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

[Gov Kodos]

So, you got answers that you didn't like, that's going to happen a lot. Don't expect much sympathy or support there. Some folks just don't see Trek the way you do, and come from other perspectives. No one is going to help you shut out those other perspectives. Perhaps, if you embraced them more, rather than complain of them being here, you might broaden your own perspective.

 

[Count Zero]

Oh but I was warned by a moderator that if I do not allow their manipulation, there are eery consequences.

Bullshit. It was clearly marked as advice.

I also told others to get back on topic so stop the unfounded and vague accusations in this thread. You're so against anyone only slightly deviating from what you think this thread should be about, yet now you're derailing it yourself. If you want to discuss moderator actions, either do so by PM or if that doesn't resolve the issue in 'Moderator Actions' but be more specific about it (i.e. links of the posts in question). I already told you that this was the way to go about these things in another thread. It was introduced precisely to prevent thread derailments and keep the personal drama out of threads.

You stated earlier that you already contacted an admin so kindly stop dragging this issue you perceive into the threads here.

Anyway, folks, it would be best to either get back on topic or not say anything at all. I don't want this thread to turn into one of those Moderator Actions threads of lore.

 

[trek_futurist]

No. Star Trek has some high ideas, but it also has explosions, skin tight catsuits, and frequent misuses of scientific fact. That does not take away from the knowledge that Star Trek has inspired people to enter the science field, or try to make the world a better place, but that doesn't make Star Trek any more noble or set apart. It can inspire, while still being entertaining. That may even be a part of the entertaining factor, that you get a nice message with a great show.

If, hypothetically speaking, it IS entertainment more than anything else, doesn't that go without saying or need for repeat? Why then do you feel like you must engage in this soft campaign of continually repeating that it is entertainment first and foremost if it is obviously a television show intended to be viewed in some sense as entertaining? In other words, why restate the obvious? It makes you seem like you are trying to cut down another individuals source of inspiration for whatever it is they do, if said pursuits are inspired by the impetus of star trek, which in many cases they are. Why is the word 'entertainment' so fundamentally important here to your argument? It seems like an attempt to take significance away from a medium that is inspiring people. I don't get why people would want to do that.

You seem to have taken hold of the idea that, somehow, people who only find it to be an enjoyable TV show have somehow taken up arms against you, and that just isn't so.

Then can you kindly explain why the soft campaign exists of people 'trolling' threads with comments that seem to be more an attempt to end conversation than to continue conversation? Example, when someone goes to a thread about Star Trek as source for inspiration for anything (it does not matter what that thing is) and says something like 'oh star trek isn't meant for anything but space battles and girls in tight suits'. What is the basis of stating this on such threads? To take emphasis off of someone being inspired by what you believe they should not be inspired by? If they are doing good for humanity by going into a field of science as a result of the impetus of Star Trek, then why should it offend someone that it is another persons primary source of inspiration in life? Some day that person may invent some new technology that will change the world for the better!

Your statements are fundamentally flawed. Your reasoning is fallacious, and your questions cannot be answered without a poster "admitting" they are against anyone that believes Star Trek is more than entertainment. It is the equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?".

An argument is not flawed if it prevents other's from manipulating the discussion with ad hominems and irrelevancies.

 

[trek_futurist]

Oh but I was warned by a moderator that if I do not allow their manipulation, there are eery consequences.

Bullshit. It was clearly marked as advice.

I also told others to get back on topic so stop the unfounded and vague accusations in this thread. You're so against anyone only slightly deviating from what you think this thread should be about, yet now you're derailing it yourself. If you want to discuss moderator actions, either do so by PM or if that doesn't resolve the issue in 'Moderator Actions' but be more specific about it (i.e. links of the posts in question). I already told you that this was the way to go about these things in another thread. It was introduced precisely to prevent thread derailments and keep the personal drama out of threads.

You stated earlier that you already contacted an admin so kindly stop dragging this issue you perceive into the threads here.

Anyway, folks, it would be best to either get back on topic or not say anything at all. I don't want this thread to turn into one of those Moderator Actions threads of lore.

Well thank you for the 'advice' and while you're at it, can you please do your job and warn people about making personal implications about an individuals character outside the content of these forums? Much appreciated!

 

[Amaris]

No. Star Trek has some high ideas, but it also has explosions, skin tight catsuits, and frequent misuses of scientific fact. That does not take away from the knowledge that Star Trek has inspired people to enter the science field, or try to make the world a better place, but that doesn't make Star Trek any more noble or set apart. It can inspire, while still being entertaining. That may even be a part of the entertaining factor, that you get a nice message with a great show.

If, hypothetically speaking, it IS entertainment more than anything else, doesn't that go without saying or need for repeat? Why then do you feel like you must engage in this soft campaign of continually repeating that it is entertainment first and foremost if it is obviously a television show intended to be viewed in some sense as entertaining? In other words, why restate the obvious? It makes you seem like you are trying to cut down another individuals source of inspiration for whatever it is they do, if said pursuits are inspired by the impetus of star trek, which in many cases they are. Why is the word 'entertainment' so fundamentally important here to your argument? It seems like an attempt to take significance away from a medium that is inspiring people. I don't get why people would want to do that.

