That would be the queen (or perhaps multiple queens), the one running the show, she's the slave master.
Sorry, that's the second time today I screwed a quote.
Can Conservative Star Trek Fans Exist?
- Thread starter milojthatch
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, you can keep going, to my next sentence, where I mention that. It's still breaking down there. All analogies break down somewhere.
It's interesting: My family did a flip-flop from Conservative in the 1980s into the mid-1990s, and then we each, independently of each other, started to question our conservative roots.
It makes for an interesting mix in my interests. I like all kinds of music (sans the synthetic), but I am at home with Country music. I started listening when I was 8 (I didn't turn liberal until I was in my 20s). I watch basketball (the NBA), but detest the culture that supports cheerleader calendars (I started watching when I was 5). And I watch Star Trek (I started when I was 5).
It means as a pansexual, atheist, liberal I still listen to songs about God and Southern culture. I am used to being an outsider. Try telling your parents you have a boyfriend or a friend that doesn't believe in God and openly admits to being attracted to those that are transgender.
So what has my perspective--the change from Conservative to Liberal--taught me about my Star Trek fandom? I stayed a Star Trek fan for different reasons. On my lapel, I said "everyone is equal" while I hated myself for being a homosexual. The military aspects; the action; the adventure, appealed more to me as a Conservative. When I became liberal, it wasn't the great liberal lynch-pin episodes that I liked. Those were enjoyable, especially "Who Watches the Watchers" and "Return of the Archons." But it was the episodes where there isn't a person--it was communicating with life that doesn't look like us. "The Motion Picture." "The Nth Degree." "Galaxy's Child."
So I am open-minded. If a homosexual can listen to Toby Keith, then surely we can have Conservative "Star Trek" fans.
It makes for an interesting mix in my interests. I like all kinds of music (sans the synthetic), but I am at home with Country music. I started listening when I was 8 (I didn't turn liberal until I was in my 20s). I watch basketball (the NBA), but detest the culture that supports cheerleader calendars (I started watching when I was 5). And I watch Star Trek (I started when I was 5).
It means as a pansexual, atheist, liberal I still listen to songs about God and Southern culture. I am used to being an outsider. Try telling your parents you have a boyfriend or a friend that doesn't believe in God and openly admits to being attracted to those that are transgender.
So what has my perspective--the change from Conservative to Liberal--taught me about my Star Trek fandom? I stayed a Star Trek fan for different reasons. On my lapel, I said "everyone is equal" while I hated myself for being a homosexual. The military aspects; the action; the adventure, appealed more to me as a Conservative. When I became liberal, it wasn't the great liberal lynch-pin episodes that I liked. Those were enjoyable, especially "Who Watches the Watchers" and "Return of the Archons." But it was the episodes where there isn't a person--it was communicating with life that doesn't look like us. "The Motion Picture." "The Nth Degree." "Galaxy's Child."
So I am open-minded. If a homosexual can listen to Toby Keith, then surely we can have Conservative "Star Trek" fans.
I applaud your family's ability to do that. Really look at your views and explore them to determine if they are indeed YOUR views or just what you're used to. I've done this numerous occasions on various topics. I usually end up more conservative on the issues, but not always. Of course, I'm disappointed to see your family turn the the dark side, but we all make mistakes.
Just as an example, My Mom considers herself a liberal, but she talks about the decay of the nuclear family (so do I, I think fathers need to play an active role in the lives of their offspring, no matter if they are married or not) and she detests abortion. She detests a hot topic of the 1990s, euthanasia. She, instead, says she believes in the sanctity of all life. This means she hates capital punishment as well. So that means that she appeals to episodes like "Half a Life" and "The Hunted."
I also tend to be a blue-dog Democrat. Tell me how you are going to pay for it, then we can help the poor and the disadvantaged. It's just common sense. We cannot sacrifice financial security, because that hurts everyone. Of course, Star Trek doesn't have any money, so I guess I wouldn't find that in an episode.
... AGREED!!! 100% ...
Everyone in the collective is equally a slave (with the queen the only possible exception).
Sorry, where did you mention that the queen(s) is the slave master?
Maybe, but really, I expected better from the Tories this time.
The ministers who compose the Tories do change over time, hope springs eternal.
This is the conclusion I came to as well. My views is the federation is composed of over a hundred and fifty separate completely sovereign republics, who associate with their interstellar neighbors in a cooperative federation.
As Kirk once put it; "... a vast alliance of fellow creatures ..."
Sorry for the late entry here...
I had mentioned in a different thread that I thought the Federation was hyper-liberal. Indeed, it seemed like TNG gave every indication that the Federation was some kind of liberal paradise. And it seems like the global trend, apart from some notable exceptions such as Russia, is a move leftwards.
There are most definitely conservative fans. Do I think there are die-hard ultra-right fans, no. Although there's nothing wrong with die-hards, it doesn't seem like the Trek universe has space for them. This forum certainly does, but I doubt the exist in-universe.
Plenty of people on this thread have identified them as conservative, so this thread must have a place for them. I am a Louisiana conservative, anti-Obamacare, pro-guns, pro-choice, pro-LGBT. I love Trek...
I had mentioned in a different thread that I thought the Federation was hyper-liberal. Indeed, it seemed like TNG gave every indication that the Federation was some kind of liberal paradise. And it seems like the global trend, apart from some notable exceptions such as Russia, is a move leftwards.
