Raffi's poverty

[Deks]

I never got the impression that Raffi was poor at all.

She could have easily chosen to live like that (especially given everything that happened to her) - and she did have a substance abuse issue to boot (which makes me wonder, why wasn't she given counselling to help her out? Or she might have been but chose to ignore it).

Poverty?
Not so much.

We've known from TNG Picard told the Borg that everyone has the right to self-determination. So, no one would be living in 'poverty'... they will be given the needed resources to live however they choose to live.

To be fair though, for a society like the UFP, I found Raffi's descent into substance abuse was a bit absurd... that's too much 21st century.
I never particularly liked it when Trek injected too much of 'today' into it to make it more 'relatable' (I found that absolutely stupid).

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

She could have easily chosen to live like that (especially given everything that happened to her) - and she did have a substance abuse issue to boot (which makes me wonder, why wasn't she given counselling to help her out? Or she might have been but chose to ignore it).

I'm not a professional, but I've enough amateur knowledge to know that therapy/counselling only works if the patient wants it too.

IMO, Raffi seems to almost enjoy her downer situation.

 

[Nerys Myk]

She's a woman who lost her job, her family and her sense of self because she followed a man she admired on a fruitless crusade. She's down alright.

 

[Deks]

She's a woman who lost her job, her family and her sense of self because she followed a man she admired on a fruitless crusade. She's down alright.

Just because all that happened, it doesn't make her poor.
Poverty was eradicated in the 50 years since First Contact. So, in regards to this thread's title 'Raffis poverty'... there is no poverty to speak of.

 

[Deks]

I'm not a professional, but I've enough amateur knowledge to know that therapy/counselling only works if the patient wants it too.

IMO, Raffi seems to almost enjoy her downer situation.

I'm well aware of how it works... however, for Trek humans and how they were described initially, they would be FAR more inclined to ask and accept help.
But I guess PICARD writers notions of 'drama' would have fallen apart at that prospect, so they had to introduce current day notions.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Just because all that happened, it doesn't make her poor.
Poverty was eradicated in the 50 years since First Contact. So, in regards to this thread's title 'Raffis poverty'... there is no poverty to speak of.

I'm not claiming poverty. She's just in a bad state mentally.

I'm well aware of how it works... however, for Trek humans and how they were described initially, they would be FAR more inclined to ask and accept help.
But I guess PICARD writers notions of 'drama' would have fallen apart at that prospect, so they had to introduce current day notions.

Originally (TOS) they were just like us. Subject to all the mental pitfalls that plague us. Including not asking for help. Even in TNG we had characters who tried to "go it alone".

 

[thribs]

She's a woman who lost her job, her family and her sense of self because she followed a man she admired on a fruitless crusade. She's down alright.

That doesn’t make any sense though. She wouldn’t have lost her job. She would have been reassigned. The “fired” line makes no sense since first, they don’t fire people in Starfleet. You get discharged and second, they would have just moved her into a different position.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That doesn’t make any sense though. She wouldn’t have lost her job. She would have been reassigned. The “fired” line makes no sense since first, they don’t fire people in Starfleet. You get discharged and second, they would have just moved her into a different position.

It's called a euphemism. It's how people talk.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Raffi should've mentioned Picard's servants. Then he could've come back with "...who can kill you."

 

[Nerys Myk]

Raffi should've mentioned Picard's servants. Then he could've come back with "...who can kill you."

I thought they were part of his throuple.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

I'm well aware of how it works... however, for Trek humans and how they were described initially, they would be FAR more inclined to ask and accept help.

"More likely" doesn't equal "universally do".

But I guess PICARD writers notions of 'drama' would have fallen apart at that prospect, so they had to introduce current day notions.[/QUOTE]

Star Trek has always used "current day notions" as part of the plots and drama, people with mental challenges have been part of the show on-and-off since TOS.

You don't have to like it, but don't pretend that it's this new thing that "ruins Star Trek forever" or whatever ridiculous notion you're pushing. Particularly as Raffi does deal with many of her issues over the course of the season and becomes a "better, more productive person" which is also straight out of the Star Trek playbook.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Yes, but one thought that specific problems like alcoholism would’ve been solved in the future and replaced with new ones like holo-addiction or transporter psychosis. Guess what, they haven’t, but we’ve been, er, “censoring” those for you because Roddenberry said so once upon a time, and no, they don’t actually take only an episode to resolve.

From a dramatic point of view, if you chip away at the notion that some of today’s problems are totally irrelevant in the 24th century, then you also take away a bit of that sense of hope. If you’re going to show alcoholism, it shouldn’t be the way PIC did it, simply by revealing that Raffi is an alcoholic trying to get better. We need to know the hoops she must have jumped through to obtain enough of the real thing and hide the issue on physicals that would’ve probably led to mandatory counseling. Let’s work with the premise specific to Star Trek of that era, not just ignore it because it’s easier.

 

[The Old Mixer]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Scotty was an alcoholic?

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Scotty was an alcoholic?

I wouldn't consider him a full blown alcoholic, however he's not above binge-drinking and may have a mild dependency.

 

[The Wormhole]

Scotty was an alcoholic?

Yeah, I always thought that was pretty obvious from TOS.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Yeah, I always thought that was pretty obvious from TOS.

How would it be obvious? He just purposefully drinks Tomar (and himself) under the table as part of that one comical scene in “By Any Other Name”.

Alcoholism just wasn’t a thing starting with TNG (though I suppose it could be imagined in TOS), so it would be helpful to know exactly how the Federation has dealt with the problem. If you can still import or create real alcoholic beverages, are there limits and inspections? What happens if it somehow becomes an addiction? Is it perhaps less of an issue among Starfleet officers than civilians? We should basically see how the state makes it difficult to have this problem on “Paradise Earth”.

 

[The Wormhole]

How would it be obvious? He just purposefully drinks Tomar (and himself) under the table as part of that one comical scene in “By Any Other Name”.

In The Trouble With Tribbles while at the bar he makes it clear he's quite the connoisseur of alcohol, while in The Tholian Web he chooses to inject the cure to Interphase madness by mixing it with his alcohol. And if we bring in TNG, in Relics he makes it a goal to seek out the alcohol on the Enterprise D.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

None of that suggests an addiction problem. If it did, Picard would’ve had one also, and we would be trivializing Raffi’s by extension.

 

[cooleddie74]

Addiction? No. A lover of alcohol? Definitely.

Were he a perpetual drunk he wouldn't be chief engineer of one of Starfleet's most advanced starships.