You can't go wrong with lots of olive oil and lots of bread in every meal!
What you'd like included
- Thread starter Tenacity
- Start date
Andorian, Tellarites and Vulcan officers and crew, lots of them. The three other founding partners of the Federation need to be front and center of Starfleet.
Routinely show Starfleet doing all the things that militaries have always done through the centuries, then every other season have someone state that Starfleet isn't a miltary.
While we're at it, show and have dialog of people having money, making purchases, references to pay, then occasionally have someone out of the blue state that money doesn't exist.
Nahhh, rather have on display conservative and traditional attitudes, the more we change, the more we stay the same kind of thing. Show marriage and religion remain the standard, people work jobs, own businesses and have private property.
No one's dependent on "the state."
Yes to this. In the future it will be technologically advance and people will live materially comfortable lives, but they should still be people, just regular folks. Not hyper-evolved self-important superior beings.
Sincerely hope not, maybe once in a while we can see progressives running planet Detroit.
^ I think you may have been watching the wrong show for years.
That sounds like the most boring, uninclusive shit ever.
Beats watching Conservatives run planets Oklahoma, Kansas, Alabama, Kentucky...
I've always found that superior "we are so enlightened" crap to be one of the more cringe-worthy aspects of TNG.
Don't get me wrong -- I've generally enjoyed TNG, but I found TOS's society to be more realistic than TNG's, mainly because TOS did not go out of there way to bash it into our heads us that they are an ultra-progressive and enlightened society (like TNG did).
I can imagine the societal setting for TOS as being our future more than I can imagine the societal setting for TNG being our future. TOS was basically late-20th century society with FTL space travel, and I liked that because it was more relate-able....
...i.e., they are us. TOS might have been the better "us" that we all strive to be, but they were still basically us, not holier-than-thou ultra-enlightened citizens of Utopia.
Don't get me wrong -- I've generally enjoyed TNG, but I found TOS's society to be more realistic than TNG's, mainly because TOS did not go out of there way to bash it into our heads us that they are an ultra-progressive and enlightened society (like TNG did).
I can imagine the societal setting for TOS as being our future more than I can imagine the societal setting for TNG being our future. TOS was basically late-20th century society with FTL space travel, and I liked that because it was more relate-able....
...i.e., they are us. TOS might have been the better "us" that we all strive to be, but they were still basically us, not holier-than-thou ultra-enlightened citizens of Utopia.
Last edited:
Not at all
You could credible say that TNG had a liberal lean, but the bulk of Star Trek in general, no.
And even in TNG we see traditional lifestyles on display, it would be quite easy to describe Robert and Marie Picard as conservatives. Maintaining the multi-generational family business, a traditional nuclear family.
In the movie First Contact, one of my favorite scenes is where Lily points out to Picard that his trademark liberal philosophy is nothing but a empty box.
DS9 dismantled TNG's liberalism by popping the fantasy bubble that it existed in.
TOS leaned conservative, several episodes emphasized individual freedoms over government control, remember all those computers (big central government) that Kirk destroyed?
Hardly boring, and conservatism is of course the more inclusive. Conservative might not agree with a opposing viewpoint, but at least all sides get a voice. As opposed to non-conservatives where you have to agree with everything they say, less they try to silence you and (falsely) accuse you of being racist, homophobic, sexist and eventually being Hitler.
Rather watch a Captain who was raised in the heartland, with the "old fashion" values of Captain America from the Marvel comics. movies..
Their constant attempts to take away peoples rights the moment they have power says otherwise.
^ Lily popped nothing. People of the 24th century DO have a more evolved sensibility. That's sensibility, not biology. We're the same people, but choose to be more sensible. Under stress Picard lost sight of his until Lily showed him he was being NOT himself. Perspective reacquired, he was ready to blow up the damn ship. Less sensible people wouldn't have dug themselves out of that hole, and there's plenty of those already on television -- who needs Star Trek? Phaser this, dork.
TOS was Liberal for its time, and still very so, to hear people go on these days.
DS9 took issue with the simplistic Family Friendly Programming presentation of TNG's Trek. They went melodramatic, but war isn't illiberal. FDR/Truman won our biggest. And I wish we'd remember that conservative Eisenhower warned against forces from within urging us for their own purposes to forever start new ones.
Re being raised in the "heartland," I consider that fundamentally UNamerican. It suggests not only that not all of America is America, and that these segregated parts are more America than those (I'm from Philadelphia -- bow down, bitches), but that all it takes to be a good person is being born in the "right place" to the "right kind" of people. Maybe you think that if you think that "it's easy to be a saint in paradise," then never met Lucifer, Number One of Heaven. It's never easy being a saint. The person told to pass a test by memorizing the answers is not the same as one who passes it having figuring out the answers for themselves.
