It doesn't really come across that way when you singled out that one example in the same post where you said that character trait was unappealing.
I said, as a positive, that Kirk moved on from his son's death to get the job done. You replied that in doing so he committed a war crime.
I would ask, if you don't think Kirk was wrong, why even make mention of it?
Because context matters. There is a time and place for soldiering on, and there are times when that attitude is detrimental, and often times it falls somewhere in between. This idea that it is always good to soldier on is one I push back against. Similarly, I push back against the notion that traumatized individuals must always process trauma in that moment. I should clarify my rather broad statement.
The examples you give I have mixed reactions to:
Kirk-I don't agree with.
Pike-I do agree with but he is still processing it.
Picard-nope, because he never fully processed it and kept doing his job and kept up his walls until later in his life.
Discovery crew: unique. One, they travelled to a mirror universe, experienced a trauma of losing a leader they thought they could trust, and missed out on an entire war that threatened the society they were sworn to protect. When they returned, they were already "out of time" in terms of their culture. They already had to galvanize around their ship as their family of choice in order to survive. So, them going in to the future is not as far fetched because
they had already done it.
Context matters. It's why the broad sweeping generalizations stick out sorely to me.
Okay, fair enough.
That entire sequence of events was superb character stuff, though. From him losing his son to seeing the Enterprise blow up and burn in the atmosphere.
Always a gut punch.
It is. The context is huge for the moment. There's this nuance as Kirk makes this decision. The emotions rage high.
Doesn't make it lesser to look at Kirk's behavior and go "Ooof...I can't agree with that" even if I understand it.