I like STID. Is that wrong?

[Crazy Eddie]

No, no they're not. A black person is not made black by the colour of their skin

It is in America, inasmuch as the "one drop rule" has been grandfathered in and nobody has thought to challenge it yet (speaking of inherently racist traditions, try looking up the origin of the phrase "grandfather clause").

Yet it still remains the case that "race" and "ethnicity" remain distinct concepts: the former is describing appearance, the latter is describing lineage and origin.

The idea that it has any basis in human anatomy or biology is obsolete

It's a question of definition, not basis. A person whose height is significantly greater than the average person in that country is called "a tall person." By the same token, a person whose skin is significantly darker than that of an American of Anglo-Saxon descent would is generally called "a black person." Beyond that basic descriptions of relative height or skin color, those two categories are almost totally arbitrary, if not meaningless.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes. It would be a beverage with a useful medicinal quality.

That's a far cry from saying that Pepsi is some sort of important social phenomenon whose significance transcends its nature as a commercial product, to the degree that releasing a version of Pepsi that DOESN'T cure cancer would totally ruin the product.

To put that another way: is Pepsi still Pepsi if it's caffeine free?

Its not about ruining a product at this point (though I believe ST09 doesn't just leave out TOS's ethos but negatively impacts it.). The only question is whether TOS (that has shaped some people's lives) or a soft drink (that also did something useful or alternatively deleterious) are more than just a "TV show" or a "beverage" respectively. The answer, as you agree, is obviously yes.

I DON'T agree to that, though. I think there's a distinct difference between the existence of a thing and your experience of it. Our perception of things can impact our lives in very significant ways, even if the things THEMSELVES never actually do.

I'm kind of reminded of the main character in "Millennium Actress." This woman spends her entire life chasing after a painter who inspired her when she was a child, such that her lifetime of achievements as an actress and an activist all snowball from that first encounter with the man. And yet in over seventy years she never meets him again, never has any encounter with him other than that first one, never knows anything about him other than the painting he left on her wall right before her house burned down. For all she knows the guy was an alcoholic douche who would have spent most of his life mooching off her film royalties and making her life a living hell, but he's had a very profound effect on her that is totally independent of who and what he really is.

What I'm trying to get at is this: it isn't Star Trek that has affected your life. It is WATCHING Star Trek that has affected your life. Like everyone else, your interpretation of the show is not identical to the show itself.

It appears the quoting bug in these forums may have corrupted your efforts in accurately represent my last post. Anyway, its great we could reach agreement.

Agreed... I think.

 

[UFO]

Its not about ruining a product at this point (though I believe ST09 doesn't just leave out TOS's ethos but negatively impacts it.). The only question is whether TOS (that has shaped some people's lives) or a soft drink (that also did something useful or alternatively deleterious) are more than just a "TV show" or a "beverage" respectively. The answer, as you agree, is obviously yes.

I DON'T agree to that, though. I think there's a distinct difference between the existence of a thing and your experience of it. Our perception of things can impact our lives in very significant ways, even if the things THEMSELVES never actually do.

Which clearly doesn't rule out the possibility that they could. If that "perception" (I would regard it more like education) happens on a regular basis, then it is fair to say there must be a characteristic of TOS (in this case) which causes that "perception". We can therefore rule out the potential fluke effect you seem to be suggesting in you story (which I have learnt not to get distracted by. )

What I'm trying to get at is this: it isn't Star Trek that has affected your life. It is WATCHING Star Trek that has affected your life. Like everyone else, your interpretation of the show is not identical to the show itself.

I see. So if my life is changed by education, it's really just my "interpretation" of that educated that changed my life, not the education itself ... But seriously, its not that you couldn't be right, its just that you aren't in this case.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Its not about ruining a product at this point (though I believe ST09 doesn't just leave out TOS's ethos but negatively impacts it.). The only question is whether TOS (that has shaped some people's lives) or a soft drink (that also did something useful or alternatively deleterious) are more than just a "TV show" or a "beverage" respectively. The answer, as you agree, is obviously yes.

I DON'T agree to that, though. I think there's a distinct difference between the existence of a thing and your experience of it. Our perception of things can impact our lives in very significant ways, even if the things THEMSELVES never actually do.

Which clearly doesn't rule out the possibility that they could. If that "perception" (I would regard it more like education) happens on a regular basis, then it is fair to say there must be a characteristic of TOS (in this case) which causes that "perception"

Actually, it's more up to the individual tastes of the viewer. After all, not everyone who watches Star Trek actually likes it, and not everyone who likes it has life-changing experiences from it.

Consider, also, that those of us who WATCH Star Trek are having a very different experience from those of us who MAKE Star Trek, or for that matter, the experience of actually living in the Star Trek universe. You've compared Star Trek to a marriage, when you should really be comparing it to a crush.

So if my life is changed by education, it's really just my "interpretation" of that educated that changed my life, not the education itself

You're conflating two separate things again. Your education would be based on centuries of science, literature, history, politics and mathematics, none of which you actually participate in until and unless you BECOME a scientist, a writer, a historian, a politician or a mathematician.

Hence the difference between Star Trek and Star Trek Fandom. Star Trek fandom can be a powerful thing, and would continue to be a powerful thing even if Star Trek died as a franchise.

 

[BigJake]

^Probably because I'm about to release a blast of useless trivia.

Tease.

 

[UFO]

If that "perception" (I would regard it more like education) happens on a regular basis, then it is fair to say there must be a characteristic of TOS (in this case) which causes that "perception"

Actually, it's more up to the individual tastes of the viewer. After all, not everyone who watches Star Trek actually likes it, and not everyone who likes it has life-changing experiences from it.

