What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[cooleddie74]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I did make that comparison, but the reason why I was curious was because Lower Decks has the whole memberbarries thing. What would an workplace sitcom Trek be like if it was it's own thing.

I don't think a Star Trek workplace sitcom could function without memberberries. Star Trek is too distinct a franchise for a hypothetical ST workplace sitcom not to use those.

I have to agree with that. It reminds of the (very short lived) DC heroes workplace sitcom 'Powerless', which was also covered in memberberries galore. And the Marvel comics series Damage Control, which is the same thing in comic form with the same cameo and reference obsession.

When you make a sitcom part of a special shared universe the universe basically becomes the joke by default, otherwise there's no point in it being set in that universe. I'd say that even tracks as well with the average sitcom on tv, which are all set in our actual world and which make our actual world and our daily lives the joke.

 

[Tallguy]

Top Secret

We miss you Val!

It seems you have become, how do you say? Indispensable.

"Indispensable."

That's what I though.

 

[Mytran]

Didn't we call that "Pennyworth"?

Sounds like something I need to add to my watch list, then!

 

[Sci]

Didn't we call that "Pennyworth"?

I cannot get over the full title they gave its last season. Pennyworth: The Origin of Batman's Butler.

I mean, the premise was already ridiculous, but that was just icing on the cake.

 

[dmac]

I have to agree with that. It reminds of the (very short lived) DC heroes workplace sitcom 'Powerless', which was also covered in memberberries galore. And the Marvel comics series Damage Control, which is the same thing in comic form with the same cameo and reference obsession.

When you make a sitcom part of a special shared universe the universe basically becomes the joke by default, otherwise there's no point in it being set in that universe. I'd say that even tracks as well with the average sitcom on tv, which are all set in our actual world and which make our actual world and our daily lives the joke.

Sitcom Jokes? why not...lol


The end of the Klingon War was near
When quite accidentally,
AN ensign who sneezed abruptly ceased
Retreat and reversed it to victory.

His Cluster of honor pleased and thrilled
his proud little family group.
While pinning it on some blood was spilled
And so it was planned he'd command F Trek.

Where Klingon fights are colorful sights
and nobody takes a lickin'
Where Earthers and Klingons
Both turn chicken.

When drilling and fighting get them down,
Their morale Will never decline.
As long as they’re back to base on time.

For another round at Quarks in town
Before they resume with a maneuver or two

*F TREK!
Forgive me....(fingerfarts) lol

 

[Tallguy]

Sounds like something I need to add to my watch list, then!

I watched a few episodes. The kid playing Alphie (heh) is beyond amazing. The show is OK. The bad guys are offputtingly gross.

 

[Commander Troi]

I think both Discovery and Strange New Worlds make the Starfleet hierarchy a part of the storytelling.



Well, up until Season Three, Star Trek: Picard was not about Starfleet! Seriously. Season One especially is about people who are not in Starfleet. Picard and Raffi are both civilian former Starfleet; Jurati is a civilian working for the Daystrum Institute; Rios is an independent contractor; Elnor is part of the Qowat Milat; Soji works for the Borg Reclamation Project; Seven is part of the Fenris Rangers; and Narek is part of the Zhat Vash. None of the principal characters are part of Starfleet, so why would Starfleet hierarchy and protocols be part of the story?

Also, finally getting a Star Trek series whose POV is not primarily that of Starfleet was really wonderful. It's a big galaxy and not everyone wants to be a space cop.

A related issue is at play in Season Two. Picard, Raffi, Elnor, and Rios have all joined Starfleet, but Jurati and Seven are not Starfleet officers, and neither is Tallinn. They do form a de facto Starfleet hierarchy, but it's perfectly reasonable that it would be less formal both because of the extraordinary circumstances the characters are in and a third of the people on the ground aren't Starfleet.

PIC Season Three brings back the Starfleet setting and the Starfleet hierarchy that comes with it.



I think Prodigy is another good example of an extremely loose hierarchy in place for emergencies but the group otherwise operating on the basis of an egalitarian democratic practice.



Because hierarchy is inherently a bad thing that should only be practiced insofar as it is absolutely necessary for groups to function and should otherwise be avoided.



I mean, a flat command structure can work on a small scale with people who trust each other. In combat situations or emergency situations, you want to have a pre-set hierarchy in place to make decisions when there's not time for egalitarian deliberation, but otherwise democracy is a good thing.

What a flat command structure is not adequate for is the marshaling of resources and personnel for state-level operations. So, no, you're not going to have a flat command structure when you're fighting a war with massive fleets. But there's no particular reason a small ship, such as the crew of La Sirena, couldn't function on the basis of egalitarian democracy.



Discovery never forgets about hierarchy. There is always a clear chain of command. They're just not as strict in enforcing hierarchical deference at all times -- which is a good thing, because that sort of thing is harmful and toxic.



