Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 1,234 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 50
Set Bookmark
Thu, May 25, 2017, 11:53am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Jetrel

@The Sisko - I think judging the past for dropping the bomb is that easy. We had already been napalming the hell out of Japan, we obviously were beyond worrying about civilians. And they literally were never going to surrender. The were going to fight to the last man. The fact that they didn't surrender after the first bomb drop when we were promising more is, to me, insane.

In some ways I think it needed to be done. Somebody had to be the first one to deploy on nuke on an enemy. It was horrible and I hope nobody ever does it again. But if any of the other powers had gotten the bomb in WW2, they'd have used it.

It's easy to say we shouldn't have done it in retrospect at the horror. When the President is staring at the estimated casualty list for taking Japan in a ground/water war and making that call to avoid it or not. I don't want to bring current politics into this, but it's a very interesting thing that a universal in politics is that whoever is in office the other side rails on them for "breaking promises". The first President I remember well is Daddy Bush. And it's no secret that I'm a Democrat. But when everyone was slamming him over breaking his "no new taxes" promise... all I kept thinking is... maybe there's crap that we need to pay for that's more important than a campaign slogan?

I think we all need to acknowledge that decisions look different in that seat. It's easy for you or me or DLPB or the writers of this episode or anyone else to say what they would have done holding the bomb in one hand and the projected casualties in the other. But nobody can ever really know without that weight on them.
Set Bookmark
Mon, May 15, 2017, 2:22pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: Sixth Season Recap

@Peter - "I guess I'd better stop since the best I can accomplish by adding details is repetition of what probably sounds like a series of complaints. And it is. I don't mean to take away from the things Voyager did well, but I also see no point sugar-coating the areas where in my opinion it blatantly failed."

Teachers can be really hard on kids that should be getting an A and gets Bs because they are coasting. This is why I bash VOY from time to time. Not because it was bad, but because it could have gotten an A. I wanted the A. All of the stuff was there.
Set Bookmark
Mon, May 15, 2017, 2:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: Sixth Season Recap

It will come as no surprise that the Tom & B'Elana stuff was, IMHO, some of the best parts of VOY. At least it was growth/change. I personally don't need arcs to be happy, but if Ensign Kim is literally the same guy in Demon, Warhead and Nightingale as he was in the series bible we have a problem.

And I loved the idea of Janeway as the mother hen to a family, and I agree that it never paid off the way one would expect.
Set Bookmark
Mon, May 15, 2017, 11:41am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S6: Sixth Season Recap

"Where was the continuity and character growth in TNG? Where was the immediacy, the commitment to exploring deep and dark facets of existence, or the fallibility of humans? Where were the season-long arcs, where were the consequences and repercussions? DS9 had these in spades, but apparently the public didn't want these things, so we got Voyager."

These things are not all the same. There is something to be said for episodic TV, and I agree with you that at the time the public was believed to not be able to handle season long arcs. FWIW, I actually think season long arcs are a bad idea and have been proven a failed concept. I think they worked on DS9 because they mixed in so many episodic bits that you weren't immersed in a 20+ hour story line. I think arcs work, but short 6-8 episode arcs. This is why Netflix/HBO does continuous stories better than network TV and why DS9's 6 episode Dominion invasion arc and 10 episode finale arc mostly worked.

BUT, TNG had character continuity in a way we didn't see on Voyager and could have. Not all characters had it, but many did and Voyager took place nearly 10 years after TNG premiered... they could have taken what was definitely working on DS9 and spliced it with what definitely worked in TNG.

Data has a series long arc. You could take about 10-15 episodes and show how Data progresses throughout the series and grows. If you watch The Naked Now, Datalore, Skin of Evil, Elementary Dear Data, The Schizoid Man, The Measure of a Man, Pen Pals, Ensigns of Command, The Offspring, The Most Toys, Brothers, Legacy, Data's Day, In Theory, Silicon Avatar, Hero Worship, The Quality of Life, Descent and Inheritance I think you'd see a personal arc that is stronger than anything Voyager puts together. And while this doesn't work with every character I'd argue that at least Worf has a similarly great personal arc.

