A virus is a virus is a virus. There's some debate in scientific circles as to whether virii even qualify as being "alive", in a technical sense. It's basically a packet of DNA, nothing more - no internal structure worth speaking of, no ability to suddenly grow appendages, nothing of that sort. I just took the word's use in that VOY episode being yet another case of that particular crew applying a word to something without understanding what that word means (like "event horizon", for instance, or "limited supplies"). What they were fighting wasn't a virus, it was just something someone called a virus, and the name stuck.
As for "offensive" - lerpyderp's avatar is offensive. I just haven't worked out yet whether it's more offensive to Trekkies or TRIBBLE (the latter through association with Starfleet Dental, our most notorious troll fleet).
A similar thing is (to the not-virus virus) why we call turkeys turkeys. They are, in fact, named after Turkey and the Turks, despite having nothing to do with them.
(And no, it wasn't intended to be offensive, they just happened to look like various kinds of Turkish fowls and so were assumed to be a related species, even though they're not. We still call 'em turkeys, though).
Or koala bears. They're not bears. They're not even closely related to bears.
Wow.... just wow... Seems to me that the OP is actually looking for things to be offended about.
Because a lot of those are some the most backwards and twisted ways of looking at them. :rolleyes:
Honestly of that list only 2 or 3 at most can be considered genuinely offensive.
To know Worffan is to know that Worffan is offended... Alot.
There only three things in scifi that offends me. One of them inST:
1) Early TNG pajama uniforms and Skants, hurts my eyes to watch
2) Politcal correctness. Imagine being offended a out peoples worries about offending
Star Trek has a long and storied history of accidental offensiveness. Here, we're going to decide which of the following offensive episodes is the most disgusting!
Feel free to suggest your own.
Code of Honor (TNG)
--Epic racism, odious sexism.
Unexpected (ENT)
--Treats sexual assault as comedy, garden-variety sexism.
Tattoo (VOY)
--Epic racism.
Real Life (VOY)
--Says that watching your children die builds character.
Threshold (VOY)
--Insults the intelligence of the viewers.
A Night In Sickbay (ENT)
--Insults the intelligence of the viewers.
The Child (TNG)
--Sexual assault ignored, Worf treated as a bad guy for being sensible, casual sexism.
Up the Long Ladder (TNG)
--Epic racism, "it's OK for a man to force a woman to abort as long as the kid is part his" message, sexism, implication that colonists will be used as breeding stock in resolution of plot.
Profit and Lace (DS9)
--Homophobia, sexism, transphobia, offensive portrayals of transsexuals and transvestites that were so bad that Armin Shimmerman refused to perform some of the scripted scenes, and some terrible boob jokes for good measure.
Shadows of P'Jem (ENT)
--Implies that motorboating your XO, who you otherwise mock, demean, and ignore every episode, is perfectly OK.
Dear Doctor (ENT)
--Condones genocide based on a terrible understanding of science. Condones exchange officers acting under their native codes rather than the codes of the service they are in, which is not how exchange officer programs work.
Bounty (ENT)
--Gross sexism.
Fair Haven (VOY)
--Racism, and the implication that fiction and fantasy are meaningless, get a life you Trekkies!
Sub Rosa (VOY)
--Honorary nomination for transparent plagarism.
Sacred Ground (VOY)
--Insults both religion and science at once, an impressive achievement if there ever was one.
Macrocosm (VOY)
--Macroviruses. That is all.
The Disease (VOY)
--Another day, another humiliation for Harry. Treats STDs as an opportunity to shame the victim and a chance for comedy. Hey, kids, don't laugh at people with STDs. It's not their fault their partner didn't use protection/didn't mention xir TRIBBLE/didn't know about xir TRIBBLE.
Blood Fever (VOY)
--Three men stand around and watch a woman fight a super-strong hormone-crazed dude who wants to beat her into unconsciousness and r*pe her. How is this not offensive?
