Spoilers Bonus scene from Season One Finale

[lawman]

Minor tangent here, BTW, but this got me thinking about what Trek's vision is, exactly. FWIW, here's what I got from watching Star Trek as a kid... and as an adult!... and it has informed my worldview in some significant ways. (And no, I don't think it's at all rigid or narrow-minded to expect any show that wears the Star Trek label to uphold these values.)

1. Progress happens. Over time we can and do solve our problems, both social and technological.
2. Cooperation is better (both more effective and more moral) than competition or conquest.
3. One-world government (or heck, even multi-world government!) is a positive thing.
4. Intrinsic motivations (curiosity, exploration, discovery) are more important than extrinsic ones (money, power).
5. Imperialism is bad. Both individuals and societies should be able to make their own choices.
6. Violence is a last resort, to be used only when all other alternative means of problem-solving have failed.
7. Diversity is beneficial. It brings together talents and insights we couldn't get through conformity.
8. It's cool to hang around smart, thoughtful, open-minded people who challenge our preconceptions.
9. Art and music and literature enrich our lives in profound ways that will endure even into a high-tech future.
10. The unknown can be frightening, but it's also awe-inspiring enough to make the fear worth facing.
11. Science beats superstition, every time.

I'm sure I could do a better job of articulating it given more time and space, but that sums it up well enough for now. It's a worldview that's aspirational and inspiring... and Section 31 is really not a good fit for it. S31 is a throwback, a lingering shadow of outdated and narrow-minded views. It's Hobbesian thinking after Rousseau has come along; it's realpolitik in a world where constructivism and neoliberal interdependence have won the day.

 

[Snarfies]

Nerd-Rage over "Fanwank" is the most ironic thing ever. Fans getting mad over things they think are too fannish, and acting just like the fans they claim not to be like in the process.

Out of everything in the scene, the only thing people can talk about is still "OMG!!! SECTION 31! NOOOO!!!!! ROAR!!!!!!!!11111 FANWANK FANWANK FANWANK!!!!! ROARRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!" That's what this looks like. Yeah, I know some of you are going to deny it. But take a long hard look in the mirror. I get not liking Section 31 but some of these reactions are way over the top.

What about the acting? What about the lighting? What about the directing? What about the characters? What about dialogue (besides the Section 31 line that makes people go so apeshit)? What about the composition? What about the set design? What about the overall feel? What about anything else in the scene?

It's a cool scene. But so many of you are so hung up on them daring to have Section 31. It's like you can't get passed it at all. Come on.

Well said

 

[Donker]

The producers and writers don't hate the show they are working on. That's absolutely stupid.

This was literally famously the case with Star Trek Voyager. It's not aboslutely stupid, it happens all the time in production.

These people aren't hired to make Star Trek because they're fans. People like Avika Goldsman and Alex Kurtzman are brought on to Star Trek because CBS has an IP that is sitting around not making money and they want to cash in on it. This is the thought behind most reboots and is why 95% of reboots suck and completely miss the point of the original, because they're cashgrabs by people who don't really care or understand what makes the original work from top to bottom and the people who do care, are still hired and controlled by people who don't really care so they're drowned out.

I find it shocking that people seem to think I'm wrong on this when this is actually the norm in the industry. Successful reboots that actually improve and expand upon the original work are actually the outliers and are almost exclusively passion projects.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

 

[cooleddie74]

Where the hybrid women at?

 

[Refuge]

Where the hybrid women at?

I don't understand?? Hybrid women??

 

[Rahul]

Minor tangent here, BTW, but this got me thinking about what Trek's vision is, exactly. FWIW, here's what I got from watching Star Trek as a kid... and as an adult!... and it has informed my worldview in some significant ways. (And no, I don't think it's at all rigid or narrow-minded to expect any show that wears the Star Trek label to uphold these values.)

1. Progress happens. Over time we can and do solve our problems, both social and technological.
2. Cooperation is better (both more effective and more moral) than competition or conquest.
3. One-world government (or heck, even multi-world government!) is a positive thing.
4. Intrinsic motivations (curiosity, exploration, discovery) are more important than extrinsic ones (money, power).
5. Imperialism is bad. Both individuals and societies should be able to make their own choices.
6. Violence is a last resort, to be used only when all other alternative means of problem-solving have failed.
7. Diversity is beneficial. It brings together talents and insights we couldn't get through conformity.
8. It's cool to hang around smart, thoughtful, open-minded people who challenge our preconceptions.
9. Art and music and literature enrich our lives in profound ways that will endure even into a high-tech future.
10. The unknown can be frightening, but it's also awe-inspiring enough to make the fear worth facing.
11. Science beats superstition, every time.

