GustavoLeao

Discovery and Me

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, prometheus59650 said:

These are just people that literally can't handle the reality that the world is more 'not white' than white, so any reminder of that fact is a personal attack.

Never mind that Star Trek, for 50 years, has been all about social justice. That's really the whole point.

There are A LOT of 'fans' who are not fans of any of the social aspects of the show, but rather seem to love the gunboat diplomacy and the Americentric notion, grafted onto the vehicle of "The Federation," that our way is the right way, best way, and everyone else wants to be like us.

Yup. The social justice aspects fly right over their heads. I always wonder if they really CANNOT see them or if they don't WANT to see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

Chinese have been very underrepresented on Star Trek so far. How much of the world population is Chinese? 20%? Yet we never had a Chinese character, as far as I remember. While statistically at least, one out of five should be.

Maybe Yeoh's captain is going to change that... assuming she isn't just a guest character.

24 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

Yup. The social justice aspects fly right over their heads. I always wonder if they really CANNOT see them or if they don't WANT to see them.

Yeah it's absurd, isn't it? Star Trek had black and Japanese characters at a time when this wasn't common at all, and even a female in a leading top position when that was still against many people's expectations... and now suddenly, these people complain? Huh?

Doesn't appear so logical to me that they were okay with diversity then, but suddenly aren't anymore.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sim said:

Leaving the whole debate of racism aside for a moment... even if you feel white males are underrepresented, it strikes me as absurd drawing this conclusion from this short trailer.

The main character is a black female, okay, but apart from her, we see hardly any other characters -- two aliens and an Asian female captain we even know won't be the Discovery's captain... that leaves huge room for other white male characters, doesn't it? 

I'm pretty sure there will be white males in the show too, so this complaining is extra absurd.

(Just for the record, personally I care more if a character is well written than for his or her skin color.)

 

4 minutes ago, Robin Bland said:

LOL :laugh:

The world is a crazy place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, prometheus59650 said:

 

The world is a crazy place.

I think maybe in 2016 and 2017 we're just shining a light into all those little dark corners which we always knew were crazy, but now the crazy is trying to scuttle out and hog the stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
2 minutes ago, Robin Bland said:

I think maybe in 2016 and 2017 we're just shining a light into all those little dark corners which we always knew were crazy, but now the crazy is trying to scuttle out and hog the stage.

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but it feels to me that this wave of crazy has surpassed its peak and is very slowly ebbing back.

Not saying more out of regard for our dear mods, but I'm cautiously optimistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

Since this seems to be where the 'dislike DSC stuff is going, I'll place this here, but we're not talking 'This just isn't my thing' dislike. We're talking, literally, "DSC is white genocide" nonsense.

 

Rascism here, there, and everywhere. (Some comments NSFW)

I won't even dignify those Tweets with a response; even if this were a KM thread, I wouldn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sim said:

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but it feels to me that this wave of crazy has surpassed its peak and is very slowly ebbing back.

Not saying more out of regard for our dear mods, but I'm cautiously optimistic. 

If it doesn't, we'll capsize the whole ship and go down with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2017 at 8:35 AM, GustavoLeao said:

I made a decision which I think I woiuld never made in my life. I will not watch STAR TREK DISCOVERY. Watching the trailer was so painfull I almost cried. Mu Star Trek is gone, lost forever, a relic. A friend told me "Gus, let it go.You Star Trek is dead. There is a universe of entertaiment out there, like the Marvel productions" And I thank my good old buddy Carlos for having told me that. I will sample the pilot on Netflix and thats painfull as JJ Trek and the trailer, I will try to not care and try to get my head on other things. My sincere repects to Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, Harve Bennett, Rick Berman and Michael Piller for keeping my love for Star Trek for years and years. Now its time for a new generation of fans. I just turned 47 yesterday.My time is up. I dont wanna insult anyone with this post, its just my feelings since yesterday. I will watch THE CAGE tonight. Thanks a lot guys,

Gus

I have discussed the trailer and seen other vlogs on the trailer, breaking it down. I have come to the conclusion it is in fact a re imagining, or soft reboot. The show could still address things Star Trek, hope and fear, morals, diversity, etc, as evident in a cast of characters that includes  gender, race, and alien race issues, but so far the teaser does not show to what extent.

One in the know person said 'It is really for the new fans, the ones that have seen the Abrams movies.', because if it was made like the 1960s or even 1990s it would be kind of hard to watch.

Another said, 'well why not make it set in the present, that is 2393 our time, or during the time of STO, in 2417?' Well it is possible they are doing something like that after all. Like us all guessing the Khan thing, we've likely guessed that the future looking ship Shinzou could be from the future. Not saying they are, but it is possible, in later iterations, that it could be.

Should we be so obsessed with each canon thing matching the original? Well those fans will likely not accept it, because it would not theirs. The are not in the demographic. This new series is made for new fans, JJ fans, and people who are not nostalgic.

That said, I will give it a try, because I even liked a lot of Voyager and  third of Enterprise. I liked the JJ reboot too, even though I posted on occasion, 'it really is not the Star Trek of my parents or grandparents', it's the Star Trek of my young nieces or nephews.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." We need more Star Trek, but we can only go back to the old days through fan films..The studios aren;t going to do that.

The general consensus about the new show drawbacks though is why only All Acess, why not make it in the future, and why not let it go syndicated months later, to appear on TV so everyone can watch it and not pay full price? We have cable as it is. We'd have to pay extra for this. A lot of people will just not do it.

The marketing Juggernaut of Disney Marvel is an efficient operation, but will Discovery have toys towels and blankets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't comment too much on the ignorant complaints that people have about the new show, but I kind of cry foul that those are real Star Trek fans. I find that highly suspect considering the material that is Star Trek. The idea of diversity, multiculturalism, a soft type of socialism (for lack of a better political description for the UFP), anti-war (yes, even DS9 was anti-war - it was never glorified), anti-crony capitalism, etc. etc. etc.

The idea that Star Trek has attracted these people is ... peculiar. I'm not saying Trek fans are perfect. None of us are. But I find that suspicious...

Although, to be fair, they did not allow Trek to have a gay character because they felt a segment of us "weren't ready" for it. So maybe I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Founder said:

I won't comment too much on the ignorant complaints that people have about the new show, but I kind of cry foul that those are real Star Trek fans. I find that highly suspect considering the material that is Star Trek. The idea of diversity, multiculturalism, a soft type of socialism (for lack of a better political description for the UFP), anti-war (yes, even DS9 was anti-war - it was never glorified), anti-crony capitalism, etc. etc. etc.