So what do YOU think was the most offensive episode of Star Trek ever? And if I've missed anything, please tell me!
NOTE: This is for offensive episodes, not bad episodes. Offensive means racism, sexism, Unfortunate Implications, and macroviruses. Yes, I'm prejudiced against macroviruses.
Edit to add:
The Omega Glory (TOS) ~nominated by jonsills
--Insults the intelligence of the viewer, toxic nationalism, low-level racism.
The Offspring (TNG) ~nominated by apsciliara
--States that every being must submit to the gender binary without changing. Ergo, transphobia and insulting to those without gender/with non-binary gender.
Who Watches the Watchers (TNG) ~nominated by gulberat
--Can be interpreted as dismissing religion as primitive. (I personally disagree, but it's a valid conclusion to draw, so it's up here)
A Private Little War (TOS)
--Sexism, racism, Unfortunate Implications.
DS9 and ENT MU episodes ~nominated by artan42
--Homophobia (many Mirror characters are lecherous evil bisexuals).
some people have way too much time on their hands to take things way too far out of context. the only real offensive trek relate thing based on every episode there has been, are those types of fans who think everything should be padded to protect everyone.
but life is not like that, humans learn things from various experiences, you cant cover one and expect not to have the other shoe drop at some point. if i agree or not is irrelivent, these issues wont ever go away as long as humans still continue to exist. so learn to deal with it by learning or take offense and get nowhere.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
A virus is a virus is a virus. There's some debate in scientific circles as to whether virii even qualify as being "alive", in a technical sense. It's basically a packet of DNA, nothing more - no internal structure worth speaking of, no ability to suddenly grow appendages, nothing of that sort. I just took the word's use in that VOY episode being yet another case of that particular crew applying a word to something without understanding what that word means (like "event horizon", for instance, or "limited supplies"). What they were fighting wasn't a virus, it was just something someone called a virus, and the name stuck.
As for "offensive" - lerpyderp's avatar is offensive. I just haven't worked out yet whether it's more offensive to Trekkies or TRIBBLE (the latter through association with Starfleet Dental, our most notorious troll fleet).
Enh... in fairness... it seemed to me to be a variety of life we don't have a proper term for in the English language. I'm not sure whether parasite or virus is best but one of the two....
It got remade in Stargate: Sg-1, same author. Same basic plot. They just switched the Africans for Asians...and made the "incredibly attractive" native girl white.
F***ing racism.
I'm somewhat new to SG-1 being that I'm halfway through the second season but are you referring to
the episode "Emancipation"? If so, I didn't really find that one really offensive to the audience being that we as the viewers were supposed to side with Carter's views to establish that the chief was some big bad, if you get what I mean. It wasn't a very good episode to begin with though. The only bright side was that SG-1 didn't almost destroy the world through sheer incompetence as they do every other episode in season 2:rolleyes:.
So am I the only one who thinks we're now going a little overboard in defining episodes as "offensive?" The bar needs to be clearly set on what can actually be deemed "offensive," and quite frankly, I'm seeing a lot of utterly trivial and frivolous things being labelled with that term. (Especially the macroviruses...yes, worffan, I get it, they got the science utterly wrong, but that's a completely different kettle of fish from something that is obscene or insensitive in some way.)
Just my two cents. Either we narrow thing down, or we start throwing the term out so freely that it loses all reasonable meaning.
So am I the only one who thinks we're now going a little overboard in defining episodes as "offensive?" The bar needs to be clearly set on what can actually be deemed "offensive," and quite frankly, I'm seeing a lot of utterly trivial and frivolous things being labelled with that term. (Especially the macroviruses...yes, worffan, I get it, they got the science utterly wrong, but that's a completely different kettle of fish from something that is obscene or insensitive in some way.)
Just my two cents. Either we narrow thing down, or we start throwing the term out so freely that it loses all reasonable meaning.
