Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 65,688 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 2,628
Set Bookmark
Chrome
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 2:40pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

Let’s try not to ruin a great discussion with pedantic arguments. There are always words that have technical meanings known only to certain professionals yet are still used in the common vernacular. If you’re using the technical meaning of the word, please take the time to explain it, otherwise you might just assume everyone is using the laymen’s meaning.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 10:35am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

@ Peter G
And what hard science might that be? Also why do you first say that you don't want the trollish back and forth to continue which you started by the way and then continue with it anyways?

I explained a scientific concept. You insulted and accused me and then without any backing said that it is not a scientific concept.

"Basically all this does is shut down conversation for no other reason than to assert authority. Granted, in this context you also shut yourself out of the conversation as well,"
I just said that after you insulted me and accused me of pushing an ideology and for whatever reason that Objectification isn't a scientific concept that I will not discuss it with you any longer. I never said that you are forbidden from discussing it which I couldn't enforce anyway.

I do have the right to not discuss something with you if it is my believe that it would not be a discussion that I would find interesting, don't I?

I will listen to this now for about 10 hours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1Zo5Ljws0
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 10:12am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

Sorry, last sentence should read "...does not mean any term automatically *becomes* a "science" term..."
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 9:57am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

@ Booming,

I don't want to continue a trollish back back and forth on this point, and sorry to everyone else to have taken up the space with this. Here's the bottom line: you're using the word "scientific" in the way you always do, which is to make some kind of authoritative claim on a thing that puts you above all of us because you're a "scientist" and therefore what you say is beyond dispute. What I like about this site is people are generally willing to hear alternative viewpoints, so when I read:

"I doubt that you have any deeper understanding of the scientific concept of objectification and I will not discuss it with you because I too have only a very superficial understanding of the term."

Basically all this does is shut down conversation for no other reason than to assert authority. Granted, in this context you also shut yourself out of the conversation as well, but from my side it's a bunch of baloney designed to sound impressive. I have a background in the hard sciences, though no doubt not as much as Omicron or William B, but I know when the term "scientific" is being thrown around frivolously and when it's not. Yes, any subject can be studied scientifically, and no, that does not mean any term automatically because a "science" term that only "scientists" have the authorirty to discuss.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 8:23am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

@ Jason R.
"Let me confess I just don't know what "scientific" means in this context. Science is a methodology whereby one studies the universe through hypothesis and experimentation."
Incomplete. You forgot theories which are essential. A theory consists of a core and a periphery. To build the theory core you need Axioms and basic definitions. The periphery consists of hypothesis and rules on how to measure parts of the theory.

What Nussbaum does with her definition of the term objectification is proposing a framework for the concept. Now it would be about finding methods how to test/operationalize and create hypothesis or to criticize/improve to concept.

I guess the concept of objectification as defined by Nussbaum could be used in Anthropology, Sociology, Political science, Law as you say yourself. But as I said I don't know much about the topic. Maybe Objectification is already part of a theory or used in some way. I don't know. I just know the sociological concept and knowing is half the battle. ;)
(I hope "barely knowing" is a quarter of the battle)

So that's why I'm so puzzled and that is mostly what I am when you or Peter say that Objectification is not a scientific term/concept. It's like if I said that Pacta sund servananda has nothing to do with legal principles. How would you react to that? I'm just confused. *confused smiley*

"If so would you mind providing a quote from her so we can understand what you are talking about?"
https://books.google.de/books?id=7zoaKIolT9oC&pg=PA218&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here is the complete text. The concept itself is on page 257.
https://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/mprg/nussbaumO.pdf
If I apply this concept then yes. In that situation Spock objectifies women and as Omicron so eloquently explained shows an unfortunate bias on the side of the writers.

"Are you saying because some smart person at Harvard used the term that makes it "scientific"?"
Well it depends on how it is used but if it is conceptualized in a useful way then yes it may sound strange but this is how a term would start it's voyage to become an accepted scientific concept.

