I’ve been watching the various Star Trek shows for a while now, and while not finished I saw most of them, I believe. And I cannot shake off the feeling that the messages given by these shows, especially (and almost exclusively) recent ones are pushing horrible morals that most people seem to not care about.
Slavery
I posted before, in the middle of my watching of Enterprise, that the show was supporting slavery because of the Cogenitor episode. Many comments disagreed, some even saying that they don’t remember anything supporting slavery at all in the show. That was before I watched more. The show contains a full episode that is just about showing that:
-
Sex slaves are not only acceptable, they’re “sexy” and cool and negotiating with slavers is a good thing
-
Sex trafficking of individuals groomed since they are born into being sex slaves is the fault of the victims for “seducing” men ???
How is this show not fine with human trafficking at this point? Is all that you need to avoid controversy, to paint the slaves in green? I still cannot comprehend the lack of reaction on this show. Add to that the frequent crimes of war by Archer and you have a nice cocktail of humanity’s finest horror.
Section 31
This is also something that seems absurd to me. When it first appeared, it was already a gestapo/kgb-like group that ignores the concept of democracy, laws, and justice - in other words a horrible group - but its existence as a starfleet element was blurry. But with modern shows, they keep on bringing it back, and directly saying that it is supported by starfleet, and a good thing, or at least a necessary one.
The thing is that what made starfleet supposedly admirable was, if not every single individual’s morals, the morality of their concept, their laws, their structure. Having section 31 be condoned by starfleet transforms starfleet from “utopian future of humanity” (which it was supposed to be) to “dictatorship that pretends to be a democracy but supports crimes of war and above-the-law groups”. In other words, it destroys the concept of starfleet.
Discriminations, sexism, and other shitty ideas, morals and behaviours
Now this one is maybe more blurry and subjective, but it is scattered all across, nonstop.
Let’s start chronologically
DS9
For this show, the constant misogyny is nothing hard to see. But they still went out of their way to put some nasty things here and there.
The episode with Quark “becoming” a woman was interesting. Quark discovers a different point of view, gains insight and empathy, that’s nice! Until the end of the episode directly says “no nevermind, he was like that because of hormones, and was just an overly emotional woman because of that”. Because after all, women are hysterical, right? .
Other than that, we have the toxic relationship between Keiko and O’Brian, the toxic relationship between Dax and Worf, the toxic relationship between Odo and Kira, the toxic relationship between Sisco and his wife, Jake who constantly shows that when a teen boy is targeted by pedophiles, the teen is both responsible for it, and liking it (one second, I need to throw up in a corner), etc.
And of course there is the rest, between Cisco crimes against humanity, Bashir (that’s all I’ll say, nothing else needed), and the weird pro-religious message that doesn’t make sense.
Enterprise
We already talked about their view of child/human trafficking which I think gives the tone of the show.
But of course that’s not enough, so let’s put some sexual scenes about the women in particular, rape scenes with TPol because who doesn’t like rape culture, Malcolm “PoS” Reed talking like a creep about “bums”, Reed and Tucker with their “haha lol, these alien women are ugly because you can’t tell if they are women or not” and other toxic masculinity scenes, etc. Oh and I almost forgot about the sex scene between teen siblings that serve no other purpose than to show teens having incestuous sex.
Picard
What do we have here, more weird sibling sexual scenes, people getting manipulated mentally and sexually to extract information, murderers who get away with it because betraying the federation and killing innocents is fine if you’re a scenario character (reminds me of something else…AhemelnorAhem)…
Oh, and I almost forgot the amazing scene with a white Picard in his white British empire colonist outfit, going on the planet of the tan refugees who hate the federation, kicks everything around and tries to show that he’s the boss. I guess this show regrets colonies too, huh.
Discovery
Now I didn’t finish this one yet, and it’s hard.
