Hi Guys. It's I, the OP, coming to you apologetically and somewhat embarrassed. Let me explain.
I should have never started this thread. I came across Mr. Wong's site via a link of an essay in which he concludes that the Federation is nothing less than a totalitarian, non-free, Marxist state. I found it intriguing that someone would take the time to write such a lengthy thesis, so I read it.
I found his "evidence" quick lacking and sometimes contradictory. Just two examples: he says that because the quarters of the Starfleet officers have very few personal effects, they must not be able to own much, which he likens to the bread shortages in the Soviet Union. I hardly think that's good evidence: for one thing, the producers used the same set for each officer's room and could only personalize them so much. Also, why would Starfleet crew have a lot of personal effects anyway? Those quarters aren't their homes. How many personal items do modern navy officers retain in their quarters? Starfleet's quarters, in contrast, I think are rather luxurious.
Another "evidence" he uses is that hardly anyone seems to own starships. Therefore, he concludes that the government controls all transportation and effectively dictates when and where its citizens can travel (like the Soviet internal passport system). I think that is poor evidence, for owning a starship wouldn't be an easy task. You'd need a crew and a large, powerful ship; a small craft would likely have low warp speed, which would make inter-system transit a tedious -- and dangerous -- endeavor. I'd rather book a transport on a faster moving, expertly crewed (and probably armed) vessel. I think a proper analogy might be air travel. It's far easier and safer to fly in large passenger jetliners. Few people own planes or even want to own planes, and those that do seldom use them for travel, especially across oceans (well, I guess in Alaska they're rather common and then there's corporate jets.).
And while the UFP may (or not) be socialist or a social democracy, it could hardly be Marxist. Isn't Marxism a system in which the workers unite and take ownership of all manufacturing etc.? There seems to be neither a "working class" in the Federation, nor a bunch of factories for the proletarians to run. The same is true with agriculture. I think most of it's highly automated, though some, such as Picard's family, grow things for fun (and since when does Marxism allow a family to own a large vineyard?).
From there I began to read other articles of his, including a section he calls "Brain Bugs", that describe the idiocy of concepts such as Klingons, Ferengi, the Borg, and other Trek things. He has a list of "TNG Commandments", written in pseudo-King James Bible English, ridiculing many premises of TNG.
There's a section that says in addition to "butchering" science, Trek also "butchers" engineering principles.
And of course he has many other things, such as ridiculing the way Data might explain a problem (though I found it funny), the vapid writing of all Trek series, and a section of "common arguments" used by Trekkies to defend their beloved show (which we have to take his word for). He also has a section of examples of logical fallacies and arguing tactics, in which the person using the fallacy is invariably a Trekkie. He has a portion dedicated to "general sci-fi myths", but it begins by stating how irresponsible Trek's writers are, and seems to mainly be dedicated to disparaging Trek.
His entire site is polemical. He assaults the intelligence of Trek fans, writes long analyses explaining why the Empire would defeat the Federation (I didn't realize they were in conflict), spends a lot of time talking about Creationism vs. Evolutionary Theory (he asserts there is widespread "persecution" of religionists against science teachers--I agree fundamentalists often don't like hearing about evolution, but I'm not aware of widespread persecution), denouncing religion, the racism he faces as a man of Asian descent living in Canada (I doubt it's anywhere nearly as bad as, say a black American living in the South. And even as a white person living in the US, I've endured numerous abuses and harassment for my skin color through the years--even to the point where I was unable to maintain control of a college course I was teaching because of the nonstop ridicule, but I don't feel the need to create a web page dedicated to my experiences and ask people to feel sorry for me.)
In general, he just seems to be angry about a lot of things. My problem was I couldn't believe someone who loves Star Wars could despise so thoroughly Star Trek. That's the reason I started the thread, to see if anyone else felt Trek was an affront to reasonably-educated persons. Finally, while he states that most Trek fans are completely uneducated dolts, his own education background is nothing more than an applied science BS with an emphasis in mechanical engineering. It's not as though he has a PhD in astrophysics from MIT and works at JPL.
Again, I apologize for letting it get to me. I should have known better.
You guys have been more than patient and considerate, given my ill-advised mentioning of Wong's site. Thanks.