Other characters are a mixed bag. Picard has a lot of fabulous episodes, and we learn a lot about him, but he doesn't grow as much... he feels like he's already finished baking by the time the series begins in many ways. Deanna gets a lot of growth in the later seasons that she was denied early on, whereas Beverly always feels kind of stagnant. But even some minor characters like Ro feel like they grow significantly.

I struggle to think of a VOY character that isn't the Doctor who comes close to what the TNG characters got.
Set Bookmark
Fri, May 12, 2017, 1:48pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Parallax

@Skeptical -

"Humanity seems so stagnant and boring in the TNG era (and again, TNG is my favorite series, so I'm not trying to find ways of criticizing it)."

I love TNG too, but you're right on the money. People might be offended at how far DS9 traveled from Gene, but as a pre-teen in 1993, watching Bashir/O'Brien play Battle of Britain, darts and the Alamo I can honestly say that they seemed more fun to hang out with than the TNG crew. Although I am VERY fond of the TNG crew.

I also agree with your assessment of Sisko. I don't know if it's Christian, something else, or both but I've always been very attracted to the Sisko's portrayal of family in the future. There's something special and completely unique about their family in all of Trek.

As a guy who married his first girlfriend I can honestly say there's something very refreshing to me about Sisko's approach to matters of love. And as a person who likes TV and thinks that most Trek "hour long romances" suck, I'm super happy that they just let him do that.
Set Bookmark
Fri, May 12, 2017, 10:52am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Parallax

Gene wasn't an atheist to my knowledge, nor was he against Christianity. AFAIK he just felt that contemporary Earth religions would be gone by the age of Star Trek. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be a successor to carry on the Abrahamic religions... just that he didn't care to speculate I think.

Wikipedia attributes this quote to him "It's not true that I don't believe in God. I believe in a kind of God. It's just not other people's God. I reject religion. I accept the notion of God."

If you think more people will head in THAT direction... well it makes total sense that you'd want to leave religion out of it totally. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the DS9 writers had intended Joseph as Christian. I mean... the DS9 writers often skirted and went over the line with regards to Gene's visions.
Set Bookmark
Fri, May 12, 2017, 7:36am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Parallax

@DLPB - "And the Right will never go away, so you best get used to it. Instead of insulting people, and shutting down debate, you'll have to learn to accept not everyone agrees with your political opinion. "

If you think I want everyone to agree with me or that I want to shut down debate or that I'm trying to make the right go away or that I was being a white knight instead of just tired of certain kind of rhetoric after all I've posted on here... I don't think you get me at all. Maybe I'm doing a poor job explaining myself but in either case I'm bowing out of this one.
Set Bookmark
Fri, May 12, 2017, 7:30am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Parallax

@Skeptical - Much appreciated.

I think I may have conveyed something wrong. I absolutely think Chakotay was an attempt to be politically correct. But he's not. I, as a progressive, am not proud of Chakotay. I like him in a lot of ways, and I think religion needs more exploring on Trek, but he's culturally insensitive.

When I said "But if Native Americans "sell" in the 90s, I could argue that Chakotay and his fake religion being abused by Hollywood is not leftist group-think but pure capitalist greed. " I'm saying that he's a product of trying to be politically correct without understanding the concept. Pandering to the progressive left without getting them. Although maybe I'm remembering the 90s wrong and progressives WERE proud of him in the 90s. He's definitely an ATTEMPT at political correctness :P

And yes, I agree with you. The "power" of different races in Trek is terrible. It runs on plot force. If the Romulans are descended from Vulcans, and the Vulcans are as strong/fast as the baseball game implies... No human should be able to take one.

"Complaining that Troi and Crusher were not swordfighting alongside Riker and Worf in QPid. We're so inundated with this stuff that the one time the difference in strength is acknowledged, it's seen as weird!"

