To those who think Trek is merely 'entertainment' and nothing else

[BillJ]

Besides, isn't it somewhat racist to presume that if black people do not act a certain way, they may as well be white? Is it not racist to presume only white people act a certain way as well?

You know this isn't the 24th century right?

The point of having a diverse cast is to not only show the audience that we're all alike, but to show that we're all different as well. Remember IDIC?

In order to be a captain, Sisko didn't have to hide or jettison who he was or where he came from. At least after Ira Steven Behr took over.

trek_futurist just made my enemies list for making me get out of my Lazy Boy to respond to this nonsense.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

I think maybe the writers knew that the late 80s/early 90s were still a very socially sensitive time for homosexuality. TOS had to disguise its discussions of racism in episodes like 'let that be your last battlefield'. So it makes sense as a logical progression that they dealt with homosexuality this way as well.

See you're playing pick and choose....

Two of those series that lacked gay characters were made in the mid to late 90's and the early 21st century, where gay people were much more openly accepted. Except for on Star Trek.

Yes DS9 had a black captain. But Avery Brooks had to fight to get those little nods and trinkets and cultural history thrown in or else he'd have ended up as non-descript as Geordi LaForge or Travis Mayweather, who could've been played by white actors and it not made a bit of difference.

If you really sit down and look at them, the modern shows simply rode on TOS reputation for diversity. They really didn't add anything to the mix on their own.

Pick and choose?

Not a single person who has responded has done so based on the content of my original post. And you dare say I pick and choose?

I did.

And then I even helpfully requoted myself so you wouldn't need to go back and actually read my answers. But now you're ignoring me, probably because you're one of those people who hates to be wrong. You're not replying to any of my direct answers to your questions, so you absolutely are picking and choosing.

I'm sorry, but this is one of those times you might have to just smile and accept that you're not correct. Trek can be many things to many different people, and people who think it's just entertainment are absolutely allowed to post in that context on a Trek discussion board, just as you're allowed to talk about how it's a religion or something.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Who has been saying Star Trek is "only" entertainment? I haven't noticed that being a particularly strong theme in threads around here. This strikes me as a straw man argument.

And who's to say that the substantive issues that Star Trek raises aren't also entertaining. I find Star Trek a lot more entertaining than other sci fi franchises, who have nothing in particular to say about anything - Stargate for instance.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I have a multifarious question for those who think Star Trek is merely for 'Entertainment' and nothing more.

1-What exactly is it that most of you are here to discuss?

2-Why does it seem that the majority of you who assign this 'Entertainment only' label to Trek get into long winded exchanges with people who see it as more than this? Why is it not adequate to you that you see it as merely entertainment? Why must you actively participate in a soft campaign to convince other's that it is merely entertainment, when considering the following facts about Star Trek and its historical effect on our society and culture?

A: Star trek has inspired more people to become involved in some form of scientific work than any other form of popular entertainment.

B: A lot of the burgeoning technological advancements we are seeing (and will be seeing) were directly inspired by the technology seen in the original Star Trek series, and following this, The next generation. In fact there are several branches of science actively researching some of the more obscure technological developments witnessed there. Some of these branches include particle physics, nano-technology, advanced medical science and of course several branches of the physical sciences that deal with laser technology, (phasers?), matter displacement (transporter technology?), faster than light travel (warp technology) and advanced imaging technology (tricorders).

C: There are countless charity organizations that have been directly inspired by Star Trek and it's social views of the world (that is, the economy of selflessness portrayed therein) and it's culturally all inclusive, compassionate terminology.

So from A, B and C one could logically conclude that Star Trek has positively effected our world, and doing so conspicuously on the basis of being more than mere 'Entertainment' presumably. For if it inspired people to accomplish all the above merely on the basis of 'Entertainment' then wouldn't Charlies angels, the dukes of hazard and Kojak have done the same? Surely there must be some linear foundation of logic in effect here, as opposed to the capricious phenomenon of random inspiration some of you are indirectly espousing, yes?

Anyway.

