No inner turmoil? All it takes is a virus or a weird plant to make his turmoil boil to the surface.
Does anyone else dislike Raffi?
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
So, only struggling when under the influence of external mind-altering factors?
Nah, the struggle is always there. It's part of who Spock is. Heck is part of who Vulcans are.
Nope.
TOS is chock full of references to and displays of Spock's inner turmoil, under a variety of circumstances--from Spock describing it while sober in "The Enemy Within" to Amanda describing how he'd come home on the verge of tears from the other Vulcan children picking on him. Somebody with a more encyclopedic knowledge of the show could make a laundry list.
Possibly, but when it comes to having my full confidence in an officer to assist in problem solving any issue which may come before me, I'd rather have Spock on my side than Barclay, Tilly, and especially Raffi.
Yes, actually. Because if we are saying Spock has no flaws then I think that is a profound misreading of the character as presented or intended by Nimoy.
Why not both? Why not flawed, wounded, and yes, broken people who despite those injuries continue on? See I'm all for soldiering on. In fact, that's what the Stoics and current DBT style therapists would say. But they would not deny their emotions either. Nor would they be controlled by them. There's balance in there, and part of that balance is acknowledging that I'm wounded, and broken or damaged.
Well, I mean, I am. Others no doubt are not.
Spock is like, always, talking about his turmoil.
Let us note he functions very well under most circumstances.
As does Raffi now after being restored by the faith of JL.
When I think of a "broken" character I do think of how Raffi was when JL finds her.
She's still on the cranky/bitter side (which I said above I'm ok with).
The thing about Spock, he was always harping about his human half. But that would be his naturally calmer! "half" from what he's told us about Vulcanians' passions.
Let us note he functions very well under most circumstances.
As does Raffi now after being restored by the faith of JL.
When I think of a "broken" character I do think of how Raffi was when JL finds her.
She's still on the cranky/bitter side (which I said above I'm ok with).
The thing about Spock, he was always harping about his human half. But that would be his naturally calmer! "half" from what he's told us about Vulcanians' passions.
About conflicting turmoil, who would you prefer... Raffi or Spock?
Which illustrates why I like "broken" characters. I love watching them restored. That's a journey I find of value, not functionally normal person goes on functionally normal adventure.
You know that Star Trek isn't real, right?
Raffi has the same chance of assisting in problem solving any issue which may come before you as Spock does, and the chances in both cases are zero. That's also equal to the chances of Tilly or Barclay giving an assist. They're all fictional characters. They cannot help you solve problems.
That's the most absurd response. Of course the poster knows it "isn't real"
We discuss the ins and outs of everything from engine design to in-world continuity on these forums. It's generally accepted that posts don't all have to start with "I know it isn't real, however..."
Last edited:
OK, let's give it a try.
I know it's not real, but when it comes solving any issue which may come before me, I'd rather have Spock on my side....
Nah, it's not working. It's use of the first person, innit.
You mean the show where it implied the "Jan 6th" riot lead to World War III???We have that...
Have you heard of a new Star Trek show called 'Strange New Worlds'?
To be fair, having tried it, it's certainly an order of magnitude better than Picard or Discovery.You mean the show where it implied the "Jan 6th" riot lead to World War III???
Early days, but I wouldn't say that five second of footage discredits the whole thing, stupid misstep though it was.
Star Trek was the best program to explore BOTH SIDES of the issues and later intellectually find common ground and a compromise. Not at all with CBS ALL ACCESS + Trek, these comedies solely explores and propagandizes to the positions of the left winged politics. The showrunners have no clue what Star Trek's about. Failing to understand both sides and then demonizes one is a slap in the face to everything that was Star Trek. Good to know, anyone who's a Republican, or doesn't believe in radical Left wing positions are planted as race hating Nazis.
Care to point out which bit of the riots on 6th Jan, where a government building was invaded and an attempt to overthrow the results of a legitimate election represent the actions of someone reasonable?
What I took from the episode was that they were showing the extreme polarisation of people (something that the actions in DC were a result of) lead to a 2nd civil war and the impact of that alongside similar issues around the world (see Russia and Ukraine now) has lead to WW3.
Star Trek was always about discussion over action - again, show me the discussion part of those riots - but also about clearly taking a stance against the actions of those causing harm. You may call anyone who isn't a Republican part of the "radical left" but we are in a world where there is a rise in racist behaviour, where abortion is potentially going to be made illegal, were you can't have a goddamn election without people rioting and the people pushing that are not on the left
I completely agree that living was hard. Studying history only leaves me with a feeling of more respect for people surviving, not less.
Which leads me to your comment on Freud. It's interesting to discuss his impact upon the therapeutic world given that he believed full psychoanalysis would take 14 years, at least, to resolve unconscious psychological processes. Thankfully, the more prevailing model now is based around building positive relationship and identifying unhelpful behaviors, thoughts and how to manage them. But, it does show that time is needed to resolve conflict within. And, in the meantime, a lot of therapists try to demonstrate building healthy relationships by accepting people as they are, hurting, wounded, broken or recovering and everything in between. In fact, it kind of reminds of me of Star Trek a little, where people are supposedly accepted and celebrated because of differences.