The macroviruses I freely admit were my personal beef that I put in just because I saw that episode last night and I nearly broke my computer from rage.
My definition would be at least one of the following:
1. Insults the viewer's intelligence (The Omega Glory, Threshold, A Night In Sickbay)
2. Racism (Code of Honor, Tattoo, Up the Long Ladder, Fair Haven)
3. Sexism (Code of Honor, The Child)
4. Trivializing sexual assault (Blood Fever, Unexpected)
I'd also note that "Who watches the Watchers" can be seen as defamatory towards religion in general, and "Sacred Ground" is one big insult to both religion in general and science.
Pretty much every episode where bajoran voices were privileged above cardassian voices was offensive.
.
The authors wrote the Cardassian as antogonists. They weren't nice people. You can try to create an alternate fiction that makes the Cardassian into nice people that did nothing bad to the Bajorans and were good to Bajor and its people, and make the Bajorans evil villains that were big meanines and what not. But it would not be consistent with Star Trek's canon nor the intentions of the writers. It's basically your own parallel universe.
I've read a Stitch in Time and "The Nevernending Sacrifice", and I think they make the Cardassian a very interesting species, and explain a lot about their motivations and the reasons for how they came to be as they were. It makes it a lot more understandeable, but they were still not "nice" for it, it doesn't turn the Bajoran occupation into something positive, or their behaviour towards the Bajoran in a good light.
Of course the Bajoran terrorists were also brutal and unforgiving. But I love that protagonists like Major Kira never regretted their decisions. Yes, one can argue it puts a bad mark on her, but damn it, it makes her a more interesting character, just like Cardassians were so interesting because of their depth and positive as negative aspects.
I think the post-Dominion Cardassia could be a very fascinating place, the Cardassians finding a new path - with the help of others, but after having suffered incredible losses both from the war and the Dominion atrocities visited on them when key military rebelled. It's almost a shame that Star Trek Online plays 40 years later and adopted the Hobus event so that we get an even more devestated major culture. But things are as they are in STO...
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The macroviruses I freely admit were my personal beef that I put in just because I saw that episode last night and I nearly broke my computer from rage.
My definition would be at least one of the following:
1. Insults the viewer's intelligence (The Omega Glory, Threshold, A Night In Sickbay)
2. Racism (Code of Honor, Tattoo, Up the Long Ladder, Fair Haven)
3. Sexism (Code of Honor, The Child)
4. Trivializing sexual assault (Blood Fever, Unexpected)
I'd also note that "Who watches the Watchers" can be seen as defamatory towards religion in general, and "Sacred Ground" is one big insult to both religion in general and science.
I don't see any point behind definition 1. Insulting the viewer's intelligence is just a sign of poor writing, not of actual inflammatory material. This further emphasizes my point that we need to maintain a tighter definition of what is actually "offensive." Otherwise, again, you have people flying off the handle over the most trivial things, and quite frankly, there's enough of that going on in this forum already.
The macroviruses I freely admit were my personal beef that I put in just because I saw that episode last night and I nearly broke my computer from rage.
My definition would be at least one of the following:
1. Insults the viewer's intelligence (The Omega Glory, Threshold, A Night In Sickbay)
2. Racism (Code of Honor, Tattoo, Up the Long Ladder, Fair Haven)
3. Sexism (Code of Honor, The Child)
4. Trivializing sexual assault (Blood Fever, Unexpected)
I'd also note that "Who watches the Watchers" can be seen as defamatory towards religion in general, and "Sacred Ground" is one big insult to both religion in general and science.
How the heck is Fair Haven even remotely Racist? :eek:
It took me a second to figure out what an antogonist was on account of that word not existing, but I guess I shouldn't expect proofreading from a Bajoran apologist. I've already pointed out that Star Trek is blatant Bajoran propaganda, and the fact that you are taking it at face value is sickening and offensive.
