Define substance and did Trek always give it to the audience?
Spoilers Section 31 General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Actually I probably said that backwards. I felt like there was a period where they tried to make this concentration camp leading, comfort wife keeping megalomaniac into a lovable scamp. They did correct it though with that excellent episode of himself and Sisco alone.
I never got that impression. To me it was just the way Alamio played him. He played Dukat like he was the hero of the story because in Dukat's eyes, that was who he was. KIra never came even close to ever falling love with him. They did have connection both through his daughter, her mom and his lusting after her but that was it.
If you want to rehabilitate someone, try taking on someone who has done something a little less evil than genocide. Though, honestly, I'm not sure I'd trust these writers to handle the redemption of a school kid who stole a quarter out of their Mom's purse.
I mean, I see the point but the other side of for me is the fact that Georgiou didn't know better. Now she does. How does humanity grow except by recognizing our darker sides and growing past them?
What do you mean, "she didn't know better"? She grew up in a world that, by our standards, was morally reprehensive, but that doesn't mean that all values were non-existent. The Halkans clearly had values (they were ready to die for them), those who fought the Empire clearly had values. There were still choices to make and she, at least in regards to the Talosians, choose genocide.
She had choices, and choose the worst, time and again.
How do you know? She was raised in a society were killing was common place, and a way to assume command of the situation. As she notes, those values were seen as weakness. That would not be "better" to her.
She was given an opportunity to live that life again, yet made much different choices because she saw the value of those choices actually warranted being better. Morality is not always instinctive, but, as you note, a choice, but one has to come in to a situation were those morals actually make sense.
I'm not saying all values were non-existent; only that they were not valuable enough to her to even consider as an alternative. That was not the way she was taught.
I don't know. I'm deeply fascinated by the nature of humanity and our great capacity for evil, yet people regularly regard morality as universal. I'm not convinced that applies across timelines.
I was taught time and again, growing up, how easy it is to beat up on children. I sure in the hell hope that if I were to practice that, that society would lock me away for a very, very long time. YMMV.
So was I.
Applying our morality to Georgiou prior to her coming to the Prime Universe seems short sighted. The assumption seems to be that she should know our morality and abide by it even being from the Mirror Universe.
So, morals are universal then?It is the only morality that I have. If it is good enough for Georgiou...
I would like to think the basics, like killing sapient beings for shits-and-giggles should universally be frowned upon. Even in the Mirror Universe, people knew that killing was wrong.
"Terror must be maintained or the Empire is doomed. It is the logic of history." - Spock, "Mirror, Mirror"
The Terrans knew quite well what they were doing, control was more important than any morals or responsibility towards those they ruled. That includes Georgiou.
The Terrans knew quite well what they were doing, control was more important than any morals or responsibility towards those they ruled. That includes Georgiou.
And what about in human history? Slaves in Ancient Greece and Rome had no rights and could be killed at a whim and no one frowned upon it. The slave was the owner's property.
That doesn't make them aware of morality as you and I would see it. Only that there is a consequence to their choices. The assumption of universal morality is a fascinating one, to borrow Spock's phrase. How does one determine this universal morality and how do we apply to alternate timelines?
I would like to think as you do, but human history is fraught with examples of behaviors we would look down upon morally. How do we judge that?
Why?Remind me what her redemption arc was again?
You'll just laugh it off.
It's dangerous to assume everyone has the same moral standard as you.
It is pretty fucking simple to look back and tell if something was or wasn't truly wrong. I hope those who held fellow people in bondage burn long and hard in Hell, whether they consciously knew it was wrong or not.
As far as, "it didn't happen in our jurisdiction"? Fuck that. She is a proven monster, it doesn't fucking matter where she committed those crimes.
I mean, damn. Housing and employing fucking Nazi's after World War II ranks up there with the greatest shames in this country's history. People who were fucking monsters that tortured fellow humans, given a free pass because they might have some intelligence. It is a fucking embarrassment.
So, there's not point in answering the question of where the standard of morality comes from? You have judged her and determined her to be guilty and that's the end of it.
So let it be written.
I don't know? Ask the seven million real world Jews who were tortured and murdered, then saw many of their torturers get away scot-free to a new life in America...
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