This leads me to a question, possibly a rhetorical one. Do we want broken people in Star Trek? And if so, how do we want them? Should they be locked up behind close doors were we cannot see them? I keep being told 24th century medicine should be able to resolve psychological pain so does that mean there are no more broken people?
To be clear, these are just ponderings because I find it so interesting the response to psychological pain, and people who are hurting, wounded or broke as presented in Star Trek.
I'll leave this bit of a ramble with a recent quote I stumbled upon:
I was waiting for things to go south in this thread which was oddly thoughtful and reasonable for awhile. It seems to have, but then come back, again, thanks to @fireproof78.
Yeah, Freud just kind of kicked off the century's huge drift toward (boy I am brain dead and just ate a can of spaghettios so not thinking too sharp) emphasis on earlier experiences esp those causing guilt shaping future oh ... troubles in behavior. Words are not coming to me.
And then, the whole idea of secular therapy/therapists, emphasis on feeling better, functioning better.
Toward the end of my teaching career all we were hearing was "social/emotional" and -- don't want to sound like an extremist -- that didn't turn into "all" we were focusing on, far from it, academics still were happening. But social/emitional considerations/needs had really gained, and as the song goes, "Somethin's gotta give," and that was academics. I went into ed b/c I love info and learning and thinking and reading. (I have a psych degree oddly enough and didn't choose therapy.) Not saying it's wrong to concentrate more on social/emotional needs in public school, btw! But that was just one indicator of living in the "Triumph of the Terapeutic" Age.
Also (NOT judging here) cf. the Olympics, 1992 or 4 where Kerri Strug vaulted on a broken ankle "for the glory of her team and nation." "Hero!" Now it's borderline abusive. And Simone Biles who would've been a loser/selfish then for not competing for mental health reasons is now extolled for taking care of self-care. Again NOT judging -- just a barometer of how our culture is still shifting toward focusing on individuals' emotional needs. It got old to me on DSC where even the computer needed therapy kind of, from the humans, so I checked out. But I am a male from several cultures ago (they change so fast), I now think, kind of feeling like Archie Bunker as things change around me.
But I know that my thoughts/opinions are a product of their time, not objectively right, just as current thoughts/opinions are the current ones, not necessarily objectively right.
This is more confessional than I think I usually get here, kind of going on a limb, but am in a weird mood.
Peace and love to all.
Yeah, Freud just kind of kicked off the century's huge drift toward (boy I am brain dead and just ate a can of spaghettios so not thinking too sharp) emphasis on earlier experiences esp those causing guilt shaping future oh ... troubles in behavior. Words are not coming to me.
And then, the whole idea of secular therapy/therapists, emphasis on feeling better, functioning better.
Toward the end of my teaching career all we were hearing was "social/emotional" and -- don't want to sound like an extremist -- that didn't turn into "all" we were focusing on, far from it, academics still were happening. But social/emitional considerations/needs had really gained, and as the song goes, "Somethin's gotta give," and that was academics. I went into ed b/c I love info and learning and thinking and reading. (I have a psych degree oddly enough and didn't choose therapy.) Not saying it's wrong to concentrate more on social/emotional needs in public school, btw! But that was just one indicator of living in the "Triumph of the Terapeutic" Age.
Also (NOT judging here) cf. the Olympics, 1992 or 4 where Kerri Strug vaulted on a broken ankle "for the glory of her team and nation." "Hero!" Now it's borderline abusive. And Simone Biles who would've been a loser/selfish then for not competing for mental health reasons is now extolled for taking care of self-care. Again NOT judging -- just a barometer of how our culture is still shifting toward focusing on individuals' emotional needs. It got old to me on DSC where even the computer needed therapy kind of, from the humans, so I checked out. But I am a male from several cultures ago (they change so fast), I now think, kind of feeling like Archie Bunker as things change around me.
But I know that my thoughts/opinions are a product of their time, not objectively right, just as current thoughts/opinions are the current ones, not necessarily objectively right.
This is more confessional than I think I usually get here, kind of going on a limb, but am in a weird mood.
Peace and love to all.
Which is more the larger point to me. It's the idea of accepting a person for who they are, culture and all, pain and all, damage and all. While I don't fault anyone for finding the therapuetic push to be overbearing I will just be curious to hear the whys, which you put quite succiently. You didn't go to school for that. Unfortunately, now that I work in the schools as a therapist, that is the role being pushed on to educators more and more.
From my observations that comes more from a lack of investment of time by parents until there is an actual problem, which is usually where my profession has to step in. Except, it's not that simple it seems. And I think that's why cultural opinions are therapy are so varied and so important to express. I grew up with parents who encouraged more emotional honesty but they did not grow up with that. They had to make a choice. Which is why I love hearing opinions because I love hearing the choices people have made in life that bring them to wear they are now. When I illustrate this to teens I use physics: an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Our choices are that force.
To bring it back to this thread, when people discuss people like Raffi, and the struggles she had because of the choices of others and the choices she made in response. Star Trek is full of stories like these.
Also, full of stories of computers who need therapy
Similar threads