I don't know that review, and I had no problem with the men fighting (both Riker and Worf are supposedly martial arts experts) but the girls are actually trained in how to use the swords and the men weren't. So I wonder if the review was a behind the scenes complaint :)

I completely agree with your post, it's excellent. And I think you hit on an interesting point. Your body is a weapon. When my brother learned Karate they were told that sensei was giving them a weapon in a sense and that if he ever got word of them using it for anything but self defense that they would be introduced to his weapons. If you're stronger, more deadly, Klingon, whatever you need to be more careful with your weapon. With great power comes great responsibility. Actually it almost would have been more interesting if she has severely hurt him with her Klingon super strength, a parallel to Worf killing that kid and a real consequence for her anger issues. But you are right that the particular double standard isn't bad. If my 6 year old hits her friend with full force I'm going to be pissed, but if she punched the baby it's a different level of offense. It doesn't make a woman hitting a man less unprofessional, but depending on her strength level it could make it less dangerous.

"Alas, another interesting opportunity wasted... "

Voyager's tagline :P
Set Bookmark
Thu, May 11, 2017, 10:17am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: The Child

@Fandabidozi - Welcome! Are you new to Trek or TNG? You seem to know Miles maybe?


"wonder if fans returning to the series find it's not as good as they remember it, or having seen later episodes, they know how much better it will get? "

This. There are about 10 episodes between all of S1/S2 that are up to the quality of the rest of the series. Season 3-6 are pretty stellar. And 7, while looking a bit long in the tooth in some places, is merely not as good as 3-6. It's definitely still above 1&2. And it ends on a crazy high note.
Set Bookmark
Thu, May 11, 2017, 9:36am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Parallax


"Oy, I don't know why I'm doing this, but here goes..."

Me neither, it was a resolution of mine 2 years ago to not discuss politics here, but you actually kept (mostly) on topic for the episode, so... here goes! :P

"Robert, DLPB may be acerbic, but he was absolutely (ok, 90%) right in his post. And while he may have insulted a group of people in his post, it was you who made it personal by insulting him."

Fair enough. I was insulting in my post. Maybe 110 days in Trump's presidency we can all feel a little exhausted with rants like that though.

"Now, you seem like you may agree with him about 1 and 3, but think that adding items like 2 and especially 4 are utterly ridiculous and make him look like a lunatic."

I'll just say that adding well thought out points never makes you a lunatic. Utterly ridiculous? Possible. But lunatic, no. I was objecting to the STYLE of it (ranting) as opposed to the content. The more a rant is off-topic the worse is gets.

The problem is that there is a left, but it's a caricature of itself, the same way the right is. Define the right! Abortion, gay marriage, fiscal (::giggle::) responsibility, tough on immigration? What would you add? And that's just the American right. Jeb/Marco were actually ok with a path to citizenship. W spoke in a mosque and called Islam a religion of peace. Rand Paul actually is for fiscal responsibility (somebody somewhere should be for it eventually right?)

When someone goes on about "the left" in a rant-like fashion they are making and attacking their own straw man. As though the left is the Borg with a hive mind. It's silly really. I don't treat or consider the conservatives on this site to be a hive mind.

"The Trek writers would never think of adding a Christian to the show, but have no problem with a hokey Akusha-Moya claptrap. And I keep mocking Chakotay's religion for a good reason, because it ties in with #3. Just like "strong woman=beating up guys" nonsense that Hollywood pushes on us** even thought its completely against reality, this was a truly made up religion. In their yearning effort to be PC, they didn't even bother to actually research the culture they tried to portray, and thus what was shown was the incoherent ramblings of a scam artist (seriously, go look it up if you don't believe me). They ended up insulting the culture they tried to promote because, in actuality, their devotion to that culture was only a mm thick***."

I agree with all of this, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with an attempt to be PC or maybe it's too much PC? I'm not totally sure. You can either argue that they are trying to not insult actual religions by making up a silly fake one or you can argue that they are trying for faux diversity to appeal to progressives (of which Star Trek has in spades). But if Native Americans "sell" in the 90s, I could argue that Chakotay and his fake religion being abused by Hollywood is not leftist group-think but pure capitalist greed. Quark would be proud.

"And so, can you really argue that it doesn't come from leftwing thought? That these sorts of things are not due to the burning desire the writers had to want to be politically correct? You know as well as I do that the "diversity" in Trek is all there to appease the American left."