The idea that Star Trek has attracted these people is ... peculiar. I'm not saying Trek fans are perfect. None of us are. But I find that suspicious...

Although, to be fair, they did not allow Trek to have a gay character because they felt a segment of us "weren't ready" for it. So maybe I'm wrong.

Diversity has been part of ST's DNA since 1966.  

Anyone who doesn't believe or realize that has never seen the show.   These are just racists who are emboldened by the new--- er, shall we say, 'political climate' here in the US (don't want to make this KM territory).   A lot of racist ranters who were mercifully unseen before are now emboldened.  

24 minutes ago, The Founder said:

I won't comment too much on the ignorant complaints that people have about the new show, but I kind of cry foul that those are real Star Trek fans.

^ I very much agree!  It's ugly and unworthy of comment from anyone who is a real ST fan...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOME of them are trolls who hate on everything that, in their eyes, "undermines their superiority". They aren't all Star Trek fans. I've seen them tear into EVERYTHING that threatens their world view, Star Trek is just yet another bone for them to chew on. Those people can basically be dismissed, they aren't part of the fandom and have hardly ever watched an episode.

But.

As prom has pointed out, many of them ARE Star Trek fans, and it kind of baffles me how this is apparently news to the media and a large percentage of the fandom and even some Trek websites. These fans have been here for a long, long time. They watch Star Trek, and they love Star Trek, but not for its analogies or diversity or morality. They watch it because they like the pretty starships and explosions, the "hot alien chicks" and "Kirk being a ladies' man, boys will be boys". AND they often interpret the episodes in completely different ways, too. They may watch Star Trek differently, but that does not mean they aren't fans.

IMO, the whole "duuude, what show have you been watching all this time?" question should not be a rhetorical one but an ACTUAL one. For those (overwhelmingly straight, white, cis and male) fans it's not weird to love Deep Space Nine and Sisko but to rage against a black female lead character now - they feel like as if it's being "turned into an issue" and that "people are cast because of skin color, not talent". It goes completely over their heads that Avery Brooks' Sisko was also supposed to be a black character TO MAKE A STATEMENT. To them this is not the same thing - these fans feel threatened by diversity today because it undermines their understanding of how media has to be - mostly white, straight, cis and male - like they are. They perceive this as their representation slipping away from them, which is also why we have literal "where are the white heterosexual guys in the trailer" outcries. (It's funny how they don't realize that they're now experiencing a TINY taste of what minorities have gone through for decades and how they're so threatened by the mere IDEA of it all.) The casting of a black female lead represents almost EVERYTHING these fans are afraid of, and that is why Discovery is getting so much hate from them.

Same line of arguing as "it shouldn't matter if someone's gay on Trek, you don't have to show us, they're allowed to be there, in the background, imagined, somehow, but please, not in the front row" - they're fine with straight couples being all over the place, kissing, holding hands, whatever else, but as soon as a gay couple is introduced the reaction is "ugh do they HAVE to shove this down our throats, do they HAVE to have a gay couple, they should not be emphasizing this character's sexuality"... while completely overlooking that heterosexuality has been "emphasized" on Star Trek for FIFTY YEARS. They REALLY don't REALIZE the flaws in their logic, to them this makes perfect sense because to THEM, LGBT+ folks are a minority and should therefore be treated as such, and if they get representation it should be representation THEY as straight people are comfortable with, aka "not too much of it, please, keep it down". And this is why we are going to have the next outcry once Discovery shows us its gay character. It will be an even louder outcry than the one we had when Beyond had Sulu. I dread the day already.

And again people will say "these fans aren't fans". They ARE fans. They just approach Trek from a completely different direction. But that doesn't mean they aren't fans. They identify as fans, they view themselves as fans, and in their own way they ARE fans - fans of something THEY perceive as Star Trek. That this Star Trek they think they're watching hasn't exactly existed is irrelevant in this case (especially not in this particular case since Star Trek's LGBT+ representation record has been hideous until now, you can't even fault them, in this particular regard Star Trek has catered to their interests only throughout its entire existence, which was a BIG mistake that's coming to haunt the fandom now but then I've been saying this for years and I'm sad to see I seem to have been right).

Anyways. This whole hatemongering won't stop, and I for one think progressive-thinking Trek fans should TACKLE what these people represent and not stand there like "these people aren't fans, they're not in the fandom, not my problem, la la la". I have seen Trek websites going like "these people aren't fans, they do not represent us, this media outrage is just so unfair, we aren't like that". No. That's not how this works. Of course progressive-thinking Trek fans aren't like this, but that doesn't mean there's no problem - these people ARE a problem, and they have been one for a long, long time - ask any LGBT+ Trek fan who has been the target of these fans and their "opinions", and they will gladly tell you all about how this has been a problem for, like, ever.

 

*clears throat*

Now.

I guess for now we have this list of "people who refuse to get into Discovery":

 

- fans of something they perceive as Star Trek but is actually not and won't watch because OMG DIVERSITY HOW DARE YOU

- fans who like Star Trek but not the Star Trek from today with its lense flares

- fans who refuse to pay for CBS All Access

- fans who wanted a post Nemesis series and dislike the idea of a prequel so much that they won't bother

- anything else? I'm sure I forgot one faction or two. There are so many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

SOME of them are trolls who hate on everything that, in their eyes, "undermines their superiority". They aren't all Star Trek fans. I've seen them tear into EVERYTHING that threatens their world view, Star Trek is just yet another bone for them to chew on. Those people can basically be dismissed, they aren't part of the fandom and have hardly ever watched an episode.

But.

As prom has pointed out, many of them ARE Star Trek fans, and it kind of baffles me how this is apparently news to the media and a large percentage of the fandom and even some Trek websites. These fans have been here for a long, long time. They watch Star Trek, and they love Star Trek, but not for its analogies or diversity or morality. They watch it because they like the pretty starships and explosions, the "hot alien chicks" and "Kirk being a ladies' man, boys will be boys". AND they often interpret the episodes in completely different ways, too. They may watch Star Trek differently, but that does not mean they aren't fans.