I don't see any point behind definition 1. Insulting the viewer's intelligence is just a sign of poor writing, not of actual inflammatory material. This further emphasizes my point that we need to maintain a tighter definition of what is actually "offensive." Otherwise, again, you have people flying off the handle over the most trivial things, and quite frankly, there's enough of that going on in this forum already.
That episode portrays Irish people as violent, stupid drunks. Which is offensive.
Do you know any 19th century Irish people? :rolleyes:
And you do know that Ireland ranks among the top consumers of alcohol in the European Union? Alcohol consumption is such a serious issue of public-health that various legislations have been put in effect to try and curb it.
Racism? Not even remotely by any definition of the word. :rolleyes:
So am I the only one who thinks we're now going a little overboard in defining episodes as "offensive?" The bar needs to be clearly set on what can actually be deemed "offensive," and quite frankly, I'm seeing a lot of utterly trivial and frivolous things being labelled with that term. (Especially the macroviruses...yes, worffan, I get it, they got the science utterly wrong, but that's a completely different kettle of fish from something that is obscene or insensitive in some way.)
Just my two cents. Either we narrow thing down, or we start throwing the term out so freely that it loses all reasonable meaning.
It depends. At least for me unless bad science is used to say something cruel about people, that is more laughable and eye-rolling to me than outright offensive. I will simply fail to take it seriously, as plain old bad writing and bad research. Stuff like the macroviruses is just stupid rather than offensive. To me, "offensive" comes with an element of cruelty and arrogance.
But some of the ones on the list (that I have actually seen and can attest to, anyway) I do find offensive. Again though, it depends.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
It depends. At least for me unless bad science is used to say something cruel about people, that is more laughable and eye-rolling to me than outright offensive. I will simply fail to take it seriously, as plain old bad writing and bad research. Stuff like the macroviruses is just stupid rather than offensive. To me, "offensive" comes with an element of cruelty and arrogance.
But some of the ones on the list (that I have actually seen and can attest to, anyway) I do find offensive. Again though, it depends.
True...there's a reason I didn't put "Parallax" up there, after all.
I remember the first time I saw "Code of Honor"--oh, man, that nearly turned me off of the entire franchise. I mean, that was ridiculously racist.
The authors wrote the Cardassian as antogonists. They weren't nice people. You can try to create an alternate fiction that makes the Cardassian into nice people that did nothing bad to the Bajorans and were good to Bajor and its people, and make the Bajorans evil villains that were big meanines and what not. But it would not be consistent with Star Trek's canon nor the intentions of the writers. It's basically your own parallel universe.
I've read a Stitch in Time and "The Nevernending Sacrifice", and I think they make the Cardassian a very interesting species, and explain a lot about their motivations and the reasons for how they came to be as they were. It makes it a lot more understandeable, but they were still not "nice" for it, it doesn't turn the Bajoran occupation into something positive, or their behaviour towards the Bajoran in a good light.
Of course the Bajoran terrorists were also brutal and unforgiving. But I love that protagonists like Major Kira never regretted their decisions. Yes, one can argue it puts a bad mark on her, but damn it, it makes her a more interesting character, just like Cardassians were so interesting because of their depth and positive as negative aspects.
To me the Cardassians and Bajorans both were shown as a multifaceted species rather than mere "Planets of Hats," and I appreciated the well-rounded aspect of them. Both had to be judged on an individual basis. We saw a HUGE diversity in Bajoran religious practice between individuals, and huge differences in what family and patriotism meant to Cardassians. They often said they espoused the same core values but lived them SO differently.
That's one of the great things for me in writing Cardassians: the dissident heroes I admire as characters coexist with the villains--I can enjoy the writing of the villains but turn around and see other Cardassians who, in their struggle against those villains, I can actually *respect.*
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
It depends. At least for me unless bad science is used to say something cruel about people, that is more laughable and eye-rolling to me than outright offensive. I will simply fail to take it seriously, as plain old bad writing and bad research. Stuff like the macroviruses is just stupid rather than offensive. To me, "offensive" comes with an element of cruelty and arrogance.
