What do you guys actually like about discovery?

[vulcancicada]

Schadenfreude is a human emotion that does exist. While I try to discourage my students from acting out of spite, I try to do so in a way that doesn't invalidate the emotion behind it and shame them for having it. Negative emotions do exist. Perhaps you're in a place where you have learned to transcend a particular emotion, that does not mean everyone is in that same place. It's just as valid to like something because it upsets someone as it is to like something because you think it's beautiful. We're all on a journey here. (Perhaps I went too disco in my defence but I stand by it )

 

[fireproof78]

Schadenfreude is a human emotion that does exist. While I try to discourage my students from acting out of spite, I try to do so in a way that doesn't invalidate the emotion behind it and shame them for having it. Negative emotions do exist. Perhaps you're in a place where you have learned to transcend a particular emotion, that does not mean everyone is in that same place. It's just as valid to like something because it upsets someone as it is to like something because you think it's beautiful. We're all on a journey here. (Perhaps I went too disco in my defence but I stand by it )

I am at the place, both in training and in life, that I can see and understand multiple perspectives better than in my younger and less sensitive time, but some still elude me. I just find it difficult to be positive about someone acting out of spite. I will take your comments well though.

 

[Greg Cox]

Okay, let's have Bigot Trek. White, straight men only, saying manly things.

Maybe they're all blonde with blue eyes

There was actually a guy on this very board, some years ago, who posted a long manifesto demanding just that very thing, in all seriousness. A Star Trek crew series crewed by only straight, white, American men -- with "traditional Christian values" no less.

As I recall, he felt that "fans like me" were entitled to at least one Star Trek series along those lines, in compensation for all the "PC" multicultural casting he'd had to put up with for years.

Have no idea if he's still around, but this attitude seems to persist in some quarters.

 

[vulcancicada]

I am at the place, both in training and in life, that I can see and understand multiple perspectives better than in my younger and less sensitive time, but some still elude me. I just find it difficult to be positive about someone acting out of spite. I will take your comments well though.

I'm not saying be positive about it, just maybe not much point in judging it. Everyone's in a different place. It doesn't really affect your enjoyment if someone enjoys it for a different reason.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not saying be positive about it, just maybe not much point in judging it. Everyone's in a different place. It doesn't really affect your enjoyment if someone enjoys it for a different reason.

True enough. Thank you.

There was actually a guy on this very board, some years ago, who posted a long manifesto demanding just that very thing, in all seriousness. A Star Trek crew series crewed by only straight, white, American men -- with "traditional Christian values" no less.

Funny, I identify with all of those and yet want people to have a Trek that appeals to them, even if it doesn't appeal to me.

 

[Unique]

Schadenfreude is a human emotion that does exist. While I try to discourage my students from acting out of spite, I try to do so in a way that doesn't invalidate the emotion behind it and shame them for having it. Negative emotions do exist. Perhaps you're in a place where you have learned to transcend a particular emotion, that does not mean everyone is in that same place. It's just as valid to like something because it upsets someone as it is to like something because you think it's beautiful. We're all on a journey here. (Perhaps I went too disco in my defence but I stand by it )

Valid means having a sound basis in logic or fact. If you mean that it’s a fact that some people like things just because those things have a negative effect on other people, I guess you could call that “valid”, but it’s a reach.
I’m not going to affirm that spite has any intrinsic worth or value; it’s one of humanity’s worst qualities.

I'm not saying be positive about it, just maybe not much point in judging it. Everyone's in a different place. It doesn't really affect your enjoyment if someone enjoys it for a different reason.

This is my first experience with fellow Trek fans; I’ve been a stranger in a strange land all these years.

I don’t remember a single time I ever watched Trek and thought less of my fellow man afterward, or hoped the episode would repulse anyone. A show that’s about humanity being its best is a poor tool with which to bludgeon anyone into your viewpoint.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments; I appreciate your perspective and the time you took to express it.

 

[vulcancicada]

Valid means having a sound basis in logic or fact. If you mean that it’s a fact that some people like things just because those things have a negative effect on other people, I guess you could call that “valid”, but it’s a reach.
I’m not going to affirm that spite has any intrinsic worth or value; it’s one of humanity’s worst qualities.


This is my first experience with fellow Trek fans; I’ve been a stranger in a strange land all these years.

I don’t remember a single time I ever watched Trek and thought less of my fellow man afterward, or hoped the episode would repulse anyone. A show that’s about humanity being its best is a poor tool with which to bludgeon anyone into your viewpoint.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments; I appreciate your perspective and the time you took to express it.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion

 

[Sci]

Spite against bigotry is morally legitimate.