3-There is no predicate to your subject of 'Star Trek is there merely for Entertainment'. So why say it? What do you wish to discuss about the subject 'Star Trek is merely entertainment'? Or is it to end conversation about something that other's see much more into than you do? Why is it not enough for you to simply bow out of such discussions? Why must you facetiously attempt to undermine any discussion about the betterment of the species if it is inspired in some way by Star Trek? What is the predicate that comes after 'Star trek is only entertainment'? And if there is such a predicate, how does it enrich the participants of the ensuing discussion (if there is one) more than what those of us perceive as the more meaningful equation of philosophy and an inspiration toward a better way of living that we identify as being qualities of Trek?

4-Why does it seemingly offend you so much that people wish to live a life similar to the human beings portrayed on Star Trek? Is there not some subconscious relationship between the viewer and the characters here? Some degree of what we call 'identification' with and a desire for 'a better future'? A 'better way of living'? And if your hypothetical response is that 'we do not agree with Star treks portrayal of this better way of living' then, prey tell, how did you ever get into Star trek to begin with? There was ALWAYS a moral story there, ALWAYS a social commentary, ALWAYS a message about being 'better' than we were before. It was so ingrained in Trek that it was absolutely inescapable by the viewer, which is why it has become historically associated with a medium that has inspired people to make things 'better for humanity'.

I ask of you all, why do you actively attempt to dispense with what Star trek is actually known for? Without these foundations, it would be an empty medium, a lost in space, a meaningless foray into images that do not matter, because they are insubstantial. If any of this were true, why are we as a society still discussing it, being inspired to become scientists because of it? To give of ourselves because of it? To continue learning more about the universe because of it?

I ask these questions in hope to understand the dispositions of those who seem to have a problem with the pursuit of Star treks future vision.

It's entertaining, nothing more.

1 The entertainment of it, it's fun to talk about.
2 It's entertaining to discuss. It isn't a source of life lessons or moral insight any more than Sons of Anarchy.
3 Entertaining stuff is fun to talk about. Get some joie de vivre.
4 It doesn't, but it seems to offend you that some don't see Trek as more than just another TV show on the dial.

 

[M'Sharak]

Not a single person who has responded has done so based on the content of my original post.

Quite a few people have done so, in fact, in spite of your effort to paint it as a question of two extremes which could only be answered "black" or "white"; "one" or "zero". I think that, if you read the responses fairly, you'd have found that most tried to answer the questions asked, but simply don't have such an absolute view of things as you seem to; that they see a greater number of possible answers than the severely limited set you seemed to allow.

For my money, the best answer to your entire opening post was one you received quite early on, from someone responding to your content point-by-point:

...Why can't people be inspired by entertainment?

Hell, I'd argue that the best entertainment is inspirational.

That's a great answer, and you wouldn't acknowledge it, trek_futurist... because it didn't fit whatever stringent format you'd decided for yourself that the thread ought to have? Seriously?


I put it to you: Who's being the unreasonable one here?

 

[DAYoung]

Star Trek is primarily entertainment, and - as has been noted - there's nothing wrong with this. However, within its entertaining story-lines are some very interesting debates and dilemmas.

I've posted this previously, but here it is again. From the ABC (Australia), on the value of Star Trek:

In Star Trek, philosophy isn't a dry textbook endeavour - it's interwoven with the trials of sympathetic, flawed individuals.

Of course we needn't overstate the case. Star Trek is a franchise, with all the 'bottom line' financial decisions this entails. Like much mainstream television, it can be simplistic, glib and condescending.

But at its finest, Star Trek is a bona fide philosophical companion. It depicts limited, sometimes-powerless human beings, trying to come to terms with a baffling or inhospitable universe. It shows characters unafraid of high ideals, even in the midst of interpersonal tensions, or grave danger. And, for the most part, it does so sincerely, unafraid of paralysing cynicism. The lesson is this: that with perseverance, reflection and collaboration, we may indeed 'live long and prosper', in an imperfect world.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/34930.html

 

[Jonas Grumby]

Otherwise, what I am perceiving from you is that I must respond to other peoples insults 'or else'. Which isn't happening. If I am banned for this, so be it.

