You didn't answer my question. It isn't a quote. It was fabricated by you to belittle people with a different view than yours. It isn't bog standard, it's a caricature that you've created with the intent of easily knocking it down. In my view, that's childish and petty and I find it quite hypocritical considering your following statement on things being childishly petty. I dislike hypocrisy; that's why I raised it. You might well find it legitimate (and if you want to use it then more power to you, especially if you use it in a non-herpes way. I'm not attempting to stop people from using it, just describing my personal reaction to it). However, I believe for it to be legitimate it would have to derive legitimacy from something beyond mere conjecture. In this case I'd suggest by being in some way official, endorsed, or canonical. It is none of those things. In fact, it is widely accepted within the community of having the meaning I've previously described. You see it on this forum, on Reddit, on YouTube, on Twitter, on Discord. Most often it is used by those who despise the show. I have no issue with people despising the show and I'm more than happy to discuss the show with them; at least if they offer some coherent argument as to why they despise it. These are not the sort of people I am referring to, as is surely obvious to anybody who understands the community, knows the Fandom Menace, and views any sort of social hubs for Trek fans. I find this attempted analogy to be fairly crass. There is a considerable difference between a person using their own initials and other people using those initials in a derogatory way with the intent to make a cheap jibe in order to denigrate without giving any coherent supporting argument. Trying to conflate those two entirely different things seems quite dishonest to me but, to answer your question, no it isn't puerile for somebody to use their own initials. If, as the majority of the Fandom Menace acolytes do repeatedly, other people use it as a cheap derogatory put-down then yes I do think it would be puerile. Very much so. I have a keen dislike of people putting words in my mouth, in the mouths of others, and incorrectly making strange assumptions and accusations. You've done that at least a couple of times already, and it's beginning to grate. To avoid this I'll attempt to clarify; I didn't mention or imply anything about 'edgelords' and I don't think it is because they are trying to be 'edgelords', I think - and I feel like I've been pretty clear on this, hence my offence at the mischaracterisation - that most people using it do so with the intent of childishly likening it to a Sexually Transmitted Disease. This is common place within the Fandom Menace fanbase. It is a well understood and accepted phrase used in the community. You're acting as if this is somehow a fringe application and that STD is regularly used by fans and detractors alike as a bland descriptor rather than in a pejorative way by the cabal of haters incubated by the Fandom Menace. Again, this comes across as dishonest to me. Now, maybe you're just honestly suggesting that people can use it without that intention. Sure, I totally accept that - and mentioned it already - but through significant experience that is very rarely the case. These people are not included in my assessment of what is puerile. As for your question regarding initials being used for more than one thing: leaving aside the uncalled for condescension, I obviously understand that that initials can be used for more than one thing. However, I think this lacks relevance to what I've said. Just because different meanings can be attributed to a phrase, set of initials, or acronym, it doesn't mean it is. In this case, it does not mean that the popular and widely accepted meaning isn't still what I've described. No, not engaging in a subject is not ignoring 'someone'. It is not engaging in a subject. Choosing not to talk about a subject with certain people isn't ignoring them. I listen and read their views, I talk to and engage them on a variety of other subjects, but I don't converse with people on subjects where there can be neither a middle ground nor any shift in position. Do you reply to every topic and every post you read? If not, are you ignoring that person? No, you're just not actively engaging. It's the same with football. Though this might be lost on you if you're not interested in this particular sport, I wouldn't talk to a Manchester City fan calling me a 'bin dipper' about my team - Liverpool - because more often than not it would devolve into an argument and there would be absolutely no basis for cordial conversation with a positive outcome. I wouldn't ignore them, I just wouldn't engage in that topic. The same way I don't ignore my grandmother just because I wouldn't engage in a conversation about her one night stands, or not engaging in talking about cricket - I've no interest, but I don't ignore them. You shouldn't conflate descriptions with name calling. I said that it is 'generally used by puerile haters'. That's an accurate description, as even a cursory glance at those using it will tell you. Those who do not use it in that way are not, by definition, puerile haters. Only those who do, which is why I was careful to say that it was generally used by, not always used by. You left out that part, I suspect innocently and not in an attempt to obfuscate the intent of my post. Again, I said it is generally used in that way. It isn't baseless and it's not an assumption, it's demonstrably true and I'm surprised that you are suggesting it is not. I'd be happy to provide as many dozens of links to it as you'd like in way of showing that it is neither baseless nor an assumption. Though I fear this would be both a waste of my time and would not move you