We have klingons that start off as a weird racist stereotype of africans seen by colonialists from a century ago: black skin, tribal armors, weird “foreign” language that the show intentionally refuses to translate through the UT, and when they speak english it’s with a strong guttural accent. And they’re barbaric, scary cannibals who fight with sticks and knives, and are a bunch of disorganised tribes, with weird magic rituals that allow them to do weird brainwashing. I’m almost surprised they don’t carry voodoo dolls while dancing around a bonfire. The fact that people describe this show as “woke” is funny to me.
We have very explicit rape and gore torture scenes, for what purpose, I don’t know.
We have people forgiven of murder because it wasn’t their mind, but then it is and everyone is fine with it.
And then there’s more section 31 shit.
There’s also the vision of asylum in this show that basically says “we grant asylum whenever we want, not based on the situation but on personal preferences”, with Georgiou granting asylum despite the prime directive, and then Pike refusing asylum because of it. It’s surprising that starfleet would allow that, but at least it’s not Archer-level, sending people to death then blaming the ones who tried to help them.
SNW
As far as I remember, nothing as bad as the rest here. The take on eugenics and “augmented” individuals is really absurd though, showing starfleet hating on Una is fine because her species is augmented (like the denobulans who are in starfleet though, no?), but the stupid security officer who has DNA augmentations from a crazy evil dictator engineered to be violent and crazy, is allowed without any issue.
All of them
One thing that I struggle understanding is the constant of racist stereotypes. They’re everywhere, because all the shows use them to define their characters.
Keiko wants to eat her traditional food in a kimono, Georgiou wears a big kimono-like dress that would barely fit in a Mulan movie, Elnor is a ridiculous samurai-ninja with the fitting outfit, etc. As if in hundreds of years, after earth is united and mixed with hundreds of alien species, “cultures” would not evolve and mix but instead go back to being very split apart and caricatural.
P.S.
I’m not saying that the shows are shit, but that I am worried about the lack of discussions concerning all those subjects. Star Trek is supposed to be progressive and show a better version of humanity, one that evolved and grew, and yet morals seem to not be a consideration of the shows anymore.
I don’t think the message of Section 31 has EVER been that it was “good / necessary.” It’s always been cautionary. Like: Even in a Utopia, this thing can exist, people will support it, people will argue it’s necessary. I’ve always thought the message was “Why do we tolerate this shit and you assholes who insist it’s necessary?? Why do we let you get away with it? Why do we pull the wool over our own eyes and look the other way?” It continues to be a good story to make Americans talk about.
In DS9, Section 31’s machinations badly backfired and stealing the cure from them and giving it freely to the Changlings is what ended the war.
In Picard, Section 31’s bullshit literally created a terrorist who brought the Borg back and set them loose on Starfleet, again.
In Disco… IDK. I don’t like Disco and I only half watched that season. They made um… an AI that tried to take over?? I guess, it was bad and Star Fleet was complicit.
One of the most important parts of the story, I think is how even in the Utopia of the Federation, we never see anyone being held accountable for Section 31’s actions. My takeaway from this is “a call to action that perpetually goes unheeded and is never heard in numbers great enough to make a real difference” which is a VERY true and tragic lens for the modern world.
I don’t think I’ve ever thought of S31 as being pushed as a GOOD thing. More like shown to us in the spirit of “Stop, children, what’s that sound, everybody look what’s goin’ down.”
They were always shown as the sort of cool, James Bond/Batman-like agents that everyone admires for getting their hands dirty for the sake of everyone else.
For DS9, they were for example showing that their solution would have worked, but that it would be immoral; but giving the cure to the changelings was a bet, that was much more risky than killing them all.
For Discovery, what I really didn’t like is that everyone seemed to know about it, an admiral explains that all starfleet decisions are first sent to Section 31 (as far as I understood), which makes it central to starfleet. And they also mention one guy murdering/torturing/?? an innocent ambassador by mistake and not being punished for it.
