What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

I have been on both sides of this. I don't think Trek got more cynical or less optimistic but that it became more honest about the realities of conflict and that humanity was not just going to "evolve" in the 24th century, even with newer tech. We have seen that newer tech is a double edged sword that it alloys for easier connectivity but struggles with personal care, or feeling more overwhelmed with data. Human behavior, to quote ENT, is pretty stubborn and not going to change over night.

And that for me is the more positive aspect. It isn't that Trek gives me optimism. It reminds me of the resiliency of the human race.

 

Pop culture representation is not wokeness.

PRO might be aimed at a younger audience, but it is pure Trek.

That's all anyone has to do if they don't like something.
That's all anyone gets to do if they don't like something.

It's probably like killing a hydra.

As a team? Or as... something else?

 

I mean, you could do a show about Starfleet Intelligence doing shady things instead of a show about Section 31, and at least then the show would not actively be idolizing the idea of a spy agency that's above the law, does whatever it wants, and answers to no one. I'd much rather see a show that examines the morally ambiguous side of espionage but which at least always depicts that agency as answerable to the democratic state. Idolizing Section 31 is an implicit attack against democracy itself.

Thank you for sharing. A living refutation against the idea that modern Star Trek lacks for hope and optimism.

 

Perhaps. But you've got to try.

 

Utopia is not a location to arrive at, but rather an ideal to constantly strive for.

 

Captain Kirk couldn't have said it better!

 

Controversial opinion-setting up a rogue agency as the protagonists does not make them idealized. Nothing about Section 31, even with how Discovery treats it, makes it appealing as far as how it goes about business. I don't see a show about that same organization being an idealization of the agency, any more than shows like the Sopranos idealized mob life. It might skirt closer to "Pirates of the Carribean" which definitely presents pirates in a more positive manner than I would prefer. Just because a show is about an idea does not make it an "attack on democracy itself."

 

Finally, a probably-controversial opinion:

There’s a tendency to picture Section 31 as always, in every single action it ever takes, to be evil and to the detriment of the Federation. There’s an opposite tendency, mostly in certain quarters of fandom, to portray it as the secret unsung heroes who are actually saving the Federation all day and probably having great 007 adventures doing it. Both of these takes are silly.

A government arm — and however off the books and disavowed it is by the 24th century, it is a government arm — isn’t going to last for over 200 years if it never gets anything right and always proves to be against its own side’s values. On the other hand, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. S31 does awful stuff—whatever else it may also do, that we never get to hear about.

It seems more than likely to me that Section 31 runs all sorts of operations all the time, ugly and beneficial, the only connection being that they’re all deep, deep black No Eyes Only actions. Starfleet Intelligence is the public, accountable intelligence service. S31 is (by the 24th century) the disavowed Impossible Missions Force — and also, yes, the KGB. Starfleet proper doesn’t like S31, but at the highest echelons, it absolutely retains it as a resource.

If this sounds like a defense of Section 31, it’s not; genocide is genocide, and unaccountable power run amok is unaccountable power run amok. I just don’t buy that Section 31 is only, ever bad (or good).

 

I think this describes well my own thoughts, and fits in with my own view of Star Trek that sometimes presents a world that isn't black or white. Your description of operations that are off the books fits in even with TOS, with Spock and Kirk engaging in espionage but at such a level that only they knew of the mission and it's particulars, rather than the whole crew knowing. Similarly, Sisko's own efforts to bring the Romulans in to the war is not something we are meant to find laudable or even something Sisko is proud of. But, it is considered necessary, if completely awful. I don't think Sisko's actions, ore Kirk and Spock's are necessarily considered laudable or to be emulated by the audience.

Similarly, I don't think Section 31 being a part of Star Trek doesn't automatically give tacit approval f the organization, but a recognition that the world is not black and white, good and evil, or always has things that fall in to clear and neat categories. The world is more nuanced than that. Star Trek's reflecting that is not something I think should be avoided.