You seem to have taken hold of the idea that, somehow, people who only find it to be an enjoyable TV show have somehow taken up arms against you, and that just isn't so.

Then can you kindly explain why the soft campaign exists of people 'trolling' threads with comments that seem to be more an attempt to end conversation than to continue conversation? Example, when someone goes to a thread about Star Trek as source for inspiration for anything (it does not matter what that thing is) and says something like 'oh star trek isn't meant for anything but space battles and girls in tight suits'. What is the basis of stating this on such threads? To take emphasis off of someone being inspired by what you believe they should not be inspired by? If they are doing good for humanity by going into a field of science as a result of the impetus of Star Trek, then why should it offend someone that it is another persons primary source of inspiration in life? Some day that person may invent some new technology that will change the world for the better!

Your statements are fundamentally flawed. Your reasoning is fallacious, and your questions cannot be answered without a poster "admitting" they are against anyone that believes Star Trek is more than entertainment. It is the equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?".

An argument is not flawed if it prevents other's from manipulating the discussion with ad hominems and irrelevancies.

The moderator of this forum has asked that we no longer discuss this issue, so I am dropping it.

 

[trek_futurist]

So, you got answers that you didn't like, that's going to happen a lot. Don't expect much sympathy or support there. Some folks just don't see Trek the way you do, and come from other perspectives. No one is going to help you shut out those other perspectives. Perhaps, if you embraced them more, rather than complain of them being here, you might broaden your own perspective.

What perspectives? If the perspective is 'i like trek for space explosions, women in tight suits and laser battles' then what are you such people here to discuss, and why campaign against those who are inspired by the obvious and apparent philosophical aspects of Star Trek? Why the deliberate attempt at taking significance away from something that inspires some of us toward a profession or living life a certain way? It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[trek_futurist]

No. Star Trek has some high ideas, but it also has explosions, skin tight catsuits, and frequent misuses of scientific fact. That does not take away from the knowledge that Star Trek has inspired people to enter the science field, or try to make the world a better place, but that doesn't make Star Trek any more noble or set apart. It can inspire, while still being entertaining. That may even be a part of the entertaining factor, that you get a nice message with a great show.

If, hypothetically speaking, it IS entertainment more than anything else, doesn't that go without saying or need for repeat? Why then do you feel like you must engage in this soft campaign of continually repeating that it is entertainment first and foremost if it is obviously a television show intended to be viewed in some sense as entertaining? In other words, why restate the obvious? It makes you seem like you are trying to cut down another individuals source of inspiration for whatever it is they do, if said pursuits are inspired by the impetus of star trek, which in many cases they are. Why is the word 'entertainment' so fundamentally important here to your argument? It seems like an attempt to take significance away from a medium that is inspiring people. I don't get why people would want to do that.



Then can you kindly explain why the soft campaign exists of people 'trolling' threads with comments that seem to be more an attempt to end conversation than to continue conversation? Example, when someone goes to a thread about Star Trek as source for inspiration for anything (it does not matter what that thing is) and says something like 'oh star trek isn't meant for anything but space battles and girls in tight suits'. What is the basis of stating this on such threads? To take emphasis off of someone being inspired by what you believe they should not be inspired by? If they are doing good for humanity by going into a field of science as a result of the impetus of Star Trek, then why should it offend someone that it is another persons primary source of inspiration in life? Some day that person may invent some new technology that will change the world for the better!

Your statements are fundamentally flawed. Your reasoning is fallacious, and your questions cannot be answered without a poster "admitting" they are against anyone that believes Star Trek is more than entertainment. It is the equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?".

An argument is not flawed if it prevents other's from manipulating the discussion with ad hominems and irrelevancies.

The moderator of this forum has asked that we no longer discuss this issue, so I am dropping it.

No, the moderator asked us to keep it on point! Which I am doing.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

This is a sad thread, I feel sorry for the OP who while accusing everyone else of failing to discuss the topic hijacks his own thread and turns it into a thread about how he is persecuted. It's a perfectly good topic and plenty seem interested in discussing it but every other post is the OP rejecting people's discussions.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why does it seem that so many who inflate the importance of Star Trek and seek to elevate it above the "entertainment only" evaluation get into long winded exchanges with people who just enjoy the show - even to the extent of starting topics to challenge them? Why is it important that an imaginative and often fascinating space opera be seen as more than it is? Why continually repeat exaggerated and often inaccurate claims about the impact that it's had on science and technology, culture and (most ridiculously) ethics? What is it that they find inadequate about good storytelling for the sake of telling a good story? Are they just embarrassed by the fact that so many people in the general population who aren't enthralled with it look at it and dismiss it because straightforward, colorful fantasies simply aren't their cup of tea, and those who take the show too seriously feel a need to convince the public-at-large that they're somehow missing something? Are they afraid that they're praising the Emperor's new clothes?