There are most definitely conservative fans. Do I think there are die-hard ultra-right fans, no. Although there's nothing wrong with die-hards, it doesn't seem like the Trek universe has space for them. This forum certainly does, but I doubt the exist in-universe.
Plenty of people on this thread have identified them as conservative, so this thread must have a place for them. I am a Louisiana conservative, anti-Obamacare, pro-guns, pro-choice, pro-LGBT. I love Trek...
I applaud your family's ability to do that. Really look at your views and explore them to determine if they are indeed YOUR views or just what you're used to. I've done this numerous occasions on various topics. I usually end up more conservative on the issues, but not always. Of course, I'm disappointed to see your family turn the the dark side, but we all make mistakes.
Yeah, my conservative extended family would agree with you that it is the dark side. Independent thought was encouraged in my house. And to be honest, it was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life--challenging my beliefs, exposing myself to different people, and coming up with reasons for why I believe what I believe (even though others may not agree with the reasons). I would recommend it anyone wishing to enrich their life. It gives you a stronger sense of identity. It makes you more of an individual. It encourages empathy for others' circumstances.
And that said, I don't see the problem with being PC. If you are not a part of the group, and you want to show respect to that group, why does it matter that you have to change what you call someone? Why hold onto names that people consider offensive? If you honestly don't know and you say it to someone, apologize and ask them what they would like to be called. If they continue to call you a bigot, that guy is a jerk. Write him off, and move on to the next person. Why it becomes a political hot-potato is beyond me. Language is constantly changing and if you don't believe me, just look at a Shakespeare play. Selfie is now a word. Because it is new does not mean that it less a word than "the." Culture is constantly changing, and if you don't believe me, call and African-American a "negro" and see how fast you get punched. Look at the advancement of computers. It's just keeping up with the times.
Well the simple fact is an optimistic future like the one depicted in Star Trek simply cannot be built on conservative values.
The Federation, by its very nature, is a liberal construction. Its based on the idea that we are all better off when we work together toward a common good, than when we stand appart.
The show itself has mentioned that Earth and humanity only reached its full potential when it finally purged itself of things like greed, nationalism, racism and apathy. A better society was only possible when humanity finally came together and recognized that it had to look out for everyone and leave no one behind.
Its the sense that we have a collective future together and that we have to look out for each other in order to get there is as the core of what Star Trek has always been about. That is not compatible with conservative phlosophy.
You cannot have a better world when your guiding principle is "greed is good" or "I got mine so screw you!"
Agree. Everyone is here.
Right, and that's another thing that gets to me, too: anyone who "bows down" to political correctness is somehow weak or timid, that it caters and coddles a particular group. On the contrary though, people will fight tooth and nail for respect on behalf of the minority and the marginalized. That's how change happens, after all; gradually but with fierceness and unwillingness to back down. There've been protests and riots and expensive lawsuits and national discussion over words and actions that were once considered "too-PC" -- historically, wars have been waged because of discrimination. In the US, these sorts of responses have been happening for well over a century. If those concerns are really about nothing, then the world wouldn't be changing and institutional discrimination wouldn't be challenged; on the other hand, one shouldn't fear trying to treat others like human beings.
I would argue that political correctness is the reason so many suburban children think racism no longer exists. Political correctness doesn't prevent racism, it just gives racists more tools to disguise their racism. So you learn to still judge people by their race only call it something else.
The quintessential politically correct American is Michael Scott from The Office. Racism channelled through the language of non-racism, deluding even himself that he is not racist.
There is room in Star Trek fandom for any form of political beliefs. There is no room for treating people badly because their political beliefs are different from your own.
The quintessential politically correct American is Michael Scott from The Office. Racism channelled through the language of non-racism, deluding even himself that he is not racist.
There is room in Star Trek fandom for any form of political beliefs. There is no room for treating people badly because their political beliefs are different from your own.
I strongly agree that there's a huge difference between "political correctness" and the actual practice of truly recognizing diversity. I would suspect that the term itself was created as a defense mechanism to protect all sorts of privilege, e.g. one of the biggest faults of the 1980s "multiculturalism" was that it assumed that the problems and struggles that minorities face are all uniform and could be solved by treating everyone the same and assuming a level playing field, rather than recognizing the factors that make those struggles so complex and unique, the systems that oppress people that we're comfortable with. And that's why the term "politically correct" and "color blind" are so problematic. But it kills me that the battle is set on *those* terms, because those are the terms used most often, hence why I used it.
There's a conversation out there beyond the dichotomy of "PC vs. anti-PC." To paraphrase another social justice author, just be aware of how attitudes and actions are influenced by prejudices, privileges, and stereotypes, and also how our words actively influence the reinforcement and embodiment of those prejudices, privileges, and stereotypes. I feel that, oftentimes, Trek does a fairly good job of conveying that (other times, not so much, but hey, that's what message boards are for).
And secondly, nobody *ever* wants to realize that they're using the same logic as Michael Scott.
So remove the term "politically correct" part from my post. Just replace it with "speaking up" or "calling out."
Last edited:
I just wanted to chime in one last time, before the thread gets closed.
I'm surprised the debate rages on, considering that I had it solved before it even began, pages ago!
I'm surprised the debate rages on, considering that I had it solved before it even began, pages ago!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