I just agreed to that, yes. But studios making poor attempts to appeal to audiences they don't fully understand is the studios try to peddle their ways to a caricature of the left. The same kind of caricature being ranted about in the comment that caused my crankiness.

"You may be "proud" of it, but I still see it as just another form of pandering to white people. And that's fine! Star Trek's audience is white Westerners, after all! What's wrong with pandering to the people who pay your bills?"

I'm proud of the parts of Star Trek that have changed hearts and minds over the years. How many guys saw Kirk kiss Uhura and thought that it wasn't as disgusting as maybe they thought it would be? I'm not particularly proud of Chakotay though, no :P

"I'm not the type of person to judge others, and I'm not going to accuse everyone who doesn't agree with me politically of being evil. But in terms of the thought leaders in the left nowadays... well, look up intersectionality if you want. If you look at what's going on in college campuses, the idea these days is that the world is divided into the powerful (straight white Christian and Jewish males) and everyone else
Overt hatred of the powerful is encouraged. Again, this isn't my evil interpretation of it; they're pretty upfront about it."

Agree. It's some people taking the concept of "privilege" too far. Being aware of "privilege" so that you can say... realize that a black person from a poor neighborhood didn't have the same opportunities as you is a good way to have a conversation. But that's as far as I'm willing to take the concept. I'm certainly not sorry for being white, male or somewhat wealthy. But it's something to think about when I hear people mouthing off about certain things that their privileged world view is contributing to the fact that they have no idea what in the hell they are talking about. But most people's world view is narrow. Many on the left might not understand that it's frustrating to grow up in an upper middle class community and watch minorities get full scholarships to things that are meant for disadvantaged people because they are a certain color. It's why I think affirmative action should be wealth based. Kids like say... the Cosby family where Dad is a doctor and Mom is a lawyer don't need free stuff. But certain people might see me as racist for saying so. Again, most people are restricted by narrow world views.

"And again, I'm not going to accuse everyone of believing this. I'm sure, when faced with that, it's only a small portion of the left that believes it."

Much appreciated.

"But the problem is, the "intellectual class" of the left really do believe this!"

I'm not so sure about that. The intellectual class that is backing Bernie Sanders has almost nothing in common with the intellectual class backing Hillary Clinton.

"And the other problem is, most people don't think. That's not a criticism or implying people are stupid, it's just the truth. Our brains are wired to ignore anything we deem unimportant, and so we don't constantly question our assumptions."

This is exactly what I just said. 100% agreement.

"You know as well as I do that the writers of Trek would feel more at home in San Francisco than in Texas. They're downstream of this thought process that demands double standards at every level. So even if they'd like to think of themselves as tolerant of everyone, they might live in a world where they never question their assumptions. Never question if it actually makes sense for a woman who weighs half as much as a man and has far less testosterone to build upper body strength can actually physically compete with a man. May not question that people can be capitalist and still be ethical or interested in science or anything else that is apparently anathema to the Ferengi. Never question that if you are actually serious about creating an atheist future, you have to insult other cultures besides Christianity as well. It doesn't mean they're bad people. It just means they may live in a bubble. And perhaps by criticizing them, we may get them to snap out of that bubble."

Since we're questioning our assumptions... why do you personally care if Klingon females have enough upper body strength to compete with a human male like Carey? And beyond that, could your wife (assuming you have one) not surprise you with a sucker punch to the nose? I mean... we're not talking about Kira taking down Klingons right now, we're talking about a Klingon woman giving a Starfleet tech guy a crack in the nose. A woman who's main S1 story arc is that she has anger issues related to her Klingon side. Yes, sometimes feats of strength that are ridiculous are assigned to our heroes. I don't actually believe squishy Sisko or O'Brien could take out a Klingon. And I hope Bajoran bones are made out of adamantium... because DAMN GIRL!!

