Say No to PC Trek
- Thread starter fudgefase
- Start date
- Status
Marvelous movie with a wonderful cast - including Robert Mitchum as the American captain and David Hedison as his executive officer. Hedison's part is small but charming - IIRC he's an Ivy Leaguer from money who'll likely grow up into a Thurston Howell III, but for now he's in the Navy fighting Germans.
What you're talking about is more accurately and easily described as "TV-ness run amuck."
It was when DS9 began to take risks that it became a good show, IMHO. I never cared for the production design of the station, or of the Defiant for that matter, but those were both "set dressing" and didn't help or hurt the show very much. During the first couple of years, when the show was "trading post on the frontier," the show was utterly uninspiring to me. And every "Ferengi Comedy" episode was just horrifying for me to watch.
But you're right... when DS9 took risks and "shook up the status quo" in the Trek universe, it was an excellent show. This is why, my disgust with the Ferengi episodes notwithstanding, DS9 remains my second-favorite of the Star Trek series to date.
The fear of not being "PC" is a stupid reason to not take story-telling risks. In the example in the above posts, it would not have been non-PC to use an episode or two of DS9 to have Sisko's growing Bajoran spirituality come into conflict with his relations with secular Starfleet, particularly during the time of war.
In my opinion, PC has become a phrase that is so overused and corrupted for broader political arguments on the right and left that the phrase has lost its usefulness.
Fear of not being PC has become a terrible excuse (and even a defense) for not taking risks or truly saying what one thinks. There’s a difference between having a legitimate thing to say to provoke thought (like the book “The Bell Curve” years ago) and gratuitously throwing around blatantly racist phrases like Imus did (whether he meant them or not).
There’s a difference between locker room humor and exploring an idea like whether or not one’s religious beliefs can corrupt a war effort. Ideas like that have been done. “Friendly Persuasion” (1956) with Gary Cooper, comes to mind.
I think part of the problem in this area is TNG-era Trek in particular is thought of by some as overly PC. For example, the notion in TNG that all cultures and their ideas deserved equal respect. PC becomes confused with cultural relativism and the idea of whether or not there are moral absolutes. An idea which is itself intriguing within the genre of sci-fi, if anyone would be non-PC enough (not afraid of offending anyone) to want to pursue it.
In my opinion, PC has become a phrase that is so overused and corrupted for broader political arguments on the right and left that the phrase has lost its usefulness.
Fear of not being PC has become a terrible excuse (and even a defense) for not taking risks or truly saying what one thinks. There’s a difference between having a legitimate thing to say to provoke thought (like the book “The Bell Curve” years ago) and gratuitously throwing around blatantly racist phrases like Imus did (whether he meant them or not).
There’s a difference between locker room humor and exploring an idea like whether or not one’s religious beliefs can corrupt a war effort. Ideas like that have been done. “Friendly Persuasion” (1956) with Gary Cooper, comes to mind.
I think part of the problem in this area is TNG-era Trek in particular is thought of by some as overly PC. For example, the notion in TNG that all cultures and their ideas deserved equal respect. PC becomes confused with cultural relativism and the idea of whether or not there are moral absolutes. An idea which is itself intriguing within the genre of sci-fi, if anyone would be non-PC enough (not afraid of offending anyone) to want to pursue it.
Well, I think that comment is really where "PC" (as popularly defined) comes into play in this argument.
You see, while TNG paid lip service to "all cultures and their ideas deserve equal respect," it really made an almost opposite argument... which is typical for all "PC" behavior.
"PC," you see, has never been about treating all people, and all belief systems, equally. If that was the case, the "PC crowd" would be up in arms defending the rights of neo-nazis and clansmen to have and hold their own beliefs.
"PC" is about silencing opposing viewpoints while pretending that that's not what you're doing. It's about convincing the "wrong" people that they need to become just like you, because you're so much more enlightened than they are. And being totally intolerant of anyone who doesn't meet your personal standards of "tolerance."
And even if the TERM "PC" has fallen out of fashion lately, this sort of BEHAVIOR is still very much alive and well. It's usually couched in terms like "the fairness doctrine" or whatever... but it's ultimately about shutting up people who you don't like or don't agree with.
I often refer to what annoyed me most about latter-day Trek's "PC" quality... that what we were really seeing was the conquering of all other cultures, on earth and elsewhere, by Southern Californian culture. Even the supposedly "alien" people were just typical SoCal types with bumpy foreheads. You see far more "alien" thinking and behavior right here on EARTH than you'd ever see on latter-day Star Trek.
In fact, the "risky" Bajoran/Federation philosophical split really more closely resembles the differences between northern Californians and Southern Californians than between any "really separate" groups we have on Earth.
