I Hate The Klingon Race

[Sindatur]

Imagine there was an alien species, and 99.9% of the humans they ever encountered were United States Marines, for whatever reason.

There view of mankind might be a bit distorted...

I dont know marines, but dont they have all kind of personalities within the ranks?

I've never been in the military. In fact, I would never join the military. But that said, from what I know, if all aliens ever saw of our species was the military (or even just the marines), they'd be seeing a better quality human than the average, not worse.

American enlisted personnel are selected for intelligence (ASVAB, or whatever they're calling it now), and they're smarter than the average American. They're certainly more squared away, disciplined, and imbued with purpose. Far less prone to drunkenness, addiction, crime, and other pathologies.

That goes double for officers, who are generally college educated.

Western Military members are indeed trained to best represent their Country, and to not make their country look bad, but, there have been untold atrocities committed by those Militaries, think Vietnam, and all the rape victims and senseless slaughter of civilians. And what about if the soldiers that represented Earth were Nazis, or Maoists, or many others? You are cherry picking a specific Military and closing your eyes to the bad they can and have done.

As far as less likely to become addicted and to respect women? Do you have any idea the statistics of Soldiers who have come back from Iraq, that have become addicted to drugs or alcohol, how many have committed violence, including murder, after returning home? How many have brutalized women? War is not pretty and it's not clean and sterile.

Also, when we need an ally, it's very easy to shutter your eyes from their faults. Sadam Hussein was ally against Iran, we built up the infrastructure that allowed him to stay in power and be such a tyrant for so long. India is a good ally to us, and have had nasty showdowns with Pakistan. Pakistan created the Taliban, who sheltered Osama Bin Laden and allowed him to build an army, and used Afghanistan as a Base to attack us on 911. And yet, Pakistan is our ally. There are numerous times we ally ourselves with people who don't represent or live by the values we purport to, allying with the Klingons is no different.

 

[JQP]

What is civilized? For all we know, the Klingons could have the right idea and the Federation is the odd man out.

Look at all the other nations out there: the Cardassians, Romulans, Tzenkethi, Breen, Ferengi, Talarians and so on are more like the Klingons than they are like the Federation.

In the sense that, they don't sacrifice their own culture in the name of tolerance? Agreed.

But I don't see the Ferengi backhanding strangers left and right, which I kinda see as a minimum down payment on being treated like civilized beings.

People still associate with the Klingons because they are too damn powerful to be ignored. The Klingons command fleets that could go toe-to-toe with Starfleet.

Well, true, writers can justify anything they want with stuff like that, but I don't see how that would drill down to the individual level; galactic politics isn't going to make the savvy individual forget the smart thing to do.

Don't mistake the Klingon's boisterousness for stupidity, they are quite adept at saying one thing and doing the other. For every Klingon that supposedly act "honorably" there are two that act more devious than any Romulan.

Boisterousness?

I believe that's the excuse most people use to justify racism.

I believe that's a robo-answer. Isn't racism supposed to be a bad thing?

 

[Rojixus]

Well, true, writers can justify anything they want with stuff like that, but I don't see how that would drill down to the individual level; galactic politics isn't going to make the savvy individual forget the smart thing to do.

They will if they ever want to do business with the Klingons, they can be surprisingly thin-skinned at times. It just wouldn't be in anyone's best interest to piss off the Klingons, better to put up with them and take what you can get from them.

Boisterousness?

It's a word, I promise you.

 

[JQP]

Western Military members are indeed trained to best represent their Country, and to not make their country look bad, but, there have been untold atrocities committed by those Militaries, think Vietnam, and all the rape victims and senseless slaughter of civilians.

Well, they wouldn't really be rules if nobody violated them. I don't think "untold atrocities" and Vietnam really go together, unless we're crossing over into Hollywood fantasy territory. Makes it sound like standard practice or something. Even the Red army's legendary rape spree at the end of WWII was an exception that highlights the horrors of war, more than standard military practice.

But Klingons practice "total war, and proud of it," don't they? Young, old, women, children, civilians...right?