But here's where I'd love to talk about the actual god damned episode. I disagree with all of you that the gender politics of this episode are left. I don't think the "man can't hit a woman" but a "woman can hit a man" thing is a left idea at all actually. You might argue that tiny female action heroes are left somehow (because the left doesn't want to acknowledge gender differences or some such thing that I don't feel like getting into right now)... but the "men don't hit women thing" is cultural beyond left/right. Just my 2 cents. If anything feminists have tried to push the idea that men can be raped too and stuff like that. That men can be domestically abused. A lot of those concepts can be considered left thought things too. A woman decking her coworker shouldn't really be played for laughs... but I'm not sure that it's the left's fault that it is. Even if the writers are left leaning, not everything that comes out of them is from a place of politics.

"Who knows, maybe it might lead to better writing! Unless you think Chakotay is the epitome of a great character, or that Ferengi are a well thought out race..."


"I can't speak for DLPB, but I still believe in outdated, hate-filled, intolerant ideas like "all men are created equal" and "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Given that, I can be rather sensitive to areas where the opposite belief - that one should explicitly be judged by their skin or their sex - end up sneaking its way into mainstream culture. Perhaps DLPB is as well. And while I can't be certain that intersectionality itself goes back 20 or so years to when Voyager was created, I know the roots of this concept do go back quite a long ways, so maybe it was there as well."

The problem with the type of rant I originally replied to is not that you can't be disturbed by an idea.... it's that it's taking very personally what a small loud group thinks and applying it to the entire left. Including writers that may or may not be liberals. From 20 years ago. With modern ideas. It'd be like if every time there was a conservative concept in Star Trek I started ranting about white supremacists. It's no secret that they exist on the right. But they are about as prominent as women that think men should be discriminated against on the left.

"But was the fact that DLPB brought it up here so far beyond the pale that you had to insult him (and thus cause the topic to devolve even further)?"

Substance no. Style yes. Sorry, it's the truth. If you can't make your point without comments like "Like always with the left, hypocrisy is their soulmate." go somewhere else. These boards are too civil for that garbage.

"Do you also call out the people on the left who inject it in? Perhaps, to prevent such flame wars from breaking out... if we are truly committed to having discussions on Trek only with only the bare minimum of politics as related to the episode only... perhaps we should all only call out the people "on our side". Less chance of things rolling out of hand that way, eh?"

Yes I do. Last March a liberal baited with a Trump comment and when Yanks went off on him they decided to call Yanks a troll and I defended him. I remember because it's the only time I broke my "no politics on this website" resolution last year :P

Doesn't mean I agreed with Yanks' post, but you can't bring up politics in the middle of an election and then call somebody a troll for responding with their politics. If we take Linda's definition of a troll "a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant or offensive comments or disruptive content" bashing Trump in the middle of an election doesn't HAVE to be trollish, but if you want to bash him without inviting a response it sort of feels trollish. Especially if you're going to respond to said debate by calling troll (these were 2 different posters, so not specifically blaming the OP here).

"As a complete and random aside, if there is a character in Trek that is a closet Christian (or possibly Jew), I'm going with Joseph Sisko. I have my reasons for believing that, but I'm sure it was never intentional on the writers part. Actually, some of it may be intentional..."

DS9 seemed the least scared of religion, so why not? And does it have to be in the closet? We ever see him on Sunday?

"Also as a random aside, I think Kira IS a strong portrayal of a woman even without the utterly absurd idea that she can beat up Cardassians while 8 months pregnant. She has a deep sense of morality and a strong sense of self, and is confident, assertive, and utterly true to herself (other than dating Odo, but that's another pet peeve of mine...)."

Me too! I love her. And she's conservative! And not a caricature of it either. :P DS9 had a wide range of political viewpoints on their show. And as I said, it's headcanon that Bajoran bones are made of adamantium.

"As an even more random aside, a NYTimes reporter recently complained because the new film version of Murder on the Orient Express didn't include Asian cast members. So she didn't know either the historical train OR the famous novel! That's what I mean about being 1 mm thick in culture but deep into identity politics..."

But what people don't see is that victimhood and umbrage taking isn't something the left has a monopoly on. Christian clerks are persecuted because they have to sign gay marriage licenses? News flash! We've been persecuting you for YEARS by making you sign second marriage licenses for all of those filthy adulterers. Everyone knows there's no such thing as divorce. Or crying about illegals voting and stealing votes from those good old Republicans (yes, Trump... we found 3 illegal voters and 2 of them were for you). Even Reagan's welfare queen speech encouraged hard working whites to feel victimized by the entire black race (yes, she was awful... and waaaaaay more awful than Reagan knew, that's actually a fascinating story if you ever want to look into it).