Which doesn't matter. The same could be said of someone taking a physics course but that doesn't mean there is nothing about such a course that can change (some) people's lives . Such a quality obviously doesn't have to be universally effective in order to exist. There just has to be the right fit. Not everyone who smokes will die of lung cancer but that doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

Consider, also, that those of us who WATCH Star Trek are having a very different experience from those of us who MAKE Star Trek, or for that matter, the experience of actually living in the Star Trek universe. You've compared Star Trek to a marriage, when you should really be comparing it to a crush.

I didn't compare Star Trek to a marriage. I used one of the components of a marriage, namely a spouse, to highlight a principle. But OK, people with different jobs can have different experiences. I'm with you so far ...

Your education would be based on centuries of science, literature, history, politics and mathematics, none of which you actually participate in until and unless you BECOME a scientist, a writer, a historian, a politician or a mathematician.

What!?

Hence the difference between Star Trek and Star Trek Fandom. Star Trek fandom can be a powerful thing, and would continue to be a powerful thing even if Star Trek died as a franchise.

So? I'm sure fandom can shape people's lives, but I don't see it has to be an exclusive option.

 

[Mudd]

What we call race is a social construct with only the vaguest connection with human genetic variations among populations. Americans have some of the strangest notions about race on the planet.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If that "perception" (I would regard it more like education) happens on a regular basis, then it is fair to say there must be a characteristic of TOS (in this case) which causes that "perception"

Actually, it's more up to the individual tastes of the viewer. After all, not everyone who watches Star Trek actually likes it, and not everyone who likes it has life-changing experiences from it.

Which doesn't matter. The same could be said of someone taking a physics course but that doesn't mean there is nothing about such a course that can change (some) people's lives .

Right. The education you receive from a physics class can change many people's lives. It becomes irrelevant, however, if you never retain any of the knowledge from that class and/or fail completely. Which means it isn't the CLASS that changed your life, it's your experiences in it: the education you gained, the lessons you learned.

That's the difference between Star Trek and Star Trek Fandom. Star Trek is a TV show produced for commercial gain; Star Trek Fandom is an intellectual sociological phenomenon. Not everyone who encounters Star Trek enters the realm of Star Trek Fandom, so it's not really surprising that those who do not become fans do not have any of the fan's experiences.

So? I'm sure fandom can shape people's lives, but I don't see it has to be an exclusive option.

I don't know if "exclusive" is the word I'd use, but there aren't a whole lot of categories for the type of interaction people can have with TV shows. You're either producing it, selling it, or watching it. If you're watching it and enjoying it, then your experience with it is called "fandom." Being a fan of Star Trek can have an effect on your life which is very different from being, say, an ACTOR on Star Trek or a WRITER on Star Trek.

To use another analogy: studying the history of the Vietnam War will affect your opinions about military policy; actually fighting in Vietnam will also affect your opinions about military policy. But only in one of those cases could you legitimately say "My opinions on military policy were shaped by the Vietnam War." That isn't true for the movie watcher; it's your STUDIES that affected your opinions, not the war.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What we call race is a social construct with only the vaguest connection with human genetic variations among populations.

Pretty much, yeah. I'm not even sure there IS a connection with genetic variations, since various groups that have almost no genetic commonality still get lumped together in the same racial group (e.g. Japanese and Hmong still get grouped together as "Asian-American" despite the fact that their most recent common ancestor is likely pre-historical).

Americans have some of the strangest notions about race on the planet.

You aint kiddin.

 

[UFO]

Right. The education you receive from a physics class can change many people's lives. It becomes irrelevant, however, if you never retain any of the knowledge from that class and/or fail completely. Which means it isn't the CLASS that changed your life, it's your experiences in it: the education you gained, the lessons you learned.

We live in a casual web. The class is part of that, just an earlier part than the bit where your life changes. Sure you may not take any notice of what it has to offer, but that doesn't mean the information isn't there.

Actually its a "combinational" thing. The information the class presents, interacts with your mind. But without that information or ideas you may never have changed in a given direction. All I have said is TOS has qualities (socially useful information) that resonates with significant numbers of people in a variety of ways. If it was "just a TV show" it wouldn't do that to any great extent. It would just be entertaining but little more.

That's the difference between Star Trek and Star Trek Fandom. Star Trek is a TV show produced for commercial gain; Star Trek Fandom is an intellectual sociological phenomenon. Not everyone who encounters Star Trek enters the realm of Star Trek Fandom, so it's not really surprising that those who do not become fans do not have any of the fan's experiences.

Which still doesn't mean TOS doesn't have qualities capable of changing the lives of those who watch it.

So? I'm sure fandom can shape people's lives, but I don't see it has to be an exclusive option.

I don't know if "exclusive" is the word I'd use, but there aren't a whole lot of categories for the type of interaction people can have with TV shows. You're either producing it, selling it, or watching it. If you're watching it and enjoying it, then your experience with it is called "fandom." Being a fan of Star Trek can have an effect on your life which is very different from being, say, an ACTOR on Star Trek or a WRITER on Star Trek.

To use another analogy: studying the history of the Vietnam War will affect your opinions about military policy; actually fighting in Vietnam will also affect your opinions about military policy. But only in one of those cases could you legitimately say "My opinions on military policy were shaped by the Vietnam War." That isn't true for the movie watcher; it's your STUDIES that affected your opinions, not the war.

Your argument still seems to be shattering into distracting tangents barely related to, and certainly not contradicting, my original point (and no, I am not going to take the bait ). But thanks for the discussion.

 

[Amaris]

I don't care about race. I want to have sex with just about everybody.