News Discovery New Character Breakdowns

[Rahul]

@Rahul, I have stayed out of this conversation but as a mod I need to step in when things get unreasonably heated.

I understand that you are quite unhappy with how this conversation has gone so far and that you feel that your posts have been misrepresented.
That is not an excuse for personal attacks, though. Saying "I wish I could throw personal insults at you because you deserve it but alas..." is just a clever way of attacking somebody personally while trying to avoid an infraction.
Don't do that.

I'm not going to pursue this any further, that was as far as I'm willing to go. But I am angry about that. Not that that wasn't obvious from my post.

There absolutely was no way to read @Locutus of Bored's carefully worded and nuanced post on black soldiers serving in Confederate forces as pro-confederacy.
Again, I get that you feel your posts have been misrepresented but you don't fix that by making these outrageous claims.

In your post, you are basically complaining that others have overreacted to your posts or misrepresented them. Wouldn't you say that the above quote is essentially doing the same?
Pretending the 60s were perfectly fine for minorities is clearly not what @Nerys Myk meant, in fact I think he meant the opposite when he suggested minorities shouldn't be marginalized at the "back of the bus".

Which was in both cases kinda' the point. I REALLY don't think either of them has those tendencies. That they were so willing to project them onto others with different viewpoints in this debate was the thing making me angry though.

I hope it was obvious those over-the-top accusations were meant as a way to show how mis-representative the argument has gotten, and that there was essentially no debate anymore, just a straw-man type of misrepresentation with quotes used out of context to further someone's own agenda.

I have no desire to continue that. I think I made my point clear, and I regret I had to go that far for it.

I suggest people calm down and give each other the benefit of the doubt here unless they want an infraction and/or the thread shut down if this can't be discussed in a civil manner.

Agreed, and taken to the heart. I'm not going to hold a grudge against anyone. But I hope something like that won't happen again.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I think there's a pretty major difference between quoting your post and honestly telling you what I thought a single passage sounded like to me, while still verbally giving you the benefit of the doubt in the same post, and you intentionally (by your own admission) posting the complete opposite of what my post was saying to make a point with yet another erroneous comparison. I didn't project anything on to you, I was telling you directly what I thought you were saying based on your own words, while leaving open the possibility that that wasn't your intent. You could have simply said that's not what you meant by it and that part of the debate would have been done with.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You are really one of those guys that want to ban "To kill a mockingbird" or "Uncle Tom’s Cabin" from school lecture because it uses bad words and could make you uncomfortable, right?

Better pretend the 60's have all been perfectly fine for minorities and we should all remember them fondly and want to go back as a society there, right...?

Not all. where in the world have I endorsed anything like that?

Projection level over 100% right there...
You seem VERY BIG on sanitizing history to make you feel not too bad when reading/learning about it. I can just tell you, this is not an approach that works, and NOT one that will in any way improve things for anyone in the future.

Again where are you getting this from? Show me where I've said anything about sanitizing history???

 

[Tuskin38]

Maybe take this to PMs (since it seems personal imo) so we can get back to the topic, if there is anything left to say about it.

 

[DaveyNY]

Gold aliens from Balance of Terror. Q's flunky in Encounter At Farpoint.

Where the Binars little folks or children?

 

[Rahul]

I just realized it's Tig Notaro's chief engineer that's the character in the wheelchair.
I remain sceptical. I don't think a starship (ANY vehicle, really) can be engineered to be perfectly accessable at every point by someone in a wheelchair. I remember how often Scotty had to climb into tubes to access panels. Stuff simply can break at any point, and an engineer would need to be capable to fix it.

Then again, she could simply be the one overseeing the warp reactor, and more akin to the main scientist in a nuclear reactor. In which case she would delegate all those dirty "handwork" to her subordinates, and it would make sense to keep someone this professional on board despite the physical limitations, because her knowledge and experience would be irreplacable.

I remain cautious. Narratively the most critical point would be what her illness actually is. They were able to grow a perfectly new leg for Nog. That was 100 years later, but we know a simple missing limb is already curable during TOS. Hell, almost life-like prosthetics are becoming a thing now. But they don't want a character with prosthetic limbs. They want one in a wheelchair. That's also the chief engineer. They better really think this through, and give us a convincing explanation for why she couldn't have been cured in the future.

 

[Spot261]

I just realized it's Tig Notaro's chief engineer that's the character in the wheelchair.
I remain sceptical. I don't think a starship (ANY vehicle, really) can be engineered to be perfectly accessable at every point by someone in a wheelchair. I remember how often Scotty had to climb into tubes to access panels. Stuff simply can break at any point, and an engineer would need to be capable to fix it.