But some of the ones on the list (that I have actually seen and can attest to, anyway) I do find offensive. Again though, it depends.
Well, in cases where racist, sexist or generally prejudiced behaviour is allegedly being portrayed:
1. Is it just one character who's doing it, or the entire cast?
2. Does the episode even seem aware of it?
In the case of point 1, if it's just one character, then I would hardly label the entire episode as offensive because of one person's behaviour. NEWS FLASH: individual people can have incredibly biased opinions and character flaws. That doesn't mean that the writers necessarily condone those opinions, or that the character should be admired for expressing such opinions. Case in point, just because The Walking Dead has one or two characters who are blatantly racist, does not mean I find individual episodes (or indeed the entire series) to be offensive because of that. Ditto for every time the "N word" has been thrown around on The Wire. or every time Frank Underwood has expressed anti-religious sentiments on House of Cards.
To be crude about it: we need to separate "being butthurt about what one character said or did," from "actually, objectively, offensive." And that's why I think this thread has (or is inevitably going to) go overboard, because people are far too easily offended.
I am surprised that no one has claimed to have been offended that Picards family are wine markers, how obviously stereotypical? ;p
And no one was offended by Yar getting killed by oil sludge leftovers from the Exxon Valdez? Those darned oil corperations ruining the environment and oppressing people again! Wheres the humanity?
I was tremendously offended by the whole Angel One thing when they had Conan O'Brien act in a way that seemed to approve of people being oppresed by another gender! The ma s had an awesome career and to be haunted with that memory, I can't look at him the same way, so oppressed!
To me the Cardassians and Bajorans both were shown as a multifaceted species rather than mere "Planets of Hats," and I appreciated the well-rounded aspect of them. Both had to be judged on an individual basis. We saw a HUGE diversity in Bajoran religious practice between individuals, and huge differences in what family and patriotism meant to Cardassians. They often said they espoused the same core values but lived them SO differently.
That's one of the great things for me in writing Cardassians: the dissident heroes I admire as characters coexist with the villains--I can enjoy the writing of the villains but turn around and see other Cardassians who, in their struggle against those villains, I can actually *respect.*
For me, the best part about writing Cardassians is the way that I can portray them as decent people despite their background...for example, Gul Evek from "The Mysterious Case of Neelix's Lungs" will do anything to defend Cardassia and Cardassian citizens, but he's disgusted by stuff like the Bajoran Occupation (because it was needlessly cruel, a massive waste, poorly thought-out, and once Bajor was conquered technically it was a Cardassian world and its people were Cardassian civilians).
Sort of the opposite of Kira Nerys, but also very similar.
But yeah. Whether you portray civilians, soldiers, Home Guard, or Gul Dukat, the Cardassians (and Bajorans) offer a wealth of storytelling opportunities.
Well, in cases where racist, sexist or generally prejudiced behaviour is allegedly being portrayed:
1. Is it just one character who's doing it, or the entire cast?
2. Does the episode even seem aware of it?
In the case of point 1, if it's just one character, then I would hardly label the entire episode as offensive because of one person's behaviour. NEWS FLASH: individual people can have incredibly biased opinions and character flaws. That doesn't mean that the writers necessarily condone those opinions, or that the character should be admired for expressing such opinions. Case in point, just because The Walking Dead has one or two characters who are blatantly racist, does not mean I find individual episodes (or indeed the entire series) to be offensive because of that. Ditto for every time the "N word" has been thrown around on The Wire. or every time Frank Underwood has expressed anti-religious sentiments on House of Cards.
To be crude about it: we need to separate "being butthurt about what one character said or did," from "actually, objectively, offensive." And that's why I think this thread has (or is inevitably going to) go overboard, because people are far too easily offended.
