Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x05 - "Saints of Imperfection"

[Amaris]

This is Kirk

"[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill - today!"

This is Picard

"Oh, no. I know Hamlet. And what he might said with irony, I say with conviction. What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god."
"Surely you don't see your species as that?"
"I see us as one day becoming that. Is that what concerns you?"

Quite a shift for just 80 years, eh, considering it took a million savage onesto get to Kirk.

Kirks and Picards exist today, or else we wouldn't resonate with them as we do.

 

[cultcross]

This is Kirk

"[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill - today!"

This is Picard

"Oh, no. I know Hamlet. And what he might said with irony, I say with conviction. What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god."
"Surely you don't see your species as that?"
"I see us as one day becoming that. Is that what concerns you?"

Quite a shift for just 80 years, eh, considering it took a million savage ones to get to Kirk.

I think you bolded the wrong bit - Picard says he sees us "one day becoming" what Hamlet said. He's a flowery idealist, Kirk's a pragmatist, but ultimately they are expressing the same idea - we can be better, we are going to be better, one conversation and one less killing at a time.

 

[Alan Roi]

Kirks and Picards exist today, or else we wouldn't resonate with them as we do.

And yet both could be and were able to cast aside such principles when pressed:

KIRK: We have legitimate grievances against the Klingons. They've invaded our territory, killed our citizens. They're openly aggressive. They've boasted that they'll take over half the galaxy.

Picard: We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!

 

[Amaris]

And yet both could be and were able to cast aside such principles when pressed:

KIRK: We have legitimate grievances against the Klingons. They've invaded our territory, killed our citizens. They're openly aggressive. They've boasted that they'll take over half the galaxy.

Picard: We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!

You will keep in mind that their behavior was wrong, and they realized it was wrong, and changed course in the end. Section 31 does not care to change course. They seem perfectly willing to commit genocide. If you got the message that what they're doing is justifiable under the circumstances, and that principles can be cast aside when convenient, well, you got the wrong message from the show.

 

[Alan Roi]

You will keep in mind that their behavior was wrong, and they realized it was wrong, and changed course in the end. Section 31 does not care to change course. They seem perfectly willing to commit genocide. If you got the message that what they're doing is justifiable under the circumstances, and that principles can be cast aside when convenient, well, you got the wrong message from the show.

Kirk was only stopped by the overwhelming force of a vastly superior lifeform. Picard still went on to kill the Borg Queen.

Tell me, exactly how many instances of attempted genocide can we pin on Section 31. One, I think? And what were the circumstances? The Federation being destroyed and all that good work it was doing going it waste.

Now, how many instances of attempted genocide have there been by Starfleet officers and other otherwise decent seeming Federation citizens (my first guess would be a lot), and what were those circumstances (at any point was the situation more dire?).

 

[XCV330]

You will keep in mind that their behavior was wrong, and they realized it was wrong, and changed course in the end. Section 31 does not care to change course. They seem perfectly willing to commit genocide. If you got the message that what they're doing is justifiable under the circumstances, and that principles can be cast aside when convenient, well, you got the wrong message from the show.

Everyone seems to know exactly what message to take from the show. Maybe the message is not so easy and has always been more along the lines of:

Sometimes the right thing to do is not as clear cut as it seems. Sometimes you have to let Edith Keeler walk into a speeding truck.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Now, how many instances of attempted genocide have there been by Starfleet officers and other otherwise decent seeming Federation citizens (my first guess would be a lot), and what were those circumstances (at any point was the situation more dire?).

Kirk in a "Taste of Armageddon" when he invoked General Order 24?

 

[Amaris]

Tell me, exactly how many instances of attempted genocide can we pin on Section 31. One, I think? And what were the circumstances? The Federation being destroyed and all that good work it was doing going it waste.

Now, how many instances of attempted genocide have there been by Starfleet officers and other otherwise decent seeming Federation citizens (my first guess would be a lot), and what were those circumstances (at any point was the situation more dire?).

You do realize you're essentially saying all Section 31 tried to do was commit genocide on one species, right?

Everyone seems to know exactly what message to take from the show. Maybe the message is not so easy and has always been more along the lines of:

Sometimes the right thing to do is not as clear cut as it seems. Sometimes you have to let Edith Keeler walk into a speeding truck.

The right thing to do isn't clear cut at times, but if the right thing ever becomes "eradicate this entire species without exception" then perhaps it's time to question that way of thinking. Seriously, are you making the case that genocide is sometimes okay, or comes down to being the right thing to do?