from your position. I suspect you've seen them all yourself and know that it clearly is. I think the issue isn't that it's an obvious truth that they do, it's that I chose to not engage with that. I suspect, though haven't been bothered to look, that you might feel this way yourself - maybe you do, maybe you don't - and feel like I'm belittling you. I'm not. If it is the case, then I'm just content on you (or them, if it's not the case) doing their own thing on this one. It isn't worth my time to engage in that stuff. You can't expect me to take it seriously when you say something and follow it with a quote showing that it isn't. I generally don't converse with them on that subject. I don't ignore them. If I didn't read what they said, if I blanked them, etc, then yes, that'd be ignoring. I don't. I just generally do not engage with them in conversation about it. It'd be a waste of their time and mine. That's not ignoring somebody, it's the common sense of an adult. No, you're really going to have to stop falsely attributing things to me. I do not deem them beneath me. On the subject of DSC - the context stripped away from that quote, I'm sure by accident - I think there is rarely anything worth listening to as a result of a conversation. Their views are often a stereotypical recantation of videos from the Fandom Menace. When it is, it's a waste of time to me. It's quite simple really; it's not childishly petty to reject childishness and pettiness. It's not childish to spend time doing something more productive. Quite the opposite. If the intent, as is is most often the case, is to liken DSC to cock-warts, then there is so rarely anything beyond that worth diving into that I just don't bother. I'd sooner talk to them about TNG or TOS or something. I don't have a 'weird hang-up' about it. It is in a thread discussing the views on terminology used to describe Discovery, so it's relevant. The only hang-up I have is based off of a clear trend from those who use it. If anything, I'd suggest you have some hang-up with it. You seem to be fighting the perception of that trend, which is so overwhelmingly obvious that it makes a mockery of your attempt to re-characterise it. I mean, again, more power to you for fighting that good fight if that's what you want to do. It's just not one I'm interested in partaking in, such is the obviousness of its much more prominent intention. Had I actually said that, rather than specifically avoided saying that, I doubt we would have had this disagreement. Like I said earlier in this response, I have an issue with being misquoted. This is especially true when the intent seems to be to misconstrue what I've said so it's easier to make an argument against. In closing I'll say that this has probably become a waste of both our time. I'm sure you'll go on using whatever you want to use and I'll go on avoiding talking about DSC with those who call it STD. Life goes on.
Not really. None of the other shows in the franchise have ever abbreviated that way. There is no such thing as STTOS, STTNG, STDS9, STVOY, or STENT. It's simply TOS, TNG DS9, VOY and ENT. The "Star Trek" is implied. So, for what possible reason would anyone assume that this show would break that well-established pattern? "DSC" and even "DIS" fit that pattern. "STD" doesn't, no matter how much it gives you the giggles.
I actually have seen TNG abbreviated as STTNG a few times, but otherwise, yeah they don't do that with the other shows. Even with the movies, aside from STID I don't think any of them have ST in their abbreviations.
I use TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and PIC for the other shows, but DIS just feels weird to me. Maybe because it makes me think of Disney instead of Discovery. I don't know. So I use DSC for that one instead.
TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC, PIC, LD, SNW TMP, TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TFF, TUC, GEN, FC, INS, NEM, 2009, ID, BEY WTF, IDK, WTHN?
Lower Decks is an interesting one. Do we know the official initials? Needs to be three letters or my OCD is going to flare up!
LDS is weird to me, though I prefer it over LD. Memory Alpha is strange in that it used DIS over the official DSC. Is LDS official, I see you edited your post?
@Tuskin38 said Van Critters on Twitter said the abbreviation is LDS, but Tuskin said Van might've been making a joke. So LDS isn't confirmed. Link to the TrekBBS thread. Link to the Twitter post. Sounds like a joke to me...
Honestly curious....Official how? Not ment as a slam, or a low blow, or a cheap shot. I just like to know who decides which abbreviation is official.
Confirmed by the creators, Mage. Also, quoting from Memory Alpha: ‘The official production abbreviations for Voyager and Discovery are VGR and DSC, respectively. However, both Memory Alpha, and a seeming majority of fans prefer VOY and DIS. For the sake of consistency, those more common abbreviations are used here as well’. I don’t mind VOY or DIS though, they’re just less official. Edit: Sorry, it’s not Memory Alpha. It’s another fandom site. Here is the link. Edit: The Memory Alpha statement on it is, ‘John Van Citters has chosen "DSC" as the series' official abbreviation. [92] This is consistent with the studio's use of "VGR" for Star Trek: Voyager, but MA will use the abbreviation "DIS" for Discovery, for consistency with using "VOY" for Voyager‘.
Neither. Never use abbreviations, just initialisms. The Original Series = TOS (retronym) The Animated Series = TAS (retronym) The Next Generation = TNG Deep Space Nine = DS9 (special case) Voyager = Voyager Enterprise = Enterprise Discovery = Discovery Short Treks = Short Treks (special case) Picard = Picard Lower Decks = LD Strange New Worlds = SNW Prodigy = Prodigy Section 31 = S31 (special case) Academy = Academy