To those who think Trek is merely 'entertainment' and nothing else

[trek_futurist]

I have a multifarious question for those who think Star Trek is merely for 'Entertainment' and nothing more.

1-What exactly is it that most of you are here to discuss?

2-Why does it seem that the majority of you who assign this 'Entertainment only' label to Trek get into long winded exchanges with people who see it as more than this? Why is it not adequate to you that you see it as merely entertainment? Why must you actively participate in a soft campaign to convince other's that it is merely entertainment, when considering the following facts about Star Trek and its historical effect on our society and culture?

A: Star trek has inspired more people to become involved in some form of scientific work than any other form of popular entertainment.

B: A lot of the burgeoning technological advancements we are seeing (and will be seeing) were directly inspired by the technology seen in the original Star Trek series, and following this, The next generation. In fact there are several branches of science actively researching some of the more obscure technological developments witnessed there. Some of these branches include particle physics, nano-technology, advanced medical science and of course several branches of the physical sciences that deal with laser technology, (phasers?), matter displacement (transporter technology?), faster than light travel (warp technology) and advanced imaging technology (tricorders).

C: There are countless charity organizations that have been directly inspired by Star Trek and it's social views of the world (that is, the economy of selflessness portrayed therein) and it's culturally all inclusive, compassionate terminology.

So from A, B and C one could logically conclude that Star Trek has positively effected our world, and doing so conspicuously on the basis of being more than mere 'Entertainment' presumably. For if it inspired people to accomplish all the above merely on the basis of 'Entertainment' then wouldn't Charlies angels, the dukes of hazard and Kojak have done the same? Surely there must be some linear foundation of logic in effect here, as opposed to the capricious phenomenon of random inspiration some of you are indirectly espousing, yes?

Anyway.

3-There is no predicate to your subject of 'Star Trek is there merely for Entertainment'. So why say it? What do you wish to discuss about the subject 'Star Trek is merely entertainment'? Or is it to end conversation about something that other's see much more into than you do? Why is it not enough for you to simply bow out of such discussions? Why must you facetiously attempt to undermine any discussion about the betterment of the species if it is inspired in some way by Star Trek? What is the predicate that comes after 'Star trek is only entertainment'? And if there is such a predicate, how does it enrich the participants of the ensuing discussion (if there is one) more than what those of us perceive as the more meaningful equation of philosophy and an inspiration toward a better way of living that we identify as being qualities of Trek?

4-Why does it seemingly offend you so much that people wish to live a life similar to the human beings portrayed on Star Trek? Is there not some subconscious relationship between the viewer and the characters here? Some degree of what we call 'identification' with and a desire for 'a better future'? A 'better way of living'? And if your hypothetical response is that 'we do not agree with Star treks portrayal of this better way of living' then, prey tell, how did you ever get into Star trek to begin with? There was ALWAYS a moral story there, ALWAYS a social commentary, ALWAYS a message about being 'better' than we were before. It was so ingrained in Trek that it was absolutely inescapable by the viewer, which is why it has become historically associated with a medium that has inspired people to make things 'better for humanity'.

I ask of you all, why do you actively attempt to dispense with what Star trek is actually known for? Without these foundations, it would be an empty medium, a lost in space, a meaningless foray into images that do not matter, because they are insubstantial. If any of this were true, why are we as a society still discussing it, being inspired to become scientists because of it? To give of ourselves because of it? To continue learning more about the universe because of it?

I ask these questions in hope to understand the dispositions of those who seem to have a problem with the pursuit of Star treks future vision.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

I'll bite.

I have a multifarious question for those who think Star Trek is merely for 'Entertainment' and nothing more.

"Nothing more" implies that Star Trek being just entertainment is something bad. It is not. I love being entertained.

1-What exactly is it that most of you are here to discuss?

I'm guessing Star Trek.

2-Why does it seem that the majority of you who assign this 'Entertainment only' label to Trek get into long winded exchanges with people who see it as more than this?

...are you asking why we discuss things on a discussion board?

Why is it not adequate to you that you see it as merely entertainment? Why must you actively participate in a soft campaign to convince other's that it is merely entertainment, when considering the following facts about Star Trek and its historical effect on our society and culture?

Um. Did someone make fun of you for this the other day or something?

A: Star trek has inspired more people to become involved in some form of scientific work than any other form of popular entertainment.

