, deeply against using your pronouns... that's entirely their right and they're beliefs are no better or worse, no more important or less, than yours.
That's quite literally "tolerance".
I have a non-binary coworker who goes by "they". I have known them for a long time and I often say "she". It's not out of disrespect, I just forget. I've known them for 10 years as "she" and to my old eyes they appear to be a "she" so I just... forget. They are super cool though and it really doesn't bother them at all.
But the point is, I do it because I want to, because I believe I should... not because I *HAVE* to. If I decided no, I don't agree with that, I don't support it... I couldn't make them stop using the pronouns, but I would also be under no obligation to use them or support it. We can tolerate each other's opinions by essentially agreeing to disagree.
Tolerance is NOT "i'm right so you need to do what I believe". Exact opposite, actually.
It might be their right but it also makes them an asshole. And no, not all beliefs are equal, some are objectively worse than others. Is believing white people are superior to other ethnicities equal to believing they're not? Of course not. So why is intentionally misgendering people?
But forgetting is very different from not wanting to. No none is perfect, and misgendering someone by accident is not great but also not malicious. And if it doesn't bother your coworker then there's no problem.
No, there is no agree to disagree when it comes to being respectful of people's identities. Not doing that is being intolerant and that is not acceptable.
Intolerance must not be tolerated.
Exactly.
What "thought police" rulings? You mean the Tories clamping down on any protests that go against their beliefs?
There haven't been any rulings of the sort lad
You use "objectively" confidently there, but I don't think what you're saying is actually "objective".
I agree with you with your ideology. I don't agree that its objectively correct.
I would have to say there is no agree to disagree when it comes to being respectful to ones deeply held beliefs. That is being intolerant and that is not acceptable.
I also 100% agree with that.
The path of divergence may be that I think we also need to be tolerant of "assholes". They have a different opinion and perspective from us. We see them as being "assholes", but they don't. I respect their right to be an "asshole" from my perspective.
Once again, and I think i've reached the end of this as it's just getting repetitive, "tolerance" is NOT "My opinion is right, yours is wrong, so you need to agree with me."...
If you disagree with me on all of this... that's ok! I can tolerate that.
good, glad to hear it. I was getting the impression that people were getting negative consequences for believing stuff, rather than doing stuff, but I wasn't paying super close attention to the matter.
Socially people are getting shunned for saying things which are transphobic/potentially transphobic which is societies right to do but legally it is actually falling in favour of those who have lost opportunities due to their beliefs
University of Essex apologises to professor over trans-rights cancellation - BBC News
The Tories and their supporters continue to claim that the Liberal Trans Gay Mafia of Wokedom (now including BAME people because the Tories will never give up a chance to be racist) are forcing people to no longer be able to say what is on their mind and are impacting laws etc whilst ignoring that the Tories have had a parliamentary majority for most of their 14 years in power so doesn't stack up
I think the difference between tolerance and acceptance is that acceptance is the best option but for some people your best option is going to be tolerance. It's about embracing the pragmatic reality of a situation. Plus tolerance over time often evolves into acceptance, since most change tends to be gradual.
I feel most humans have a duality when it comes to change. People do have a desire for the world to always keep improving and the desire for more human rights is generally what most people want society to be all about. But people at the same time wants the world to always feel safe and familiar as well. Change can be scary if they feel like they don't recognize the world they are now living in. Thus you having contrasting desires that run into each other.
Thus most change comes gradual and over time the change no longer feels like change but instead as the new normal and the young people born post-change never really know about the old world before things changed. So you for example today will have young people who never lived and experienced some of the bigotry that existed even into the 80's and 90's.
I feel most humans have a duality when it comes to change. People do have a desire for the world to always keep improving and the desire for more human rights is generally what most people want society to be all about. But people at the same time wants the world to always feel safe and familiar as well. Change can be scary if they feel like they don't recognize the world they are now living in. Thus you having contrasting desires that run into each other.
Thus most change comes gradual and over time the change no longer feels like change but instead as the new normal and the young people born post-change never really know about the old world before things changed. So you for example today will have young people who never lived and experienced some of the bigotry that existed even into the 80's and 90's.
Last edited:
I'm an absolute believer of the 1st Amendment as it is in the US. And yes, that means some people have the right to say hateful and insensitive things.
But my 2 counters to that is first...others have the right to use their own free speech to counter what they are saying. And second, I want to know who those people are. It's a bit short sighted IMO to curtail that right because you push hateful people into the shadows and you won't know who they are. Let them speak their minds freely so you know exactly who they are.
I get disturbed when some suggest hate speech should be legislated, banned, etc. Ironically that only gives it more power. And in general the noose only gets tighter. It can go from banning hate speech to banning speech you just disagree with, to banning any speech at all.
Personally I want to know who the hateful people are so I know not to hang out with them. And I'm a right of center conservative. I have no place for hateful or disrespectful people, on either/any side.
But my 2 counters to that is first...others have the right to use their own free speech to counter what they are saying. And second, I want to know who those people are. It's a bit short sighted IMO to curtail that right because you push hateful people into the shadows and you won't know who they are. Let them speak their minds freely so you know exactly who they are.
I get disturbed when some suggest hate speech should be legislated, banned, etc. Ironically that only gives it more power. And in general the noose only gets tighter. It can go from banning hate speech to banning speech you just disagree with, to banning any speech at all.
Personally I want to know who the hateful people are so I know not to hang out with them. And I'm a right of center conservative. I have no place for hateful or disrespectful people, on either/any side.
I think it's absolutely insane to "ban" "hate speech". I look at how things can be abused, not necessarily what the intent is. Criminalizing "hate speech" is outrageously dangerous because you've now set a precedent of criminalizing speech... who decides what "hate speech" is? And what stops the government from deciding other things are "hate speech"? What happens when criticism of the government is deemed "hate" speech?
Congratulations, you've turned "it can't happen here" into "it IS happening here".
Good intentions and all that...
Sometimes tolerance is the best you can hope for. After all we're all human beings with our own minds and own opinions. You'll never get complete agreement on any topic. Sometimes that's a good thing. I'm deeply saddened that compromise seems no longer acceptable in public discourse these days. Some of the best ideas/laws/legislation has come from compromise. I find usually the extremes on both sides are rarely totally right. It's when there's give an take that the best ideas are forged.
And you're right, eventually tolerance usually moves to acceptance. Everything takes time.
I worry about that as well. I know I say it a lot but free speech is more than just a law but also a kind of way of life. You want a world that values free expression, even if things people say are things you don't like. What you don't want is people embracing censorship by working around the rules to still stay legal but also still be something that goes against the spirit of the law. Loophole censorship is not a good way to have a society were people overcome their differences and try and work together to get things done.
Yeah. Some issues are more nebulous. It starts off with obvious hate speech. Things most people would agree is hateful. But the definition of what is hateful becomes wider and wider.
And like I said, I want people to spew their hate. I want to know who they are.
Free speech will never be banned in America. What is disturbing though is if future generations don't value it then it won't matter. Sometimes ideas and laws exist only on paper and not in the real world if the people don't like them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
