Are the majority of male fans of TOS chauvinists?
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
- Status
That's just it, Mallory: after a while, the only substantive reply to double talk and double standards is to call it by that two syllable term and be done with it. But out of respect to you and whoever else is still wasting time here, I'll elucidate it is a clearly as possible so as not to be misunderstood and then bow out of this stinking corpse of a zombie thread:
1. We have a thread which tries to conflate a matter of taste (some fans simply don't like anything under the Trek moniker doen after a certain point) with a matter of socio-political outlook. After an avalance of posts attesting that this a false conflation if not an offensive one, the thread dies, only to be re-animated with, among other things
2. A post which sneakily reinforces that conflation by a poster who, by evidence of avatar and sig, enjoys tweaking said fans which leads to
3. A post by me, which points out that, to those fans who are referred to as purists, Modern Trek is disdained because it is of poor quality (relative to their tastes--this is a point made implicitly by mention of the other poster's disdaining of one Modern Trek in particular, going so far as to refer to one of its central characters as "a child's idea of a freedom fighter") rather than because, as the poster implies, they are retrograde fogies fearful of change.
4. In a post refuting my point, the poster states that I am "mistaken" regarding the quality of most Modern Trek.
5. When I pointed out the absurdity of claiming that one can be mistaken in regards a matter of taste (rather than, say, a matter of civil liberties and socio-political justice) I was informed that
6. Ah-HA! I had just witnessed an act of karmic justice delivered by, what I can only assume, is the disinterested machinery of a just and balanced universe rather than an act of sneaky and sloppy argument committed by someone intent upon equating taste in silly ass space opera (that goes for all Trek, from 1964 to 2008) with the possession of evolved or "retrograde" attitudes.
That is the substance behind my last post.
Frankly, I think those two words (three syllables, two punctuation marks) said it better. Besides, I was busy and that's all I had time for.
and 
and 
and whatever else applies...
1. We have a thread which tries to conflate a matter of taste (some fans simply don't like anything under the Trek moniker doen after a certain point) with a matter of socio-political outlook. After an avalance of posts attesting that this a false conflation if not an offensive one, the thread dies, only to be re-animated with, among other things
2. A post which sneakily reinforces that conflation by a poster who, by evidence of avatar and sig, enjoys tweaking said fans which leads to
3. A post by me, which points out that, to those fans who are referred to as purists, Modern Trek is disdained because it is of poor quality (relative to their tastes--this is a point made implicitly by mention of the other poster's disdaining of one Modern Trek in particular, going so far as to refer to one of its central characters as "a child's idea of a freedom fighter") rather than because, as the poster implies, they are retrograde fogies fearful of change.
4. In a post refuting my point, the poster states that I am "mistaken" regarding the quality of most Modern Trek.
5. When I pointed out the absurdity of claiming that one can be mistaken in regards a matter of taste (rather than, say, a matter of civil liberties and socio-political justice) I was informed that
6. Ah-HA! I had just witnessed an act of karmic justice delivered by, what I can only assume, is the disinterested machinery of a just and balanced universe rather than an act of sneaky and sloppy argument committed by someone intent upon equating taste in silly ass space opera (that goes for all Trek, from 1964 to 2008) with the possession of evolved or "retrograde" attitudes.
That is the substance behind my last post.
Frankly, I think those two words (three syllables, two punctuation marks) said it better. Besides, I was busy and that's all I had time for.
and and and whatever else applies...
Why is TOS better than the rest? Because it transcended it's form. It was lightening in a bottle. Everything else is just a TV show.
No. no... he's a master at it. Trust me. He's right. So are you. Snap!
Brutal Strudel said:
Oh, bullshit.UWC Defiance said:
Brutal Strudel said:
UWC Defiance said:
Nope, that's not it. You're mistaken.
That wouldn't even be true if I were referring narrowly to their opinions of other Trek shows, but of course the broader topic is their bias against changes in the larger world and society in general - "chauvinism," after all, is a pretty meaningless concept if one's going to apply it just to someone's knee-jerk conservative opinion of a tv show.
You look at the loudest, most retrograde TOS-Onlies and then you follow their remarks on every other kind of thing - other tv shows, movies, politics, American culture, world events - and you'll see that the last two generations have been unsatisfactory to them on many fronts. And that is ultimately no one's problem but theirs.
Well, aside from sneaking a "no, you are objectively wrong about Modern Trek" argument in there (how can I be objectively wrong that ENT sucks anymore than you can be objectively wriong that DS9 sucks? That's chauvinistic)
Yes, you're exactly right.
I often deliberately respond to flatfooted statements of opinion with similarly unshaded and strident statements of opinion. It's karmic, dude.
No. no... he's a master at it. Trust me. He's right. So are you. Snap!
- Status
Similar threads