While I'm inclined to believe this, I'm going to have to a: ask for a source, and b: ask you why this matters. Why can't people be inspired by entertainment?

Hell, I'd argue that the best entertainment is inspirational.

B: A lot of the burgeoning technological advancements we are seeing (and will be seeing) were directly inspired by the technology seen in the original Star Trek series, and following this, The next generation. In fact there are several branches of science actively researching some of the more obscure technological developments witnessed there. Some of these branches include particle physics, nano-technology, advanced medical science and of course several branches of the physical sciences that deal with laser technology, (phasers?), matter displacement (transporter technology?), faster than light travel (warp technology) and advanced imaging technology (tricorders).

Okay. Cool.

C: There are countless charity organizations that have been directly inspired by Star Trek and it's social views of the world (that is, the economy of selflessness portrayed therein) and it's culturally all inclusive, compassionate terminology.

Sure.

So from A, B and C one could logically conclude that Star Trek has positively effected our world, and doing so conspicuously on the basis of being more than mere 'Entertainment' presumably.

Responding to your question from several quote boxes above this, I'm assuming people who think Trek is only entertainment argue with you because you say stuff like this.

For if it inspired people to accomplish all the above merely on the basis of 'Entertainment' then wouldn't Charlies angels, the dukes of hazard and Kojak have done the same?

Probably not, because I'm not aware of it having happened.

Surely there must be some linear foundation of logic in effect here, as opposed to the capricious phenomenon of random inspiration some of you are indirectly espousing, yes?

Explain your reasoning, because to me, this is a lot like saying that the apple is inextricably linked to the origins of the universe because one falling on Newton's head inspired his theory of gravity.

3-There is no predicate to your subject of 'Star Trek is there merely for Entertainment'.

I'm pretty sure you're using that word wrong. Or that sentence is formed awkwardly. Are you saying there's no reason to say it? Because if you are, I'm going to say that's incorrect.

So why say it?

Because it's true.

What do you wish to discuss about the subject 'Star Trek is merely entertainment'?

Again, you keep saying 'merely' as if being entertainment is somehow a bad thing. Do you consider it in insult when someone calls something entertaining?

Or is it to end conversation about something that other's see much more into than you do? Why is it not enough for you to simply bow out of such discussions? Why must you facetiously attempt to undermine any discussion about the betterment of the species if it is inspired in some way by Star Trek? What is the predicate that comes after 'Star trek is only entertainment'? And if there is such a predicate, how does it enrich the participants of the ensuing discussion (if there is one) more than what those of us perceive as the more meaningful equation of philosophy and an inspiration toward a better way of living that we identify as being qualities of Trek?

Seriously, are you referring to a discussion you had recently that went bad or something? Or are you just one of those people who gets upset when people don't revere something as highly as you do?

4-Why does it seemingly offend you so much that people wish to live a life similar to the human beings portrayed on Star Trek?

It's not offensive. It's just funny.

Is there not some subconscious relationship between the viewer and the characters here? Some degree of what we call 'identification' with and a desire for 'a better future'? A 'better way of living'? And if your hypothetical response is that 'we do not agree with Star treks portrayal of this better way of living' then, prey tell, how did you ever get into Star trek to begin with? There was ALWAYS a moral story there, ALWAYS a social commentary, ALWAYS a message about being 'better' than we were before. It was so ingrained in Trek that it was absolutely inescapable by the viewer, which is why it has become historically associated with a medium that has inspired people to make things 'better for humanity'.

I ask of you all, why do you actively attempt to dispense with what Star trek is actually known for? Without these foundations, it would be an empty medium, a lost in space, a meaningless foray into images that do not matter, because they are insubstantial. If any of this were true, why are we as a society still discussing it, being inspired to become scientists because of it? To give of ourselves because of it? To continue learning more about the universe because of it?

I ask these questions in hope to understand the dispositions of those who seem to have a problem with the pursuit of Star treks future vision.

I'm going to skip reading this part and arrogantly assume I know what it all says.

Ahem.

When someone says that they wish they lived in the Star Trek universe, or something along those lines, I mentally replace the term 'Star Trek' with 'Power Rangers'.

