Early Criticism: What’s Unfounded and What Isn’t

[Fateor]

Geordi is probably my favorite character from The Next Generation, but I gotta say, I always found it a little overblown how they would pat themselves on their backs for including a visually impaired person, but just straight up gave him sight. But yes, with Geordi they did want to show how the future makes it possible for blind people to see. That was the story point. Does that mean it always has to be that way in Trek? Do you always need to find a cool futuristic story reason to include a disabled human being? I think that‘s bullshit. And in my mind it‘s akin to saying “If you have to make your character queer, find a story reason for it!“ Because, as we all know, queer people can‘t just exist.

Except there's a massive difference between a physical disability and being queer.

And yes, you do need a reason, because the history of the Star Trek universe wasn't filled with horrible people who spent a thousand years ignoring the plight of those with physical disabilities.

 

[Kraig]

No, it doesn‘t do that for me. The point of Star Trek is not the accurate prediction of technological and medical advancements a thousand years from now. Nor is it to always adhere to something a previous episode has established. It‘s not real history.


Geordi is probably my favorite character from The Next Generation, but I gotta say, I always found it a little overblown how they would pat themselves on their backs for including a visually impaired person, but just straight up gave him sight. But yes, with Geordi they did want to show how the future makes it possible for blind people to see. That was the story point. Does that mean it always has to be that way in Trek? Do you always need to find a cool futuristic story reason to include a disabled human being? I think that‘s bullshit. And in my mind it‘s akin to saying “If you have to make your character queer, find a story reason for it!“ Because, as we all know, queer people can‘t just exist.

For some people, it is a personal choice not to be modified. I wear glasses, because I don't want to put on contact lenses, or have a surgery that might be of some benefit, but might leave me blind if an error is made, with a pair of glasses, a prescription can be easily changed, and glasses act as a barrier for allergens, UV rays or particles that could cause eye damage.

 

[ToddCam]

Re: reinventing the wheel. Trek has long had people who reject the most high tech things. McCoy hated the transporter even though he was born decades after the transporter was integrated into life. Nameless character A is in a wheelchair for whatever reason. Could it be they just like the feel of wheels under their movement? Could they have grown up on a low tech planet and never came to like the floating feeling? Could there be some technobabble or personal reason the character doesn't want physical augmentation and would rather live with the disability?

I understand the disruption in verisimilitude when something seems incongruous. I understand it's a clash of personality types that makes one unable to move on or come up with clever explanation for themselves. I ultimately agree with Michael. Just let people be seen. I know it's dismissive of me to say with regards to this, but it really is just a TV show.

 

[Fateor]

For some people, it is a personal choice not to be modified. I wear glasses, because I don't want to put on contact lenses, or have a surgery that might be of some benefit, but might leave me blind if an error is made, when a pair of glasses prescription can be easily changed, and acts a barrier for allergens, UV rays or particles that could cause eye damage.

Except that logic falls apart with greater physical disabilities.

Because in a choice between being blind and getting implants with no real risk, nobody would choose to stay blind. It's just too limiting.

Which is really the thing people defending the idea aren't taking into account, the limits imposed by the physical disabilities.

 

[ToddCam]

Except that logic falls apart with greater physical disabilities.

Because in a choice between being blind and getting implants with no real risk, nobody would choose to stay blind. It's just too limiting.

Which is really the thing people defending the idea aren't taking into account, the limits imposed by the physical disabilities.

False. Many deaf people reject cochlear implants in real life.

 

[fireproof78]

Contacts vs Glassess vs Magic Pill is a generally meaningless choice.

Wheel Chair vs Exoskeleton vs Implants is a choice that would massively effect quality of life and a persons ability to serve on a starship.

It's not about real future but people feeling like they belong without conditions.

 

[Fateor]

False. Many deaf people reject cochlear implants in real life.

Cochlear implants aren't a cure for deafness...

It's not about real future but people feeling like they belong without conditions.

There will always be conditions.