Then again, she could simply be the one overseeing the warp reactor, and more akin to the main scientist in a nuclear reactor. In which case she would delegate all those dirty "handwork" to her subordinates, and it would make sense to keep someone this professional on board despite the physical limitations, because her knowledge and experience would be irreplacable.

I remain cautious. Narratively the most critical point would be what her illness actually is. They were able to grow a perfectly new leg for Nog. That was 100 years later, but we know a simple missing limb is already curable during TOS. Hell, almost life-like prosthetics are becoming a thing now. But they don't want a character with prosthetic limbs. They want one in a wheelchair. That's also the chief engineer. They better really think this through, and give us a convincing explanation for why she couldn't have been cured in the future.

Maybe, just maybe, because like many disabled people she doesn't see herself as needing "cured"?

 

[Awesome Possum]

I just realized it's Tig Notaro's chief engineer that's the character in the wheelchair.
I remain sceptical. I don't think a starship (ANY vehicle, really) can be engineered to be perfectly accessable at every point by someone in a wheelchair. I remember how often Scotty had to climb into tubes to access panels. Stuff simply can break at any point, and an engineer would need to be capable to fix it.

Then again, she could simply be the one overseeing the warp reactor, and more akin to the main scientist in a nuclear reactor. In which case she would delegate all those dirty "handwork" to her subordinates, and it would make sense to keep someone this professional on board despite the physical limitations, because her knowledge and experience would be irreplacable.

I remain cautious. Narratively the most critical point would be what her illness actually is. They were able to grow a perfectly new leg for Nog. That was 100 years later, but we know a simple missing limb is already curable during TOS. Hell, almost life-like prosthetics are becoming a thing now. But they don't want a character with prosthetic limbs. They want one in a wheelchair. That's also the chief engineer. They better really think this through, and give us a convincing explanation for why she couldn't have been cured in the future.

Why do you keep thinking it’s a “wheel” chair? It could be a hoverchair, meaning it floats. So she could effortlessly float to anywhere she needed to be. Maybe it even changes positions and allows her to be an upright position if she needs to be in tight spaces, we have wheelchairs that do this now. I would think that Federation science would work to keep her as active as she was before with no difficulties. A hoverchair could be so useful to her job that she prefers it, much like how Geordi prefers his VISOR to having working eyes because of how it benefits him in his job.

 

[Rahul]

Maybe, just maybe, because like many disabled people she doesn't see herself as needing "cured"?

I'll be going out on a limb here () and say that will not be the case. Because it would be a really stupid one. I know there are cases of people being born blind that can't cope with restored eyesight late in their life, and it's perfectly okay for those to chose to remain blind. Also, every person should be allowed to reject any treatment for whatever they have on personal grounds (though I don't think it's exactly smart to swap your chemotherapy for some bullshit homeopathic sugar balls). But not being able to walk is NOT something that makes you "unique" and that needs to be cherished. It's just a simple physical limitation. Nothing more. It doesn't take you humanity away. But there is no secret beauty in being physically impaired either, and I wish those bullshit Hollywood feel-good movies about disabilities would stop trying to sell you that idea.

Why do you keep thinking it’s a “wheel” chair? It could be a hoverchair, meaning it floats. So she could effortlessly float to anywhere she needed to be. Maybe it even changes positions and allows her to be an upright position if she needs to be in tight spaces, we have wheelchairs that do this now. I would think that Federation science would work to keep her as active as she was before with no difficulties. A hoverchair could be so useful to her job that she prefers it, much like how Geordi prefers his VISOR to having working eyes because of how it benefits him in his job.

Budget.

 

[Spot261]

I'll be going out on a limb here (lol) and say that will not be the reason. Because it would be a really stupid one. I know there are cases of people being born blind that can't cope with restored eyesight late in their life. Also, every person should be allowed to reject treatment for whatever they have (though I don't think it's exactly smart to swap your chemotherapy for some bullshit homeopathic sugar balls). But not being able to walk is NOT something that makes you "unique" and that needs to be cherished. It just simply limits you physically. Nothing more. There is no secret beauty in being physically impaired.

Lots of people with actual disabilities would disagree with you, not sure how they would feel about being labelled "really stupid"

 

[dahj]

I don't think a starship (ANY vehicle, really) can be engineered to be perfectly accessable at every point by someone in a wheelchair

Don't they have artificial gravity they can turn off at will?
I'd imagine it would be fairly easy to install handrails making every inch of the ship accessible to anyone under zero-g.

 

[Spot261]

Not to mention they don't make every inch of the ship perfectly accessible to someone NOT in a wheelchair anyway.