English often makes it difficult to express myself correctly. Especially when we are discussing complex topics. So please excuse any misunderstandings that arise from my imprecise phrasing.
Set Bookmark
Top Hat
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 6:54am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S2: Cogenitor

I mean when they bring the Cogenitor to the mess hall with them early in the episode, where Trip first meets them. It triggers the rest of the narrative but it feels a bit contrived -- is this "take your Cogenitor to work day" or something?
Set Bookmark
Jeff
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 6:41am (UTC -6)
Re: DSC S2: Point of Light

I don't subscribe to any streaming services. Season 2 of DIS only just came out in DVD and Blu-Ray so I'm only just starting to watch the "new" season right now. I have incredibly mixed feelings regarding the series as a whole and this season so far (even though I've only watched the first three episodes) , but I'll keep my comments to "Point of Light" which I watched last night.

1) A complaint about the tech side of the DVDs (and this happened with the Season 1 set as well). In order to see the captions for the Klingon language on screen, I have to turn on the captions for the episode proper. Then start and stop the episode. Go back the menu and turn the captions off and then the proper captions for the Klingon language will be on screen. Very annoying that i have to do that...still.

2) I wound up going back to turn the captions back on anyway because I had a terrible time understanding what anyone was saying in this episode. There are so many effects added to the actors' voices playing Klingons I couldn't make out half of what anyone was saying. And with Amanda and Michael speaking in whispers so often...I don't think I've ever struggled as much watching anything in my life to hear what the actors were saying. It made it very difficult to enjoy the episode.

3) I knew already that Spock's on screen debut was being purposefully delayed, and even with knowing that it made me impatient to just get on with it already. And for Michael to mention doing something to betray Spock and then not going into detail felt very much like a "TV writer decision" rather than what Michael would truly do in that moment.

4) I really would like someone to tell me who Stamets is on this show? What is his purpose? Who is he as a character? With such extreme focus on Michael and Tilly it feels like everyone else is getting the shaft. I, for one, really would love to see more of Detmer. Especially with her having served with Michael and Saru on the Shinzou you would think there would be more interaction there somewhere along the line. There are so many peripheral characters on this show. I want to get to know them.

I'll end here 'cause otherwise I'll just be voicing concerns and critiques about the series as a whole. I'll just end with this. I like DIS, I guess. There is some unique and interesting things in this series, but I feel like the PTB are going out of their way to make it really tough for me to enjoy this series.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 6:39am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

Booming I have got to agree with Omicron that it doesn't much matter either way in this context. But maybe it's the lawyer in me but I just can't let it pass when people say things that make no sense to me.

Let me confess I just don't know what "scientific" means in this context. Science is a methodology whereby one studies the universe through hypothesis and experimentation.

I honestly don't see how that relates meaningfully to a term that is essentially metaphorical - nobody literally "objectifies" anybody so what we are talking about is how a person treats or relates to another person *like an object* rather than a person.

Again, how would that metaphorical description of some human behaviour relate to "science" in this context?

I mean I guess you could somehow say that it relates to the study of human societies through anthropology or something. You could design experiments I suppose to test some hypothesis about sonething called "objectification" in human societies. By that logic you could say "asshole" is a scientific term too :) Almost any metaphorical description of human behaviour would be.

Are you saying because some smart person at Harvard used the term that makes it "scientific"? Did she actually claim this was a science term? If so would you mind providing a quote from her so we can understand what you are talking about?

I mean as Omicron asks: why are we even arguing over this? You know I don't deny that men objectifying women is a real thing....
Set Bookmark
Yanks
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 6:24am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S2: Cogenitor

Top Hat,

I believe Trip snuck the cogenitor on Enterprise.
Set Bookmark
Top Hat
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 5:46am (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S2: Cogenitor

One thing I never understood: why do the couple take the Cogenitor with them to Enterprise to begin with? Are they like the equivalent of people who bring their pets with them everywhere? Or was there a practical reason to do with their fertility?

Watching it again I'm struck by how sneaky Trip is from early on. He takes surreptitious scans of the Vissians and sneaks around both his vessel and Enterprise. He knows that what he is doing is underhanded. He could try to leverage his new friendship with the Vissians to try to get more information about the lot of Cogenitors (maybe he could ask Reed's love interest to give a different perspective -- maybe some of them see the situation quite differently than the couple do) and perhaps state his concerns outright if he feels it necessary. They might get defensive and it might not help, but at least the outcome would have been no worse than what happened and probably wouldn't have fallen back on the Cogenitor personally.

