Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Commander Richard, Oct 8, 2017.
"Star Trek: Discovery - After Dark"?
Wait, I guess that would be "After Black Alert."
So whats the bet, that after you cook one of these beasties, that the threat ganglia is the tastiest bit?
I'm sure senator Vreenak and his entourage were impressed by Sisko's tears...
It is the deeds that matter, and so far we have not seen Lorca to do anything particularly monstrous. Sure, perhaps it will turn out that he is a total sociopath, but it is equally possible that he is a perfectly moral guy with somewhat abrasive personality.
I think Lorca's problem is he's in a Star Trek show when he really wants to be in NCIS.
Best post of the week!
The fact that Lorca has generated this much discussion, debate, and speculation indicates to me that he is one of the best Trek characters to come along in 30 years.
Regardless of whether we like him or not
He's certainly more interesting and probably less controversial than Burnham.
I would certainly rather have Lorca as a commanding officer than someone like Stammets. Stammets is more concerned with SJW-style virtue signaling than saving lives.
I've enjoyed Discovery immensely so far. This episode was my favorite. Captain Lorca is a breath of fresh air after the abomination that was TNG's beginning episodes. Thank God, there are no children playing on the bridge and we don't have Captains asking a counsellor about the "feelings" of a hostile ship as it repeatedly fires at them.
So far, Lorca is great. He is focused upon actual results -- you know, like saving lives, winning the war, and so on. In wartime especially, people like him are desperately needed. Officers like Stammets and the Admiral that was over the Europa are the sort that get people killed and endanger the entire Federation.
VERY Good point!
I think a lot of the hard-line attitude we're seeing in Lorca is attributed largely to this all being a new ship with a new crew. Like any new CO in a real-world situation, he needs to establish discipline in the chain of command early and leave a lasting impression on the crew. They need to know that he is firm yet approachable and will brook no bullshit. Everything Lorca has done is what any good commanding officer would do.
He's also probably reacting with some irritation to Saru, who is a perpetual worry-wart, reacting very negatively to Stamets who is a scientist first and a Starfleet officer last and in no way hides his disgust for Starfleet appropriating and weaponizing his tech. His two top officers hold opinions that go directly against his grain. The only one he could (ostensibly) trust was the dangerously overzealous security chief (Landry, now stupidly and rightfully dead) and all he has left is the walking brain on legs, Burnham, who also happens to be Starfleet's first convicted mutineer.
Further, Lorca isn't liked by the Admiralty, based on scenes from the upcoming episode. He's trapped between the top and the bottom with people who don't like or trust him, yet are willing to set their principles aside to provide him with the means win the war at all costs, a task he probably sees as unattainable on most days. He's clearly not an idiot, and likely knows he's going to set up as a sacrificial lamb, regardless of the turnout.
If I were in his position and environment, working in it literally EVERY DAY, I'd probably have a hard time demonstrating much compassion for anyone or anything too. YMMV.
Stammets' whole little "I'm going to take my toys and leave." speech was incredibly childish and self-centered. He was aware that literally thousands of innocent peoples' lives were at stake, and all that he was concerned about was maintaining his cred with the pacifist crowd.
For someone who presumably was trained in logic (since he is a science officer after all) one would think that he would understand that it is impossible to have little pacifist enclaves without someone else there who is willing to protect them. For example, I love the Amish and similar cultures within the USA, but the main reason why they are able to practice their peaceful and simple lifestyle is that others keep them safe.
I love Stamets. He is a man of principles and hates to be forced to bypass them in order to wage a war. He's exactly the kind of classic well-meaning Star Trek character some people say the show is missing.
I need to see more of him before I go that far. What I saw was someone throwing a mini-tantrum because he was being forced to do something he doesn't want to do.
But, the actor is quite good.
But his principles are self-defeating.
If enough members of the Federation adopted them, they would all wind up being served at the Klingon buffet.
He signed up to serve in what is at least a quasi-military organization. As far as I can tell, Starfleet is the only organization that the Federation has to rely on when it is under attack. If he is such a die-hard pacifist, he should have never signed up in the first place. He is akin to someone who joins the US military in order to get their college tuition paid and then freaks out when they discover that they just might have to fight.
I have zero respect for Starmets. He is only concerned for himself. Lorca is the one that I admire most so far. Of course, this is all subject to change since the characters themselves will likely change as the series progresses. But Lorca has clear and laudible goals and has tangible plans to achieve them. Lorca wants to save lives, and he does that. He wants to end the war quickly, he is obviously working hard to get that achieved. OTOH Starmets wants to work in a quasi-military organization, but feels offended when the military part of it comes to the forefront during wartime.
Stamets did indeed seem highly focused on his personal desires (more time to work out the spore drive and less being chased by scary monsters - e.g. "the mission he signed on for".) My understanding of the terms "SJW" and "virtue signaling" is that they indicate a fundamental insincerity on the part of the so-labeled, with a focus primarily on image (usually typified as wanting to appear politically correct.)
Stamets' behavior seems utterly self-centered, but how does that constitute "SJW-style virtue signaling"?
Oh OK. I think that our misunderstanding is just based upon our views as to what constitutes "SJW virtue signaling". In my experience, the SJW types tend to do their actions for entirely selfish reasons rather than merely image (although that certainly is a factor.)
When the stereotypical college professor is shouting "We need some muscle over here." to forcibly evict people simply because she disagrees with their political philosophies, she is doing more than just self-promotion, IMHO. She is also eliminating any need to logically defend her beliefs in any sort of fair debate. Additionally, she is forcibly removing people that she dislikes, so that is also self-serving insofar as she is more concerned with her own feelings than the rights of others.
So yes, I agree that Starmets' protest are arguably primarily just self-serving, but since he chose to clothe them in a lofty-sounding "I am here for science, not war." speech IMHO it also veered in the direction of a SJW-type screed.
But if your interpretation of what constitutes a SJW bit of virtue-signaling differs from mine, then I certainly have no difficulty in agreeing that from your point of view that it is merely self-serving.
Can we continue this discussion without throwing around such loaded terms as "SJW", please? It tends to poison the well on taking the rest of your message seriously when you choose to depict advocating on behalf of social justice (for whatever alleged motivation) as a pejorative. You actually seem to have some detailed and thoughtful commentary on this subject that is not served by such otherwise dismissive rhetoric.
I'm not familiar with that stereotype, nor whether it is in fact common behavior among professors.
That aside, I'm curious what exactly suggests that Stamets' objections were solely based on his need for "maintaining his cred with the pacifist crowd". Basic self-interest is certainly not limited to any particular caricature, personal anecdotes notwithstanding.
To me, the fact that he chose to clothe his personal desires within a more lofty sounding "Science, not war!" speech came across that way.
I certainly think that it was very much intended by the writers to come across that way, I've lost count of the number of times that I've seen commentators of the more progressive viewpoint laud his speech as the only "real Star Trek" in the new series.
For me, it provides more entertaining possibilities. Instead of the ethnically diverse, but culturally monocultural crew of TNG, IMHO we are back to one of the things that I enjoyed with TOS. We have crew members who have fundamental differences of opinion and philosophies that come into conflict with each other, and they have to find out how to work out those differences. For me, the bland "everyone is nice because we all think the same correct thoughts" atmosphere of TNG was incredibly boring and unrealistically utopian. So far, the DSC has me feeling like I am watching TOS again.
Separate names with a comma.