TOS was Liberal for its time, and still very so, to hear people go on these days.
DS9 took issue with the simplistic Family Friendly Programming presentation of TNG's Trek. They went melodramatic, but war isn't illiberal. FDR/Truman won our biggest. And I wish we'd remember that conservative Eisenhower warned against forces from within urging us for their own purposes to forever start new ones.
Re being raised in the "heartland," I consider that fundamentally UNamerican. It suggests not only that not all of America is America, and that these segregated parts are more America than those (I'm from Philadelphia -- bow down, bitches), but that all it takes to be a good person is being born in the "right place" to the "right kind" of people. Maybe you think that if you think that "it's easy to be a saint in paradise," then never met Lucifer, Number One of Heaven. It's never easy being a saint. The person told to pass a test by memorizing the answers is not the same as one who passes it having figuring out the answers for themselves.
How is that conservative? The very essence of liberalism is liberty. Whereas conservative movements are constantly trying to tell others how to live, trying to keep marginalized groups (including women) from achieving individual freedoms (like the right to use the correct bathroom, the right to be treated as equals and so on) and are actively trying to let government control people's lives (like when it comes to self-determination over your own (female) body when it comes to abortion or the nasty suggestions for how to treat trans people.). They love to regulate the shit out of these things.
Conservatives can be very authoritarian. It's just that in the US they often push neoliberal economic policies which is probably what the "individual freedom" fetish is all about. Sadly, that (neo)liberalism does not extend to their social policies.
Not to get back to the actual topic:
The Federation has always seemed to have an anti-capitalist stance (in the sense that laissez faire capitalism isn't revered) and a perfect social security system; traditional elements of centre-left thought. In that sense the Federation seems to conduct an economically left-wing policy and not a neoliberal (read: Reagan/Thatcher but also Clinton) policy.
While we meet many alien races that favor conservative social policies (Ferengi in gender relations, Klingon in other aspects, same for Romulans), the Federation itself favors a rather progressive social policy, encouraging diversity.
TNG was probably the most social-democratic Trek show obviously. DS9 had some neo-con elements (Sisko lied to the Romulans to get them involved in a war even before Colin Powell and Dubya tried the same in the UN security council) but all things considered seemed to be quite critical of fascism and religion.
Right... women and minorities of all kinds know how much our voice matters to many conservatives.
And when we "get a voice", conservatives get scared shitless that the unfair status quo (that so much favors male whitey) is challenged.
When that happens and intolerant conservative points of view are criticized... they paint themselves as victims:
See?
Let's not confuse Conservative/Liberal with Republican/Democrat. All sides have their sins and their virtues. The problem nowadays is everybody demonizes the other and grants sainthood to their own. We are all human, and we are all guilty of thinking and doing things for ill. We can all do a better. More often than not, when it comes to popular media, we'll either only see the opposing view in anything we watch, or we will see our most virtuous beliefs on full display. It's funny how both sides here can lay claim to seeing themselves projected in Star Trek.
I agree with Tenacity regarding the difference between TOS and TNG regarding the way the universe felt. TOS feels far more relatable than TNG, particularly early TNG where the human characters feel VERY stiff and arrogant of themselves. TOS did touch upon the "better" nature of the future when Kirk ever discussed that humanity was trying to do better. "Today I will not kill." etc... But the characters of TOS never claimed to be perfect. TNG damn near did just that.
As to the topic at hand, what do I want in Star Trek? I want adventure, I want fun, I want intelligent writing, interesting and rich characters. I want science to play it's part, and let me stress that point; I want science to help inspire stories to tell. (IE, something Neil DeGrasse Tyson brought up... Have a character get spaghettified by a black hole.) I do not want tired, boring, filler discussions of tech-no-babble. No thank you. Exciting action.... and a good sense of humour. Some of the best moments in the original series are those moments of wit between the main cast. Something that the show started to lose as it got starchier over the years.
I agree with Tenacity regarding the difference between TOS and TNG regarding the way the universe felt. TOS feels far more relatable than TNG, particularly early TNG where the human characters feel VERY stiff and arrogant of themselves. TOS did touch upon the "better" nature of the future when Kirk ever discussed that humanity was trying to do better. "Today I will not kill." etc... But the characters of TOS never claimed to be perfect. TNG damn near did just that.