The DS9 episode Melora even explored what some of those conditions would be for someone in a Wheel Chair.

 

[ToddCam]

Cochlear implants aren't a cure for deafness...

So if it's a full cure, people will lose the reasons they don't use the things in the first place? Have you spoken to a deaf person before, one who embraces their deafness as part of a culture? I can assure you that there are plenty who would not take the magical cure if it existed.

 

[fireproof78]

There will always be conditions.

The DS9 episode Melora even explored what some of those conditions would be for someone in a Wheel Chair.

So people have to justify their existence in Trek future?

No, thank you..

 

[Fateor]

So if it's a full cure, people will lose the reasons they don't use the things in the first place? Have you spoken to a deaf person before, one who embraces their deafness as part of a culture? I can assure you that there are plenty who would not take the magical cure if it existed.

I was trying to avoid the discussion about deaf culture because of how thorny a subject it is.

If you really want to go there however, feel free to PM me about it.

 

[bdub76]

I stumbled upon this over lunch. I have only seen the pilot for this show. I haven't seen the episode being reviewed. I don't know how true his complaints are about the episode, but he reviewed the episode in a way that make me laugh a lot.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

You don't have to agree with this guy to get a laugh out of this video.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I wouldn't give Nerdidiotic the time of day, let alone clicks or engagement.

 

[Nerys Myk]

When the show has already established someone getting a spine replaced and someone else getting a new leg, it kind of raises questions.

It means that even in the future there will be some things that science and medicine can't cure/fix. For example, Pike's injuries in the Menagerie.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Some people may use a variety of assistive devices high and low-tech, depending on what they're doing, how they feel, etc.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

The "everyone" in that title is referring to a very specific type of people and not the people who just found it not for them after trying it out.

 

[TRON JA307020]

They cut out swearing mostly because of the censors. 90's trek characters speak more formally but they do not speak any differently to the way a modern human would. Also, none of the 90's series made any attempts to show linguist drift or introduced futuristic swear words, phrases or metaphors. So why should new trek be held to a higher standard and expectation?

Swearing was something mostly no longer done in 23rd century earth so they didn't need to add futuristic swear words. Humans had grown beyond that kind of language for the most part(see star trek the voyage home). Now kurtzman 23rd century, late 24th and 32nd century we get f bombs and tons of other swear words. The 32nd century doesn't seem any different from now. Its totally idiotic. The writers cant write without using 21st century slang and vernacular?

 

[fireproof78]

I wouldn't give Nerdidiotic the time of day, let alone clicks or engagement.

Indeed. Not interested.

 

[ToddCam]

Conservative humor rarely has anything I find funny, so I'd be surprised if I did. But I won't give it a shot because I don't want my recommendations flooded with Ben Shapiro or whatever.

 

[Firebird]

It’s more than a little appalling to see anyone being so (pardon the pun) tone deaf as to bitch about Star Trek having the temerity to represent people with disabilities.

Star Trek isn’t a historical documentary about the exact conditions of our true future. It is speculative fiction, made for a mass audience. Audiences like to see themselves represented, to know that they, too, have a place with everyone in this future, in this fandom.

To be arguing and bitching about the existence of a fucking wheelchair completely misses the fucking point, and is just another in a continuing series of bad faith arguments.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s more than a little appalling to see anyone being so (pardon the pun) tone deaf as to bitch about Star Trek having the temerity to represent people with disabilities.

Star Trek isn’t a historical documentary about the exact conditions of our true future. It is speculative fiction, made for a mass audience. Audiences like to see themselves represented, to know that they, too, have a place with everyone in this future, in this fandom.

To be arguing and bitching about the existence of a fucking wheelchair completely misses the fucking point, and is just another in a continuing series of bad faith arguments.

I think this is where the divide is of people who enjoy Star Trek for the characters and stories, and seeing people similar to themselves matters more, vs. people who are in love with the world building and want to logically continue it on rather than emotionally see the difference of different people in the story.