I hope nobody feels the need to specifically debate this one with me because I am NOT arguing that the left don't do this. In fact, if you read the entirety of all of my posts the crux of my argument was

"I could make a 40 page long essay calling the right out for being jackasses and hypocrites, but there's no need... it's a Star Trek site."

TLDR - The left sucks, the right sucks, largely because both such things don't really exist and are strawmen. There are no hive minds, neither side is the Borg, and I'm not convinced that the gender politics in THIS episode even have anything to do with the left, but I'd be willing to continue THAT discussion because it's relevant.
Set Bookmark
Thu, May 11, 2017, 9:10am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S5: Latent Image

"Should have used the two twin sisters for this episode if they are still around. "

The amount of VOY episodes that would have been kicked up a notch with just a splash of continuity... ::sigh::
Set Bookmark
Wed, May 10, 2017, 3:21pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Endgame

@Chrome - On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand... it doesn't feel like she changes her ideals. It feels like she abandons them because the personal cost is too high. I just didn't like it. I'm a fan of early Janeway and I feel this puts the final nail in her.

That said, if I turn off what annoys me about VOY the episode is very entertaining. But that's true of a lot of VOY.
Set Bookmark
Wed, May 10, 2017, 11:45am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Endgame

And for the record, since TNG's ending is sadly Nemesis, DS9's ending will have to stand as the best in all of "modern" Trek. But I think the ending of TOS (Undiscovered Country's ending) is perfect.

UHURA: Captain, I have orders from Starfleet Command. We're to put back into Spacedock immediately, be decommissioned.

SPOCK: If I were human, I believe my response would be 'Go to Hell!' ...If I were human.

CHEKOV: Course heading, Captain?

KIRK: Second star to the right, ...and straight on 'til morning.

Captain's log, U.S.S. Enterprise, stardate 9529.1. This is the final cruise of the Starship Enterprise under my command. This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew. To them and their posterity will we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man, where no one, ...has gone before.
Set Bookmark
Wed, May 10, 2017, 11:43am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Endgame

@Del_Duio - Actually the whole stupid thing pisses me off. 7 years ago Janeway picked the Ocampa over everyone who would die over the next 7 years.

In Endgame Janeways picks Seven, Chakotay and Tuvok over everyone that Voyager would help over the next 19 years.

There's something that feels really, truly messed up about the whole thing. Coupled with the ending of Friendship One

"JANEWAY: I think about our ancestors. Thousands of years wondering if they were alone in the universe, and finally discovering they weren't. You can't blame them for wanting to reach out, see how many other species were out there asking the same questions.

CHAKOTAY: The urge to explore is pretty powerful.

JANEWAY: But it can't justify the loss of lives, whether it's millions or just one. "

I can't help but feel like Janeway (starting with her depression in S5's Night where she decides she made the wrong choice in Caretaker) has decided the entire TV show of Voyager that made this little family that I grew to care about was wrong. It pissed me off.

DS9's ending was mostly good, a little rushed, a little disappointing, but it didn't piss me off. This did.
Set Bookmark
Wed, May 10, 2017, 9:14am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Parallax


"Also, calling people trolls for disagreeing with you is perhaps the lowest form of intellect on the net I have seen. It happens a lot. People who disagree with you are not trolls. That isn't even remotely the definition."

Actually, Jammer didn't call you a troll.

Jammer - "It's annoying because it's so clearly trollish behavior"

Saying behavior or dialogue is trollish is not the same as calling a person a troll. Look at what I said about you

"I always thought you were better than that to be honest. I still do. "

This is us calling you out on what was an UNUSUALLY hostile rant. This is not us calling you a troll. I can't speak for Jammer, so I won't try, but considering his mention of troll was of the behavior and not the person I would assume the point stands.