And what about if the soldiers that represented Earth were Nazis, or Maoists, or many others? You are cherry picking a specific Military and closing your eyes to the bad they can and have done.

No, I think you're cherry-picking. You're comparing selected parts of Earth's history that were long-gone hundreds of years ago. Isn't humanity long past that by the time of Trek? Granted, someone else initiated this apples-to-oranges comparison, not you.

As far as less likely to become addicted and to respect women? Do you have any idea the statistics of Soldiers who have come back from Iraq, that have become addicted to drugs or alcohol, how many have committed violence, including murder, after returning home? How many have brutalized women? War is not pretty and it's not clean and sterile.

But there's no comparison to be made here, because we don't have any statistics on how non-military people behave under similar circumstances. I think it's obvious the general public would come out worse for the circumstances, but we obviously have no way to really know.

There are numerous times we ally ourselves with people who don't represent or live by the values we purport to, allying with the Klingons is no different.

I don't really have a problem with the Humans allying with the Klingons. Politics are what they are. It's the deference everyone shows these barbarians at the social level that I find mystifying. Wouldn't people exposed to Klingons in a social milieu tend to go armed, and be ready around them?

 

[JQP]

They will if they ever want to do business with the Klingons, they can be surprisingly thin-skinned at times. It just wouldn't be in anyone's best interest to piss off the Klingons, better to put up with them and take what you can get from them.

So, if you defend yourself against them, stand up for yourself, they'll thump you twice as hard? Sounds like twice the justification for shoot first, ask questions later.

But you do back into a good point here. The Ferengi have been doing their thing for 10k years. A couple centuries of contact with the Klingons, and they'd own the Klingons. The Klingons should be a mercenary slave-race to the Ferengi, lol.

 

[Count Zero]

Please use the multi-quote function of this board if you want to respond to several posts at once instead of posting multiple times in a row, JQP. The latter is considered spamming according to the board rules (see the FAQ for more info on this and the other rules of this board).

 

[Rojixus]

Then you'd be the aggressor and the Klingons will play the victim card, making them come off like roses. It's a paradox I'll admit.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I believe that's the excuse most people use to justify racism.

I believe that's a robo-answer. Isn't racism supposed to be a bad thing?

What's a robo-answer?

 

[JQP]

Then you'd be the aggressor and the Klingons will play the victim card, making them come off like roses. It's a paradox I'll admit.

The Klingons can't come out smelling like roses. Everyone knows who and what they are. Everyone would just nod when someone said, "well, I saw a Klingon, I drew my phaser and aimed at him like anyone with two brain cells to rub together, he started blustering and shouting and went for his phaser, and I disintegrated him in self-defense." I mean, I'm exaggerating here, but obviously Klingons wouldn't be allowed to go armed in public spaces outside the territories they control. If they were, it would be a constant security nightmare. Why would anyone let armed Klingons within X paces? They're far too prone to grabbing/punching/stabbing/shooting innocent people for that.

I'm reminded of a DS9 episode. A Klingon ship de-cloaks and the commander asks if his men can come aboard. Sisko says hey, sure, why not. Then a couple dozen more Klingon ships de-cloak. The implication is pretty clear; a rude, stupid Klingon has deceived Sisko as to the numbers of Klingons that will be coming aboard (pretty much exactly like bringing 200 of your friends to crash a party when only 5 of you were invited), and the attendant security nightmare. But Sisko just goes with it, like "what are you gonna do?" Uhm, you're gonna pick up your balls, that's what you're gonna do. You're going to tell the Klingon commander, "whoa, whoa, whoa, what am I, a sucker? NO. I agreed to one ship full of Klingons, not fifty. One crew at a time, boys."

Please use the multi-quote function of this board if you want to respond to several posts at once instead of posting multiple times in a row, JQP. The latter is considered spamming according to the board rules (see the FAQ for more info on this and the other rules of this board).

Will do.

I believe that's the excuse most people use to justify racism.

I believe that's a robo-answer. Isn't racism supposed to be a bad thing?

What's a robo-answer?

Saying things like "I believe that's the excuse most people use to justify racism." Content-free assertions.