This is not to say that I look down on you for it, or even care one way or the other. I'm fine with giggling silently to myself and moving on (or making fun of them for it a little bit). But... your entire post seems predicated on the idea that you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, and that's... well, wrong. You want to see it as more than entertainment? More power to you. But when you post a wall of text wherein you heavily imply that everyone who disagrees with that sentiment is wrong and/or stupid, well, then I'm gonna be a little offended and make a reply to something that's probably only going to spark an argument.

I call that 'debating'.

 

[trek_futurist]

I'll bite.

I have a multifarious question for those who think Star Trek is merely for 'Entertainment' and nothing more.

"Nothing more" implies that Star Trek being just entertainment is something bad. It is not. I love being entertained.

1-What exactly is it that most of you are here to discuss?

I'm guessing Star Trek.



...are you asking why we discuss things on a discussion board?



Um. Did someone make fun of you for this the other day or something?



While I'm inclined to believe this, I'm going to have to a: ask for a source, and b: ask you why this matters. Why can't people be inspired by entertainment?

Hell, I'd argue that the best entertainment is inspirational.



Okay. Cool.



Sure.



Responding to your question from several quote boxes above this, I'm assuming people who think Trek is only entertainment argue with you because you say stuff like this.



Probably not, because I'm not aware of it having happened.



Explain your reasoning, because to me, this is a lot like saying that the apple is inextricably linked to the origins of the universe because one falling on Newton's head inspired his theory of gravity.



I'm pretty sure you're using that word wrong. Or that sentence is formed awkwardly. Are you saying there's no reason to say it? Because if you are, I'm going to say that's incorrect.



Because it's true.



Again, you keep saying 'merely' as if being entertainment is somehow a bad thing. Do you consider it in insult when someone calls something entertaining?



Seriously, are you referring to a discussion you had recently that went bad or something? Or are you just one of those people who gets upset when people don't revere something as highly as you do?

4-Why does it seemingly offend you so much that people wish to live a life similar to the human beings portrayed on Star Trek?

It's not offensive. It's just funny.

Is there not some subconscious relationship between the viewer and the characters here? Some degree of what we call 'identification' with and a desire for 'a better future'? A 'better way of living'? And if your hypothetical response is that 'we do not agree with Star treks portrayal of this better way of living' then, prey tell, how did you ever get into Star trek to begin with? There was ALWAYS a moral story there, ALWAYS a social commentary, ALWAYS a message about being 'better' than we were before. It was so ingrained in Trek that it was absolutely inescapable by the viewer, which is why it has become historically associated with a medium that has inspired people to make things 'better for humanity'.

I ask of you all, why do you actively attempt to dispense with what Star trek is actually known for? Without these foundations, it would be an empty medium, a lost in space, a meaningless foray into images that do not matter, because they are insubstantial. If any of this were true, why are we as a society still discussing it, being inspired to become scientists because of it? To give of ourselves because of it? To continue learning more about the universe because of it?

I ask these questions in hope to understand the dispositions of those who seem to have a problem with the pursuit of Star treks future vision.

I'm going to skip reading this part and arrogantly assume I know what it all says.

Ahem.

When someone says that they wish they lived in the Star Trek universe, or something along those lines, I mentally replace the term 'Star Trek' with 'Power Rangers'.

This is not to say that I look down on you for it, or even care one way or the other. I'm fine with giggling silently to myself and moving on (or making fun of them for it a little bit). But... your entire post seems predicated on the idea that you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, and that's... well, wrong. You want to see it as more than entertainment? More power to you. But when you post a wall of text wherein you heavily imply that everyone who disagrees with that sentiment is wrong and/or stupid, well, then I'm gonna be a little offended and make a reply to something that's probably only going to spark an argument.

I call that 'debating'.

I shall not address any of this till you actually answer my questions, as opposed to answering by asking deliberately condescending questions, thus reversing the emphasis toward your perspective, rather than the nucleus of my post.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

I answered several of your questions!

1-What exactly is it that most of you are here to discuss?

I'm guessing Star Trek.

2-Why does it seem that the majority of you who assign this 'Entertainment only' label to Trek get into long winded exchanges with people who see it as more than this?

...are you asking why we discuss things on a discussion board?

(Is asking for clarification not allowed?)

So why say it?

Because it's true

4-Why does it seemingly offend you so much that people wish to live a life similar to the human beings portrayed on Star Trek?

It's not offensive. It's just funny.