I'm sure I could do a better job of articulating it given more time and space, but that sums it up well enough for now. It's a worldview that's aspirational and inspiring... and Section 31 is really not a good fit for it. S31 is a throwback, a lingering shadow of outdated and narrow-minded views. It's Hobbesian thinking after Rousseau has come along; it's realpolitik in a world where constructivism and neoliberal interdependence have won the day.

I love you.

 

[Gonzo]

Does BBS provide a feature to block every post that has the word fanwank in it?

a Trek show should have a lot of fanwank. More fanwank please!!! We are going to see TOS uniforms next season, at least for the Enterprise crew. And Section 31. Can't wait.

And something else to get off my chest: 20+ years have passed and I still don't like B5. But DS9 was great.

I loved B5 when it was new, I have never been able to go back and watch shows years later though, especially Scifi as I always remember what happens in the episodes and there is no surprise in it for me then.

 

[Tuskin38]

We've seen them already physically within Starfleet, complete with matching style uniform. I interpreted that line to mean we're above/apart from Starfleet protocols and procedures, but still associated.

It goes against everything that established about Section 31 in DS9.

Fanwank is shit because what makes it fanwank is that it's a cynical shallow attempt to pretend "SEE THIS IS STAR TREK" while in every other way absolutely disrespecting what came before or the setting/franchise.

Everything you said here is wrong.

Section 31 by definition would be a part of Starfleet, at least during the ENT timeframe. Harris specifically mentions that the Article of the founding charter containing Section 31 comes from the Earth Starfleet charter. There's no Federation as of yet so it can't be a wholly separate civilian government agency.

They just used the charter as an excuse for their actions. I doubt most people in Starfleet was accept their existence.

 

[cultcross]

Minor tangent here, BTW, but this got me thinking about what Trek's vision is, exactly. FWIW, here's what I got from watching Star Trek as a kid... and as an adult!... and it has informed my worldview in some significant ways. (And no, I don't think it's at all rigid or narrow-minded to expect any show that wears the Star Trek label to uphold these values.)

1. Progress happens. Over time we can and do solve our problems, both social and technological.
2. Cooperation is better (both more effective and more moral) than competition or conquest.
3. One-world government (or heck, even multi-world government!) is a positive thing.
4. Intrinsic motivations (curiosity, exploration, discovery) are more important than extrinsic ones (money, power).
5. Imperialism is bad. Both individuals and societies should be able to make their own choices.
6. Violence is a last resort, to be used only when all other alternative means of problem-solving have failed.
7. Diversity is beneficial. It brings together talents and insights we couldn't get through conformity.
8. It's cool to hang around smart, thoughtful, open-minded people who challenge our preconceptions.
9. Art and music and literature enrich our lives in profound ways that will endure even into a high-tech future.
10. The unknown can be frightening, but it's also awe-inspiring enough to make the fear worth facing.
11. Science beats superstition, every time.

I'm sure I could do a better job of articulating it given more time and space, but that sums it up well enough for now. It's a worldview that's aspirational and inspiring... and Section 31 is really not a good fit for it. S31 is a throwback, a lingering shadow of outdated and narrow-minded views. It's Hobbesian thinking after Rousseau has come along; it's realpolitik in a world where constructivism and neoliberal interdependence have won the day.

Very good list, and a very balanced viewpoint on Trek's morals and messages without overstating. I'd make two small tweaks if I may - I think point 11 is stronger than you worded it - with the exception of DS9 the show has broadly been actively anti religious, since way back in the original. I also think point 5 is aspirational rather than demonstrated. I actually think the Federation act in quite an imperialist/colonial manner at times, and that is somewhat tied to my other tweak - Kirk in particular loved 'rescuing' savages from their entire way of life then telling them to do things their way and warping off into the sunset.