"even leftist contributors here agree to that at times, because it;s a bit hard to ignore. Robert is just pissed off that I call Trek out on it, and so are you ;)"

The politics of Star Trek itself are somewhat irrelevant to this topic I think. There was a place in this conversation for gender politics, sure but you decided to dive into hypocrisy being the soulmate of the left? Into race and religion? Into white persecution and the Koran? Into Star Trek peddling a hypocritical leftist agenda? Yes, the writers lean left on social issues. As far back as "The Offspring" when Guinan deliberately said "two people love each other" and as far back as the pilot when "Number One" was Majel Roddenberry the show has pushed a progressive social agenda. Many Trekkies pride ourselves on being a part of the franchise that had the first interracial kiss and one of the first same sex kisses. I cannot argue that, nor would I want to. But I am not offended that you discuss it. We have gotten into political discussions on more than one occasion. Yes, Trek is socially progressive and I'm proud of that. Call it out, go for it. What saddens me about the whole thing is that you and I, right and left, actually agree with each other about how the gender politics of this episode are "off" or "wrong" but instead we're having this discussion.

"The Right's description of Leftists as "Snowflakes" has got them running around like wild animals because it hits the nerve every time. "

That's not true. The term is irritating because it's an enabling lie. Claiming that the left is a culture of victimhood allows the right to mouth off hatred while claiming that it's not your incivility but our inability to take a dissenting viewpoint that is the problem. No the problem is your incivility.

And it's not necessary. You can explain what's wrong with the politics of this episode without going on a rant about how the left are destroying society and indoctrinating children. At the end of the day we're both here because both like Star Trek. And that's not all we have in common. We're both coders. We're both enjoy video games. We both like Final Fantasy. We're both the same age. And we both think the fact that this episode would have been received very differently if Carey had broken Torres' nose represents a problematic and unsettling double standard. Can't some of that stuff be more important than some of this other stuff?
Set Bookmark
Fri, May 5, 2017, 12:24pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Parallax

@Linda - You're absolutely correct. I think she should have been put in charge provisionally with the promotion offered when she proved she could conduct herself properly. "Acting Chief Engineer" would have been fine, and in most episodes you could still drop the "Acting" when referring to her.
Set Bookmark
Fri, May 5, 2017, 12:01pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

"Has the golden age of Trek already come and is long gone? Say from the 3rd season of TNG throughout DS9's run? "

From TNG S3-DS9 S7 you had TOS : Undiscovered Country, the 2 best TNG movies, TNGs finest years, all of DS9 (which is excellent) and the parts of VOY that I like the best. So ya, I'd say that was the golden age. During those 10 years all 4 casts were putting out great stuff. Can it get better than that?

To me the literal height of Star Trek was Spring of '97. First Contact had just left the theater and was coming to home video. The TNG movie franchise felt wildly successful and everyone was excited for what they'd put out next. Voyager had just encountered the Borg with their Scorpion cliffhanger and Sisko & company had been driven from the station by the Dominion. If someone had told me at THAT POINT that Star Trek would be off the air entirely just 8 years later I'd have laughed at them.
Set Bookmark
Fri, May 5, 2017, 10:31am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Bashir is an Arabic surname and Alexander Siddig (formerly Siddig El Fadil) was born in Sudan. And In the episode where they get put in the sanctuary district it was said to have been intentional that the two "brown" characters (as Avery Brooks says) were thrown into the districts.

There's not a tremendous amount of evidence beyond that though. All the other human characters (Sisko - New Orleans, O'Brien - Ireland, Keiko - Japan and even Worf - Russia if you want to count that) discuss where on Earth they are from, but Bashir never does.
Set Bookmark
Fri, May 5, 2017, 8:17am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

"The only thing you should really do in order to increase the show's appeal to the interational market, is to have a multinational cast and less "Americanized" themes... which is two things that Star Trek shows should be doing anyway. "

And less humans! Aliens appeal to everyone. The DS9 cast was probably the best in this regard. Of the 3 humans (4 if you count Jake) you had America, the UK and the Middle East. And then you had a Bajoran, a Founder, a Trill and a Ferengi. And in later seasons a Klingon. And if you go for the supporting cast you get even more aliens (more Bajorans, more Ferengi, more Klingons and some Cardassians too).
Set Bookmark
Thu, May 4, 2017, 9:45am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Parallax

"When the left stop acting like jackasses, I will stop calling them out on it. "

I could make a 40 page long essay calling the right out for being jackasses and hypocrites, but there's no need... it's a Star Trek site.

