Can Conservative Star Trek Fans Exist?

[CoveTom]

^The point being that the Borg could just as easily be seen as a metaphor for single-minded conservatism. Or militarism. Or consumerism (which I believe was the original intent).

Well, the point of my latter post was that I was not intending the equate liberals with the Borg, which is apparently how you read my original post.

But I do maintain my original opinion that Star Trek, in general, has taken a stance against most types of collectivist philosophies.

 

[MacLeod]

But what has been clearly indicated in this thread is that there can many differing views of conservatism, esp. between nations. For example those that may call themselves centre-right/right on the polictical spectrum in say an EU country when asked who they would vote for in the US would likely say Demorcatic which in the US is considered more to the left of the political spectru in the US. For example from this poll back in 2012 regarding how citizens of 7 EU nations would cote in the US Presidential Election if they could 90% Obama, 10% Romney.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/10/31/euro-opinion-us-election/

But in European nations many of those who would say they are on the right of the political spectrum will still support things like Universal Health Care.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I oppose same sex marriage. Does that mean, then, that there is no room in the IDIC philosophy to tolerate the likes of me?

My opinion is that that is narrow-minded, and that it is incompatible with the bright future that we are shown on Star Trek.

However, that is my opinion, and the worldview that I bring with me to Trek. You can have your own opinion, and bring your own worldview to it, and I find your fandom to be no less valid than my own, even if I disagree with your worldview on this matter.

IDIC says that there is value in infinite diversity and infinite combinations. That doesn't mean that everything and everyone is RIGHT, it means that there is something to be learned in every situation that is generated because of it. You and I would probably both think that the other has something to learn from us on this particular issue, but I think the more important lesson from IDIC - one that we probably BOTH agree on - is that BOTH of our perspectives have some value, and that we can learn from one another so long as we remember that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

(Do some research into the IRS scandal and you'll see its the current administration that is using the power to quiet opponents.)

Lies.

 

[MacLeod]

Might I suggest if we are dicussing politics we stick to generarlties. Such as discussing differences between the types of conservatism/liberalism etc.. If someone wants to discuss a specifc such as the one quoted above they do that in either Misc. or TNZ. It would be a shame to derail the thread.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Might I suggest if we are dicussing politics we stick to generarlties. Such as discussing differences between the types of conservatism/liberalism etc.. If someone wants to discuss a specifc such as the one quoted above they do that in either Misc. or TNZ. It would be a shame to derail the thread.

Nicely put.

Make it so!

 

[2takesfrakes]

As a devout Roman Catholic and staunch Republican, myself, one could most certainly count 2takesfrakes amongst Conservative STAR TREK Fans.

 

[Captain Kathryn]

By "Conservative," I don't mean that you have to be Republican or a Tea Party member to be considered "Conservative" (I'm not actually either one) or that it has to have anything to do with politics. That said I'd have to admit it could and many might take it that way.

However, my question is is there room in this fan base for fans that may hold more Conservative views about life? Maybe fans that feel that that perfect human Roddenberry was trying to present can't exist without some traditional values? Sometimes it feels like if you are not more Liberal in your views, you have no place in this fan base. Is that true? Or is it just that the louder fans make it feel like that?

To me, this is kind of serious question. A big part of the strength of the Star Trek fan base is the feeling that everyone can belong, but there are times I've been left wondering (both from online experiences and real life ones) if I really do? Has anyone else ever felt that way in Star Trek fan circles? Are Conservative fans the one group that the old IDIC has no room for? I'm really interested for some serious responses to this.

Absolutely but I don't really get it. My ex-boyfriend is a die hard conservative and Star Trek is his favorite thing in the world. He owns every single episode on blu-ray and is actually the one who introduced it to me years and years ago.

I consider myself to be extremely Liberal (which is why we broke up), but not all Star Trek fans are.

 

[USS Triumphant]

As a devout Roman Catholic and staunch Republican, myself, one could most certainly count 2takesfrakes amongst Conservative STAR TREK Fans.