The lack of accountability for me shows that starfleet does not mind a group above the law, which immediately removes the idea of starfleet/the federation working on democratic principles.
Yes, it echoes with a lot of modern things. But what is the point of making science fiction if all you show is a world that didn’t evolve in over 300 years?
They were always shown as the sort of cool, James Bond/Batman-like agents that everyone admires for getting their hands dirty for the sake of everyone else.
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone but you with this take. I’ve certainly never heard anyone say “Oooh, Section 31 is cool, I admire them,” but I’ve had LOTS of conversations about how uncool they are. The main characters don’t like them, they’re ALWAYS an antagonist / obstacle. I understand that’s what you see, but I don’t think the experience you’re having is very universal.
The lack of accountability for me shows that starfleet does not mind a group above the law, which immediately removes the idea of starfleet/the federation working on democratic principles.
Star Fleet DOESN’T work on democratic principles, it’s absolutely a military organization, with a military hierarchy and agenda, that has a STRONG scientific, exploration and humanitarian mandate.
The FEDERATION works on democratic principals, but Section 31 has ALWAYS been portrayed as an illegal, unsanctioned organization working within Star Fleet, that simply lots of factions and elements with Star Fleet support or align with (Fascists gonna fasc, even in the Utopian future, and people with that mind set are going to be drawn to the closest thing to a military organization around).
It WOULD be nice to see a story where the assholes behind Section 31 are revealed as assholes and held accountable though. I would get behind that.
Yes, it echoes with a lot of modern things. But what is the point of making science fiction if all you show is a world that didn’t evolve in over 300 years?
Um… there’s a LOT wrong with this, as there are all kinds of points to making Science Fiction, and showing all sorts of things. And one of them is VERY MUCH showing the kinds of things that are wrong with our world, starting conversations and raising awareness. There are lots of points to making Science Fiction. You don’t have to like all of them. You don’t have to like Chuck Tingle or Space Raptor Butt Invasion, but it has a point (and it’s actually a really positive one, if you look past all the pounding and dinosaur love).
The show, shows them like that, with Bashir literally getting recruited after playing James Bond in the holodeck many times and that’s actually one of the arguments that Sloan uses to justify why he should join. Malcolm Reed, who “surprisingly” is also a british character feeling like he’s the coolest guy ever, who is too cool to even answer when someone asks if he likes the food, turns out to be from section 31 too. And in discovery, a certain emperor joining section 31 after showing a lot of “cool moves” and high-tech gadgets that are probably possible to find in some James Bond movie.
As for starfleet, if it is a military organisation under a democratic regime, then it has to follow the same laws and regulations. I am not aware of any military group that can blatantly ignore the law and face no repercussions, in any (pseudo) democratic government. And Discovery doesn’t portray it as illegal at all, explaining that it is at the center of almost all of starfleet’s decision (if I remember properly, an admiral explains that all decisions are first processed by a computer owned by S31, to get an automated suggestion of the decision to take). Such a central element cannot be simply hidden, it has to be allowed by the federation.
As for science fiction, I do not agree. Science fiction is about taking another time/place/context to put the focus on current problems, whether by exaggerating/worsening them, removing them, or isolating them. If you show earth in 300 years and nothing changed, it’s not science fiction, it’s just a fiction that does nothing except change a date. By not showing any difference in how illegal groups like that are handled, the show doesn’t say that it is bad, but instead implies that it is something that never changes. And it is said directly, that S31 existed for a very long time and that it is still here, which implies that it will never leave. Which in turn, encourages apathy on the subject, telling the viewers that it is useless to fight against such groups, they’re just a “constant of the universe”. It is probably not the intended message, but it is the result.
I don’t know if Star Trek ever had a really strong coherent overarching morality, but it certainly doesn’t now. The Disco and newer shows are such a mishmash of different people and a different time that they seem often the opposite of what people thought TOS and TNG might have been. DS9-Enterprise were kind of the “in-between” IMO. So there’s at LEAST 3 different sets of sort of framework for what the canon/story/morals even are that it’s kind of hard to discuss as a whole coherently.