And, just because I'm here:

as opposed to answering by asking deliberately condescending questions

Did you just not read everything you wrote? You started this thread solely to talk down to people who don't worship at the altar of Trek as you do, and then you speak down to me EVEN THOUGH I ANSWERED MOST OF YOUR QUESTIONS! Given, I got pretty lazy toward the end, but to be fair you were being pretty offensive toward anyone with an alternate viewpoint by then.

Your post makes you look like a hypocrite. You want to know why? Because you wish you lived in "a life similar to the human beings portrayed on Star Trek", yet you've completely ignored one of Trek's core messages - that different points of view exist and aren't necessarily wrong for being different. IDIC. You want to see it as more than "mere entertainment", fine. That's awesome. But then you talk down about people who only see it as entertainment or escapism, and that's terrible. And worse, you did it pretentiously; yes, I'm very impressed by your grasp of long words, but it doesn't do anything to make you look less intellectually elitist.

Now, please answer some of my questions from my previous post instead of assuming that other people who make long posts have nothing worthwhile to say.

 

[FordSVT]

Why doesn't everyone have the same viewpoint as myself?

Because not everyone thinks the way you do.

I hope you've learned something from this exchange, as it applies to many facets of everyday life, not just Star Trek.

Oh, and Star Trek's awesome, but it's not a religion. I've enjoyed Star Trek as more than "just" entertainment over the past thirty years, but I've seen a lot of people do what you're doing by placing it on a pedestal, and I'm not willing to go that far.

 

[Gary7]

Why doesn't everyone have the same viewpoint as myself?

Because not everyone thinks the way you do.

I hope you've learned something from this exchange, as it applies to many facets of everyday life, not just Star Trek.

Oh, and Star Trek's awesome, but it's not a religion. I've enjoyed Star Trek as more than "just" entertainment over the past thirty years, but I've seen a lot of people do what you're doing by placing it on a pedestal, and I'm not willing to go that far.

Very well said.


I don't know where the OP gets their impression of the TBBS membership. I do not see a majority of people on TBBS considering Star Trek as purely entertainment with no other redeeming values, but more of a minority.

A lot of the burgeoning technological advancements we are seeing (and will be seeing) were directly inspired by the technology seen in the original Star Trek series, and following this, The next generation.

Really? Directly? That's a rather outrageous claim. Care to cite specifics? Star Trek has actually mimicked a lot of ideas that were postulated before it. Some say the cell phone was inspired by the Star Trek communicator. That's hogwash. The cell phone is not based on the same technology. The "flip lid" on the TOS communicator is an antenna, and actually less functional with no LCD display. But the TOS communicator talks directly to the ship, without any cellular network. By contrast, our cellular phones are more like intercoms, connected across a vast network. Very different and not much comparable.

If anything, Star Trek just helps inspire the idea that we need to get out into space. Not much else. Particle physics? Are you kidding me? [Insert Technobabble] is all throughout the scripts, whereby people with some knowledge of physics makes up some phrase to insert. Most of it isn't tethered to reality.

So... count me in as also recognizing that no pedestal is deserved or required.

 

[BillJ]

I use to buy into the nonsense that Trek was more than entertainment until I realized something one day watching TNG, the future is very white and very conservative.

All of Picard's friends, mentors and lovers: white.
All of Riker's friends, mentors and lovers: white.
Every Admiral: white, except Thomas Henry who doesn't have a line.
The complete and utter lack of gay people in the 24th Century. Guess they "cured" homosexuality.
Outside of Code of Honor, every colony leader and ambassador was white. The actors playing the Klingon and Romulan leaders: white.

Then I did a bit of research on the writers and directors of TNG out of 178 episodes, I could only verify one black director: LeVar Burton, who directed twice. There may be more but for all the writers and directors I could locate photos for they were all white except Naren Shakarr, who is of Indian descent I believe.

Then the show had this nasty habit of Picard looking down on species who didn't do things the human way. See Redemption for an obvious case.

I guess Star Trek is a great blueprint for the future if you're not gay or black. Then you factor in that Roddenberry was a liar, a cheat and a thief.

The above is why I see Star Trek as entertainment. You asked...

 

[Amaris]

Star Trek is entertainment, first and foremost. If you gain something from it other than that, good for you. If not, it's still a great show.