IMO, the whole "duuude, what show have you been watching all this time?" question should not be a rhetorical one but an ACTUAL one. For those (overwhelmingly straight, white, cis and male) fans it's not weird to love Deep Space Nine and Sisko but to rage against a black female lead character now - they feel like as if it's being "turned into an issue" and that "people are cast because of skin color, not talent". It goes completely over their heads that Avery Brooks' Sisko was also supposed to be a black character TO MAKE A STATEMENT. To them this is not the same thing - these fans feel threatened by diversity today because it undermines their understanding of how media has to be - mostly white, straight, cis and male - like they are. They perceive this as their representation slipping away from them, which is also why we have literal "where are the white heterosexual guys in the trailer" outcries. (It's funny how they don't realize that they're now experiencing a TINY taste of what minorities have gone through for decades and how they're so threatened by the mere IDEA of it all.) The casting of a black female lead represents almost EVERYTHING these fans are afraid of, and that is why Discovery is getting so much hate from them.

Same line of arguing as "it shouldn't matter if someone's gay on Trek, you don't have to show us, they're allowed to be there, in the background, imagined, somehow, but please, not in the front row" - they're fine with straight couples being all over the place, kissing, holding hands, whatever else, but as soon as a gay couple is introduced the reaction is "ugh do they HAVE to shove this down our throats, do they HAVE to have a gay couple, they should not be emphasizing this character's sexuality"... while completely overlooking that heterosexuality has been "emphasized" on Star Trek for FIFTY YEARS. They REALLY don't REALIZE the flaws in their logic, to them this makes perfect sense because to THEM, LGBT+ folks are a minority and should therefore be treated as such, and if they get representation it should be representation THEY as straight people are comfortable with, aka "not too much of it, please, keep it down". And this is why we are going to have the next outcry once Discovery shows us its gay character. It will be an even louder outcry than the one we had when Beyond had Sulu. I dread the day already.

And again people will say "these fans aren't fans". They ARE fans. They just approach Trek from a completely different direction. But that doesn't mean they aren't fans. They identify as fans, they view themselves as fans, and in their own way they ARE fans - fans of something THEY perceive as Star Trek. That this Star Trek they think they're watching hasn't exactly existed is irrelevant in this case (especially not in this particular case since Star Trek's LGBT+ representation record has been hideous until now, you can't even fault them, in this particular regard Star Trek has catered to their interests only throughout its entire existence, which was a BIG mistake that's coming to haunt the fandom now but then I've been saying this for years and I'm sad to see I seem to have been right).

Anyways. This whole hatemongering won't stop, and I for one think progressive-thinking Trek fans should TACKLE what these people represent and not stand there like "these people aren't fans, they're not in the fandom, not my problem, la la la". I have seen Trek websites going like "these people aren't fans, they do not represent us, this media outrage is just so unfair, we aren't like that". No. That's not how this works. Of course progressive-thinking Trek fans aren't like this, but that doesn't mean there's no problem - these people ARE a problem, and they have been one for a long, long time - ask any LGBT+ Trek fan who has been the target of these fans and their "opinions", and they will gladly tell you all about how this has been a problem for, like, ever.

 

*clears throat*

Now.

I guess for now we have this list of "people who refuse to get into Discovery":

 

- fans of something they perceive as Star Trek but is actually not and won't watch because OMG DIVERSITY HOW DARE YOU

- fans who like Star Trek but not the Star Trek from today with its lense flares

- fans who refuse to pay for CBS All Access

- fans who wanted a post Nemesis series and dislike the idea of a prequel so much that they won't bother

- anything else? I'm sure I forgot one faction or two. There are so many.

Billy-D_Approves.gif

And I think you really nailed it with your list; they're reacting to other issues largely (their own prejudices, anger over anything other than 'their' ST [usually TOS], anger over paying for ST streaming, etc). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mr.Picard said:

SOME of them are trolls who hate on everything that, in their eyes, "undermines their superiority". They aren't all Star Trek fans. I've seen them tear into EVERYTHING that threatens their world view, Star Trek is just yet another bone for them to chew on. Those people can basically be dismissed, they aren't part of the fandom and have hardly ever watched an episode.

But.

As prom has pointed out, many of them ARE Star Trek fans, and it kind of baffles me how this is apparently news to the media and a large percentage of the fandom and even some Trek websites. These fans have been here for a long, long time. They watch Star Trek, and they love Star Trek, but not for its analogies or diversity or morality. They watch it because they like the pretty starships and explosions, the "hot alien chicks" and "Kirk being a ladies' man, boys will be boys". AND they often interpret the episodes in completely different ways, too. They may watch Star Trek differently, but that does not mean they aren't fans.

IMO, the whole "duuude, what show have you been watching all this time?" question should not be a rhetorical one but an ACTUAL one. For those (overwhelmingly straight, white, cis and male) fans it's not weird to love Deep Space Nine and Sisko but to rage against a black female lead character now - they feel like as if it's being "turned into an issue" and that "people are cast because of skin color, not talent". It goes completely over their heads that Avery Brooks' Sisko was also supposed to be a black character TO MAKE A STATEMENT. To them this is not the same thing - these fans feel threatened by diversity today because it undermines their understanding of how media has to be - mostly white, straight, cis and male - like they are. They perceive this as their representation slipping away from them, which is also why we have literal "where are the white heterosexual guys in the trailer" outcries. (It's funny how they don't realize that they're now experiencing a TINY taste of what minorities have gone through for decades and how they're so threatened by the mere IDEA of it all.) The casting of a black female lead represents almost EVERYTHING these fans are afraid of, and that is why Discovery is getting so much hate from them.

Same line of arguing as "it shouldn't matter if someone's gay on Trek, you don't have to show us, they're allowed to be there, in the background, imagined, somehow, but please, not in the front row" - they're fine with straight couples being all over the place, kissing, holding hands, whatever else, but as soon as a gay couple is introduced the reaction is "ugh do they HAVE to shove this down our throats, do they HAVE to have a gay couple, they should not be emphasizing this character's sexuality"... while completely overlooking that heterosexuality has been "emphasized" on Star Trek for FIFTY YEARS. They REALLY don't REALIZE the flaws in their logic, to them this makes perfect sense because to THEM, LGBT+ folks are a minority and should therefore be treated as such, and if they get representation it should be representation THEY as straight people are comfortable with, aka "not too much of it, please, keep it down". And this is why we are going to have the next outcry once Discovery shows us its gay character. It will be an even louder outcry than the one we had when Beyond had Sulu. I dread the day already.

And again people will say "these fans aren't fans". They ARE fans. They just approach Trek from a completely different direction. But that doesn't mean they aren't fans. They identify as fans, they view themselves as fans, and in their own way they ARE fans - fans of something THEY perceive as Star Trek. That this Star Trek they think they're watching hasn't exactly existed is irrelevant in this case (especially not in this particular case since Star Trek's LGBT+ representation record has been hideous until now, you can't even fault them, in this particular regard Star Trek has catered to their interests only throughout its entire existence, which was a BIG mistake that's coming to haunt the fandom now but then I've been saying this for years and I'm sad to see I seem to have been right).