Then there’s always the people who take stuff as “cool” that the show didn’t want to portray as “good”. There are plenty of media examples of “cool” bad guys. Look at all the Ducat lovers in DS9, he was pretty explicitly intended and they thought portrayed as a villain, but a complex one. The whole last season turning him into a moustache twirling caricature was to try and “fix” this “misunderstanding” by a troubling portion of the fans.
The whole Prime Directive waffling is well known to fans, and generally there to specifically create conversation about the colonial vs anti-colonial ideals starting in TNG and morphed over time to now. I don’t think the show in a meta sense promotes the prime directive as a good thing - the amount of character struggles and flat out breaking it makes me pretty sure it’s a “no obvious right rule” exemplar.
Disco and on is generally so poorly written that it’s hard to say if they have a message to push inside the show. Most of what we know is from Twitter posts and interviews cause it’s so hard to tell what’s supposed to be the point of the actual show in many cases. With Georgiou I think they’re trying to tell an anti-hero redemption story of some sort. Some idea that anyone can change and deserves a new chance (I think it’s beyond second here). Take out the extremes for the drama and being a show and this is about as obvious as the prime directive as an ideal. It’s not the worst, but I can’t say it’s always valid either IMO.
I think you get from Star Trek what you decide to take from it - it’s entertainment first, not moral education.
The writeup on Section 31 is very good and was following along until you listed almost every couple on DS9 being in toxic relationships. Maybe you’re confusing relationship conflicts with toxicity? Maybe I don’t know what toxic means.
I’m pretty good at seeing different sides of an arguement, but you’ll have to do a lot more convincing on Kira/Odo, Jadzia/Sorf, Sisko/Jennifer/Kassidy being in toxic relationships. These relationships work for me because they are trying to overcome cultural and professional challenges. One character might not budge on something but overall they try to work things out.
Worf in particular can be stubborn and traditional. Jadzia is anything but. It is a source of conflict in their relationship.
deleted by creator
Sure, I’ll explain what I meant.
With Odo and Kira, Odo spent years wanting to be with Kira and making her uncomfortable; when she finally accepts, he hurries up, cheats on her and then abandon her forever. Not very nice.
Dax basically manipulated worf into being with her by waiting for him to be psychologically weak before having sex with him despite his complete lack of interest. Klingon rules then make him “forced” to stay with her, and most if not all of their relationship shows Dax not respecting Worf and constantly forcing things on him, cheating on him with a random naked dude before their wedding, forcing him to go to Risa against his will and then being mad at him for not enjoying it, etc.
And then Ezri convinces him they can be together, and breaks up because “I saw bashir in a dream so goodbye”.
Finally for Sisko and Kassidy were actually a good, relatively well written couple with challenges… Until Sisko hears the prophets tell him to not marry her, he does it anyway, gets her pregnant because he doesn’t get his shot, and when the prophets tell him to go with them, instead of telling them to fuck off he stays with them and gives up on his pregnant wife. And on top of that, he implies that he could talk to her but probably won’t, or in a few decades or whatever.
It’s been a bit since I saw that last season of DS9, but Ezri and Worf were never in an actual relationship so there was nothing to “break up”. They had a few moments, but that Ezri was clearly confused and overwhelmed by their past
Ezri was a weird thing, most of the toxicity was with Jadzia. But Ezri still chased Worf even though he was avoiding her, started things again then stopped everything for one of the most ridiculous reasons I’ve ever heard. On its own it might not be toxic, but since it sort of still is Dax, it adds on top of Jadzia’s crap.
since it sort of still is Dax, it adds on top of Jadzia’s crap.