 

[RoJoHen]

"Star Trek is just a TV show" or "Star Trek is merely entertainment" is usually a way to shut up people who take it way too fucking seriously. You can love the show all you want, and you can even find inspiration and deeper meaning in it, but you need to acknowledge it in the context of the real world. Some of the more hardcore fans seem to think that, just because we're members of this message board, we need believe Star Trek is the most awesome thing ever and treat it like a religion. Those fans need to gain some perspective.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I use to buy into the nonsense that Trek was more than entertainment until I realized something one day watching TNG, the future is very white and very conservative.

All of Picard's friends, mentors and lovers: white.
All of Riker's friends, mentors and lovers: white.
Every Admiral: white, except Thomas Henry who doesn't have a line.
The complete and utter lack of gay people in the 24th Century. Guess they "cured" homosexuality.
Outside of Code of Honor, every colony leader and ambassador was white. The actors playing the Klingon and Romulan leaders: white.

Then I did a bit of research on the writers and directors of TNG out of 178 episodes, I could only verify one black director: LeVar Burton, who directed twice. There may be more but for all the writers and directors I could locate photos for they were all white except Naren Shakarr, who is of Indian descent I believe.

Then the show had this nasty habit of Picard looking down on species who didn't do things the human way. See Redemption for an obvious case.

I guess Star Trek is a great blueprint for the future if you're not gay or black. Then you factor in that Roddenberry was a liar, a cheat and a thief.

The above is why I see Star Trek as entertainment. You asked...

Like the Vulcans, Trek may fail to live up to it's own ideals - but that doesn't make those ideals worthless.


I see Trek as a well meaning television show/film/novel franchise. It's not a religion. People find inspiration in many places, and if Trek inspires them to be better people or to persue a certain career or whatever, that's wonderful. But Trek isn't the only source of inspiration in the world.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I see Trek as a well meaning television show/film/novel franchise. It's not a religion. People find inspiration in many places, and if Trek inspires them to be better people or to persue a certain career or whatever, that's wonderful. But Trek isn't the only source of inspiration in the world.

Anything that develops it's own mythology can provide inspiration because it's stories about people looking for meaning. If you're also looking for meaning this sometimes resonates.

 

[Kelthaz]

"Star Trek is just a TV show" or "Star Trek is merely entertainment" is usually a way to shut up people who take it way too fucking seriously. You can love the show all you want, and you can even find inspiration and deeper meaning in it, but you need to acknowledge it in the context of the real world. Some of the more hardcore fans seem to think that, just because we're members of this message board, we need believe Star Trek is the most awesome thing ever and treat it like a religion. Those fans need to gain some perspective.

Well said.

 

[gazomg]

I rarely watch TV in the conventional sense,
I normally download the few tv programmes I like transfer them to a flash stick and then watch them on tv.

I do see trek as entertainment only, however like other long rinning shows like law and order for example over time the characters are given time as opposed to movies where things are done for effect and done quicky.

My favorite show DS9 was superb in the development of its characters and its secondary and recurring characters which gave the show depth.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, trek being just entertainment is far from a bad thing, its something enjoyable and entertaining .

 

[trek_futurist]

I use to buy into the nonsense that Trek was more than entertainment until I realized something one day watching TNG, the future is very white and very conservative.

All of Picard's friends, mentors and lovers: white.
All of Riker's friends, mentors and lovers: white.
Every Admiral: white, except Thomas Henry who doesn't have a line.
The complete and utter lack of gay people in the 24th Century. Guess they "cured" homosexuality.
Outside of Code of Honor, every colony leader and ambassador was white. The actors playing the Klingon and Romulan leaders: white.

Then I did a bit of research on the writers and directors of TNG out of 178 episodes, I could only verify one black director: LeVar Burton, who directed twice. There may be more but for all the writers and directors I could locate photos for they were all white except Naren Shakarr, who is of Indian descent I believe.

Then the show had this nasty habit of Picard looking down on species who didn't do things the human way. See Redemption for an obvious case.

I guess Star Trek is a great blueprint for the future if you're not gay or black. Then you factor in that Roddenberry was a liar, a cheat and a thief.

The above is why I see Star Trek as entertainment. You asked...

Did you miss DS9 completely? Benjamin Sisko showed that the future is not bleak for blacks or minorities. But I do agree that there ought to have been more racial diversity portrayed aside from the occasional chief engineer and captain here and there.