For what it's worth I don't think they don't know how to write strong women. Janeway and Seven are without being violent. I think the issue here is that the maquis have become caricatures instead of freedom fighters. Torres has rage issues because she's always had a hard time with her Klingon half. Suter has rage issues because he's a psychopath. Some of the maquis joined because they like to shoot stuff. It's been discussed. Multiple times on Voyager. Even Chakotay decks one of the maquis later in the season. Being somewhat violent is how the writers are writing the "rough" maquis against the "polished" Starfleet.

Where it falls apart, and where you are right, is where you say "Can you imagine them showing Torres having her nose broken by a male officer? No, neither can I." You're right, neither can I. Carey getting the job after breaking Torres' nose would have come off really poorly and as much as I always liked this episode for the Torres/Janeway relationship they never did address strongly enough what she did. Even making her in charge on a probationary period until she can prove she deserves the title and the rank would have done something. Instead it's brushed aside in a way that would have been disturbing if the violence was male on female.

Where you "struck a nerve" is with garbage like "Like always with the left, hypocrisy is their soulmate." Not because I think you're right, but because I shouldn't have to listen to that garbage on a site that isn't for politics. Jammer is quite tolerant (and rightfully so, which I appreciate because Star Trek can have quite political themes) in letting us discuss politics. But you can discuss the politics of an episode (in this case gender politics are fair game) without going off on a rant the likes of which you'd see on an alt-right hate site.

I always thought you were better than that to be honest. I still do. Maybe somebody pissed in your Wheaties yesterday. But I have always listened to what you had to say, even when we (as is often the case) strongly disagreed. I always read it. I always think about it.
Set Bookmark
Wed, May 3, 2017, 8:25am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Parallax

@DLPB - And the worst part is that I agree with a lot of what you said. Particularly the idea that something that would look really badly when gender swapped is a bad idea/bad writing/is sexist in it's own way. But you don't have to rant about Korans to make a coherent point.
Set Bookmark
Wed, May 3, 2017, 8:22am (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S1: Parallax

@DLPB - You used to just be someone that disagreed with me. Now you're a ranting, raving, alt-right parody lunatic. Just stop. If leftist writers make your blood boil, go watch something else.
Set Bookmark
Tue, May 2, 2017, 9:05am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S3: Yesterday's Enterprise

@Peter G. - Just because a death is meaningless isn't a bad thing. I don't really care if my death has meaning as long as my life did and I don't suffer. There's nothing particularly meaningful about nodding out in a rocker while watching your favorite TV show at 95 and never waking up, but if you lived a good meaningful life, who cares that the last 10 minutes or so weren't particularly purposeful? I didn't mean it as a depressing or bad thing.
Set Bookmark
Mon, May 1, 2017, 2:48pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S3: Yesterday's Enterprise

"As an aside, if Tasha had lived to 90 and died of a stroke, would that too have been "meaningless"? "

If I live to 90 and then die of a stroke I'd consider that fairly devoid of meaning, sure. It will just sting less because my life will have been more finished. Most deaths are meaningless. Most deaths of officers who are in the line of duty are not though. Her death did not assist them in defeating Armus. I always thought that was the point.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Mar 24, 2017, 4:38pm (UTC -5)
Re: VOY S7: Repentance

This is an amazing point. When the Founding Fathers were making this country it was ok to own slaves.

When my Grandpa was born it was ok that women couldn't vote.

When my father was born it was ok to not want black kids in your school.

When I was born it was ok to think gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

What is ok today that isn't?

For the record I'm conflicted about crime/punishment because nobody will discuss why we do it. If it's to deter crime it doesn't work. If it's to keep us safe at all costs than lock em up and toss the key is ok. If it's about revenge... well I hope it isn't. At least not legally. If it's about rehabilitation than life sentences make no sense.
Next ►Page 1 of 50
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2017 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.