 

[trek_futurist]

This is a sad thread, I feel sorry for the OP who while accusing everyone else of failing to discuss the topic hijacks his own thread and turns it into a thread about how he is persecuted. It's a perfectly good topic and plenty seem interested in discussing it but every other post is the OP rejecting people's discussions.

Well, if you back track I am not the one who made personal implications about other peoples character outside of the forums. So some degree of sidetracking was necessary to nip that in the bud. Anyway, if you can stop with this favoritism non-sense, can we please get back to the discussion? I would be more than happy to discuss this! And by discussing it I do not mean being back handedly insulted by people who are not really addressing my points, but creating false correlatives to try and not address the issue while at the same time making every effort to insult the character of certain types of people (namely those of us who find inspiration in star trek philosophically).

 

[Gov Kodos]

Laser battles, catsuits, explosions, why decry the fun and entertainment? Such joyless, overloaded seriousness that can't abide so much as a giggle, or find inspiration in a lark or a laugh, is simply unfathomable.

 

[Amaris]

Laser battles, catsuits, explosions, why decry the fun and entertainment? Such joyless, overloaded seriousness that can't abide so much as a giggle, or find inspiration in a lark or a laugh, is simply unfathomable.

It takes the humanity out of things, and one of the great things about Trek (IMO), is that it reflects the different values that humanity embraces or eschews, and does it in a fun way.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

If, hypothetically speaking, it IS entertainment more than anything else, doesn't that go without saying or need for repeat? Why then do you feel like you must engage in this soft campaign of continually repeating that it is entertainment first and foremost if it is obviously a television show intended to be viewed in some sense as entertaining? In other words, why restate the obvious?

Why are people saying Trek is entertainment in a thread where you asked people why they feel Trek is entertainment?

I'm gonna (try to) make this real easy, even though you're ignoring me and probably have me blocked (so if someone could quote this so t_f can see it, I'd totes appreciate it).

What answer are you looking for? What do you actually want the people replying to you in this thread to say? At this point, since you're ignoring answers to your questions so obviously you don't care about said answers, I would like to know what kind of responses you thought you were going to get. This is not a backhanded insult; I am legitimately curious.

 

[trek_futurist]

Why does it seem that so many who inflate the importance of Star Trek and seek to elevate it above "entertainment only" label get into long winded exchanges with people who just enjoy the show?

Because they intently visit threads about how Star Trek is a source of inspiration to us, and seek to actively detract from the significance of it as impetus of inspiration. The question remains, why?

Why is it important to them that a fascinating and often imaginative space opera be so much more than it is?

Why is it so important to those of you who are convinced it is nothing more than this repeat this opinion pro-actively in threads that are designed for those who are philosophically inspired by Star Trek. What are you on such threads to discuss exactly?

Why must they continually repeat exaggerated and often misstated claims about the impact that it's had on science and technology, culture and (most ridiculously) ethics?

If Star Trek inspires individuals to enter into fields of science, it is not an exaggeration at all. If there are people actively attempting to improve interstellar travel because they were inspired by Star Trek, then it is not an exaggeration. If medical science is developing tricorders to Star Trek specifications, it is not an exaggeration. If one single human being feeds a poor person because Star Trek inspired them to do so, it is not an exaggeration.

What is it that they find inadequate about good storytelling for the sake of telling a good story?

Why does it offend you when an individual or group of individuals are inspired by the medium to do more, to actually see certain truths portrayed therein through to reality? To thusly and surely contribute something positive to the human race? Why so offended?

Are they just embarrassed by the fact that so many people in the general population who aren't enthralled with it look at it and dismiss it because straightforward, colorful fantasies simply aren't their cup of tea, and they feel a need to convince them that they're somehow missing something? Are they afraid that they're praising the Emperor's new clothes?

Again, if Star Trek is merely mindless entertainment to you, then prey tell, what are you here on this forum and many threads which outline the philosophical importance portrayed in star trek, here to discuss? To undermine other peoples inspiration perhaps? The question remains, why?

 

[xortex]

It might have something to do with Roddenberry - the Humanist, and JJ. the clown - the opportunist. Am I close? I'm late to this but I'll be glad to take over taking you all on. Every single last one of you. Thanks.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Oh Roddenberry was quite the opportunist, don't delude yourself.

 

[xortex]

Oh Roddenberry was quite the opportunist, don't delude yourself.

Since he was the creator, that would be optomist. Next.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Optimist. More likely opportunist TV producer, though.

 

[trek_futurist]

It might have something to do with Roddenberry - the Humanist, and JJ. the clown - the opportunist. Am I close? I

I think that dichotomy you mention is quite possibly related to this phenomenon.

 

[trek_futurist]

Oh Roddenberry was quite the opportunist, don't delude yourself.

We don't know what went on in the head space of Gene Roddenberry, but we do know that, for whatever reason, he injected various philosophical notions into the repertoire of Star Treks lore and that this has inspired countless people to make life decisions in line with such philosophy. What's the problem with this if it is contributing to the betterment of the species?