 

[USS Firefly]

Good episode.
I am only a little bit bored with Burnham, I don't find her character that interesting.
I would prefer to get to know the other bridge crew and give them more screen time

 

[XCV330]

The right thing to do isn't clear cut at times, but if the right thing ever becomes "eradicate this entire species without exception" then perhaps it's time to question that way of thinking. Seriously, are you making the case that genocide is sometimes okay, or comes down to being the right thing to do?

Yes. I thought I was very clear about that, by this point.

 

[Amaris]

Yes. I thought I was very clear about that, by this point.

Holy shit.

 

[Alan Roi]

You do realize you're essentially saying all Section 31 tried to do was commit genocide on one species, right?


The right thing to do isn't clear cut at times, but if the right thing ever becomes "eradicate this entire species without exception" then perhaps it's time to question that way of thinking. Seriously, are you making the case that genocide is sometimes okay, or comes down to being the right thing to do?

I'm saying that if you are going to judge an collective or an individual by 1 attempted act, then you must judge all collectives or individuals who have committed similar acts. You cannot single out one collective or individual and claim this is what they are, and then say about the others, this is not what they are. That is demonstrating significant bias.

If you have a Federation where its citizens or collectives wield so much unsupervised power that you need a an entire fleet of starships to run around to stop them from committing horrible acts of destruction, then I see a problem. If Section 31 is an unsupervised collective devoted to developing genocide machines at the drop of a hat, then I see a problem. Both, however, are pretty severe problems no matter how you paint one or the other. I'm not seeing, however, that Section 31 is any more dangerous than any of the other similarly dangerous individuals or collectives that aren't deemed monsters, even after they've attempted genocide.

 

[Amaris]

I'm saying that if you are going to judge an collective or an individual by 1 attempted act, then you must judge all collectives or individuals who have committed similar acts. You cannot single out one collective or individual and claim this is what they are, and then say about the others, this is not what they are. That is demonstrating significant bias.

I also judge intent. Section 31's intent is to eradicate what they consider threats, but by advocating genocide, and carrying it out (only being thwarted at the last minute because they went through with it), they chose to believe that all of one species is guilty, that all are culpable just by existing. You should know, from history, what kind of world emerges from such an ideology.

 

[XCV330]

I also judge intent. Section 31's intent is to eradicate what they consider threats, but by advocating genocide, and carrying it out (only being thwarted at the last minute because they went through with it), they chose to believe that all of one species is guilty, that all are culpable just by existing. You should know, from history, what kind of world emerges from such an ideology.

Ok we get it. you're not shaking a tambourine at the church of genocide.

 

[Nyotarules]

And yet both could be and were able to cast aside such principles when pressed:

KIRK: We have legitimate grievances against the Klingons. They've invaded our territory, killed our citizens. They're openly aggressive. They've boasted that they'll take over half the galaxy.

Picard: We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!

As Sisko said it's easy to be a saint in Paradise

 

[Alan Roi]

I also judge intent. Section 31's intent is to eradicate what they consider threats, but by advocating genocide, and carrying it out (only being thwarted at the last minute because they went through with it), they chose to believe that all of one species is guilty, that all are culpable just by existing. You should know, from history, what kind of world emerges from such an ideology.

If that is their intent, how is it that there are so many continuing threats to the Federation that they appear to have utterly failed to eradicate or even slow down in any meaningful way? Pretty incompetent exterminators if that is their actual mandate. Or perhaps their intent is to ensure the survival of the Federation and utilize absolute measures as a last resort. We don't know, as no series has yet looked that deeply into Section 31s operations, at least where canon is concerned. However, when we do get a series, more answers will likely come and we will be provided information to better judge the organization. But painting them in such broad strokes seems to me a little premature.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Side note: I guess Stamets and Culber really are married after all (at the beginning, during Burnham's voiceover, she mentions "widower" right when there's a closeup of Stamets).

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Side note: I guess Stamets and Culber really are married after all (at the beginning, during Burnham's voiceover, she mentions "widower" right when there's a closeup of Stamets).

I caught that as well. Upon hearing Burnham say that I said to my wife "That answers that question."
Not that it mattered that much. They were meant by the show to be a devoted couple, married or not.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And Section 31 even has its own court martials, who woulda thunk it?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I also judge intent. Section 31's intent is to eradicate what they consider threats, but by advocating genocide, and carrying it out (only being thwarted at the last minute because they went through with it), they chose to believe that all of one species is guilty, that all are culpable just by existing. You should know, from history, what kind of world emerges from such an ideology.

I want to point out that the genocidal Section 31 we saw during the Deep Space Nine era may not (for various possible reasons) have all the same tendencies and characteristics as the Section 31 we will see during the Discovery era.