Just so you know, I am offended on how badly the walkers are treated in the walking dead! All they want to do is get the main characters autographs, and the mains shoot them? Thats offensive to me
Comments
As for "offensive" - lerpyderp's avatar is offensive. I just haven't worked out yet whether it's more offensive to Trekkies or TRIBBLE (the latter through association with Starfleet Dental, our most notorious troll fleet).
(And no, it wasn't intended to be offensive, they just happened to look like various kinds of Turkish fowls and so were assumed to be a related species, even though they're not. We still call 'em turkeys, though).
Or koala bears. They're not bears. They're not even closely related to bears.
To know Worffan is to know that Worffan is offended... Alot.
There only three things in scifi that offends me. One of them inST:
1) Early TNG pajama uniforms and Skants, hurts my eyes to watch
2) Politcal correctness. Imagine being offended a out peoples worries about offending
3) Zardoz, Sean Connery in a diaper? Really?
some people have way too much time on their hands to take things way too far out of context. the only real offensive trek relate thing based on every episode there has been, are those types of fans who think everything should be padded to protect everyone.
but life is not like that, humans learn things from various experiences, you cant cover one and expect not to have the other shoe drop at some point. if i agree or not is irrelivent, these issues wont ever go away as long as humans still continue to exist. so learn to deal with it by learning or take offense and get nowhere.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
My character Tsin'xing
I'm somewhat new to SG-1 being that I'm halfway through the second season but are you referring to
the episode "Emancipation"? If so, I didn't really find that one really offensive to the audience being that we as the viewers were supposed to side with Carter's views to establish that the chief was some big bad, if you get what I mean. It wasn't a very good episode to begin with though. The only bright side was that SG-1 didn't almost destroy the world through sheer incompetence as they do every other episode in season 2:rolleyes:.
Just my two cents. Either we narrow thing down, or we start throwing the term out so freely that it loses all reasonable meaning.
The macroviruses I freely admit were my personal beef that I put in just because I saw that episode last night and I nearly broke my computer from rage.
My definition would be at least one of the following:
1. Insults the viewer's intelligence (The Omega Glory, Threshold, A Night In Sickbay)
2. Racism (Code of Honor, Tattoo, Up the Long Ladder, Fair Haven)
3. Sexism (Code of Honor, The Child)
4. Trivializing sexual assault (Blood Fever, Unexpected)
I'd also note that "Who watches the Watchers" can be seen as defamatory towards religion in general, and "Sacred Ground" is one big insult to both religion in general and science.
I've read a Stitch in Time and "The Nevernending Sacrifice", and I think they make the Cardassian a very interesting species, and explain a lot about their motivations and the reasons for how they came to be as they were. It makes it a lot more understandeable, but they were still not "nice" for it, it doesn't turn the Bajoran occupation into something positive, or their behaviour towards the Bajoran in a good light.
Of course the Bajoran terrorists were also brutal and unforgiving. But I love that protagonists like Major Kira never regretted their decisions. Yes, one can argue it puts a bad mark on her, but damn it, it makes her a more interesting character, just like Cardassians were so interesting because of their depth and positive as negative aspects.
I think the post-Dominion Cardassia could be a very fascinating place, the Cardassians finding a new path - with the help of others, but after having suffered incredible losses both from the war and the Dominion atrocities visited on them when key military rebelled. It's almost a shame that Star Trek Online plays 40 years later and adopted the Hobus event so that we get an even more devestated major culture. But things are as they are in STO...
I don't see any point behind definition 1. Insulting the viewer's intelligence is just a sign of poor writing, not of actual inflammatory material. This further emphasizes my point that we need to maintain a tighter definition of what is actually "offensive." Otherwise, again, you have people flying off the handle over the most trivial things, and quite frankly, there's enough of that going on in this forum already.