 

[Sindatur]

Western Military members are indeed trained to best represent their Country, and to not make their country look bad, but, there have been untold atrocities committed by those Militaries, think Vietnam, and all the rape victims and senseless slaughter of civilians.

Well, they wouldn't really be rules if nobody violated them. I don't think "untold atrocities" and Vietnam really go together, unless we're crossing over into Hollywood fantasy territory. Makes it sound like standard practice or something. Even the Red army's legendary rape spree at the end of WWII was an exception that highlights the horrors of war, more than standard military practice.

But Klingons practice "total war, and proud of it," don't they? Young, old, women, children, civilians...right?

And what about if the soldiers that represented Earth were Nazis, or Maoists, or many others? You are cherry picking a specific Military and closing your eyes to the bad they can and have done.

No, I think you're cherry-picking. You're comparing selected parts of Earth's history that were long-gone hundreds of years ago. Isn't humanity long past that by the time of Trek? Granted, someone else initiated this apples-to-oranges comparison, not you.

As far as less likely to become addicted and to respect women? Do you have any idea the statistics of Soldiers who have come back from Iraq, that have become addicted to drugs or alcohol, how many have committed violence, including murder, after returning home? How many have brutalized women? War is not pretty and it's not clean and sterile.

But there's no comparison to be made here, because we don't have any statistics on how non-military people behave under similar circumstances. I think it's obvious the general public would come out worse for the circumstances, but we obviously have no way to really know.

There are numerous times we ally ourselves with people who don't represent or live by the values we purport to, allying with the Klingons is no different.

I don't really have a problem with the Humans allying with the Klingons. Politics are what they are. It's the deference everyone shows these barbarians at the social level that I find mystifying. Wouldn't people exposed to Klingons in a social milieu tend to go armed, and be ready around them?

Earthlings were only beyond that, in Trek, because of the Paradise on Earth, you get out on the fringes where things aren't so easy and that changes, witness the Maquis, witness Quark's speech to Nog about how Hoo-mons can be just as bloodthirsty as any Klingon if you take away all their comforts.

You know what happens when you brandish a weapon around someone who won't hestitate to pull one out and use it? A weapons fight breaks out. On one side you're saying Humans are above that kind of behavior, yet, on the other hand, because Klingons are such Barbarians, you're saying you should incite violence. How many innocent bystanders will get killed, because you were too proud and felt like you should show them what Barbarians they really are? Isn't that exactly what some are saying happened with Trayvon Martin? A white guy saw a black guy with a Hoodie acting supiciously and pulled out his gun and shot him? (now, I realize the facts aren't all in, and some facts contradict this already, such as the killer is Hispanic and Black, not White, I'm just saying this is what many on the left are saying) As C. E. Evans says, "They're Barbarians, of course I had to shoot them, they can't be reasoned with" is exactly the way Racists justify themselves.

We see a very small percentage of Klingons, we see none of the Doctors, only 1 Lawyer, 1 Chef. All we see are Warriors, none of the Civillians, yet, you paint every Klingon with 1 broad brush.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I believe that's a robo-answer. Isn't racism supposed to be a bad thing?

What's a robo-answer?

Saying things like "I believe that's the excuse most people use to justify racism." Content-free assertions.

I only spoke the truth.

 

[T'Girl]

I don't think "untold atrocities" and Vietnam really go together

This, has there ever been a "Vietnam atrocity" that has gone "untold?" Or for that matter unembellished and uncelebrated?

 

[Rojixus]

not that I know of.

 

[JQP]

You know what happens when you brandish a weapon around someone who won't hestitate to pull one out and use it? A weapons fight breaks out.

You know what happens when you let Klingons near you? You get grabbed/punched/stabbed/shot.

On one side you're saying Humans are above that kind of behavior, yet, on the other hand, because Klingons are such Barbarians, you're saying you should incite violence.

I'm saying that letting Klingons walk around (let alone walk around armed) is an incitation of violence.

How many innocent bystanders will get killed

...when some idiot lets Klingons walk around free? Good question.

because you were too proud and felt like you should show them what Barbarians they really are?