Anyways. This whole hatemongering won't stop, and I for one think progressive-thinking Trek fans should TACKLE what these people represent and not stand there like "these people aren't fans, they're not in the fandom, not my problem, la la la". I have seen Trek websites going like "these people aren't fans, they do not represent us, this media outrage is just so unfair, we aren't like that". No. That's not how this works. Of course progressive-thinking Trek fans aren't like this, but that doesn't mean there's no problem - these people ARE a problem, and they have been one for a long, long time - ask any LGBT+ Trek fan who has been the target of these fans and their "opinions", and they will gladly tell you all about how this has been a problem for, like, ever.

 

*clears throat*

Now.

I guess for now we have this list of "people who refuse to get into Discovery":

 

- fans of something they perceive as Star Trek but is actually not and won't watch because OMG DIVERSITY HOW DARE YOU

- fans who like Star Trek but not the Star Trek from today with its lense flares

- fans who refuse to pay for CBS All Access

- fans who wanted a post Nemesis series and dislike the idea of a prequel so much that they won't bother

- anything else? I'm sure I forgot one faction or two. There are so many.

Fair points. I'm not necessarily saying this shouldn't be addressed or that it isn't our problem to deal with. It should be challenged.

I don't doubt these people (or some of them at least) genuinely think they are Star Trek fans. But it still doesn't make any sense from a logical point of view. A person can call themselves fans of anything but what makes a fan? I know the argument is "They like the focus on Jim Kirk being with "hott" Green women and kicking Klingon ass!" Ok - fair enough. But how often does he does that? For every time he does that - he is opting for peace with his enemies (the Gorn in "The Arena" or the Klingons in "Errand of Mercy"). So they are fans of Star Trek based off of less than a handful of episodes of TOS? They love Trek because they loved the Dominion War in DS9? Because they liked Seven of Nine's catsuit in VOY? That doesn't sound like the image I have of a "Star Trek fan" in my head.

To me - the diversity, calls for peace, unity, social cohesion, post-racial politics (like the so called-white genocide) are things of the past. Kirk and Uhura - first interracial kiss. Jadzia and Lenara Kahn (female/female kiss). Non-Binary gendered aliens (the episode where Riker was attracted to said alien character). etc. etc. etc. Trek has always leaned hard on the liberal spectrum. Not softly. (I agree with you it completely dropped the ball for gay people, though)

It makes no sense that they call themselves "fans" but hate every aspect of Star Trek's social message. But "I love the photon torpedoes and Orion slave girls!". It's not .... much of a fan, then. They literally do not get Star Trek at all. That is not me being a snobby elitist/purist Trek fan. It's just common sense. It's like me saying "Wait ... what is this "spirituality" in Star Wars? Yes - I know the Force has always been there. Yes - I know the spiritual warrior monks have always been there. Yes - I know ghosts and a seeming afterlife has always been there. But what is this? I feel this is pushing atheist genocide! I like Star Wars for Leia in a slave costume and dog fights in space with the star fighters!". Would anyone really claim I have an understanding of Stars Wars or am a true fan?

I do agree with you that there is a massive spectrum in the Trek fandom. These people, for better or worse, are a part of that spectrum. We can't pretend otherwise. I agree with you. But to me - they fall in the "I don't understand Star Trek whatsoever, but I sure do love spectacle!" end of the spectrum. Plus - I honestly think a few of them are just trolls that seek out a way to spread their "message".

What I mean to say about all of this is .... it's just such a head scratcher. It's not like Trek is subtle and people can take what they want from it. It's literally famous for having minorities as main characters when that was not done. Having a Soviet main character. Remember when Kirk said he didn't want racism on his bridge when his helmsman made a comment about Vulcans/Romulans? How can these people get the message of Trek so completely wrong?

It's funny - cause you've often told us, Mr. Picard - that you're not a Trek fan in the traditional sense. In fact, you mostly love a small corner of Trek. But for someone that is like that you are really good at understanding the fandom. You break the differences amongst us down really well. I agree with your list of critics of Discovery completely.

Edited by The Founder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Founder said:

Fair points. I'm not necessarily saying this shouldn't be addressed or that it isn't our problem to deal with. It should be challenged.

I don't doubt these people (or some of them at least) genuinely think they are Star Trek fans. But it still doesn't make any sense from a logical point of view. A person can call themselves fans of anything but what makes a fan? I know the argument is "They like the focus on Jim Kirk being with "hott" Green women and kicking Klingon ass!" Ok - fair enough. But how often does he does that? For every time he does that - he is opting for peace with his enemies (the Gorn in "The Arena" or the Klingons in "Errand of Mercy"). So they are fans of Star Trek based off of less than a handful of episodes of TOS? They love Trek because they loved the Dominion War in DS9? Because they liked Seven of Nine's catsuit in VOY? That doesn't sound like the image I have of a "Star Trek fan" in my head.

To me - the diversity, calls for peace, unity, social cohesion, post-racial politics (like the so called-white genocide) are things of the past. Kirk and Uhura - first interracial kiss. Jadzia and Lenara Kahn (female/female kiss). Non-Binary gendered aliens (the episode where Riker was attracted to said alien character). etc. etc. etc. Trek has always leaned hard on the liberal spectrum. Not softly. (I agree with you it completely dropped the ball for gay people, though)

It makes no sense that they call themselves "fans" but hate every aspect of Star Trek's social message. But "I love the photon torpedoes and Orion slave girls!". It's not .... much of a fan, then. They literally do not get Star Trek at all. That is not me being a snobby elitist/purist Trek fan. It's just common sense. It's like me saying "Wait ... what is this "spirituality" in Star Wars? Yes - I know the Force has always been there. Yes - I know the spiritual warrior monks have always been there. Yes - I know ghosts and a seeming afterlife has always been there. But what is this? I feel this is pushing atheist genocide! I like Star Wars for Leia in a slave costume and dog fights in space with the star fighters!". Would anyone really claim I have an understanding of Stars Wars or am a true fan?

I do agree with you that there is a massive spectrum in the Trek fandom. These people, for better or worse, are a part of that spectrum. We can't pretend otherwise. I agree with you. But to me - they fall in the "I don't understand Star Trek whatsoever, but I sure do love spectacle!" end of the spectrum. Plus - I honestly think a few of them are just trolls that seek out a way to spread their "message".

