What could be more bad faith than "Don't you understand this is fiction?"
Early Criticism: What’s Unfounded and What Isn’t
- Thread starter trekfan_1
- Start date
Or people who enjoy Star Trek for the combination of Characters, Stories, and Worldbuilding.
Not the same thing when we’re talking about the representation of the viewing audience, and I know you know that.
I enjoy all three, but characters are first, technology a tertiary concern at best. Those I see really enjoying the tech and works building side strike me as very logical problem solvers who enjoy the solutions technology brings, rather than considering what a character might emotionally mean.Or people who enjoy Star Trek for the combination of Characters, Stories, and Worldbuilding.
Good point. So in 1100 years science can do no better for disabled people. They still b
need wheel chairs? Worse they are still using 21st century wheel chairs.
On The Orville they can regrow limbs. No one needs wheel chairs anymore because science took care of it. Nothing wrong with seeing progress in medical science.
Questioning why someone is using a wheelchair in Star Trek would be kind of like going to up to an amputee today and just asking them flat out why they haven't got a prosthetic limb.
The world of Star Trek is full of people who try and hold on to feeling human and not lost to technology. Maybe using an exoskeletal frame or having a cybernetic augmentation makes this character feel less human and they don't want some fancy thing that can make them walk.
As was pointed out earlier not everyone today just opts for corrective laser eye surgery just because it's available.
Sure the character exists so that a disabled viewer will feel that they too are included but it's still a character and characters all have backstories and a why. Worldbuilding extends beyond just tech advancements and also includes societal developments. And if we have humans that shun replicators is it so unbelievable a person might shun mobility assistance frames or cybernetics?
The world of Star Trek is full of people who try and hold on to feeling human and not lost to technology. Maybe using an exoskeletal frame or having a cybernetic augmentation makes this character feel less human and they don't want some fancy thing that can make them walk.
As was pointed out earlier not everyone today just opts for corrective laser eye surgery just because it's available.
Sure the character exists so that a disabled viewer will feel that they too are included but it's still a character and characters all have backstories and a why. Worldbuilding extends beyond just tech advancements and also includes societal developments. And if we have humans that shun replicators is it so unbelievable a person might shun mobility assistance frames or cybernetics?
Not everyone who is in a wheelchair has a lifelong disability. They could be recovering from an illness or injury, like Kelvinverse Pike at the end of the '09 film. (I don't know about the SA character's situation, though.)
This.
Perhaps a more appropriate question is "What happen to them?" rather than "Why bother including them?"
Someone may not want a limb or an eye or anything that isn't their original one. Some people may feel that even if a body part doesn't work it is theirs that they were born with and they don't wish to change themselves.
Perhaps even in a future of cloned implants there could be a cloned implant dysphoria that develops and some people react badly psychologically to such things.
You have chosen to ignore the human condition and made wild assumptions built on sand.
That too. There's so many possible layers to it but people will ignore any kind of rational explanations if it conflicts with their hate.
Genuinely, I think it comes from a place of pure problem solving. The human condition isn't as important as solving the problem, so seeing a solution and a person not taking it must mean the person is a problem.
It's more black/white logical thinking because human frailty=problems to be solved.
Remember the days when fandom saw bits like this and didn’t scream “canon violation,” but instead took it as an opportunity to write some unexplored canon instead?
Really sad how fundamentalist and immutable certain folks have become, letting their creativity wither.
An approach somewhat lacking in empathy but not entirely incomprehensible. I sure would take the solutions to my problems if they were available or affordable for the ones that are.
Thermians.
The Federation could regrow limbs in the 24th century too.
You might want to consider why the DS9 writers made it a choice between "walking normally in standard gravity" or "ever returning to her homeworld or even entering a low gravity environment" when writing the episode Melora.
This is on Paramount+, which also has CBS content, which also skews towards a much older audience. It's likely that old people in wheelchairs are watching the show, assuming they want to watch what looks like a CW show that's not targeted to them.
The biggest risk is that the show makes the same mistakes that Doctor Who did on Disney+. Of course, I'd argue that the Pilot for Starfleet Academy was much better than Space Babies on Disney+.
At the end of the day, the show has to tell good stories. Representation alone is not going to keep viewers coming back.
1200 years from now? Unlikely. Even now our medical science is advancing fast. To say in 1200 years we wont have made progress is not realistic.Do you really think people would rather be in a wheel chair than have 100% duplicates of they're own legs?
Last edited:
What's ridiculous is the lack of empathy and demanding people justify their disabilities to be in Star Trek.
No what's ridiculous is giving no hope for people with disabilities. Letting then know that people won't be cured or helped in the furure. You just care about representation. Thats not empathy. Empathy is when you put yourself in someone else's shoes to see how they feel and see the world from their perspective. They want to see a world where there is a possibility theyll be cured or at least become much more able to do what they want to do in the future. They want hope. They want to see a better future. Not you making sure that they see people are still in wheelchairs 1200 years from now so they can be represented.
Do they? You speak for all people with disabilities now?
You haven't even asked why this person is in a wheelchair. Just assumed it's a flaw. That's ridiculous. People are not just problems to be cured.
I don't give a damn about representation. I care about asking the human questions of what does this person want, instead of assuming the absolute worst about the writers. There's no room for just doing, "Eh, just fix them, just cure them." That's so flippant it hurts.
Similar threads
- Poll