How the heck is Fair Haven even remotely Racist? :eek:
It took me a second to figure out what an antogonist was on account of that word not existing, but I guess I shouldn't expect proofreading from a Bajoran apologist. I've already pointed out that Star Trek is blatant Bajoran propaganda, and the fact that you are taking it at face value is sickening and offensive.
Do you know ANY actual Irish people?
That episode portrays Irish people as violent, stupid drunks. Which is offensive.
Do you know any 19th century Irish people? :rolleyes:
And you do know that Ireland ranks among the top consumers of alcohol in the European Union? Alcohol consumption is such a serious issue of public-health that various legislations have been put in effect to try and curb it.
Racism? Not even remotely by any definition of the word. :rolleyes:
It depends. At least for me unless bad science is used to say something cruel about people, that is more laughable and eye-rolling to me than outright offensive. I will simply fail to take it seriously, as plain old bad writing and bad research. Stuff like the macroviruses is just stupid rather than offensive. To me, "offensive" comes with an element of cruelty and arrogance.
But some of the ones on the list (that I have actually seen and can attest to, anyway) I do find offensive. Again though, it depends.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
True...there's a reason I didn't put "Parallax" up there, after all.
I remember the first time I saw "Code of Honor"--oh, man, that nearly turned me off of the entire franchise. I mean, that was ridiculously racist.
To me the Cardassians and Bajorans both were shown as a multifaceted species rather than mere "Planets of Hats," and I appreciated the well-rounded aspect of them. Both had to be judged on an individual basis. We saw a HUGE diversity in Bajoran religious practice between individuals, and huge differences in what family and patriotism meant to Cardassians. They often said they espoused the same core values but lived them SO differently.
That's one of the great things for me in writing Cardassians: the dissident heroes I admire as characters coexist with the villains--I can enjoy the writing of the villains but turn around and see other Cardassians who, in their struggle against those villains, I can actually *respect.*
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Well, in cases where racist, sexist or generally prejudiced behaviour is allegedly being portrayed:
1. Is it just one character who's doing it, or the entire cast?
2. Does the episode even seem aware of it?
In the case of point 1, if it's just one character, then I would hardly label the entire episode as offensive because of one person's behaviour. NEWS FLASH: individual people can have incredibly biased opinions and character flaws. That doesn't mean that the writers necessarily condone those opinions, or that the character should be admired for expressing such opinions. Case in point, just because The Walking Dead has one or two characters who are blatantly racist, does not mean I find individual episodes (or indeed the entire series) to be offensive because of that. Ditto for every time the "N word" has been thrown around on The Wire. or every time Frank Underwood has expressed anti-religious sentiments on House of Cards.
To be crude about it: we need to separate "being butthurt about what one character said or did," from "actually, objectively, offensive." And that's why I think this thread has (or is inevitably going to) go overboard, because people are far too easily offended.
And no one was offended by Yar getting killed by oil sludge leftovers from the Exxon Valdez? Those darned oil corperations ruining the environment and oppressing people again! Wheres the humanity?
I was tremendously offended by the whole Angel One thing when they had Conan O'Brien act in a way that seemed to approve of people being oppresed by another gender! The ma s had an awesome career and to be haunted with that memory, I can't look at him the same way, so oppressed!
For me, the best part about writing Cardassians is the way that I can portray them as decent people despite their background...for example, Gul Evek from "The Mysterious Case of Neelix's Lungs" will do anything to defend Cardassia and Cardassian citizens, but he's disgusted by stuff like the Bajoran Occupation (because it was needlessly cruel, a massive waste, poorly thought-out, and once Bajor was conquered technically it was a Cardassian world and its people were Cardassian civilians).
Sort of the opposite of Kira Nerys, but also very similar.
But yeah. Whether you portray civilians, soldiers, Home Guard, or Gul Dukat, the Cardassians (and Bajorans) offer a wealth of storytelling opportunities.
Just so you know, I am offended on how badly the walkers are treated in the walking dead! All they want to do is get the main characters autographs, and the mains shoot them? Thats offensive to me