I'd also add one more positive point. It's a big message of Trek that we are who we say we are. The values we say we have, we actually have and act on. Some of Trek's best morality play episodes are about this point, starting back in the Corbomite Manoeuvre.

I agree that s31 is antithetical to the whole set of values which is why I liked it when you could believe the whole idea was Sloane's twisted fantasy.

 

[Lord Garth]

I agree that s31 is antithetical to the whole set of values which is why I liked it when you could believe the whole idea was Sloane's twisted fantasy.

We haven't seen anything Discovery will do with Section 31 yet. Even having said that, I highly doubt S31 will be portrayed in a very positive light.

Whatever ENT did or Into Darkness did with them cannot be applied to Discovery because what we're looking at are three different creative teams with three different approaches with three different aims.

I posted this earlier and it bears repeating: in DS9, Starfleet intermingled with Section 31. Or at least Admiral Ross did in "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges". It was more than just Sloan's crazy idea even back then. But if he fooled you into thinking that, then he did his job.

Section 31 with the Federation can be broken down to Yin Yang. Nothing is ever 100% one way or 100% the other. Section 31 is that little part that isn't what the Federation wants to be. Nothing is ever completely what it wants to be, which is why nothing and no one is perfect.

 

[cultcross]

I posted this earlier and it bears repeating: in DS9, Starfleet intermingled with Section 31. Or at least Admiral Ross did in "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges". It was more than just Sloan's crazy idea even back them.

Well Admiral Ross did, anyway. But so did Bashir. Sloane was very skilled at drafting people into his schemes. Inter Arma could still easily be read as Sloane doing his own thing. That was the great thing about the DS9 episodes on the subject - plausible deniability. But once ENT established the reality of the unit we have to contend with a dubious moral lesson hidden beneath the surface (essentially the Jack Nicholson speech from A Few Good Men) and ask ourselves whether Starfleet's utopia actually just rests on the shoulders of people willing to do horrible things.

 

[BillJ]

Nerd-Rage over "Fanwank" is the most ironic thing ever.

A nod to what came before can make me smile, a story evolving off of something previous can be well done (See: Star Trek Legacies from Pocket Books).

But the majority of it needs to be original (as much as one can be original in this day and age). Michael Burnham is the main problem in all of it. They didn't make her an interesting character in her own right, she is important only because of who she is connected to in canon. Which, to me, is insanely weak writing.

I've dabbled in writing fan fiction from time to time. I wrote one that takes place a century after TNG. With a niece of Jim Kirk as captain of a new Enterprise. Every time I would work on it, I couldn't define what made her special beyond her connection to another Star Trek. Eventually I dropped the idea because it was simply bad fanwank. I think the same of Michael Burnham.

 

[Lord Garth]

Well Admiral Ross did, anyway. But so did Bashir. Sloane was very skilled at drafting people into his schemes. Inter Arma could still easily be read as Sloane doing his own thing. That was the great thing about the DS9 episodes on the subject - plausible deniability. But once ENT established the reality of the unit we have to contend with a dubious moral lesson hidden beneath the surface (essentially the Jack Nicholson speech from A Few Good Men) and ask ourselves whether Starfleet's utopia actually just rests on the shoulders of people willing to do horrible things.

I interpreted Section 31 as the CIA of the Federation when I saw "Inquistion" in 1998; and "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" in 1999 only further drove the point home to me. This is stuff I was thinking in the '90s. Pre-ENT. So Enterprise has nothing to do with what I think.

The entirety of DS9 was built around the concept of "It's easy to be a saint in Paradise". Sisko's exact words in "The Maquis, Part II". I read Section 31 as exactly what you say one of the types of things the Federation's Utopia rests on.

Which brings to the word "Utopia". According to dictionary.com, here's what Utopia means:

1. An imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia (1516) asenjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.
2. (usually lowercase) an ideal place or state.
3. (usually lowercase) any visionary system of political or socialperfection.

Utopia is either a place that doesn't exist, an ideal (and ideals aren't always lived up to), or Perfection. If thousands of years of civilizations won't create a perfect society, the next few hundred sure won't. Better, yes, but not perfect. Thus you cannot ever have True Utopia. The idea that the Federation is Utopia is propaganda in universe and out.