If you call these insults, you need to go get your big boy pants on before coming back 'round these parts.

And while you're getting those pants, spending a little time researching the differences between "interrogating," "lecturing" and "discussing" might make your next foray go a bit more smoothly, as well.

 

[nightwind1]

This does absolutely nothing to address the context of my original questions, which you conveniently ignored to restate something that you have not proven.

Original context:

If Star Trek is merely 'Entertainment' then why has it managed to inspired more people to become scientists, and thus contribute to the advancement of the human race than any other form of popular 'entertainment'? In this context, considering what it has done to help the human species thrive socially and scientifically you should certainly have no problem when many people consider it as more than simply 'Entertainment', or as a philosophy for life. Yes?

I don't care to address your comments. Your posts come off as demanding and rude to others. Instead, I'm talking to everyone. You may join in when you realize this is a shared conversation and not a lecture.

This is also not a venue for people to use manipulative language to influence the direction the conversation goes in.

Sure it is. That's the way internet forums work. If you don't like it, use manipulative language to try to influence it in another direction.

 

[Gov Kodos]

It's time for the Captain.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeS4tVFbNNk[/yt]

 

[trek_futurist]

I don't care to address your comments. Your posts come off as demanding and rude to others. Instead, I'm talking to everyone. You may join in when you realize this is a shared conversation and not a lecture.

This is also not a venue for people to use manipulative language to influence the direction the conversation goes in.

Sure it is. That's the way internet forums work. If you don't like it, use manipulative language to try to influence it in another direction.

Oh but I was warned by a moderator that if I do not allow their manipulation, there are eery consequences.

 

[trek_futurist]

Double post edit.

 

[trek_futurist]

You know this isn't the 24th century right?

Star Trek is portraying a prospective realism, not an inherent realism. It is portraying humanity as it may be, not as it is, while conspicuously using it as a tool to deal with current problems. I see no contradiction here. Therefor on racial grounds it is portraying the prospective relation of ethnicities, not the current one. But this does not answer the question of why it is 'racist' to portray blacks as something other than 'hoodie' types as some other's have implied here.

 

[Amaris]

This is also not a venue for people to use manipulative language to influence the direction the conversation goes in.

Sure it is. That's the way internet forums work. If you don't like it, use manipulative language to try to influence it in another direction.

Oh but I was warned by a moderator that if I do not allow their manipulation, there are eery consequences.

Actually, firstly, you were simply admonished, not warned, and secondly, what the moderator told you was to quit being so antagonizing and rigid in a thread where people are merely responding to your original post. The fact that you don't like how the responses are formatted falls directly on you, and your increased antagonism against posters and moderators alike just makes it more unlikely that you will successfully get your point across.

 

[trek_futurist]

It's time for the Captain.

Yea, meanwhile captain 'get a life' continues to do star trek conventions, star trek fundraisers, star trek specials, to preach about the positive aspects of star trek, along with first officer 'get some logic' Leonard Nimoy.

 

[Gov Kodos]

This is also not a venue for people to use manipulative language to influence the direction the conversation goes in.

Sure it is. That's the way internet forums work. If you don't like it, use manipulative language to try to influence it in another direction.

Oh but I was warned by a moderator that if I do not allow their manipulation, there are eery consequences.

Nothing eery or manipulative, they are enforcing board rules. One is use multi-quote or get warned for spamming. And 'Get a Life' is a comedy routine. Try some comedy, it would help.

 

[trek_futurist]

Sure it is. That's the way internet forums work. If you don't like it, use manipulative language to try to influence it in another direction.

Oh but I was warned by a moderator that if I do not allow their manipulation, there are eery consequences.

Actually, firstly, you were simply admonished, not warned, and secondly, what the moderator told you was to quit being so antagonizing and rigid in a thread where people are merely responding to your original post. The fact that you don't like how the responses are formatted falls directly on you, and your increased antagonism against posters and moderators alike just makes it more unlikely that you will successfully get your point across.