Yes, I'm too proud to let barbarians grab/punch/stab/shoot me. I'm weird that way.

What's a robo-answer?

Saying things like "I believe that's the excuse most people use to justify racism." Content-free assertions.

I only spoke the truth.

Well, you're debasing the currency. If it's "racist" to do nothing wrong, then racism isn't wrong. Is that the truth you were getting at? Or, are you actually going to point out where the "wrong" is?

Let's turn this "tolerance" thing around for a second. Would Klingons have any problem at all with "racism," "intolerance," etc? Would they hesitate for a second to make any of the areas they control "Klingon-only"? Or to limit the number of non-Klingons in Klingon territory, or restrict their movements, or insist they disarm first? If not, then what's the problem with doing the same to them?

Edit: The FAQ doesn't say anything about thread-resurrection. Should I add a post to an old thread if it's the same topic, but an old one, or should I start a new thread? There doesn't seem to be any consistent netiquette on this, IME.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Saying things like "I believe that's the excuse most people use to justify racism." Content-free assertions.

I only spoke the truth.

Well, you're debasing the currency. If it's "racist" to do nothing wrong, then racism isn't wrong. Is that the truth you were getting at? Or, are you actually going to point out where the "wrong" is?

What are you talking about?

 

[Sindatur]

I don't think "untold atrocities" and Vietnam really go together

This, has there ever been a "Vietnam atrocity" that has gone "untold?" Or for that matter unembellished and uncelebrated?

Untold was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean hadn't been told, I meant numerous.

 

[Sindatur]

You know what happens when you brandish a weapon around someone who won't hestitate to pull one out and use it? A weapons fight breaks out.

You know what happens when you let Klingons near you? You get grabbed/punched/stabbed/shot.

On one side you're saying Humans are above that kind of behavior, yet, on the other hand, because Klingons are such Barbarians, you're saying you should incite violence.

I'm saying that letting Klingons walk around (let alone walk around armed) is an incitation of violence.

...when some idiot lets Klingons walk around free? Good question.

Yes, I'm too proud to let barbarians grab/punch/stab/shoot me. I'm weird that way..

Kilngons have been around many times when there wasn't an altercation. If you start the altercation, because of what they may do, you are the problem, not them. So, should we not let Muslims walk around, because Terrorists are typically Muslims, or should we not let people walk around with pants dragging below their butts and wearing Hoodies and Grillz walk around, because of what they might do?

 

[Count Zero]

Edit: The FAQ doesn't say anything about thread-resurrection. Should I add a post to an old thread if it's the same topic, but an old one, or should I start a new thread? There doesn't seem to be any consistent netiquette on this, IME.

Thread necromancy is generally frowned upon in these parts. There's some leeway, depending on how old the thread is. If it's just a month or so, it's ok but if it's a year old, you should open a new thread.

 

[Sindatur]

Edit: The FAQ doesn't say anything about thread-resurrection. Should I add a post to an old thread if it's the same topic, but an old one, or should I start a new thread? There doesn't seem to be any consistent netiquette on this, IME.

Thread necromancy is generally frowned upon in these parts. There's some leeway, depending on how old the thread is. If it's just a month or so, it's ok but if it's a year old, you should open a new thread.

Out of curiosity, why do you take that position? On some boards, they want the old thread ressurected as it will have all the old conversations, and possibly prevent retreading, or enable the opportunity to readdress an old thought from a different angle. Yet, on other boards, resurrecting an old thread is practically a Cardinal Sin. Why the difference in opinion?

 

[Count Zero]

Well, this is a large board with a big turnover of threads and posters. If you resurrect a quite old thread (let's say a year old) you have pages of posts from people who aren't necessarily around for the resurrected debate or who have already forgotten what they posted in the thread so you might be arguing with phantom posters and opinions. Recently, there was an old thread resurrected here and the arrow symbol on the thread showed me that I had apparently particpated in it at some point but I couldn't remember what I had written.
I guess that's why it's not a hard rule and there's some leeway in handling this. It isn't an actionable thing, either, unless you do it to annoy people.