Gene's Vision in its capitalized glory (yes, you can read that in two ways) is wonderful. It's something we should aspire to. It should be something the Federation aspires to. But it doesn't translate easily on the page and it's impossible for everyone to live up to. Thus why I do not object to Section 31 existing in Star Trek.

 

[cultcross]

I interpreted Section 31 as the CIA of the Federation when I saw "Inquistion" in 1998; and "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" in 1999 only further drove the point home to me. This is stuff I was thinking in the '90s. Pre-ENT. So Enterprise has nothing to do with what I think.

The entirety of DS9 was built around the concept of "It's easy to be a saint in Paradise". Sisko's exact words in "The Maquis, Part II". I read Section 31 as exactly what you say one of the types of things the Federation's Utopia rests on.

And that's what I find a bit depressing. I wholeheartedly reject the idea that peace and diplomacy and so on can only exist if there's a silent partner in the background doing horrible things in secret. And in my mind, Star Trek rejects that idea too. As i mentioned above, "we are who we say we are" is a value that Starfleet represents. If it has a clandestine CIA-on-acid doing horrid shit in the background, well then it doesn't represent that value at all.

 

[Mudd]

And that's what I find a bit depressing. I wholeheartedly reject the idea that peace and diplomacy and so on can only exist if there's a silent partner in the background doing horrible things in secret. And in my mind, Star Trek rejects that idea too. As i mentioned above, "we are who we say we are" is a value that Starfleet represents. If it has a clandestine CIA-on-acid doing horrid shit in the background, well then it doesn't represent that value at all.

Exactly so.

 

[Lord Garth]

And that's what I find a bit depressing. I wholeheartedly reject the idea that peace and diplomacy and so on can only exist if there's a silent partner in the background doing horrible things in secret. And in my mind, Star Trek rejects that idea too. As i mentioned above, "we are who we say we are" is a value that Starfleet represents. If it has a clandestine CIA-on-acid doing horrid shit in the background, well then it doesn't represent that value at all.

I don't disagree with any of what you say. I do think peace and diplomacy can be possible without someone else doing the dirty work.

But one more point, then I have to go (things to do IRL!): If the Federation has a CIA, then maybe it's specifically because of the values of The United Federation of Planets that Section 31 has had to go so far underground. Because it wouldn't be accepted by its populace.

 

[Rahul]

And that's what I find a bit depressing. I wholeheartedly reject the idea that peace and diplomacy and so on can only exist if there's a silent partner in the background doing horrible things in secret. And in my mind, Star Trek rejects that idea too. As i mentioned above, "we are who we say we are" is a value that Starfleet represents. If it has a clandestine CIA-on-acid doing horrid shit in the background, well then it doesn't represent that value at all.

The idea that Section 31 was all just in Sloane's mind was fascinating, but became obsolote as soon as S31 appeared in other episodes again - and on ENT and Into Darkness.

Section 31 is a bit of an interesting conondrum for me: Because I TOTALLY agree with you! And I believe everything that made the Star Trek universe great didn't require such a clandestine organisation in the background doing the 'dirty work'. Example: The conflict with the Xindi on season 3 of ENT was solved through Archer's diplomacy with the different fractions, and a bit of good old self-defense in the end. That's Star Trek's message. S31 was ALSO around during the same time, doing shady stuff and thinking of themsleves as the most important factor protecting Earth.

So I definitely don't see section 31 actually "protecting" Earth. More of them as assholes thinking they are protecting Earth. The same way the success of clandestine CIA operations and drone assassinations can be "debated". (It's not a debate. The CIA torture program actively ENCOURAGES hostility towards the US, and makes the situation - which then has to be settled via good, old diplomacy - worse in the first place, and provable never actually prevented a single terror attack).

But I can absolutely see some people - even in the Utopia of Star Trek - believing we need such a clandestine organization. And then implementing it. But the writers have to walk an extremely tight rope: Showing the flawed morality of S31, without actually promoting it.

Stargate SG-1 actually pulled this off great:
Additionally to Stargate Command, there was a secret "above the law" spy agency to protect Earth from aliens that operated without supervision, called the NID. They fucked up BIGLY. Regularly. They showed to be exactly as incompetent as can be expected from people that think "rules" and "laws" are for pussies. But they were a constant annoyance to the SG-1 team, because their "Must do everything to protect Earth without any regards for laws or ethics"-attitude was popular with the politicians, and they got repeatedly backed up from higher ups, only to fuck up again and AGAIN and make the situations usually worse.