It's interesting how naive Trip comes off in this episode. He clearly knows he's doing something risky, hence the subterfuge, but consistently ducks the real consequences. Consider this exchange:

COGENITOR: Would you be punished if they find out you've brought me here?
TUCKER: Punished? No, but they might get a little angry.
COGENITOR: I would be punished.
TUCKER: Maybe I should take you back.
COGENITOR: No, no, I want to see more.

Trip should probably ask what such punishment might entail but he doesn't, even though it's clear that Charles's is risking more in their little adventure than he is.

As others have noted, it seems like the episode is less about trans rights (it's a muddle on that front -- has Trip literally never heard of non-binary people on Earth?) than a cautionary example about the White Saviour Complex. And on that level, I think it's kind of clever. Trip has no way of knowing how people will react to the idea of "Cogenitor Liberation" but his own behaviour -- this pattern of sneakiness -- demonstrates that he knows it is at least risky. He feeds Charles liberal pieties like "Then you've got to convince them" because that's all he has in this situation; he knows they're only interacting with these people for a short time and have no real leverage for affecting social change.

So I don't think the message is necessarily against intervention or human rights activism, so much as "Don't be an idiot"... or at least, don't make it all about yourself.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 2:41am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

Can anybody please enlighten me as to the *point* of this entire debate on whether objectification is "a scientific term" or not?

Objectification is what it is. And it seems like both sides of this discussion have a pretty good idea what that word means:

Booming: "Objectification or dehumanization is about lessening the humanity of a group or person"
Peter: "It is *not* any old use of metaphor or simile"

Both 100% correct.

So why, again, are we debating the question of scientific definitions? Who the ****-ing cares, whether a word is a "scientific term" or not, when we all agree on its usage? The only thing that matters, is whether a given definition (academic or not) is USEFUL in helping us to understand the concept at hand.
Set Bookmark
Sleeper Agent
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 1:31am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: The Return of the Archons

Far from perfect, with some really dragged out scenes in the middle to fill it up. But as some have already pointed out, it's strength lies in its goofyness.

The end, especially, had me laughing several times.

Mr. Lindstrom reporting from the surface to Kirk.
"How's it going?"
"Couldn't be better. Already this morning we had half a dozen domestic quarrels and two genuine knockdown drag-outs. It may not be paradise but it's certainly human."
"Sounds most promising."

or when the computer has been destroyed and Marplon and the robed servants looks upon it as Kirk leaves.
"Let's go see how the others are doing. Marplon can finish up here."

Yeah, they can thank them later XD Let me tell you, had it been Janeway instead of Kirk people would absolutely LOSE it.

1,5 Stars.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 12:32am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

@ Jason R.
My bad. You are the combative lawyer. I don't consider most lawyers scientists. There are exceptions like law professors.
I can only repeat what I said to Peter. I'll not take your word for it. Yours is a nonsensical statement. There is no Swiss high council of scientific terms. Nussbaum tried to define the term by seven characteristics. One can apply the term to the discussed situation.

Omicron put it in words far better than mine. Hopefully his analysis made more clear what I wanted to say.
Set Bookmark
Springy
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 10:09pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S4: Family

I really liked this episode.

It was a departure from the standard ST fare, and a well done one. The bucolic, peaceful, sunny beauty of La Barre, Picard's hometown, was such a great contrast to their usual surroundings.

Everything is so . . . down to Earth. Soil, vines, grapes, wine, a child, a marriage, home cooking. Talk of the ocean. Of reclamation. You can almost smell the mud when Picard gets covered with it.

The performances were outstanding.

The Worf stuff was wonderful character development for Worf. The Wes stuff was less significant, but interesting nonetheless.

Roles, relationships, the way we build our lives, the paths we choose and the people along the way - the paths we don't choose, and the people we leave behind.

Just a beautiful little interlude before, like The Enterprise, we're all charged up and on our way.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 7:36pm (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S4: Fourth Season Recap

"So my question is this; what are some good episodes to introduce her (or anybody) to Trek with (of each series) that don't require any background plot or spoil any major twists?"