I really think that's basically what Lower Decks is.

Well fudge. You wrote much of what I was going to, but better.

I have to agree with that. It reminds of the (very short lived) DC heroes workplace sitcom 'Powerless', which was also covered in memberberries galore. And the Marvel comics series Damage Control, which is the same thing in comic form with the same cameo and reference obsession.

When you make a sitcom part of a special shared universe the universe basically becomes the joke by default, otherwise there's no point in it being set in that universe. I'd say that even tracks as well with the average sitcom on tv, which are all set in our actual world and which make our actual world and our daily lives the joke.

"Powerless" was fun for the 5 minutes it lasted.

I watched a few episodes. The kid playing Alphie (heh) is beyond amazing. The show is OK. The bad guys are offputtingly gross.

Hmm. Worth checking out?

 

[Farscape One]

I think Prodigy is another good example of an extremely loose hierarchy in place for emergencies but the group otherwise operating on the basis of an egalitarian democratic practice.

Because hierarchy is inherently a bad thing that should only be practiced insofar as it is absolutely necessary for groups to function and should otherwise be avoided.


I mean, a flat command structure can work on a small scale with people who trust each other. In combat situations or emergency situations, you want to have a pre-set hierarchy in place to make decisions when there's not time for egalitarian deliberation, but otherwise democracy is a good thing.

What a flat command structure is not adequate for is the marshaling of resources and personnel for state-level operations. So, no, you're not going to have a flat command structure when you're fighting a war with massive fleets. But there's no particular reason a small ship, such as the crew of La Sirena, couldn't function on the basis of egalitarian democracy.


Discovery never forgets about hierarchy. There is always a clear chain of command. They're just not as strict in enforcing hierarchical deference at all times -- which is a good thing, because that sort of thing is harmful and toxic.

l agree that how the crew on PRODIGY works... well, works.

However, I disagree that a hierarchy is inherently a bad thing. When I was younger, I thought it was. As I've gotten older, and having been in leadership myself for quite a while, I understand that a hierarchy is necessary for many places and situations.

It's who is put in charge that will make the hierarchy toxic or a climate where people can flourish. I have had managers who were absolutely horrible... but I have also had managers who were absolutely wonderful. (My current boss is awesome, and two of my previous ones from Whole Foods I still talk to regularly.)

It also comes down to responsibility and accountability. I've noticed a lot of people these days, particularly 30 years old and younger, don't have any sense of responsibility or accountability for their own actions. If you have a group of people with that mentality, nothing gets done... and more often than not, each member of the group will pass the blame onto someone else like it's a game of hot potato. One can argue that it's simply 'that phase in their life', but the sheer amount that I have observed... that isn't the reason. Especially when I was that age and was around others of that age, and it was never this bad.

Hierarchy in itself is not toxic or bad. It's definitely far better than a group with no direction, sense of responsibility, or accountability.

 

[Sci]

However, I disagree that a hierarchy is inherently a bad thing. When I was younger, I thought it was. As I've gotten older, and having been in leadership myself for quite a while, I understand that a hierarchy is necessary for many places and situations.

I've been at the top and I've been at the bottom. I spent six years in management in the service sector, and I've had good managers and toxic managers. And I stand by my assertion that even where hierarchy is necessary, it is inherently a corrupting paradigm that needs to be minimized to the greatest extent possible. The best managers are the ones who do that intuitively.

It also comes down to responsibility and accountability. I've noticed a lot of people these days, particularly 30 years old and younger, don't have any sense of responsibility or accountability for their own actions.

You know, when I was in management, the absolute worst two employees we ever had -- the ones that would flat-out refuse to do their work, would treat other employees like crap, who disregarded common rules about wearing a uniform and not screwing around on the clock -- were in their 40s and 50s, respectively. And they absolutely refused to take responsibility or accountability for their actions.

People have been claiming that folks under 30 are irresponsible for just about as long as history has records. I don't buy it.

 

[dmac]

I've been at the top and I've been at the bottom. I spent six years in management in the service sector, and I've had good managers and toxic managers. And I stand by my assertion that even where hierarchy is necessary, it is inherently a corrupting paradigm that needs to be minimized to the greatest extent possible. The best managers are the ones who do that intuitively.



You know, when I was in management, the absolute worst two employees we ever had -- the ones that would flat-out refuse to do their work, would treat other employees like crap, who disregarded common rules about wearing a uniform and not screwing around on the clock -- were in their 40s and 50s, respectively. And they absolutely refused to take responsibility or accountability for their actions.

People have been claiming that folks under 30 are irresponsible for just about as long as history has records. I don't buy it.