What I mean to say about all of this is .... it's just such a head scratcher. It's not like Trek is subtle and people can take what they want from it. It's literally famous for having minorities as main characters when that was not done. Having a Soviet main character. Remember when Kirk said he didn't want racism on his bridge when his helmsman made a comment about Vulcans/Romulans? How can these people get the message of Trek so completely wrong?

It's funny - cause you've often told us, Mr. Picard - that you're not a Trek fan in the traditional sense. In fact, you mostly love a small corner of Trek. But for someone that is like that you are really good at understanding the fandom. You break the differences amongst us down really well. I agree with your list of critics of Discovery completely.

I know, it's mind-boggling - but many of them DO get that there are messages in the episodes. They just interpret them differently.

I do NOT NOT NOOOOOOOT want to launch a debate now so I'm gonna keep this somewhat brief and vague but I need to explain something and for that I need this example: There was a religious right wing Trekkie I used to know (the sort who tells you that you should seek treatment for being gay and who says Khan eradicated the "gay sickness" during the Eugenics Wars), and his favorite episode, of ALL the episodes, was TNG's "Who Watches The Watchers" - according to him, it tells the story of "how believing in false gods is bad". He honestly didn't get the real message of the episode, and when people told him about it he'd put his fingers into his ears singing LALALA NOT LISTENING YOU ARE WRONG. Jean-Luc was his favorite character, too - he never grasped that Jean-Luc is an atheist, the only thing he disapproved of was that "he beds women without being married to them but he doesn't do it very often and I think that's because he knows how wrong it is, after all he is a conservative man with family values". All this may seem mind-boggling to us, but for these fans it's real. Their minds turn the episodes upside down so that they can enjoy them. It's probably not even really that far from what I do when I see slashy moments everywhere - the only difference here is that I know that I'm leaping towards another interpretation of what was probably intended, and those fans don't, they believe their interpretation of what they're seeing is factual. So while there are fans who watch Trek for the shiny fights and explosions and "hot chicks", there are also a lot of them who see meaning behind the episodes - just not the meanings the writers intended. But those people are still Star Trek fans - the guy I just mentioned had a huge collection of model ships and he could tell you what's on which deck of the Enterprise-D. He was truly invested into Trek and TNG in particular. It spoke to him, just like it speaks to me... only in a different language. But that doesn't mean I'm a fan and he is not - it's all a matter of one's own personal perspective. That's why I'm saying it's too easy too dismiss these folks as "not real fans". They often do the same things progressive Trekkies do - they go to conventions, they buy the merch, they take pictures of the actors, they watch an episode every day, etc etc etc. They have the same love for Star Trek - only for a different Star Trek than the one that was intended. And now, fueled by the current political climate in the US in particular, those fans believe the version of Star Trek they love is "under attack by feminists, the gay agenda and PC executives" (and a whole bunch of others). No wonder they're up in arms, as strange as it might seem, they REALLY think the Star Trek they like will cease to exist - they really don't understand that it probably never existed in the first place. I'm a firm believer in understanding motives, which brings me to my next point here:

Thank you, Founder, for your kind words about me and the Trek fandom. I'm an observer of the fandom, but like I just said I believe in the logic of understanding motives and "why is this person saying what they're saying". I like to analyze this kind of stuff because I need context. I don't care for leaping at people and screaming at them, I want to understand why they are the way they are, only then do I make up my mind. (This is one of the things TNG and Jean-Luc have taught me - I used to be VERY different from this when I was younger.) This is why, in almost 15 years as a TNG-only fan, I've come to a somewhat accurate understanding of what the Trek fandom is like. Of course I often feel like being a part of it - there are people I've known for almost 15 years now, all Trekkies, and they're my dear friends and I love them - but there is always this one last barrier between us as fans, the one where they love Star Trek as a whole, this unbreakable belief in the franchise, the undying love for all its incarnations (some love some stuff more and some stuff less of course)... that's what I don't share with them, I've tried, but it didn't work out. And yet I feel at home with them - because Trekkies are the only ones who get my love for Jean-Luc, at least to a certain degree. A (progressive) Trekkie is a zillion times more likely to say "oh you're in love with Picard? That's cool man, he's a great guy" than someone who isn't a Trekkie, the reaction I'd be getting there isn't one I care to speculate on right now. Trekkies accepted me when I desperately needed a place to be, and I owe it to them almost as much as I owe it to Jean-Luc that I got through a very dark time in my life. I feel like as if they adopted me in a way. I will never be 100% like them, but that doesn't seem to matter to them, they accept me anyway. All this is why I'm so invested in the fandom and its different branches of people - I encounter Trekkies almost every day on social media due to my friends there being Trekkies as well. I see the latest news, the latest comments, the latest screencaps, the latest merchandise, etc, etc. But all still through the eyes of someone who tends to be more of an observer for the most part (unless we're talking TNG, then I'm like DID SOMEONE SAY TNG). Maybe this is why it seems like as if I'm good at grasping the fandom - I'm neither a full part of it nor a complete outsider, I look at what's happening without the "loving glasses" that many Trekkies (understandably!) wear when it comes to the franchise. Of course I'm also influenced by my friends - I don't want to see them sad or hurt, and much less do I want for them to fight over Discovery, which is why I have to try and understand their motives for feeling the way they feel, but fighting is exactly what's been happening lately and it leaves me with great concern of what's to come for both the fandom and the franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
1 hour ago, Mr.Picard said:

I know, it's mind-boggling - but many of them DO get that there are messages in the episodes. They just interpret them differently.