TOS - City on the Edge of Forever, The Doomsday Machine, Devil in the Dark

TNG - The Measure of a Man, Q Who, Best of Both Worlds 1/2, The Inner Light, Chain of Command 1/2, Darmok, All Good Things 1/2

DS9 is tough because it is so serialized. Voyager and Enterprise are tough because they are so bad....
Set Bookmark
Nolan
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 7:09pm (UTC -6)
Re: ENT S4: Fourth Season Recap

Okay, wasn't sure where to post this because it's a really broad and general Star Trek franchise question the answers to which might also have spoilers from accross the franchise for any new fans. I chose here because it's probably the last place a new fan would go (unless going chronologically) and therefore the most safe.

Anyways, my cousin's 12 year old daughter said the magic words, that she wants to watch Star Trek, and I get to be her shepherd throught this franchise. Given she has interest in being a doctor (surgeon to be exact) I've already picked out some medical-centric episodes for her (Ethics, The Quickening, Transfigurations) but I'm still not sure those might be good jump on points to know if she'll like the characters etc. Plus I want her to get a taste for the variety of stories Trek has.

So my question is this; what are some good episodes to introduce her (or anybody) to Trek with (of each series) that don't require any background plot or spoil any major twists?

This is a very active and vocal and largely well-spoken group of fans on this site and I look forward to the potential replies.
Set Bookmark
Jason R.
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 7:03pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

"Objectification is not a scientific term? Why do you say these things? It seems very illogical. Is it this combative lawyer side of yours that you talked about? We have you and then we have Martha Nussbaum, a professor of law and ethics at the university of Chicago who also taught at Brown and Harvard. You think that objectification/dehumanization is not a scientific term, she thinks it is"

I think you may have confused Peter G. with me. But since lawyers are now science experts according to you you'll take my professional word for it that "objectification" in this context isn't a science term.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:18pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

William is correct.

Spock, in the episode, spoke solely of the crystals when he said that line.

This does not, however, change the fact that when we look at this statement within the greater thematic context of the episode, it doesn't look good. We can't fault Spock on this, but we most certainly CAN fault the writers.

The problem here, at any rate, isn't the mere comparison between a person and an object. It's the nature of the comparison. Peter says that it hints at some kind of "inner beauty"? Perhaps. But what kind of inner beauty, exactly, are we talking about here? At no time, not even once, does anybody refer to Eve and co. as actual people in their own right. Everybody, including the women themselves, just expects them to play the traditional role of a housewife (or worse).

So yes, that's a pretty bad case of objectification.

The most maddening thing here is that the writers obviously intended this episode to deliver some kind of woman empowerment message (as Kirk said: "you either believe in yourself or you don't"), but they botched it so badly that it just makes you cringe. This, really, is the worst form of prejudice: The kind that people hand out without even realizing what they are doing.

Definitely one of the worst episodes of TOS.
(the idea that Gene Roddenberry actually thought this episode was a worthy candidate for being the TOS pilot truly boggles the mind)
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 4:56pm (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

@ Peter G.

Objectification is not a scientific term? Why do you say these things? It seems very illogical. Is it this combative lawyer side of yours that you talked about? We have you and then we have Martha Nussbaum, a professor of law and ethics at the university of Chicago who also taught at Brown and Harvard. You think that objectification/dehumanization is not a scientific term, she thinks it is. To clarify. If somebody writes a scientific paper about using a word in certain way then it is a scientific term. The question is then how accepted it is in the scientific community in describing a phenomenon. I really don't know what else to tell you. That's like very basic scientific methodology. What you Yanks would call methodology 101.

It is like the fifth time that you accused me of pushing an ideology. So for the fifth time I don't know much about Feminist theory, my field of expertise is in quantitative studies ,statistics and so on. I'm not really interested in Feminist theory. Trish said that she is a feminist so I provided her with a paper which might interest her because it relates to the issue. If she isn't interested in it. No harm done. If you had read the paper you would know that Nussbaum talks about different forms of objectification.
Why does this trigger you so much?

So here it comes again, I was referring to the interpretation Trish made. I never said that it was intended by the character as sexist. In an episode about women being traded for crystals Spock picks up one of those crystal and calls it beautiful even when it is broken. I think that is a very unfortunate comment. That is all I said about the scene in question. I wasn't talking about the episode in general or about Spock being bad. I'm not saying that Gene Roddenberry is bad. I'm just saying that objectifying women in that context leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth. TOS was pretty progressive for it's time in it's portrayal of women so all things considered still pretty sexist from today's viewpoint. I know context is king. You don't have to tell me for a sixth time.