When I think of "PC" in latter-day Trek, what I think of is how everything was told from the standpoint of declaring superiority of today's Los Angelino culture. One need only travel the world for a short time to get that same feedback from people in other cultures and contexts. It was never TRULY "tolerant of other cultures and beliefs," it only PRETENDED to be, so that it could hold the pretense of a "moral high ground."
PC didn't kill Star Trek. What killed it - more than anything else, at least - was the creative straight jacket imposed by the "protect the franchise!" doctrine. No characters were allowed to evolve, stories weren't allowed to have real stakes or permanent consequences, even the look of the series was enslaved by the need to be "familiar to casual viewers." The status quo was always maintained no mater what.
I read that the Romulans were inspired by the Chinese in one of the old books about the making of Star Trek. Perhaps they didn't take much from Chinese culture/history to develop the Romulans, but I do think Roddenberry intended for the Romulans to be part of a multipolar galaxy-just like the USSR & China countered the US during the Cold War. The USSR was the major enemy, and China was a smaller, though potent threat with the potential to become much worse. So I think a China analogy is somewhat apt.
Though it's obvious to me that the Romulans took a lot from Roman culture.
In regards to the poster that preferred TOS to TNG Romulans. I liked the TNG Romulans better. I liked their deceitfulness. However, I wish they hadn't given them forehead ridges.
Don't be concerned by what Roddenberry said later that he intended, but by what the people who actually created the Romulans intended and did. All of the China/Russia, "oh yeah we planned it that way" stuff was after-the-fact.
I dunno, I've never seen Romulans as China. If they thought they were making China in space, I think they missed badly.
I could see them as possibly North Korea or something... Of course I'm not sure about that either.
I could see them as possibly North Korea or something... Of course I'm not sure about that either.
"PC," you see, has never been about treating all people, and all belief systems, equally. If that was the case, the "PC crowd" would be up in arms defending the rights of neo-nazis and clansmen to have and hold their own beliefs.
...
I defend the rights of neo-nazis and clansmen to have and hold their own beliefs. The Christian Taliban use the term PC to scare the cr*p out of their followers so they are given money.
...
I defend the rights of neo-nazis and clansmen to have and hold their own beliefs. The Christian Taliban use the term PC to scare the cr*p out of their followers so they are given money.
"Christian Taliban"? Oh, that's helpful...
I don't know of any Christians that espouse the term "PC." And I would go so far as to say that any "Christians" who scare their followers just to get money are probably not real Christians.
And unlike the actual Taliban, I doubt any of them are going around decaptitating people and destroying artifacts from other religions. Gotta love the moral equivalency, trying to equate a couple televangelists to a group of people who've committed systematic murder and oppression. The attempts by some people to draw parallels between something relatively innocuous and benign to something brutal and murderous never ceases to amaze me. What's next? Comparing the Boy Scouts to Pol Pot?
The use of terms like "Christian Taliban" are utterly inaccurate and represent nothing but your own personal hatred of another person or groups' viewpoint.
The term "PC" is used, ACCURATELY, to describe the practice of declaring "unfavorable" perspectives "intolerant" and as a consequence, to suppress those viewpoints.
PC is ANTI-TOLERANCE (not merely "intolerance" but something worse) which attempts to camoflage itself by wrapping itself in the guise of tolerance.
It's not a bogey. It's very real. And all of "HolyTomato's" claims to the contrary, which (as is typical) are made in concert with silly and hate-filled attacks on others (as was the case above), don't change that.
Attempts to silence dissenting voices are ALWAYS utterly evil. And that... something which is alive and well today... is exactly what "PC" means.
Creation of fanciful fictional terms like "Christian Taliban" are intentionally deceitful... aka LIES... and as such, are also of, shall we say, DUBIOUS morality at best. Funny, though... in order to attack a viewpoint that "HolyTomato" doesn't personally like, it was necessary to resort to something that sleazy and cheap.
I agree that "Xian Taliban" is a little overwrought, but the argument stands that the whole PC craze grew out of the backlash against progressive gains. And the Xian Taliban is more than a couple of televangelists. Look at all the stealth candidates getting on local school boards to ban harry potter and evolution texts.
I, too, always had the impression that the whole PC craze is kind of a backlash-thing. OK, I don't have the American inside perspective, but I'm pretty sure that the term "PC" is predominantly used to defend oneself against criticism which might be quite legitimite. Criticism, after all, is not necessarily identitical to intoloerance. And Opposing certain views is not the same as "silencing" them.
I have no love for the term PC. I prefer to speak out against racism, sexism and similar ideologies without slapping some general label onto it. But when I do so, I am occasionally accused of acting "PC". And typically, this accusation serves to effectively silence MY point of view.
- Status
Similar threads