And Star Trek: Discovery's longstanding tendency to incite the ire of bigots is a reflection of something else I really love about it: this show is genuinely diverse in a way that only DS9 ever previously achieved. This is a show that does not center the white cishet male experience, a show that says, "Okay, but let's center these other people this time because they're also part of The Human Adventure," and that's beautiful.

 

[Unique]

Spite against bigotry is morally legitimate.

And Star Trek: Discovery's longstanding tendency to incite the ire of bigots is a reflection of something else I really love about it: this show is genuinely diverse in a way that only DS9 ever previously achieved. This is a show that does not center the white cishet male experience, a show that says, "Okay, but let's center these other people this time because they're also part of The Human Adventure," and that's beautiful.

The hostility being expressed here is only going in one direction. You just used a made up word to label an entire group of people in a way that they’ve never defined themselves. Look back over your comment and this thread and you see a race, a sexuality, and a gender being sneered at.
This may come as a shock to you, but that’s the very definition of bigotry.

All the beloved Starfleet characters over the years have treated each other with respect and dignity without race or sexuality ever coming into it. I’ve never seen any of them express even a hint of the hostility that’s been expressed in this thread toward people, and fellow Trek fans at that, for their skin color and sexual orientation. If your “white cishet male” label were switched to “black lesbian” your comment would be a racist, homophobic screed decried by everyone who saw it. It’s an expression of race and sexuality-based prejudice and disdain.
And that’s all I have to say about that; I don’t care to read anymore racist rants so I’m done here.

I hope everyone has a nice day, no matter their skin color, sexual orientation, or political beliefs.

 

[Lord Garth]

If someone complains about, "They made it woke!", then they could be discussing anything -- Discovery or not -- and I'd still think it's more a reflection on them than on what they're complaining about.

I'm not a Ghostbusters fan and haven't seen any of the movies after the second one, but the way it looks to me: Discovery is like the 2016 Ghostbusters with the all-female cast ("they made it woke!"), in DSC's case it's a black female lead and a half-LGBT+ cast, but the effect is still the same; and Picard Season 3 is like Ghostbusters: Afterlife ("they've got the band back together!") It's the closest analogy I can think of. I happen to like DSC and PIC Season 3, which apparently makes me some kind of mutant on this board, but that's the way I see it.

 

[vulcancicada]

If someone complains about, "They made it woke!", then they could be discussing anything -- Discovery or not -- and I'd still think it's more a reflection on them than on what they're complaining about.

I'm not a Ghostbusters fan and haven't seen any of the movies after the second one, but the way it looks to me: Discovery is like the 2016 Ghostbusters with the all-female cast ("they made it woke!"), in DSC's case it's a black female lead and a half-LGBT+ cast, but the effect is still the same; and Picard Season 3 is like Ghostbusters: Afterlife ("they've got the band back together!") It's the closest analogy I can think of. I happen to like DSC and PIC Season 3, which apparently makes me some kind of mutant on this board, but that's the way I see it.

I like both too, though it definitely feels like you're not allowed to do that here

I agree about the woke complaints. Although there is a LOT of remaking going on for money's sake, I assume. I love that Disco doesn't give a f about timelines or canons and just gives us this beautiful show that feels like the future I would want. And I think that's what TOS did for the late 60s.

 

[fireproof78]

I love that Disco doesn't give a f about timelines or canons and just gives us this beautiful show that feels like the future I would want. And I think that's what TOS did for the late 60s.

Exactly. I don't give a shit about "woke" or whatever. Just give me a show that feels like the future and have some interesting storielines.

KThnxBy.

 

[Lord Garth]

I like both too, though it definitely feels like you're not allowed to do that here

Well, I'm going to teach them that's not the case.

 

[vulcancicada]

Well, I'm going to teach them that's not the case.

A worthy quest. I'm always here if you need backup

 

[Sci]

The hostility being expressed here is only going in one direction.

The only hostility here has been towards bigots. Hostility towards bigots is legitimate and justified.

You just used a made up word to label an entire group of people

The cisgender is derived from the Latin prefix cis-, meaning, "on this side of." It is the antonym of the Latin prefix trans-, which of course means "on the opposite side of." The use of cis- and trans- to describe a dichotomy is a well-established English-language practice -- witness its use in the Cis-trans isomerism in chemistry.

in a way that they’ve never defined themselves.

We are not talking about an oppressed or marginalized community. The use of the term cisgender to describe persons whose gender identity is consistent with their assigned sex at birth is not an act of oppression, and is completely morally neutral. It is a technical term needed to describe the vast majority of people in order that we may categorize them in conjunction with those people whose gender identity is not consistent with their assigned sex at birth -- transgender people and nonbinary people.