 

[eschaton]

Lots of people with actual disabilities would disagree with you, not sure how they would feel about being labelled "really stupid"

As I said, I know of tons of deaf people who don't want to hear. I've never heard of a single wheelchair-bound person who prefers it to the alternative. They may have gotten used to it and accepted it's a part of them, but that's not the same thing.

Look at it this way: If technology could give you the ability to fly, and it was unobtrusive and would cost you nothing, would you take it? I think most everyone who isn't afraid of heights would. And not being able to fly is in no way a "disability" for humans. It's just part of our natural state. But if given the choice between being able to do something and not being able to do it, most people would choose the former.

In general though, I have no issue with the idea of a mobility-restricted character - provided the backstory makes sense for the setting. My concern is related to the technology depicted to deal with the mobility issues. A "hoverchair" could be done alright, but IMHO it's not akin to Geordi's VISOR. It's more like if Geordi was still totally blind, but had a seeing-eye robot dog, and the PADDs could pop up braille characters as needed.

 

[cultcross]

Also, every person should be allowed to reject treatment for whatever they have (though I don't think it's exactly smart to swap your chemotherapy for some bullshit homeopathic sugar balls). But not being able to walk is NOT something that makes you "unique" and that needs to be cherished. It just simply limits you physically. Nothing more. There is no secret beauty in being physically impaired.

That's a pretty problematic attitude toward disability. Firstly, in that you would equate someone choosing to remain how they are with someone who would support homeopathy to cure a fatal disease, and second that you dismiss the lived experience of a great many disabled people who certainly do consider their unique circumstances as, if not positive, at least integral to who they are and the life they have lived and not something to be 'cured'. They would no more change it than I would my eye colour. The deaf community, for example, are quite militant on the subject.

The other problem with 'cures' in speculative fiction is that they are not available in reality. They reduce the experience of lifelong disability to that of having a passing illness, and make disabled people even more invisible. In TV land, if you break your back, odds are you will miraculously walk again by season's end. Imagine what that is like to someone to whom their wheelchair is with them for life.

 

[Rahul]

Lots of people with actual disabilities would disagree with you, not sure how they would feel about being labelled "really stupid"

Every person has the fundamental right to be really stupid. (As long as it doesn't put other people in harm's way). If you decide to die because you don't want a blood transfusion for religious reasons? Your personal right. You want to loose your hand because you are too ashamed to go to a doctor? Again: Your personal choice.

Now to be perfectly clear: There is a BIG difference if it's merely an attitude to cope with an unchangeable situation. If someone is physically impaired without the chance of ever being fully treated (say, lost his legs), it's not just perfectly acceptable, but probably even a good idea if he sees the positive side of it, and how the experience personally enriched his life and his person. And see the change and groth it spured in him, and what person he became because of it. That's not just perfectly fine, but also recommended.

But reject a simple treatment to your condition on the ground of your personal feels about it? Again: 100% your personal choice. But also really, really stupid.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Imagine the chair unfolding into an exoskeleton. You can sit in in when you want, and stand and walk with it when you want.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Budget.

The show’s? I don’t know if you know anything about special effects, but I could film something passable using in-camera effects for almost nothing. I imagine they make it look great. You’re either trying to invent excuses to not have anyone in wheelchair on the show for some reason or you lack the imagination to think of how they could pull it off.

 

[Rahul]

That's a pretty problematic attitude toward disability. Firstly, in that you would equate someone choosing to remain how they are with someone who would support homeopathy to cure a fatal disease, and second that you dismiss the lived experience of a great many disabled people who certainly do consider their unique circumstances as, if not positive, at least integral to who they are and the life they have lived and not something to be 'cured'. They would no more change it than I would my eye colour. The deaf community, for example, are quite militant on the subject.

Let's be super honest: If a deaf child get's the possibility of being healed, and is prevented from doing so by her community - that is not just fucking disgusting, but IMO criminal.

Any adult deaf person has of course the full personal choice to seek treatment or refuse it. But if he choses not to, purely out of a sense of obligation to his community, I'm sorry that guy is really stupid. This shows only that extremist ideologies exist in all places, and that disabled people are sometimes as fallable and easy to fool as the rest of us.

 

[cultcross]

Wow. Ok.

 

[Rahul]

The show’s? I don’t know if you know anything about special effects, but I could film something passable using in-camera effects for almost nothing. I imagine they make it look great. You’re either trying to invent excuses to not have anyone in wheelchair on the show for some reason or you lack the imagination to think of how they could pull it off.

Considering how everything else so far has looked on this show, "they [will] make it look great" seems like an extremely implausible assumption.