My take on the homosexuality issue is that there were homosexuals present, who were in happy relationships (ever see two male officers sitting cosily together in the background in ten forward) but that it was never spoken of openly. Homosexuality was addressed in the episode 'the outcast' in a disguised manner however.

I think maybe the writers knew that the late 80s/early 90s were still a very socially sensitive time for homosexuality. TOS had to disguise its discussions of racism in episodes like 'let that be your last battlefield'. So it makes sense as a logical progression that they dealt with homosexuality this way as well.

 

[trek_futurist]

"Star Trek is just a TV show" or "Star Trek is merely entertainment" is usually a way to shut up people who take it way too fucking seriously. You can love the show all you want, and you can even find inspiration and deeper meaning in it, but you need to acknowledge it in the context of the real world. Some of the more hardcore fans seem to think that, just because we're members of this message board, we need believe Star Trek is the most awesome thing ever and treat it like a religion. Those fans need to gain some perspective.

You're not addressing my questions in their presented context.

For example I said that in light of star treks success not only as 'entertainment' but as a source of inspiration of scientists, researchers and humanitarians, why ridicule people who consider it a model for a way to live life? And you have not addressed that aspect of my question. Just jumped over it conveniently with more blind ridicule that is out of the context of my actual multifariously arranged question.

 

[trek_futurist]

"Star Trek is just a TV show" or "Star Trek is merely entertainment" is usually a way to shut up people who take it way too fucking seriously. You can love the show all you want, and you can even find inspiration and deeper meaning in it, but you need to acknowledge it in the context of the real world. Some of the more hardcore fans seem to think that, just because we're members of this message board, we need believe Star Trek is the most awesome thing ever and treat it like a religion. Those fans need to gain some perspective.

Well said.

What are you here to discuss if you dislike people discussing these things? Are you here to discuss your dislike of such discussions? If so, what is the predicate that you would wish to continue discussing for further development of a mutually applicable outlet that benefits both you and I?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Didn't "The Outcast" end with the "gay" character being brainwashed to conform to his society's ideals? That's condemning, not addressing.

STXI did a far better and more correct take on it - Spock "coming out" in the transporter room as an "emotional", and being told by his father (quite rightly), not to fight his nature.

 

[trek_futurist]

Star Trek is entertainment, first and foremost. If you gain something from it other than that, good for you. If not, it's still a great show.

This does absolutely nothing to address the context of my original questions, which you conveniently ignored to restate something that you have not proven.

Original context:

If Star Trek is merely 'Entertainment' then why has it managed to inspired more people to become scientists, and thus contribute to the advancement of the human race than any other form of popular 'entertainment'? In this context, considering what it has done to help the human species thrive socially and scientifically you should certainly have no problem when many people consider it as more than simply 'Entertainment', or as a philosophy for life. Yes?

 

[Gary7]

"Star Trek is just a TV show" or "Star Trek is merely entertainment" is usually a way to shut up people who take it way too fucking seriously. You can love the show all you want, and you can even find inspiration and deeper meaning in it, but you need to acknowledge it in the context of the real world. Some of the more hardcore fans seem to think that, just because we're members of this message board, we need believe Star Trek is the most awesome thing ever and treat it like a religion. Those fans need to gain some perspective.

You're not addressing my questions in their presented context.

For example I said that in light of star treks success not only as 'entertainment' but as a source of inspiration of scientists, researchers and humanitarians, why ridicule people who consider it a model for a way to live life? And you have not addressed that aspect of my question. Just jumped over it conveniently with more blind ridicule that is out of the context of my actual multifariously arranged question.

You pick and choose your responses very selectively, ignoring those who have provided responses to your points. As such, you wish to steer this "discussion" to your own agenda, which is to promote the idea that Star Trek is the foundation of great scientific innovation and is far more than just a TV show. If that makes you happy to believe it, go right ahead... but don't try to recruit others to join you.

 

[trek_futurist]

Didn't "The Outcast" end with the "gay" character being brainwashed to conform to his society's ideals? That's condemning, not addressing.

No, because the vantage point of Riker, which is the view the audience member is suppose to adapt, is one not of approval, but denial and sadness in the face of this atrocity. His civility as a starfleet officer is what forces him to accept the customs of another cultures way of life in the end, but he does effectively attempt to prevent it, only he is too late.