As to the topic at hand, what do I want in Star Trek? I want adventure, I want fun, I want intelligent writing, interesting and rich characters. I want science to play it's part, and let me stress that point; I want science to help inspire stories to tell. (IE, something Neil DeGrasse Tyson brought up... Have a character get spaghettified by a black hole.) I do not want tired, boring, filler discussions of tech-no-babble. No thank you. Exciting action.... and a good sense of humour. Some of the best moments in the original series are those moments of wit between the main cast. Something that the show started to lose as it got starchier over the years.
TOS: Advocate for the Traditional Nuclear Family.
Yeah...That's without getting to the sex instructors.
Kirk - accidentally married to an alien in an alien ceremony, widowed after five minutes, has a out-of-wedlock son that he literally never met. Goes dewey eyed, seduces, or outright fucks a woman every second episode or so.
Spock - broken childhood arranged engagement, neither party cares because they were fucking around with other people anyway. In the woman's case, she was literally willing to kill to get out of it.
McCoy - divorced, and completely absent from his daughters life. Though I don't have to check if any of that was ever on-screen in the series proper. Otherwise, serial bachelor.
Scotty - Single. Apparently turns into a raging misogynist on a dime, which can be cured with alcohol and strippers. Casusually fucks around with Uhura for a bit.
Chekov - single. Chronically.
Sulu - Single. Possibly gay or bi. Eventually has a kid, with no mention of the other parent.
Uhura - Single.
Chapel - is engaged, but doesn't see or speak to the guy for years on end. Mourns his death for about...half a second, which makes sense considering she found out he was makingsex bots very anatomically correct female androids . Constantly tries to jump Spocks bones in the meantime, to a sexual harassment degree.
Spock - broken childhood arranged engagement, neither party cares because they were fucking around with other people anyway. In the woman's case, she was literally willing to kill to get out of it.
McCoy - divorced, and completely absent from his daughters life. Though I don't have to check if any of that was ever on-screen in the series proper. Otherwise, serial bachelor.
Scotty - Single. Apparently turns into a raging misogynist on a dime, which can be cured with alcohol and strippers. Casusually fucks around with Uhura for a bit.
Chekov - single. Chronically.
Sulu - Single. Possibly gay or bi. Eventually has a kid, with no mention of the other parent.
Uhura - Single.
Chapel - is engaged, but doesn't see or speak to the guy for years on end. Mourns his death for about...half a second, which makes sense considering she found out he was making
Yeah...That's without getting to the sex instructors.
Last edited:
That's an... odd interpretation. I assume you're referring to the scene where Picard isn't acting like himself because of his fear and anger against the Borg, and Lily has to call him out, to use modern parlance, and make him see how out of character he's acting? She is the one in that scene acting how you deplore people acting in your next post, calling out what she sees as unethical bullshit. She ends the movie telling Picard she envies the world he's going to, not that the world he's going to is a philosophically empty box.
No, Picard is acting thoroughly like himself, the way he's behaved and spoken on many occasions. That his way is "more evolved" and other ways are lesser.
This wasn't in any way unique to the movie FC.
The very essence of liberalism is central government control of society, to use laws and the courts to force people to live by a liberal construct.
Last edited:
A great deal. 42% of women, and 29% of Hispanics and Asian-American voted for Trump.
It was the Republicans (and you can check) who gave women the right to vote in 1919. When the 19th amendment passed the Senate, it passed mainly with the support of the political right.
It was Republicans (not Democrats) who pushed through civil rights laws in the 1960's.
Divorced and therefor married, daughter not born out of marriage. In fact which of all the people you mentioned were known to be born out of marriage ... one David.
Kirk does have sex outside of marriage, but he wasn't as promiscuous as some fans paint him to be
Spock's estrangement from his father started after he was a adult, not when he was a child.
There's no evidence that Sulu was gay (even in the Abram's universe) George Takei position is that his character wasn't.
It is unknown if Sulu was single during the time of TOS, which (iirc) is about the time his daughter was born.
What's Spocks father issues have to do with the price of eggs? Or what 'some fans' paint Kirk as?
It's almost like...nothing in your reply contradicts anything I actually said.
And I'm gonna repeat: did the actual show ever establish that McCoy had been married?
Oooh, denial. Nice.
And until he's one of the writers, George Takei's opinions on the matter means as much as yours.
Well, no. The essence is freedom for everyone, not just the people who are like you.
Which other episodes was it when he demanded his crew fight hand to hand against overwhelming odds out of rage and a desire for revenge?
No, that's pretty much the opposite of what liberalism is. What you're describing is authoritarianism, or in its extreme, totalitarianism.
Last edited:
