When religious scripture is presented in open discussion it never ends well.
I have for one have now had my fill of this topic.
Some men like men
Some women like Women
And some people like both.
its a fact. . that some people agree with and some don't, I do not condone the comments of hate and bile but I also do not condone the comments aimed back.
As a TRIBBLE man myself if we the LGBT community want acceptance from all we have to try and not only educate but also be tolerant of others who don't share our view otherwise we are no better than they are.
You guys do realize that Religion is one of the topics the rules forbid us to discuss on the forum, right?
If nothing else, at least, maybe that will get this thread finally closed - assuming a Mod or Dev shows up. It is the weekend.
I am making this last post off topic to say I have to agree here, lets get back on topic and moderate ourselves, I am only going to only respond off topic if quoted, lets be adults and get on topic.
When religious scripture is presented in open discussion it never ends well.
I have for one have now had my fill of this topic.
Some men like men
Some women like Women
And some people like both.
its a fact. . that some people agree with and some don't, I do not condone the comments of hate and bile but I also do not condone the comments aimed back.
As a TRIBBLE man myself if we the LGBT community want acceptance from all we have to try and not only educate but also be tolerant of others who don't share our view otherwise we are no better than they are.
There has to be more meaning than "Look we just sublty inferred two klingons are in a same sex relationship". What is the point of that other than look we have it too! We support equality.
I want more than that, I want the devs to make us really care for those characters or know them a bit more so it has meaning.
When religious scripture is presented in open discussion it never ends well.
I have for one have now had my fill of this topic.
Some men like men
Some women like Women
And some people like both.
its a fact. . that some people agree with and some don't, I do not condone the comments of hate and bile but I also do not condone the comments aimed back.
As a TRIBBLE man myself if we the LGBT community want acceptance from all we have to try and not only educate but also be tolerant of others who don't share our view otherwise we are no better than they are.
Yet here you are?... that's a real head-scratcher and you just stated the obvious... NEXT!
There has to be more meaning than "Look we just sublty inferred two klingons are in a same sex relationship". What is the point of that other than look we have it too! We support equality.
I want more than that, I want the devs to make us really care for those characters or know them a bit more so it has meaning.
I have been taking orders from Admiral Quinn for 5.5 years. I do not care if the Symbiont fell out of his butt, crawled up my leg, and tried to kiss me. I still would not care about him.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
There has to be more meaning than "Look we just sublty inferred two klingons are in a same sex relationship". What is the point of that other than look we have it too! We support equality.
I want more than that, I want the devs to make us really care for those characters or know them a bit more so it has meaning.
It is the first highlight with them together. Maybe it is a plan to do more with them over time. Just like movies, books, and tv shows character development takes a while. What was the real point even mentioning the relationship in Delta Flight, it was there then death.
Wow..... you do know the OP's beef is NOT about the lesbain being in the mission, it's about HOW it was depicted. Look up Vito Russo Test.
Except that the assertions that it fails the Vito Russo test are false:
1) Identifiably LGBT - check. "Mate" in this context seems pretty explicit.
2) Doesn't totally define the character - check. B'Eler is a mission specialist who you consult with about the fairly important question of what level of risk is acceptable for the mission. The fact that she's in a same sex relationship is more or less irrelevant to the discussion of whether it's worth the smallish risk of catastrophe to save a little time on the mission. As a character B'Eler is defined much more by her role on the mission than anything else. That some people believe otherwise and focus exclusively on the character's sexuality is on them, not on Cryptic.
3) Character is important to the plot - check. See above - B'Eler takes on an important role in the story Cryptic wanted to tell here, about making command decisions and priorities. You can feel that the story itself wasn't well executed, or that it wasn't even an interesting idea to begin with, but that doesn't mean that it fails the Vito Russo test. Nothing says that the plot can't be trite, just that the character in question is important to it (whatever it is).
All I can think is that there are two misunderstandings here. The first is that having a character which fails the Vito Russo test (arguably Trevana is guilty of being there only because she's an over-protective appendage to B'Eler) doesn't mean that the episode as a whole fails. As long as there is a character which meets the test (and B'Eler does, hands down), then the episode as a whole passes. By way of analogy, go back to the Bechdel test which the Vito Russo test comes from - a movie passes if it meets the criteria. It does not then fail if there is a female extra in the next scene who gets no lines.
Second, and more importantly, people seem to be confusing the idea that the CHARACTER has to be important to the plot with the idea that the RELATIONSHIP has to be important to the plot, which is the exact opposite of the intent of the test. The purpose of the Vito Russo test is to prevent the exact kind of token-ism that happens when the ONLY time LGBT issues get mentioned is if the whole plot is going to revolve around that point. It is a way of critiquing the notion that LGBT relationships should by default not be included unless the plot somehow forces the issue, because that notion implies that LGBT relationships are not (or should not be) considered as unremarkable and commonplace as any other relationship.
Objectively, the plot Cryptic put together for this mission involves, in part, a discussion of the risks of the mission, and while we might argue with the execution (I think it would have been cool to make this an actual player choice, but whatever), clearly there had to be some character for the player to discuss this with. If Trevana was replaced by a male named Trevan, I don't think anyone would claim that the scene was included to promote a heterosexist social agenda, which makes it pretty clear that the merit of the scene is independent of the sexuality of the characters involved, which means Cryptic's choice to include an LGBT relationship there a textbook example of passing the Vito Russo test with flying colors.
I am making this last post to say I have to agree here, lets get back on topic and moderate ourselves, I am going to only respond off topic if quoted, lets be adults and get on topic.
To be honest, this thread has been breaking the rules from the start:
You may not create posts and/or private messages that allude to, contain language, comments, references, links, symbols, terms and/or imagery about and/or promote and/or otherwise support, in any manner whether directly or indirectly, hatred, discrimination and/or denigrations based on or related to race, ethnicity, religion, sect, color, national origin, age, gender, familial status, sexual orientation, disability status, veteran status, genetic information, etc.
By that definition, *ANY* comment that is even *SLIGHTLY* negative about *ANYONE's* sexuality is against the forum rules. So is politics, which started in post #15. However, based on this thread's continued existence, it would seem the mods are allowing these discussions to take place, for some reason, as long as they do not get too heated.
To be honest, this thread has been breaking the rules from the start:
By that definition, ANY comment that is SLIGHTLY negative about ANYONE's sexuality is against the forum rules. So is politics, which started in post #15. However, based on this thread's continued existence, it would seem the mods are allowing these discussions to take place, for some reason, as long as they do not get too heated.
I find it funny that you can't talk about the LGBLT (Intentional) on the forums yet they exist in the game. It's like Cryptic/PWE is saying "Yes they're there but shhhhh.... don't talk about them". So is the LGBLT suppose to be the Illuminati of STO? **DUN DUN DUN*** :rolleyes:
I find it funny that you can't talk about the LGBLT (Intentional) on the forums yet they exist in the game. It's like Cryptic/PWE is saying "Yes they're there but shhhhh.... don't talk about them". So is the LGBLT suppose to be the Illuminati of STO? **DUN DUN DUN*** :rolleyes:
To be clear, the quote I posted does *not* say you can't talk about LGBT issues, it says you cannot say anything *negative* about the topic. But the reality is, it is not possible to talk about LGBT issues on the internet without someone saying something negative or controversial. So while the topic itself is not technically off limits, it is essentially de facto off limits.
On the other hand, cotton-poly clothes and crop rotation are also terrible sins in Leviticus, and those were never officially rescinded either...
If I remember correctly, it is Jewish tradition to let the Earth "rest" once every seven years (which is the most basic form of crop rotating) in parallel with instructions for the sabath. A section of the land is rested and the crops are planted in he rest of the land. It is regards to the schmita, which is in Leviticus.
Can't speak to cotton-poly blends. Isnt polyester a synthetic that came about well after the writing of the Torah or even the New Testament?
To be honest, this thread has been breaking the rules from the start:
By that definition, *ANY* comment that is even *SLIGHTLY* negative about *ANYONE's* sexuality is against the forum rules. So is politics, which started in post #15. However, based on this thread's continued existence, it would seem the mods are allowing these discussions to take place, for some reason, as long as they do not get too heated.
Dont forget the shots at peoples religions and beliefs as well.
To be clear, the quote I posted does *not* say you can't talk about LGBT issues, it says you cannot say anything *negative* about the topic. But the reality is, it is not possible to talk about LGBT issues on the internet without someone saying something negative or controversial. So while the topic itself is not technically off limits, it is essentially de facto off limits.
So everything in regards to the LGBLT is suppose to be flowers, rainbows, and unicorns (or just rainbows)... otherwise it's breaking the rules? That seems a bit pointless and one-sided don't you think? If you don't want controversy, don't allow controversial topics, organizations, politics, etc etc into the forums AND the game. de facto or not... I feel there should be more definition on that area. OR we can have our fingers crossed in hopes that people will play it safe... oh wait... too late.:rolleyes:
So everything in regards to the LGBLT is suppose to be flowers, rainbows, and unicorns (or just rainbows)... otherwise it's breaking the rules? That seems a bit pointless and one-sided don't you think? If you don't want controversy, don't allow controversial topics, organizations, politics, etc etc into the forums AND the game. de facto or not... I feel there should be more definition on that area. OR we can have our fingers crossed in hopes that people will play it safe... oh wait... too late.:rolleyes:
They're not my rules, I'm just pointing them out to some people who were acting like it was the recent religious discussion that was suddenly making the thread break the rules, when in reality that had been going on from the start.
But to your point, I agree that when certain topics cannot be realistically discussed without a certain amount of negativity manifesting itself, and then you are going to call that negativity rule breaking, that those topics should simply not be allowed.
I mean, there are plenty of places on the internet to discuss virtually any topic you want to discuss. Sometimes its best to just keep a video game forum focused on discussing the video game, and not RL issues. But hey, considering all of the controversial topics discussed in this thread(sexuality, politics, and religion), it honestly seems to have gone pretty well. Which is encouraging.
They're not my rules, I'm just pointing them out to some people who were acting like it was the recent religious discussion that was suddenly making the thread break the rules, when in reality that had been going on from the start.
But to your point, I agree that when certain topics cannot be realistically discussed without a certain amount of negativity manifesting itself, and then you are going to call that negativity rule breaking, that those topics should simply not be allowed.
I mean, there are plenty of places on the internet to discuss virtually any topic you want to discuss. Sometimes its bes to just keep a video game forum focused on discussing the video game, and not RL issues.
Sometimes? I'd say always... I cannot think of 1 good reason why either a game OR it's forums should have an open door policy on RL issues.
All I can think is that there are two misunderstandings here. The first is that having a character which fails the Vito Russo test (arguably Trevana is guilty of being there only because she's an over-protective appendage to B'Eler) doesn't mean that the episode as a whole fails. As long as there is a character which meets the test (and B'Eler does, hands down), then the episode as a whole passes. By way of analogy, go back to the Bechdel test which the Vito Russo test comes from - a movie passes if it meets the criteria. It does not then fail if there is a female extra in the next scene who gets no lines.
Trevana's reason to be there is fer role as part of the away team. She also states that she is responsible for the safety of the team on the mission as well, how does that fall into 'only there as an over-protective appendage' territory?
I have 2 daughters, 1 now 18 and the other 15. at age 9 the eldest asked me 'what does it mean when someone is bent?' i was a little taken back by the question, but explained it was a mean word used to describe a boy who likes another boy. 'oh TRIBBLE?' she said, 'i know all about gays and lesbians, i have a friend at school with 2 dads.' she kissed my cheek, said thanks and went off to play, that was pretty much it.
this leads to my youngest daughter, since she was about 11 maybe 12 she has been very protective towards children who get bullied. She was bullied herself by a group of girls from when she was 9 so cant stand to see it happen to anyone else. She is particularly protective of TRIBBLE and disabled people (in her words.. people) as she feels they are the most prone to ridicule and abuse that can lead to depression, self harm and suicide.
She herself suffers from an Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Tourette's syndrome. She has had no extra help, no special dispensations, or tutoring etc and is by definition of her RE and social studies teacher 'very fiesty.. but in a good way' i fully expect to see her on the evening news 1 day, megaphone in 1 hand burning bra in the other, fighting for social equality and justice lol.
11 years of age.. think on that.. 11 years of age! she has been my teacher.
