Where no man has gone before - main title
- Thread starter ElimGarak.93-99
- Start date
Well yes, the statement definitely applies prior to the time of the Enterprise going there. That's why using the word "one" is problematic: It applies to the humans on the crew, the aliens on the crew, and the aliens on planet Zog where the ship is heading. Even if the humans on the crew have never boldy gone to planet Zog before, the Zoggites certainly have!
It is therefore inaccurate to say that they are going "where no-one has gone before"
There's more to it than that. This article illustrates that people on both sides of the aisle (the author is on the left, himself) are having problems with the PC movement:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html
It's way off topic, so I'd prefer to say no more about it on this bboard. Just thought you'd like to know.
Regarding "Where No Man," I agree with those who've pointed out that the intention was to refer to humans.
Ah, I get you. That's a good point, especially given how many of the places they go end up being inhabited, even when they weren't expecting them to be.
Even in the second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," the Enterprise was preceded by the Valiant.
However, the point of the second pilot was that they were trying to get outside the galaxy, where as far as they knew literally no one had ever been before. I believe that the "no one" version would have applied in the second pilot, as a description of their goal, as they understood it. Both the Enterprise and the Valiant were turned back by the barrier, so neither ship really made it that far.
Sorry that I misunderstood your point before.
It's rather funny that nobody in the second pilot actually ends up doing anything unprecedented. The Valiant and her valiant crew took care of it all even before the opening credits rolled!
It is equally fun to see that when they start saying "Where no ONE", the very TNG episode by that title takes them to a place where indeed no ONE has been before (as far as they and the audience can tell), and against all odds it turns out to be NOT DULL after all!
Timo Saloniemi
It is equally fun to see that when they start saying "Where no ONE", the very TNG episode by that title takes them to a place where indeed no ONE has been before (as far as they and the audience can tell), and against all odds it turns out to be NOT DULL after all!
Timo Saloniemi
With "no one," it sounds rather like Columbus "discovering" a whole New World that "no one" knew about. (Well, nobody important, I guess.)
"Who are you and why are you here?"
"I'm a human from the starship Enterprise, and I'm simply going where no one has ever gone before. Pretty impressive, huh?"
"Yes, that's pretty neat, Mr. Human. I'll alert all our planet's inhabitants that we now exist."
And then there is the other side that says being PC, or decent, breeds creativity in mixed gender/race environments because, tada, all those white male centric microaggressions that your article pokes fun at really do upset people and stifle their ability to contribute. When its data versus anecdotes I choose the data. It really is a matter of having empathy and caring about other people's feelings and input.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtal...says-political-correctness-not-irreverence-b/
And I'd like to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, but judging from names and avatars there are only men participating in this conversation, as is the case in most threads. One has to wonder what an environment has to be like to have that kind of singular demographic when there is no obvious barrier to entry.
That doesn't line up with the demographics of fandom at all. It also doesn't line up with women's desires to speak in online communities either when you look at 4000 member strong groups like Women of Star Trek which is about to launch a podcast called "Women Talk Star Trek". They don't sit around discussing "the patriarchy" or some other stereotypical mumbo jumbo. They just talk about what interests them about the show like anyone here does. And there are more men in their group (including Doug Drexler) than there are women here, so that has to bring up the subject of alienation again. What's keeping this forum homogenous while theirs is more overall inclusive?
Would a woman be taken seriously in this conversation if she spoke up and said "no one" made here feel more comfortable, or would everyone here go to great pains to explain why what she says and feels doesn't matter until she thinks twice about ever adding her two cents again? If that's the case then it seems like you don't really want "discussion", you want an echo chamber.
"No one" maybe be incorrect as far as alien species, etc, being there first. "Man" also may have historical precedence meaning the entire human race. But historic meaning of words is pointless to argue. Faggot means a dry batch of sticks. Niger is literally the latin word for the color black. Words change. "Man" within the historical context of men in the gender sense being seen as the sole force of progress in the world to the exclusion and erasure of all others has worn out its welcome. I rather "no one" with it's minor inaccuracies and sense of inclusion, than "no man" with all the baggage that carries. Even Kirk thought so at the end of TUC.
Last edited:
Similar threads