And amongst people who talk about themselves in the third person.

 

[T'Girl]

Most conservatives in the US don't believe in that, it's only the Fox News conservatives who do.

And the vast majority of Fox News conservative don't believe in it either.

But with something like 2.2 million viewers, probably tens of thousands do.

[The Tea Party] We're a pretty inclusive unit. The TP's primary focus is on the economy and the insane about of spending coming from our government.

As long as the Tea Parties maintains a fairly narrow focus on government fiscal responsibility it will appeal to people from both sides of the political "divide."

I do wonder if the Federation Council possesses political parties, or ideological voting blocks. It has almost as many members as the United Nations, and if colonies above a given size also send representatives the place could be packed. Would it work if every representative was basically a "independent?"

^The point being that the Borg could just as easily be seen as a metaphor for single-minded conservatism. Or militarism. Or consumerism (which I believe was the original intent).

I think the Borg Collective is more of a analogy to a slave plantation.

 

[YARN]

I'm sick of people using the term "PC" to claim they're the ones being oppressed because they might have to consider using words that aren't patently offensive. When I grew up what was called "being respectful" and "not name calling".

And as to conservative Trek fans, just read the posts on this board long enough and you'll realize a LOT of them are.

Thank you! I've been saying this for years. Too many people these days cloak themselves in the guise of being "Anti-PC" when all they're really doing is using it as a free pass to insult people. Especially online, where everyone's a tough guy.

There is dogmatic political correctness. There is also irreverence and flat-out disregard which justifies itself as "anti-PC." There is truth in both views, we're all just partial to our own side of the spectrum.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I think the Borg Collective is more of a analogy to a slave plantation.

I don't agree, because there is no intent behind the Borg.

Slavery is deliberate, systematic oppression. It requires specific intent for one group to intentionally enslave another. The Borg operate on programming alone - they have no 'intent', as such. They do what they do because they have to do it, not because they want to.

And since all Borg drones are equal, then who's enslaving whom?

 

[CTGuyton]

[The Tea Party] We're a pretty inclusive unit. The TP's primary focus is on the economy and the insane about of spending coming from our government.

As long as the Tea Parties maintains a fairly narrow focus on government fiscal responsibility it will appeal to people from both sides of the political "divide."

I do wonder if the Federation Council possesses political parties, or ideological voting blocks. It has almost as many members as the United Nations, and if colonies above a given size also send representatives the place could be packed. Would it work if every representative was basically a "independent?"

That quote was actually mine in response to something Relayer said.

I think the UN is probably a more accurate comparison for the UFP Council than a particular countries legislative branch. Governments of the individual planets is another story

I think the Borg Collective is more of a analogy to a slave plantation.

I don't agree, because there is no intent behind the Borg.

Slavery is deliberate, systematic oppression. It requires specific intent for one group to intentionally enslave another. The Borg operate on programming alone - they have no 'intent', as such. They do what they do because they have to do it, not because they want to.

And since all Borg drones are equal, then who's enslaving whom?

I can see the analogy. The collective is enslaving the individual(which also backs up earlier points made comparing the Borg to an extreme example of Marxism.) As for intent, The collective wants to better themselves by adding man power, technology and resources.

 

[Amaris]

^ Not only that, but you become a Borg involuntarily. You are simply taken, and made to serve your masters. You have no will of your own, no freedom, nothing but the will of the Collective, and when you die, you are simply replaced, without a modicum of compassion or care. You're an object, a tool, something to be used without consideration or compensation. So I can certainly see the slavery connection.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^ Not only that, but you become a Borg involuntarily. You are simply taken, and made to serve your masters. You have no will of your own, no freedom, nothing but the will of the Collective, and when you die, you are simply replaced, without a modicum of compassion or care. You're an object, a tool, something to be used without consideration or compensation. So I can certainly see the slavery connection.

It works to a point, but where the slave analogy breaks down is that there are no masters. Everyone in the collective is equally a slave (with the queen the only possible exception). There is therefore no class who is benefiting at the expense of another.

 

[Amaris]

^ Not only that, but you become a Borg involuntarily. You are simply taken, and made to serve your masters. You have no will of your own, no freedom, nothing but the will of the Collective, and when you die, you are simply replaced, without a modicum of compassion or care. You're an object, a tool, something to be used without consideration or compensation. So I can certainly see the slavery connection.

It works to a point, but where the slave analogy breaks down is that there are no masters. Everyone in the collective is equally a slave (with the queen the only possible exception). There is therefore no class who is benefiting at the expense of another.

Well, the Borg benefit with the acquisition of more resources, and more soldiers who are now fighting against their will. There is apparently a hierarchy, albeit a small one.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, the Borg benefit with the acquisition of more resources, and more soldiers who are now fighting against their will. There is apparently a hierarchy, albeit a small one.

Oh, I get it. That's why I said that the analogy works to a point. But you could also say that it's a metaphor for communism, any sort of hive-mind behavior, or any sort of dehumanizing juggernaut.

 

[Amaris]

Well, the Borg benefit with the acquisition of more resources, and more soldiers who are now fighting against their will. There is apparently a hierarchy, albeit a small one.

Oh, I get it. That's why I said that the analogy works to a point. But you could also say that it's a metaphor for communism, any sort of hive-mind behavior, or any sort of dehumanizing juggernaut.

True, it fits quite well as an analogy for communism.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

It depends.

Conservative as in: family values, strong military, fiscal responsibility, limited government...sure.

Conservative as in: homosexuality is "filth"....probably not.

I oppose same sex marriage. Does that mean, then, that there is no room in the IDIC philosophy to tolerate the likes of me?

There's a big difference between thinking same sex marriage is wrong and thinking the government should be forcing people not to do it. The former is personal opinion, the latter is believing in the suppression of personal freedoms based on your personal opinion. Do you believe that, because you disagree with homosexuality, that homosexuals should not be free to live their own life in the manner they please?

I'm sick of people using the term "PC" to claim they're the ones being oppressed because they might have to consider using words that aren't patently offensive. When I grew up that was called "being respectful" and "not name calling".

It's true there are some people who use opposition to political correctness as an excuse to insult people and be biggoted, but that does not mean that all opposition to political correctness falls under that description. Political correctness, to me, does more harm than good. Children who grow up surrounded by all sorts of different people all with their own backgrounds and beliefs become tolerant adults. Children who grow up surrounded by only people like them constantly being told they have to be politically correct learn that tolerance is something artificially imposed on them by authority figures and become racists and homophobes.

Political correctness says that males and females are identical in every way. If children are told that, and then observe that there are in fact differences between the average personality of males and the average personality of females, they will conclude that political correctness is lying to them. And since they have been told tolerance and political correctness are the same thing, they will rebel against the idea of tolerance. Whereas if children are allowed to express their own feelings about gender, they will conclude on their own based on observation that both men and women are individually capable of anything, even though there are statistical differences between them.

 

[Cyke101]

The thing that gets to me about this thread is that it started right after a pretty disturbing post in the homosexuality thread about the "filth" and "gay agenda" -- in essence, a post about putting down, oppressing, and denying rights to a group of people. However, the original post asks if conservatives are somehow being marginalized themselves and if there's space for them in Star Trek fandom -- in essence, if conservatives themselves are victims.

But even taking away the label of conservatism, there's something to be said about the IMMENSE disconnect between trying to keep one group down and then claiming that you yourself are a victim. In essence, you can't bully one and then claim that you're being the one bullied all along. It simply does not compute (and it really disregards the fact that there's a spectrum of conservatives who have been gradually becoming more and more accepting of LGBTQs, something that's been in the process for decades now, and not overnight as some cynics may believe).