Is it though? Isn’t that one of the things they deal with a lot with Trill - are different hosts actually “the same person”? I’d argue it’s “partially at best” and is one of the interesting things about the concept of personhood over time sci-fi deals with. In a lot of ways, Ezri is at best like a 30 year time difference in the real world, but maybe even more like a sister/cousin at the more extreme side of being different.
Having the knowledge and memories of Jadzia should be enough for her to know better, especially after a life of a few centuries. A 300 years old trill that actually acts like a 20 years old does nothing apart from eliminating the interest of trills. If they learn nothing from one life to the other, the symbiot is meaningless and so is the concept of trills.
Edit for others: Looks like I fell for your troll ragebait account.
(Or rather, it looks like your type of account has followed its propaganda marching orders from reddit and other places to make Lemmy shitty too.)
(For those unaware, pop fandom spaces are infiltrated by people stirring shit to keep a cultural miasma of misery going on, even for people who disconnect from overtly political/news subs as an attempt to try to avoid it.)
Still, I think what I said is useful, so I’ll leave it up for lurkers.
I’ve seen mindsets like yours coming into book fandom more and more as the years have gone on.
I’m going to say some things from a meta perspective that you might not like. And while I’m making assumptions, and they might even be wrong about you in particular, I think there’s still worth in trying to see my perspective, and trying to understand WHY I am saying what I am saying, and why I’m saying it in response to your post at this particular point in time, even if I’m wildly off base with you as an individual. You’ll probably learn more from doing that than by trying to get into a one-on-one argument with me over details. Like, even if I’m wrong with you–WHY did I choose to say this right now in response to your post? What details in your post made me react in this way?
So, as far as I can tell, looking in from the outside, it looks like takes like yours arise when someone is raised in a religious context, following a holy book of some sort (Bible, Book of Mormon, the Koran–any writing really that is supposed to be your highest moral guide), and then either has not left that religion, but is trying to understand other people’s moralities through the same lens because everyone they personally know forms their morality from the bible or another holy book (so surely everyone else must too? And maybe other people use Star Trek?), or comes from someone who HAS left but hasn’t yet examined old habits left over from that upbringing, and and thus brings them into new spaces, as you seem to be doing here with Star Trek.
Like, I see religious folks, or recently ex-religious folks who have not yet examined their inner drives to get over-involved with the media they consume. They interact with their show the same way they would interact with their church, or with the Bible or another holy book. Even if they claim they are no longer religious, they were still raised in a religious environment which has an effect on habits and thinking esp. re: the topic of morality, and emotionally fandom spaces and fandom drama can feel a lot like church from a socializing and discussion standpoint, so old habits of churchy stuff sometimes seep into fandom.
But not all people interact with stories in this way. In fact, when you look at how people actually interact with media, people often take bits and pieces here and there. They agree with some stuff, disagree or just ignore others, and transform things too. You can truth-check this by looking at your peers in school. How many times did a teacher say something, and someone next to you said it was bullshit? People take in, reject, and transform information all the time. Words are not a total telepathic mind-control, people have agency.
I’m a writer, and it’s fairly common to see a reader interact with what I said and take a totally different insight from what I said, because all of their life experiences are getting tangled up with whatever story I was trying to tell, and that MIXTURE is showing them something new that I might never have realized or thought of. And this is normal–this is how humans interact with fiction.
The idea that a work of fiction has to demonstrate moral things perfectly or else be doomed as irredeemably flawed is really in my opinion more of a religious-brain thing. And no, maybe you didn’t say that directly, but I question the drive behind why you posted this post, listing the things you did. I question your motivations and assumptions. Approaching Trek asking the questions you do doesn’t align with how people actually interact with media in my experience, but it does align with how I’ve seen people utilize religion, and holy books in particular.
I’d encourage you to look up a community college and see if there’s any ethics classes you can take. I had to take an ethics class for the degree I was working on. I didn’t actually want to, as I’m in my 40s and comfortable with my sense of morality–but it ended up being shockingly useful, because it laid out different frameworks in which people can evaluate the morality of something, and the pros and cons of each. It kind of started with the “gut feeling” a lot of people use when they feel more than think, then progressed through religious frameworks, then a few philosophers, and then storytelling frameworks, and basically gave me a lot of different and new tools to evaluate things I hadn’t explicitly had before. It was very useful, much to my own surprise, and I’d recommend the experience to everyone if they go to college.
I’m not exactly religious, quite the contrary.
My ethics and morals are based on what I try to make a good ideal: not liking discriminations, authoritarianism, objectification of people, that kind of stuff. If you want to put me in a box, “leftist” would probably be more accurate than “religious”.
I understand perfectly well that a show can give a million different messages based on the interpretation. But there are still many things that, if not objective, can be said with a good degree of confidence. What I criticised is not about shows not demonstrating a perfect world where nothing is wrong, but about them showing immoral (according to my previous paragraph) things in a positive light.
My motivation is simple: Star trek started as a show questioning the world and the notions of bad and good, working almost at a philosophical level (which is the point of science fiction), and it doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. What I try to do is to question what the recent shows contain, and to create some awareness on the reasons that lead me to believe there are many moral issues in them.
And yes, there are many opinions. But one will have to hold very, very strong arguments before I admit that it is morally acceptable to not be inclusive, to objectify people, to tolerate fascism, etc.
If you want to call it trolling to easily dismiss it, fine. The point is to try to make people think more (and not just react to gut feelings) if they are open to it, if they’re not they’re not going to ever agree with me anyway, that’s the magic of cultural bubbles.
its existence as a starfleet element was blurry.
The very first S31 episode had Starfleet Command actively stonewalling Sisko’s inquiries, and Kira openly calling it a cover-up, so no, I don’t think its status as part of Starfleet was ever under serious question.
It was still unknown whether it was Stafleet, or starfleet individuals supporting it illegally. From Discovery, for example, everyone seems to know about S31, and official starfleet processes go through S31 as a rule, making it part of the starfleet structure and not just an illegal (even if supported) group
It was still unknown whether it was Stafleet
In what way was it unknown? Sloan had the active support of Starfleet command, access to at least one starship, and full authority to do whatever he wanted. None of this is ambiguous, and is in fact directly stated.
The way I saw it, it felt like they were saying that starfleet command is corrupted and using S31 as a way to get things done no matter how illegal they can be. Which is why when getting caught they would deny down to the existence of it all.
But that’s my interpretation, I admit.
I watched DS9 and learned a little about empathy, honor, duty, peaceful reconciliation, fitting in (Odo), friendship, etc… It seems those messages didn’t resonate with you at all.
Some things were like that. There was also Sisko using bioweapons for a personal vendetta, Odo not fitting in and constantly trying to go with the changelings who are a group of fascist racist violent manipulators, etc.
I’m pointing out the problems that for me are important whether or not other parts are not as bad, or even good. DS9 had good surprises, for example the evolution of Rom and Nog.
There was also Sisko using bioweapons for a personal vendetta, Odo not fitting in and constantly trying to go with the changelings who are a group of fascist racist violent manipulators, etc.
I haven’t seen DS9 since the first run I don’t think, so my memory is hazy, but did the show make those things “good things” or were they flaws in the characters?
Sisko was shown as “morally dubious but the end justifies the means” as in the end no one even scolds him for basically destroying a planet, and Odo was shown as “poor lonely changeling who wants to find his origins” and everyone forgives him no matter how much shit he does, because “they are my people” or something.
deleted by creator
Yep. The show was written by humans, humans are flawed, therefore the show is flawed. It’s constantly undone by an unholy mix of things that seemed okay at the time, things that were written to try and correct the things that previously seemed okay at the time (but which made things worse), the personal flaws of the creators seeping into their works, and a pile of crappy tropes that TV can’t help but lean on. It’s weird that you think this is something that isn’t a consideration of the show ‘anymore’; this all goes back all the way to the 60s. Original Trek is occasionally misogynistic crap, and once went so far as to describe Nazism as the most efficient form of government. TNG had episodes that were straight up racist, and characters that are accidentally written as creeps. This is a problem the show has always had, and sometimes you just have to deal with that to get to the good stuff.