"Now I'm totally open to considering a case where an episode really fails in its attempted message or theme"

Yeah what is the message again?
To quote Jammer:"Given the episode's "payoff" of either choosing a beautiful but useless woman to hang perfunctorily at one's side, or a woman who cooks and cleans, the options seem equally unflattering today."
I mean the miners still get the women. The Enterprise gets the crystals. Shouldn't the miners be punished in a moral sense at least for wanting to participate in sexual slavery? The episode doesn't seem to think so.
Set Bookmark
Atomguy
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 4:02pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Encounter at Farpoint

Ah, thanks
Set Bookmark
Jamie Mann
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 3:35pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S1: Captive Pursuit

Alas, for me, this was the first truly weak DS9 episode.

Let's start at the beginning.

The first ever new species comes through the wormhole. A potentially significant diplomatic event, not to mention the wealth of technological, biological and general information available just from the ship itself.

Equally, the alien in question is aboard a damaged ship and somewhat antagonistic. So there's a definite risk - both diplomatic and physical - involved in boarding the ship and interacting with the occupant.

Cisco's response? Let's send in a single engineer, with not even a single security guard, high ranking diplomat or even any form of monitoring.

It's a highly contrived setup, specifically designed to bring O'Brien and Tosk together and set things up for the moral dilemma which follows.

So sad to say, I very quickly lost interest...
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 12:31pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Encounter at Farpoint

@ Atomguy,

You're looking for The Inner Light, late S5.
Set Bookmark
Atomguy
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 12:07pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Encounter at Farpoint

Hey, I'm looking for a review for a TNG episode. It's the one where Picard lives out another life on that one planet and loves the flute afterward. If anyone could tell me the season or episode number, that'd be awesome.
Set Bookmark
Peter G.
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 11:14am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

@ Booming,

I don't think you realize it but your reponse is a dodge to what I said above. That being said:

"the scientific concept of objectification" is not a thing, because objectification is not a scientific term. Further:

" I find it strange though that you cannot see that the episode is about how men control women."

I find it strange that you think I cannot see what the episode is about, since my comment is about Spock's remark, not about the episode. Or are you saying that any character who says any thing "represents" the episode in its entirety? And even if they occasionally do, and even if we do take Spock's comment to be a redux of the episode's themes, I find it even stranger that you automatically jump to it being negative towards women.

Let's recap: the episode is about how a gross guy is selling women. The fact that he's gross should already be a giveaway. Then we find out that there's a dirty secret, which is that they're being seen as physical objects and sold as such. And this is supposed to be a bad thing. Worse, we're shown that even decent men are affected by that exterior show, which opens up the question of the temptation to objectify women. But then it goes even deeper and suggests there may be a mutually agreeable way to get past the nasty side of the marriages and find some way for them to be good, and then we can look at Spock's comment in that context (taking for granted I'm remembering it correctly!). It's an episode doing the opposite of objectifying women - it's about how doing that is a trap that is harmful for all involved. So to take Spock's comment within that context and assume he's objectifying women, on the grounds that the episode is "about how men control women", is really off-base.

Now I'm totally open to considering a case where an episode really fails in its attempted message or theme, or was bungled in some way, but this episode is *not* about how bad men are, with Spock being yet another example of it.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 10:56am (UTC -6)
Re: TOS S1: Mudd's Women

@ Peter G
Again I haven't seen the scene and was just writing about Trish's interpretation. Trish writes that she made the connection when Spock makes the comment the crystal.

I doubt that you have any deeper understanding of the scientific concept of objectification and I will not discuss it with you because I too have only a very superficial understanding of the term. I find it strange though that you cannot see that the episode is about how men control women. I quote from Jammer:"he plot centers around some dilithium miners who agree to purchase these women from Mudd in exchange for dilithium crystals the Enterprise needs."
In the episode women are literally for sale. They are objects to be used by men. I could continue but I don't want to.

Following up on you inability or unwillingness to see how any of this could relate power structures, control and to your accusations of me having a feminist bias. Well, we know on what side of these debates you always fall on. I find it therefore questionable who has the bone to pick here.
Next ►Page 1 of 2,628
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 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.