 

I don't think Section 31 being a part of Star Trek glorifies or legitimizes it.

Making it a publically accepted officially known part of Starfleet intelligence, though, is a bit of a different story. That's either saying S31 is good or else that Starfleet is either stupid or doesn't care.

 

I mean, it's a similar point of view that MASH took initially with the military. Military intelligence was treated as terrible, and the Army at best indifferent, and worst criminally negligent. Star Trek does the same thing that the higher ups are either dumb, ignorant or conspiratorial.

From a worldbuilding perspective I see Section 31 as that little agency that grows and shrinks depending on the need. During war time it gets a little bigger. During peace and not existential threat, eh the powers that be don't use them, so their team of spooks probably fold back in to Intelligence or other such positions until their needed.

To your point though I don't think that Section 31, even a show, legitimizes it or glorifies it. All it does it have more depth. Kind of like Andor did to the rebellion, if you have seen that show.

 

But it does still affect the symbolism of what the Federation and Starfleet is supposed to represent. No serious person can claim they're ever supposed to be perfect, but they are supposed to be aspirational. If Section 31 is publically accepted despite being horrible, then that's not aspirational anymore.

There's a reason the bad admirals et al are usually removed from their position or at least seriously rebuked as soon as their actions are publically unmasked, because their existence serves in part to reinforce the idea that the Federation doesn't tolerate that sort of thing.

 

But sadly, it happens. Bashir opposed their plan in "Inter Arma", only to find that Ross had hopped in bed with them.

But sadly, evil admirals seem to be a persistent threat.

 

...to good writing.

 

I didn't say publically accepted. In fact I would think they would maligned, or treated as a conspiracy theory rather than considered legitimate, even if some of Starfleet's leadership uses them from time to time. It doesn't take away the aspirational nature of the Federation, but acknowledges that there are still places to grow and Section 31 keeps popping up despite their best efforts, just like bad admirals. Section 31 probably plays it really really safe. They fold up an disappear when things hit the fan, like with Control, or the Founder virus, and they go "rogue" disavowed until some admiral decides it's needed.

Except, they keep popping up. So if they don't tolerate it then why does it keep happening? There's something fundamentally strange about an organization that has leaders who are either ineffective or willing to turn bad for defensive reasons. The list of bad admirals and rogue Starfleet officers is long enough to make me concerned about the nature of Starfleet leadership. Admiral Ross was never removed. Admiral Nechayev was not removed. So Section 31 strikes me as an interesting way of having this tempter, or the id, in this organization that leads to these leaders becoming more rogue.

 

Why would Admiral Necheyev or Ross ever be removed?

Maybe for Ross' involvement in "INTER ARMA ENIM SILENT LEGES", but I don't think that was enough to justify him being removed. It was war, after all.

And Necheyev may have been a hardass, but she was actually probably one of the most competant admirals we saw.

 

The ordering of genocide and manipulating in the affairs of a sovereign power seem rather antithetical to how the Federation would like to operate.

 

If the genocide you are referring to is Necheyev ordering Picard to take advantage of the next time he can destroy the Borg, considering how the Borg have already killed billions and assimilated even more, made who knows how many other species extinct, and there being no hope of negotiation... I'd say she gave the only reasonable order.

As for Ross, I'm not a fan of meddling with the internal politics of another empire either, but considering the Dominion War AND how the Romulans have proven to be unstrustworthy in the past and their use of espionage and war on the Federation, Starfleet needed every edge it could get.

 

But, again it goes to what is the Federation all about and what Section 31 reflects about that society. The "by any means necessary" approach sounds good when facing the threat, but not one I think the Federation would keep the officers in place once the threat is dealt with. It's hard to square against what they say and what they do.

 

There’s absolutely a conflict between what the Federation represents and what some elements of it (such as Section 31) do. Just like the USA! It’s still absolutely seen as representing certain ideals, even while having done all sorts of awful things—but not only those. The image being tarnished by reality doesn’t destroy the idea (unless it’s all the time, of course).