No, the moderator in question showed deliberate favoritism and bias. Period. And I will not proceed any way other than the way I have. Which is from the perspective of my original post, as the questions I asked were still not addressed. It is not about 'formatting' it is about specifically ignoring pertinent aspects of questions I brought up in the first post, which would reveal the contradictory nature of those who like to 'debate' the point discussed there ad infinitum.

 

[Amaris]

No, the moderator in question showed deliberate favoritism and bias. Period. And I will not proceed any way other than the way I have. Which is from the perspective of my original post, as the questions I asked were still not addressed.

In what way was the Moderator biased? You were told to use multi-quote, because posting several times in a row is considered spam. That is an established board rule that existed long before you joined. The rules apply to everyone, including you.

Secondly, what favoritism? Do you honestly believe that your idea that Star Trek means more than entertainment is somehow something that should be fought against? Why would the Moderator find a need to choose favorites over a topic such as this one? Again, you appear to be tilting at windmills, and seeing antagonists where none exist.

As for your original questions, they were answered. You have simply chosen to cover your ears and deny them as legitimate answers, because they do not fit your very narrow, and heavily biased criteria. If anything, it is your bias that is causing a stumbling block in this thread, as others are having a decent conversation save for your repeated insults and protestations against other posters.

No one invited you here, no one required you to be here, no one has to answer your questions exactly how you like. If you find that unacceptable, you may start a board of your own, or return from whence you came. Nothing else is required nor desired of you, save that you are civil to other members. If you cannot meet that simple request, then perhaps this is not the place for you.

 

[trek_futurist]

Sure it is. That's the way internet forums work. If you don't like it, use manipulative language to try to influence it in another direction.

Oh but I was warned by a moderator that if I do not allow their manipulation, there are eery consequences.

Nothing eery or manipulative, they are enforcing board rules. One is use multi-quote or get warned for spamming. And 'Get a Life' is a comedy routine. Try some comedy, it would help.

I find it very strange that threads are shut down when the original posters wanted logical discussion on the subjects presented, and that they were shut down because of thread hijackers even while the original posters were attempting to request these people stop with their ad hominem, personal attacks. Another thing other's are guilty of during the course of this thread and I am not. Look through this thread and it will be clear that all personal implications are coming from other users responding to me about my character outside of this forum, not me implying anything about them and their character outside this forum.

In light of this I find it very revealing of the moderators personal bias that they would 'admonish' me for trying to keep a conversation on point but not to 'admonish' them about implying personal things about an individual they know nothing about other than the content of these posts. Very revealing indeed...

 

[Amaris]

Oh but I was warned by a moderator that if I do not allow their manipulation, there are eery consequences.

Nothing eery or manipulative, they are enforcing board rules. One is use multi-quote or get warned for spamming. And 'Get a Life' is a comedy routine. Try some comedy, it would help.

I find it very strange that threads are shut down when the original posters wanted logical discussion on the subjects presented, and that they were shut down because of thread hijackers even while the original posters were attempting to request these people stop with their ad hominem, personal attacks. Another thing other's are guilty of during the course of this thread and I am not. Look through this thread and it will be clear that all personal implications are coming from other users responding to me about my character outside of this forum, not me implying anything about them and their character outside this forum.

In light of this I find it very revealing of the moderators personal bias that they would 'admonish' me for trying to keep a conversation on point but not to 'admonish' them about implying personal things about an individual they know nothing about other than the content of these posts. Very revealing indeed...

Your posts are but a drop in the bucket on this message board. To be quite blunt, no one knows you well enough to care, to be biased against you. The number of posts you've made I can make in an afternoon without even trying.

Still, even if what you said was so, and the mods were biased, someone who is conspired against is usually well established, and has a history of ruffling feathers. You have no such history beyond being unable to process answers outside of rigid standards that no reasonable person applies to a message board. You're too new, too fresh, too low on the totem pole to warrant attention or consideration. No one is conspiring against you. It is all in your own mind.

 

[sojourner]

Where did someone get personal "outside of this forum"? please link to the post.