Wherever you are in life, there must be an obtainable higher goal to reach for. The higher you are in the chain requires the skill to allow those higher goals into existence for those looking up to you. Protect the whole by weeding out the negative elements and expand the universe that creates the environment in the first place.
At some point if you go high enough you could find yourself longing for the days when your days goal was to bring the hay into the barn before winter.
In my 44 year career I had a crew for the last 40 and owner operator for the remaining 30.
I don't think the under 30 are irresponsible. I think they lacked role models due to a declining requirements of maintaining a labor force. And that I lay on the shoulders of the nation's leaders since the mid 1970's. A topic for another place and time.

 

[fireproof78]

Hierarchy in itself is not toxic or bad. It's definitely far better than a group with no direction, sense of responsibility, or accountability.

I have been fortunate to have been a part of hierarchies that emphasize group success and individual contributions to that success.

 

[Farscape One]

I've been at the top and I've been at the bottom. I spent six years in management in the service sector, and I've had good managers and toxic managers. And I stand by my assertion that even where hierarchy is necessary, it is inherently a corrupting paradigm that needs to be minimized to the greatest extent possible. The best managers are the ones who do that intuitively.



You know, when I was in management, the absolute worst two employees we ever had -- the ones that would flat-out refuse to do their work, would treat other employees like crap, who disregarded common rules about wearing a uniform and not screwing around on the clock -- were in their 40s and 50s, respectively. And they absolutely refused to take responsibility or accountability for their actions.

People have been claiming that folks under 30 are irresponsible for just about as long as history has records. I don't buy it.

I have also been at both ends of the position spectrum. And I have had a couple people over the years in that age group that were the same way, but that has very much been the rarity. Just as it was the rarity of the under 30 group being responsible and accountable. There have always been those few exceptions to observations. I stand by my point, though, just because of the sheer numbers.

You have had your experiences, and I have had mine. I'm not going to ignore what I have seen with my own eyes for decades, just as you aren't going to ignore things you've seen.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Farscape One]

I have been fortunate to have been a part of hierarchies that emphasize group success and individual contributions to that success.

Same here.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I have an opinion that I think is so controversial that I need to clarify a few things:

1) I like DSC.

2) I accept that DSC takes place in the Prime timeline.

However, possibly within the next ten years I believe that DSC, SNW and any related projects will get officially/unofficially tucked away into some kind of separate 'Discoverse', and I think they will probably be all the better for it.

This belief is kind of strengthened by the road that PIC has just been down, where it's been on a mission to replicate the 90s Trek aesthetic (and in one case, the 1960s aesthetic) exactly.

What that says about Innovation vs Imitation, I don't know, but I think it's what will happen.

 

[Sci]

Wherever you are in life, there must be an obtainable higher goal to reach for.

You don't necessarily need a social hierarchy to give you a set of goals in life.

The higher you are in the chain requires the skill to allow those higher goals into existence for those looking up to you. Protect the whole by weeding out the negative elements and expand the universe that creates the environment in the first place.

This is self-rationalizing hierarchical thinking. Again, you don't need social hierarchies to give you goals.

I have also been at both ends of the position spectrum. And I have had a couple people over the years in that age group that were the same way, but that has very much been the rarity. Just as it was the rarity of the under 30 group being responsible and accountable. There have always been those few exceptions to observations. I stand by my point, though, just because of the sheer numbers.

I would strongly encourage you to really interrogate yourself on whether this is accurate or the result of unconscious ageist bias.

 

[Farscape One]

I would strongly encourage you to really interrogate yourself on whether this is accurate or the result of unconscious ageist bias.

Are you serious?

l'm supposed to ignore what I have experienced and seen with my own eyes?! And by the way, I discovered those observations not just later in life, but WHILE I WAS WITHIN THAT VERY AGE GROUP.

I'm not telling you that your experiences are probably not true, so why would you be trying to tell me that my experiences are essentially wrong? That comes off as really arrogant and dismissive.

Well, I would 'strongly encourage you' to 'really interrogate yourself' on why you seem to think everything has some kind of unconscious bias. Because you are very dismissive about experiences someone decides to share. There's a word for people like that, but I got a warning the last time I called you out exactly on that behavior toward me, so I'll refrain from saying it this time.

 

[dmac]

I'm not telling you that your experiences are probably not true, so why would you be trying to tell me that my experiences are essentially wrong? That comes off as really arrogant and dismissive.

Give the guy his due credit. Perhaps the future is a world where humans all gather in one place, construct a facility out of something and create something for the betterment of all humans without any leadership, no structure, no experience, no materials, no direction.
Whatever it is, I'm sure it will be good and people will travel from far and wide to partake in this endeavor.

 

[dmac]

"Circumstances don't make the man, they only reveal him to himself."

-- EPICTETUS

 

[CorporalCaptain]

l'm supposed to ignore what I have experienced and seen with my own eyes?!

"The plural of anecdote is not data" [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/12/27/plural/].