I do NOT NOT NOOOOOOOT want to launch a debate now so I'm gonna keep this somewhat brief and vague but I need to explain something and for that I need this example: There was a religious right wing Trekkie I used to know (the sort who tells you that you should seek treatment for being gay and who says Khan eradicated the "gay sickness" during the Eugenics Wars), and his favorite episode, of ALL the episodes, was TNG's "Who Watches The Watchers" - according to him, it tells the story of "how believing in false gods is bad". He honestly didn't get the real message of the episode, and when people told him about it he'd put his fingers into his ears singing LALALA NOT LISTENING YOU ARE WRONG. Jean-Luc was his favorite character, too - he never grasped that Jean-Luc is an atheist, the only thing he disapproved of was that "he beds women without being married to them but he doesn't do it very often and I think that's because he knows how wrong it is, after all he is a conservative man with family values". All this may seem mind-boggling to us, but for these fans it's real. Their minds turn the episodes upside down so that they can enjoy them. It's probably not even really that far from what I do when I see slashy moments everywhere - the only difference here is that I know that I'm leaping towards another interpretation of what was probably intended, and those fans don't, they believe their interpretation of what they're seeing is factual. So while there are fans who watch Trek for the shiny fights and explosions and "hot chicks", there are also a lot of them who see meaning behind the episodes - just not the meanings the writers intended. But those people are still Star Trek fans - the guy I just mentioned had a huge collection of model ships and he could tell you what's on which deck of the Enterprise-D. He was truly invested into Trek and TNG in particular. It spoke to him, just like it speaks to me... only in a different language. But that doesn't mean I'm a fan and he is not - it's all a matter of one's own personal perspective. That's why I'm saying it's too easy too dismiss these folks as "not real fans". They often do the same things progressive Trekkies do - they go to conventions, they buy the merch, they take pictures of the actors, they watch an episode every day, etc etc etc. They have the same love for Star Trek - only for a different Star Trek than the one that was intended. And now, fueled by the current political climate in the US in particular, those fans believe the version of Star Trek they love is "under attack by feminists, the gay agenda and PC executives" (and a whole bunch of others). No wonder they're up in arms, as strange as it might seem, they REALLY think the Star Trek they like will cease to exist - they really don't understand that it probably never existed in the first place. I'm a firm believer in understanding motives, which brings me to my next point here:

Thank you, Founder, for your kind words about me and the Trek fandom. I'm an observer of the fandom, but like I just said I believe in the logic of understanding motives and "why is this person saying what they're saying". I like to analyze this kind of stuff because I need context. I don't care for leaping at people and screaming at them, I want to understand why they are the way they are, only then do I make up my mind. (This is one of the things TNG and Jean-Luc have taught me - I used to be VERY different from this when I was younger.) This is why, in almost 15 years as a TNG-only fan, I've come to a somewhat accurate understanding of what the Trek fandom is like. Of course I often feel like being a part of it - there are people I've known for almost 15 years now, all Trekkies, and they're my dear friends and I love them - but there is always this one last barrier between us as fans, the one where they love Star Trek as a whole, this unbreakable belief in the franchise, the undying love for all its incarnations (some love some stuff more and some stuff less of course)... that's what I don't share with them, I've tried, but it didn't work out. And yet I feel at home with them - because Trekkies are the only ones who get my love for Jean-Luc, at least to a certain degree. A (progressive) Trekkie is a zillion times more likely to say "oh you're in love with Picard? That's cool man, he's a great guy" than someone who isn't a Trekkie, the reaction I'd be getting there isn't one I care to speculate on right now. Trekkies accepted me when I desperately needed a place to be, and I owe it to them almost as much as I owe it to Jean-Luc that I got through a very dark time in my life. I feel like as if they adopted me in a way. I will never be 100% like them, but that doesn't seem to matter to them, they accept me anyway. All this is why I'm so invested in the fandom and its different branches of people - I encounter Trekkies almost every day on social media due to my friends there being Trekkies as well. I see the latest news, the latest comments, the latest screencaps, the latest merchandise, etc, etc. But all still through the eyes of someone who tends to be more of an observer for the most part (unless we're talking TNG, then I'm like DID SOMEONE SAY TNG). Maybe this is why it seems like as if I'm good at grasping the fandom - I'm neither a full part of it nor a complete outsider, I look at what's happening without the "loving glasses" that many Trekkies (understandably!) wear when it comes to the franchise. Of course I'm also influenced by my friends - I don't want to see them sad or hurt, and much less do I want for them to fight over Discovery, which is why I have to try and understand their motives for feeling the way they feel, but fighting is exactly what's been happening lately and it leaves me with great concern of what's to come for both the fandom and the franchise.

^ Just want to say, Mr. Picard, I'm very glad you're here with us. You're a true enrichment of our community! I absolutely enjoy being honored by having the chance to read your views. :)

What you say about the religious right Trekkie is very interesting.

I assume we -- liberal Trekkies, I mean, just like people living in a liberal environment in general -- perhaps sometimes fall short of understanding politically very different people, because we underestimate how complex even people with a very different worldview are. "Outgroup homogeneity bias" at work -- we have a stereotype in mind, a simplified model of people whose mindset is far from us, and underestimate both how different these people are from one another, and how much more complex they often are than we assume they are. Guess that doesn't just happen when righties in their bubbles rant against caricatures of "them bad libruls", but we are victim of the same mechanism. I assume this divide is especially grave in America these days, because the different sides live in virtually seperate bubbles, geographically and media-wise.

Most American pop culture is deliberately vague on a couple of key questions, mostly religion and politics, to allow very different approaches of access. If you want to make a successful tv show, you need ratings, and limiting yourself to just one subgroup, excluding half of the country from the onset, is not a good marketing strategy. So I guess writers have made it a key skill to include nods and allusions that allow one segment of viewers to feel confirmed in their views, without alienating others.

Guess that's also the explanation why homosexuals have so far been vastly underrepresented on Star Trek -- it's one of the few points where this ambiguity can hardly be maintained. And that's why some run amok all of a sudden, the moment DSC now longer maintains this ambiguity.

Still it surprises me that Star Trek, with its strong focus on ethnic and gender diversity, apparently managed to attract even very conservative fans. I'd have assumed it would be one of the shows that flies less well among those than others. On the other side -- except for hardcore racist righties, the ST world was okay, most of the time: In TOS and TNG, the white male was leading; diversity is okay, as long as the diverse folks don't give the orders, right? Sisko and Janeway avoided the clichés of their respective non-white-male status righties get annoyed over. (I think many sexists or racists do not just say, but actually *believe* "blacks are okay, as long as they are not angry/racists against whites" or "women are fine, as long as they don't behave like shrews" -- aka, these groups are okay, as long as they don't complain about  disadvantage.)

And ENT, in a manner of speaking, was a deliberate attempt of making "Star Trek for Republicans" (or, less politically, "Star Trek aimed at the less diverse regions in America"), representation-wise at least (and think of the "24"-ization of season 3). The husband of my best buddy, who only recently watched all the ST shows and became a big ENT fan, doesn't get tired of describing Archer as "a Republican", not without some admiration. :laugh:

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sim said:

Still it surprises me that Star Trek, with its strong focus on ethnic and gender diversity, apparently managed to attract even very conservative fans. I'd have assumed it would be one of the shows that flies less well among those than others. On the other side -- except for hardcore racist righties, the ST world was okay, most of the time: In TOS and TNG, the white male was leading; diversity is okay, as long as the diverse folks don't give the orders, right? Sisko and Janeway avoided the clichés of their respective non-white-male status righties get annoyed over. (I think many sexists or racists do not just say, but actually *believe* "blacks are okay, as long as they are not angry/racists against whites" or "women are fine, as long as they don't behave like shrews" -- aka, these groups are okay, as long as they don't complain about  disadvantage.)