The only reason cisgender people have not traditionally defined themselves as such is that the status of being cisgender was so normative as to be invisible to those self-same cisgender people. But that invisibility is a bad thing; we who are cisgender (as I am cisgender) should be aware of our gender identity as it is no better or worse than the gender identities of our transgender and nonbinary friends and neighbors.

Look back over your comment and this thread and you see a race, a sexuality, and a gender being sneered at.

Nope. Saying, "This community has had an unfairly large amount of time in the spotlight; other communities deserve time in the spotlight too" is not sneering at anyone. It's simply saying, it's good that all communities get a place at the table, and it's good that communities that are often ignored are given time in the spotlight in this particular instance.

This may come as a shock to you, but that’s the very definition of bigotry.

Calling out systemic bias in favor of dominant social groups is not bigotry. It is not bigotry to say that the deck should not be stacked in favor of cishet white guys.

If your “white cishet male” label were switched to “black lesbian” your comment would be a racist, homophobic screed decried by everyone who saw it.

"If things were different, they would be different!" If my labels were switched, I would be advocating for a work of art to advance white supremacy, cis supremacy, and heterosexism in a society that is already white supremacist, cis supremacist, and heterosexist; that would be advocating continuing to stack the deck in favor of the dominant group. Advocating for marginalized communities to get their turn in the spotlight is not the same thing as advocating for them to dominate.

 

[donners22]

If your “white cishet male” label were switched to “black lesbian” your comment would be a racist, homophobic screed decried by everyone who saw it.

That would be a view only formed by those who lack fundamental reading comprehension. I appreciate that is a flaw which is increasingly prevalent these days, but it's not yet afflicting "everyone". Noting that Disco centres different identities than those which have been predominantly centred over past Trek is a simple fact.

There are many aspects of Disco which I enjoy, but the fact that it arouses such ire in narrow-minded types is certainly up there.

 

[dinzy]

I like that it makes racists, bigots and homophobes "physically ill to watch".

I am not sure that is a benefit because you have to put up with their disgusting bigoted whining. They are so disgusting and they are a cancer on all fandom because pretty much everything made today is more diverse than anything was 30 years ago.

For me I like that it brought Star Trek back. I tend to enjoy the mystery in the plot, but so far the endings of each season have been lacking. Saru is a great character. The far future setting is cool and I'd like to see an episodic show set there like SNW to flesh out the universe.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I am not sure that is a benefit because you have to put up with their disgusting bigoted whining. They are so disgusting and they are a cancer on all fandom because pretty much everything made today is more diverse than anything was 30 years ago.

For me I like that it brought Star Trek back. I tend to enjoy the mystery in the plot, but so far the endings of each season have been lacking. Saru is a great character. The far future setting is cool and I'd like to see an episodic show set there like SNW to flesh out the universe.

I know and well said. Not so much a cancer within fandom as a wider cancer within much of world society.

Edit - The original intent of the post was to have a stab at the OP, BTW. They are gone now but they did say DSC made them feel sick and then went on to post various other homophobic remarks.

Ah, racist homophobic newbie trolls… ain’t they just the best?

 

[Lord Garth]

I am not sure that is a benefit because you have to put up with their disgusting bigoted whining.

We don't have to put up with them, and I sure don't.

It's part of why I still post here. I don't always see eye-to-eye with everything the staff does -- and I didn't even when I was actually part of the staff! -- but, at the end of the day, I trust them to do the right thing where it counts.

 

[SJGardner]

The problem is that bigots will complain no matter what, because merely having to acknowledge the existence of people not fitting into their worldview where everything fits into tightly defined little boxes makes them uncomfortable, and most people experience their worldviews being challenged as direct attacks on their identities. Trying to appease them by not discussing uncomfortable topics, not portraying unconventional people, or, as it can still be seen in a lot of minorities, forcing respectability politics and policing our own appearance and behavior in order not to upset bigots has never worked and never will- Because the endgame is always the same, that "different" people should deny themselves, hide and pretend to be "normal" because not upsetting social conservatives is apparently more important than minorities being allowed to be visible and live freely. The problem with LGBTQ+ characters existing in Discovery isn't actually and never has been that their inclusion was to the detriment of "ordinary" people, but simply their existence in and of itself. Star Trek is escapism at its heart, and it just so happens that for a certain subset of viewers, the uncomfortable topics in the real world they want to escape from aren't war, poverty, income inequality or racism, but rather the existence of the "different" in its own right as an equal as opposed to stereotypes or targets of jokes and mockery.