The difference is that the problems of the older shows were in other times where the concept of discrimination wasn’t as well defined as now.
The original show tried fighting against violence, racism, sexism, but lacked the objectivity to do so, yes, but it was at a time closer to nazis than it is to us (and let’s not kid ourselves, at a time where americans were much more friendly with fascists than leftists). And TNG was visibly trying to keep a moral aspect to the show, and while often failing they were also often succeeding in surprising ways, to the point of even questioning things like genders, 30 years before the question became a more public one. I have a lot to criticise around it, but the good overweights the bad; this is not the case with recent shows where it’s hard to find a single episode without a dubious concept or production choice.
When Discovery decides to show rape scenes, it is a conscious choice, someone had to say “go on, pretend to be raping him”, it’s not a small mistake. The only similar one in TNG is the early racist episode that even Frakes described as “a racist piece of shit”, but it was what, 40 years earlier? I don’t apply the same judgement on something produced now, where the problems of discrimination, objectification, rape culture, etc, are much more known and defined. It was never good, it was never excusable, but now it is not even acceptable.
I really don’t think this post deserves all the downvotes. I mean I get how you might feel differently about all or some of the topics the OP brings to the table, but it’s not unfounded and certainly an interesting discussion.
For me, especially the part about sexism in Enterprise really resonated - I have always felt that this is among the worst aspects of the show. I also see points in mpst of the other criticism, although I think part of them can be interpreted differently. For example Section 31: Starfleet has not been a pure utopia since a long time, it’s at least bureaucratic most of the time, with an even dimmer view on it in later series. Section 31 fits in there for me. I don’t require stories to see the story through moral eyes, that can be a (sometimes painful) exercise left to the viewer. I don’t know how much and when this is intended by the series, though.
In any case, I think it’s well worth the discussion and ai’d like to thank the OP for the energy they spent in laying all this out.
Looking at OP’s history and conments…yeah those downvotes happened in context.
I don’t know what you want to highlight, unless it’s “a lot of people don’t like being confronted with discrimination”. I see OP is passionate about it. But what’s the problem there?
They’re not interested in progression, or resolution, just ranting at perceived wrongs. It’s the standard outrage trope parading as morality.
Every single relationship they see is ‘toxic’. Every action is labelled as ‘toxic’. They literally rant on the immorality of actions that within the ahow itself are painted as being not only bad, but right over the moral event horizon and accelerating as if it’s some astounding revelation only they can see and must bring to the attention of the blind stupid masses. Their entire argument hinges on treating fictional characters as moral guidelines to real life as opposed to complex beings that serve a story.
We all know the fandom kind. It’s a blinkered childish media consumption that only see the most basic of surface levels and brands anything they personally dislike or can’t understand as bad.
I pointed out the fault is in their misconception that trek ‘teaches morals’, it is simply a television franchise. Their measured response was to accuse me of enabling oppression. Ain’t nobody got time for this sort of ridiculousness in fandom spaces.
trek is not here to teach morals though. It’s here to entertain
The main interest of science fiction is to explore the moral and social effects of current, past or hypothetical events and technological discoveries. It could be basically called “philosophy through futurology”, and sci-fi without morals is just that, futurology.
Star Trek from the very beginning was like that, with things as simple as explaining that peace, unification of humanity, democracy and elimination of poverty and starvation are all linked and necessary to have a good world.
I guess you’re one of those “stop making shows political” people? Sci-fi shows are by essence here to teach morals, and even if it is unintentional the concept of imagining a future where humanity grew implies applying morals to the show. It’s not avoidable.
nope.
Strong.