 

This, yes. Same reasoning as "gays are okay as long as they aren't gay in public". Everything is okay as long as it's in the background or subtle or never mentioned and where it can be conveniently ignored and dismissed or at least tuned down. But heaven forbid we take it into the spotlight OR, omg, we cast people with diversity in mind AND we care about finally writing in representation for a minority group that has been ignored by Star Trek for fifty years. Then everything HAS TO STOP RIGHT NOW BECAUSE "I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN NOT ABOUT ME".

I guess what I'm saying is that progressive Trekkies can't just laugh at these fans and dismiss their "ignorance" and act like as if they don't even exist (because they DO exist, they have existed for a long time, and they won't be leaving now either, as much as they claim they will, they will watch Discovery as well and they will be vocal about their dislike of certain elements and characters) - that is EXACTLY what proves their point that progressive Trekkies are all "elitists". It would be a lot more wise to challenge their views, and not with the "bruuuuuuh did you ever WATCH Star Trek?" sledgehammer. That question serves no purpose. Because they HAVE watched it. They ARE fans. The far better question would be "what makes you INTERPRET Star Trek in this manner?" 

And thank you, Sim. I also enjoy discussing things here even though I don't have the Trek expertise to jump into every single conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

It would be a lot more wise to challenge their views, and not with the "bruuuuuuh did you ever WATCH Star Trek?" sledgehammer. That question serves no purpose. Because they HAVE watched it. They ARE fans. The far better question would be "what makes you INTERPRET Star Trek in this manner?" 

^
Which is what baffles me; I just can't reconcile their interpretation of ST with what, to me, is evident and obvious onscreen.    ST has always pushed for inclusivity (despite their maddening slowness/ignorance of LGBT issues).   That comes not just from progressive interpretation, but from the creators and actors involved with the show as well.  It was clearly the intent from the very beginning in the 1960s.   

My guess is that those fans only see only the cool spaceships, girls in tinfoil bikinis and phasers blazing instead of any of the underlying (obvious) social/moral content.    That's their Star Trek, and it's (IMO) a shockingly limited view, but it does exist, you're right (I wish you weren't).   

It reminds me of a great quote from Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in the 1978 Superman movie, "Some people can read 'War and Peace' and think it's a simple adventure story.   Other people can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe." :laugh:

15 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

I also enjoy discussing things here even though I don't have the Trek expertise to jump into every single conversation.

 Just fake it; we won't even notice... :P

1 hour ago, Sim said:

^ Just want to say, Mr. Picard, I'm very glad you're here with us. You're a true enrichment of our community! I absolutely enjoy being honored by having the chance to read your views. :)

^
I echo this sentiment and amplify it. ;)   Reading Mr. Picard's posts is not just intellectually stimulating, but also a lot of fun as well.  :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^
Which is what baffles me; I just can't reconcile their interpretation of ST with what, to me, is evident and obvious onscreen.    ST has always pushed for inclusivity (despite their maddening slowness/ignorance of LGBT issues).   That comes not just from progressive interpretation, but from the creators and actors involved with the show as well.  It was clearly the intent from the very beginning in the 1960s.   

My guess is that those fans only see only the cool spaceships, girls in tinfoil bikinis and phasers blazing instead of any of the underlying (obvious) social/moral content.    That's their Star Trek, and it's (IMO) a shockingly limited view, but it does exist, you're right (I wish you weren't).   

It reminds me of a great quote from Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in the 1978 Superman movie, "Some people can read 'War and Peace' and think it's a simple adventure story.   Other people can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe." :laugh:

 

I can't say why they think what they're thinking - I would, however, assume that it's up to the individual, just like as it is on this side of the fence. It's not that they all think the same thing or have the same views on everything, far from it. Sim was quite right when he said that they're not one single stereotype - it's not wise to view them as such. Sure there are characteristics that they all share (a dislike for anything that is "too PC"), but a lot of it is up to every individual and their own interpretation of Star Trek.

I spent quite a few years on a conservative Star Trek message board, and the discussions there were actually not bad either, and often also fun, there were jokes as well and funny screencaps and everything. They weren't monsters - just people with different views on Star Trek and how to interpret it. (Back then, of course, there actually was a time when you could engage in conversation with these folks and things DIDN'T de-rail into insults from both sides.)

One opinion I would often encounter - and, which I think is the fundamental difference in viewpoint between conservative and progressive fans - was "I'm fine with diversity as long as it isn't emphasized, Star Trek teaches us that there's no need for this, we are all the same". WE think Star Trek values the individual and lets each individual live the way they want to live in an open-minded society and THEY think there's no need for diversity anymore because humans are now all on the same level - THEY think it doesn't MATTER anymore and therefore shouldn't be emphasized. Which creates problems, of course, since Star Trek is supposed to mirror our times and our problems in a future setting. But for them it shows how people in the future deal with stuff, and that's all it's supposed to do. They take it LITERALLY, we take it METAPHORICALLY. An example: For them, Jean-Luc is a conservative-thinking, Republican-voting family values man because they look at him and see a man from a "conservative hard-working background" who likes his tea, his books, occasional planet ladies, a structured environment and a strong and stable captain who tolerates no nonsense. We look at Jean-Luc and see an open-minded, curious atheist who refuses to believe there's ever one single and simple explanation, a huge nerd who loves philosophy, Shakespeare, speaks a lot of languages and has a storng interest in learning about other cultures and who most likely, if his character had been written today, would not have been confined to liking random planet LADIES only. This is the big difference here, the "split" where the two fandom directions diverge from. At least in my observations. That's exactly the essence of the quote you provided, Sehlat. It hits the nail on the head. It doesn't mean anyone is dumb though. It's more a matter of personal background, political beliefs and general opinions.