I should have never started this thread. I came across Mr. Wong's site via a link of an essay in which he concludes that the Federation is nothing less than a totalitarian, non-free, Marxist state. I found it intriguing that someone would take the time to write such a lengthy thesis, so I read it.
I found his "evidence" quick lacking and sometimes contradictory. Just two examples: he says that because the quarters of the Starfleet officers have very few personal effects, they must not be able to own much, which he likens to the bread shortages in the Soviet Union. I hardly think that's good evidence: for one thing, the producers used the same set for each officer's room and could only personalize them so much. Also, why would Starfleet crew have a lot of personal effects anyway? Those quarters aren't their homes. How many personal items do modern navy officers retain in their quarters? Starfleet's quarters, in contrast, I think are rather luxurious.
Another "evidence" he uses is that hardly anyone seems to own starships. Therefore, he concludes that the government controls all transportation and effectively dictates when and where its citizens can travel (like the Soviet internal passport system). I think that is poor evidence, for owning a starship wouldn't be an easy task. You'd need a crew and a large, powerful ship; a small craft would likely have low warp speed, which would make inter-system transit a tedious -- and dangerous -- endeavor. I'd rather book a transport on a faster moving, expertly crewed (and probably armed) vessel. I think a proper analogy might be air travel. It's far easier and safer to fly in large passenger jetliners. Few people own planes or even want to own planes, and those that do seldom use them for travel, especially across oceans (well, I guess in Alaska they're rather common and then there's corporate jets.).
And while the UFP may (or not) be socialist or a social democracy, it could hardly be Marxist. Isn't Marxism a system in which the workers unite and take ownership of all manufacturing etc.? There seems to be neither a "working class" in the Federation, nor a bunch of factories for the proletarians to run. The same is true with agriculture. I think most of it's highly automated, though some, such as Picard's family, grow things for fun (and since when does Marxism allow a family to own a large vineyard?).
From there I began to read other articles of his, including a section he calls "Brain Bugs", that describe the idiocy of concepts such as Klingons, Ferengi, the Borg, and other Trek things. He has a list of "TNG Commandments", written in pseudo-King James Bible English, ridiculing many premises of TNG.
There's a section that says in addition to "butchering" science, Trek also "butchers" engineering principles.
And of course he has many other things, such as ridiculing the way Data might explain a problem (though I found it funny), the vapid writing of all Trek series, and a section of "common arguments" used by Trekkies to defend their beloved show (which we have to take his word for). He also has a section of examples of logical fallacies and arguing tactics, in which the person using the fallacy is invariably a Trekkie. He has a portion dedicated to "general sci-fi myths", but it begins by stating how irresponsible Trek's writers are, and seems to mainly be dedicated to disparaging Trek.
His entire site is polemical. He assaults the intelligence of Trek fans, writes long analyses explaining why the Empire would defeat the Federation (I didn't realize they were in conflict), spends a lot of time talking about Creationism vs. Evolutionary Theory (he asserts there is widespread "persecution" of religionists against science teachers--I agree fundamentalists often don't like hearing about evolution, but I'm not aware of widespread persecution), denouncing religion, the racism he faces as a man of Asian descent living in Canada (I doubt it's anywhere nearly as bad as, say a black American living in the South. And even as a white person living in the US, I've endured numerous abuses and harassment for my skin color through the years--even to the point where I was unable to maintain control of a college course I was teaching because of the nonstop ridicule, but I don't feel the need to create a web page dedicated to my experiences and ask people to feel sorry for me.)
In general, he just seems to be angry about a lot of things. My problem was I couldn't believe someone who loves Star Wars could despise so thoroughly Star Trek. That's the reason I started the thread, to see if anyone else felt Trek was an affront to reasonably-educated persons. Finally, while he states that most Trek fans are completely uneducated dolts, his own education background is nothing more than an applied science BS with an emphasis in mechanical engineering. It's not as though he has a PhD in astrophysics from MIT and works at JPL.
Again, I apologize for letting it get to me. I should have known better.
You guys have been more than patient and considerate, given my ill-advised mentioning of Wong's site. Thanks.
Last edited:
