Can Conservative Star Trek Fans Exist?

[Nightdiamond]

When Rejoined aired (the episode with the "lesbian" kiss) the show got a lot of hate calls.

Here's a story from Wikipedia;

There is a story regarding the man complaining about his kids seeing the kiss: It was a production assistant who took the call. After hearing the man's complaint, the PA asked if the man would've been okay with his kids seeing one woman shoot the other. When the man said he would be okay with that, the PA said "You should reconsider who's messing up your kids". (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion)

They even pulled the episode in some places in the south.

Doesn't this attitude, when you look at it, sounds a bit hypocritical, like wanting your cake and eating it too?

Like the accusation that liberals, agencies or anyone non conservative are always trying to tell people how they should run their personal lives.

For example parents should take their own responsibility for what their children watch and not the government or any watchdog group. (I agree in a sense)

But show a television episode with content they don't like and they want it banned or blame the studios.

That kiss would be considered mild today compared to the things airing now

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Any discussion of that has to be prefaced by the understanding that over the span of at least TNG plus STVIII:FC, the nature of the Borg was a moving target.

I have a "limited" understanding of both....limited in the sense that I don't have every line memorized and signed cast photos on my walls.

Maybe I'm way off the mark, but I thought the "ultimate user" line (thanks for the correction) was a direct reference to the fact that they still process what they don't assimilate. Those guys stripped planets of everything in order to have the raw materials to make new ships and drones for the purpose of stripping more planets, to make more drones and ships, on and on in an never-ending circle.

The actual phrase is "ultimate user" in "Q Who", which I always assumed was in the sense of computer user.

Like in the movie Tron?

My take, based on all I've seen of the Borg in different episodes, is that the Borg are "users" as the opposite of "producers," the Borg don't create anything, they have no original thoughts, they contribute nothing. They travel about the galaxy assimilating the knowledge and works of others.

The Borg are "users."

...the Borg are "users" as the opposite of "producers"...

I fully agree with all of that except your first point, the Borg produce tons of stuff. Exponential kilotons. However, it's only to the benefit of the Borg and their insatiable instinct to expand to an unknown end. That's what makes them users/consumers.

So I do agree with you, guess I would just word it differently!

The term in contrast to producer is consumer, not user.

The Borg, a shortening of the word cyborg, itself a portmanteau of cybernetic organism, are intrinsically cybernetic and in that context the word user has a very specific meaning: computer user.

Tron incorporated and played off that sense of the word user, which predated Tron by decades (that is dated 1965, search for the word "user").

 

[AgentCoop]

When Rejoined aired (the episode with the "lesbian" kiss) the show got a lot of hate calls.

Here's a story from Wikipedia;

There is a story regarding the man complaining about his kids seeing the kiss: It was a production assistant who took the call. After hearing the man's complaint, the PA asked if the man would've been okay with his kids seeing one woman shoot the other. When the man said he would be okay with that, the PA said "You should reconsider who's messing up your kids". (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion)

They even pulled the episode in some places in the south.

Doesn't this attitude, when you look at it, sounds a bit hypocritical, like wanting your cake and eating it too?

Like the accusation that liberals, agencies or anyone non conservative are always trying to tell people how they should run their personal lives.

For example parents should take their own responsibility for what their children watch and not the government or any watchdog group. (I agree in a sense)

But show a television episode with content they don't like and they want it banned or blame the studios.

That kiss would be considered mild today compared to the things airing now

The conservative movement here in the US seems to be ALL ABOUT having it both ways. They believe in limited government (unless they're trying to get the federal government to "define" marriage). They don't believe in welfare (unless you're a giant corporation. "Here, take these massive government handouts"). They want to keep us safe from terrorists (but not, aparrently, from madmen with assault weapons).

 

[HaventGotALife]

When Rejoined aired (the episode with the "lesbian" kiss) the show got a lot of hate calls.

Here's a story from Wikipedia;

There is a story regarding the man complaining about his kids seeing the kiss: It was a production assistant who took the call. After hearing the man's complaint, the PA asked if the man would've been okay with his kids seeing one woman shoot the other. When the man said he would be okay with that, the PA said "You should reconsider who's messing up your kids". (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion)

They even pulled the episode in some places in the south.

Doesn't this attitude, when you look at it, sounds a bit hypocritical, like wanting your cake and eating it too?

Like the accusation that liberals, agencies or anyone non conservative are always trying to tell people how they should run their personal lives.

For example parents should take their own responsibility for what their children watch and not the government or any watchdog group. (I agree in a sense)

But show a television episode with content they don't like and they want it banned or blame the studios.

That kiss would be considered mild today compared to the things airing now

The conservative movement here in the US seems to be ALL ABOUT having it both ways. They believe in limited government (unless they're trying to get the federal government to "define" marriage). They don't believe in welfare (unless you're a giant corporation. "Here, take these massive government handouts"). They want to keep us safe from terrorists (but not, aparrently, from madmen with assault weapons).

Honestly, we could say the same thing about Democrats. When talking about policy, if you look at where big money is, instead of the ideology, things are much more clear. Not all politicians are on the take, but a lot of them are.

 

[T'Girl]

So I do agree with you, guess I would just word it differently!

That's cool.

 

[Misfit Toy]

AgentCoop and Haven'tGotALife, we were trying to avoid the back and forth regarding specific parties as mentioned here:

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!

However, I think the OP's question has been answered, and the thread as a whole has been quite successful. We'll go out on a high note. Closing...