THAT'S how I see Section 31 in the Star Trek universe.

 

[cultcross]

The idea that Section 31 was all just in Sloane's mind was fascinating, but became obsolote as soon as S31 appeared in other episodes again - and on ENT and Into Darkness.

Section 31 is a bit of an interesting conondrum for me: Because I TOTALLY agree with you! And I believe everything that made the Star Trek universe great didn't require such a clandestine organisation in the background doing the 'dirty work'. Example: The conflict with the Xindi on season 3 of ENT was solved through Archer's diplomacy with the different fractions, and a bit of good old self-defense in the end. That's Star Trek's message. S31 was ALSO around during the same time, doing shady stuff and thinking of themsleves as the most important factor protecting Earth.

So I definitely don't see section 31 actually "protecting" Earth. More of them as assholes thinking they are protecting Earth. The same way the success of clandestine CIA operations and drone assassinations can be "debated". (It's not a debate. The CIA torture program actively ENCOURAGES hostility towards the USA, and makes the situation - which then has to be settled via good, old diplomacy worse in the first place).

But I can absolutely see some people - even in the Utopia of Star Trek - believing we need such a clandestine organization. And then implementing it. But the writers have to walk an extremely tight rope: Showing the flawed morality of S31, without actually promoting it.

Stargate SG-1 pulled this off actually great:
Additionally to Stargate Command, there was a secret "above the law" spy agency to protect Earth from aliens that operated without supervision, called the NID. They fucked up BIGLY. Regularly. They showed to be exactly as incompetent as can be expected from people that think "rules" and "laws" are for pussies. But they were a constant annoyance to the SG-1 team, because their "Must do everything to protect Earth without any regards for laws or ethics" was popular with the politicians, and they got repeatedly backed up from higher ups, only to fuck up again and AGAIN and make the situations usually worse.

THAT'S how I see Section 31 in the Star Trek universe.

That's a very interesting parallel which I hadn't noticed. Something like the NID storyline would be nice, showing that actually section 31 is just a group of scared narcissists running around thinking they're saving the universe and actually making things worse. Self sustaining in that their own acts justify their existence by perpetuating conflict. That sort of story I could get behind. I hope that that's where they'll take it, but I'm more than a bit suspicious that they're going to be badass.

 

[fireproof78]

The idea that Section 31 was all just in Sloane's mind was fascinating, but became obsolote as soon as S31 appeared in other episodes again - and on ENT and Into Darkness.

Section 31 is a bit of an interesting conondrum for me: Because I TOTALLY agree with you! And I believe everything that made the Star Trek universe great didn't require such a clandestine organisation in the background doing the 'dirty work'. Example: The conflict with the Xindi on season 3 of ENT was solved through Archer's diplomacy with the different fractions, and a bit of good old self-defense in the end. That's Star Trek's message. S31 was ALSO around during the same time, doing shady stuff and thinking of themsleves as the most important factor protecting Earth.

So I definitely don't see section 31 actually "protecting" Earth. More of them as assholes thinking they are protecting Earth. The same way the success of clandestine CIA operations and drone assassinations can be "debated". (It's not a debate. The CIA torture program actively ENCOURAGES hostility towards the US, and makes the situation - which then has to be settled via good, old diplomacy - worse in the first place, and provable never actually prevented a single terror attack).

But I can absolutely see some people - even in the Utopia of Star Trek - believing we need such a clandestine organization. And then implementing it. But the writers have to walk an extremely tight rope: Showing the flawed morality of S31, without actually promoting it.

Stargate SG-1 actually pulled this off great:
Additionally to Stargate Command, there was a secret "above the law" spy agency to protect Earth from aliens that operated without supervision, called the NID. They fucked up BIGLY. Regularly. They showed to be exactly as incompetent as can be expected from people that think "rules" and "laws" are for pussies. But they were a constant annoyance to the SG-1 team, because their "Must do everything to protect Earth without any regards for laws or ethics"-attitude was popular with the politicians, and they got repeatedly backed up from higher ups, only to fuck up again and AGAIN and make the situations usually worse.

THAT'S how I see Section 31 in the Star Trek universe.

Nice parallel. I like that idea.