 

30 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

 Just fake it; we won't even notice... :P

 

Are you seriously telling me TREKKIES won't notice if someone doesn't know their STAR TREK? :laugh:

 

30 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

I echo this sentiment and amplify it. ;)   Reading Mr. Picard's posts is not just intellectually stimulating, but also a lot of fun as well.  :thumbup:
 

Thank you very much! I'm very honored and glad you think so, I don't want to bore people! Intellectually stimulating? I always feel like as if I'm standing here saying THIS IS CHAIR. lol I tend to struggle with writing (but not reading) academic/intellectual language (no matter if German or English), a fact that my university professors weren't happy about sometimes - I prefer to say things in long-winded but still simple sentences and weeeeeell... that doesn't fly well at uni. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

One opinion I would often encounter - and, which I think is the fundamental difference in viewpoint between conservative and progressive fans - was "I'm fine with diversity as long as it isn't emphasized, Star Trek teaches us that there's no need for this, we are all the same". WE think Star Trek values the individual and lets each individual live the way they want to live in an open-minded society and THEY think there's no need for diversity anymore because humans are now all on the same level - THEY think it doesn't MATTER anymore and therefore shouldn't be emphasized. Which creates problems, of course, since Star Trek is supposed to mirror our times and our problems in a future setting. But for them it shows how people in the future deal with stuff, and that's all it's supposed to do. They take it LITERALLY, we take it METAPHORICALLY. An example: For them, Jean-Luc is a conservative-thinking, Republican-voting family values man because they look at him and see a man from a "conservative hard-working background" who likes his tea, his books, occasional planet ladies, a structured environment and a strong and stable captain who tolerates no nonsense. We look at Jean-Luc and see an open-minded, curious atheist who refuses to believe there's ever one single and simple explanation, a huge nerd who loves philosophy, Shakespeare, speaks a lot of languages and has a storng interest in learning about other cultures and who most likely, if his character had been written today, would not have been confined to liking random planet LADIES only. This is the big difference here, the "split" where the two fandom directions diverge from. At least in my observations. That's exactly the essence of the quote you provided, Sehlat. It hits the nail on the head. It doesn't mean anyone is dumb though. It's more a matter of personal background, political beliefs and general opinions.

^
True.   There is plenty of wiggle room for interpretation I suppose, but when the very writers/creators of the show lay out their intent?  I just find it difficult to ignore.  ST was designed, from its very conception, to be inclusive and progressive.   It was to show a future where all would be welcome, included and even vital to health of that future.   Inclusivity is a core value of Star Trek.   

So, for me, the idea of DSC having an Asian female captain, a black "number one", and a gay science officer isn't anything new to ST.  If anything, it's just a continuation/maturation of the original show's philosophy.   For me, it'd be much more 'anti-Star Trek' if the ship were to suddenly have an all-white, all-straight, alpha male crew.    Even "The Cage" (as crudely defined as it was) still had a female exec and an alien science officer.   There was even an Asian manning the transporter console... and this was 1964 (!).

As I see it?   For ST 'fans' to be against inclusivity isn't simply a matter of conservative/liberal interpretation;  it's fundamentally against what the show is all about.   

And by the way, I don't wish/mean to suggest that a conservative by definition is automatically against inclusivity; far from it (I've a few conservative friends in my own circle who are very dear to me).  I'm only saying the far/alt-right branch of the political spectrum who wrote those hateful (and IMO anti-Star Trek) tweets linked in the story: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/white-genocide-in-space-racist-fans-seethe-at-diversity-in-new-star-trek-series/

^
Those comments are just pure ugliness; I don't care which end of the political spectrum they came from...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

Started a thread in KM about this topic, too, btw. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^
True.   There is plenty of wiggle room for interpretation I suppose, but when the very writers/creators of the show lay out their intent?  I just find it difficult to ignore.  ST was designed, from its very conception, to be inclusive and progressive.   It was to show a future where all would be welcome, included and even vital to health of that future.   Inclusivity is a core value of Star Trek.   

So, for me, the idea of DSC having an Asian female captain, a black "number one", and a gay science officer isn't anything new to ST.  If anything, it's just a continuation/maturation of the original show's philosophy.   For me, it'd be much more 'anti-Star Trek' if the ship were to suddenly have an all-white, all-straight, alpha male crew.    Even "The Cage" (as crudely defined as it was) still had a female exec and an alien science officer.   There was even an Asian manning the transporter console... and this was 1964 (!).

As I see it?   For ST 'fans' to be against inclusivity isn't simply a matter of conservative/liberal interpretation;  it's fundamentally against what the show is all about.   

And by the way, I don't wish/mean to suggest that a conservative by definition is automatically against inclusivity; far from it (I've a few conservative friends in my own circle who are very dear to me).  I'm only saying the far/alt-right branch of the political spectrum who wrote those hateful (and IMO anti-Star Trek) tweets linked in the story: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/white-genocide-in-space-racist-fans-seethe-at-diversity-in-new-star-trek-series/

^
Those comments are just pure ugliness; I don't care which end of the political spectrum they came from...

 

Some of those tweets are definitely from alt-right trolls who just happen to comment on everything that riles them up these days, absolutely. If you look at some of the Twitter profiles there's no Star Trek whatsoever on them, only hate hate hate. However, that tweet about Janeway could just as well come from Star Trek fans from that conservative board I mentioned - a more riled up version of them, but a version nonetheless. That person is a fan whose tone I've had the "pleasure" of interacting with before the whole Discovery thing even started. (The ones who like to tell you how you should "leave Picard alone, he's not gay" and more nasty stuff that I could barely even post in the KM section of this board.) They are the ones I keep mentioning when I say there's a very ugly faction in the Trek fandom, one that shouldn't be dismissed by saying "they're not like us, we can ignore them" - because some Trek fans DON'T have the luxury of ignoring them because they TARGET these fans with their bigotry and/or sexism and/or racism, and have done so for a long time.

I myself long for the day on which I can safely add every Trekkie I encounter on Twitter without having to scroll through their profile first to see if they're a bigot or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sim said:

Started a thread in KM about this topic, too, btw. ;)

Good idea.

I've just replied to it, in fact...:thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow a lot has gone down in this thread which I will try to get to later. 

For now, Gus, I get you. I understand the pain. Voyager literally broke my heart, and in its first season no less. I stuck around for a while but eventually stopped watching. It was personally painful for me to feel like my beloved Star Trek was in the hands of people who just did not give a flip. (However, I have to say, after all these years of abuse there is literally nothing that could bring me to heartbreak in 2017 re-Trek. Too much scar tissue.) 

I also understand the urge for rejection. I only gave Enterprise a couple episodes before I stopped watching. I rejected both shows probably for different reasons than Gus is rejecting Discovery, but all the reasons are valid nonetheless. It is just not for us. That's all.

And yet... I KNOW that Discovery is for me. I just feel it. I won't try to push it on other fans. But personally I am excited. I am ready to transport.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now