And remember guys, just because a child asks a question does not mean it has to be answered then and there, i heard someone suggest little white lies, thats 1 possible way to go, but i'm against that personally, i have always felt it is hard to convey the importance of honesty to children, if you employ lies, even little white ones, besides they arnt stupid, by the time most of them are asking the question, they already have a rough idea anyways, and if they are very tiny.. dont lie.. distract lol
i have always had a no taboo household, if they where mature enough to ask a sensible question, i would always take the time to answer it appropriately, as best i could. if ever an occasion arose where i felt the topic was not appropriate, then guess what? that is exactly what i said.. that is not really appropriate for now, we can talk about that when you are a little older.
at then end of the day, our children are bombarded with so many things while they are outside our sphere of control.. it matters not how carefully you control the information your child receives while in your home, you don't control the information any other parent gives their child access too. there are certain things we need to inform our children about.. such as safety awareness, proper respect and manners, paying attention to their teachers etc, outside of that it is very much a case of 'deal with it as it turns up'
children are far more understanding than most give them credit for, they are naturally inquisitive and accepting, and far more tolerant than many parents. intolerance, hatred and fear are not born to them, it is taught to them. learning about a tree does not make you a tree, watching a nature documentary that depicts lions mating does not make you sexually desire lion, learning about homosexuality does not make a heterosexual person become TRIBBLE, all it does is educate you on another part of life in this world we live in.
i have been quite taken aback by many of the attitudes i have seen from posters in the threads relating to this Feature Episode. trying to find something positive in any negative situation is very much my credo.. and i can say that amongst the shameful comments, i have seem some beautiful people shine through, this topic has delivered some very honest comments that are, far more telling about the real people behind the keyboard than any other discussion i've seen.
Sometimes? I'd say always... I cannot think of 1 good reason why either a game OR it's forums should have an open door policy on RL issues.
How about "Because the claim that it is the wrong time/wrong forum has historically been a tool of the privileged to prevent challenges to the Status Quo that they deemed threatening to that privilege?"
It's not unfair that the rules let people be open about their self identity while simultaneously forbidding people from attacking that identity. That's a feature, not a bug. Unless you are prepared to argue that video games should be completely devoid of plot or characterizations, your assertion rings hollow. The idea that you should not be challenged by a video game (or a video game forum, as the case may be) because you don't want to be exposed to ideas which make you uncomfortable (especially without the "right" to criticize those ideas in an attempt to reassert your preferred worldview) is tantamount to saying anyone who would maybe like to see something different than you should simply be silenced until YOU deign let them participate as equals.
Point blank, you did not criticize the scene on Delta Flight for making a generally throwaway mention of a presumably heterosexual relationship during a pre-mission briefing scene (I believe - if I'm wrong, feel free to link me to the thread where you railed against Cryptic forcing a conservative hetero-normative worldview on everyone while you just wanted to play a game). You thus have no leg to stand on to be critical of the relationship here, unless you believe that LGBT relationships by their very nature should not be included, but heterosexual relationships are fine. If you do believe that, I refer you to the top of the post - you are asserting that because you perceive your worldview as "normal" and "noncontroversial", anything which challenges that worldview should be excluded from "your" game because it's "not the place" for those challenges to happen.
I mean, there are plenty of places on the internet to discuss virtually any topic you want to discuss. Sometimes its best to just keep a video game forum focused on discussing the video game, and not RL issues. But hey, considering all of the controversial topics discussed in this thread(sexuality, politics, and religion), it honestly seems to have gone pretty well. Which is encouraging.
Religion, politics and yes, sexuality (lgbt is nothing compared to inter-species relationships) are all part of Star Trek. Trek is a fictional story about the future of our known reality. It is hard not to discuss these things when it comes to Trek. In essence this is still a discussion about the game and Trek in general.
Trevana's reason to be there is fer role as part of the away team. She also states that she is responsible for the safety of the team on the mission as well, how does that fall into 'only there as an over-protective appendage' territory?
I don't think she IS merely an over-protective appendage, but because she is given considerably less screen time and character development, I can easily foresee people arguing about how much her relationship to B'Eler does/doesn't define her character. I think that's a much less clear cut argument than B'Eler, and irrelevant to my argument to boot because as long as B'Eler meets, I win. If Trevana does too, great, but I don't win "more" if she does, and if she doesn't I still don't lose. From a perceptual standpoint, however, I prefer to concede ground on those sideshow debates early and explicitly so that nobody gets confused down the line when I concede a point that I know is irrelevant but nevertheless looks like a victory for my opponent.
All of which is to say - I agree with you that Trevana is fine too, but B'Eler is the easier to defend.
Religion, politics and yes, sexuality (lgbt is nothing compared to inter-species relationships) are all part of Star Trek. Trek is a fictional story about the future of our known reality. It is hard not to discuss these things when it comes to Trek. In essence this is still a discussion about the game and Trek in general.
And yet we have managed to spend some 7 years on various Cryptic forums discussing Trek without the need to drag real-world politics, religion, and sexuality into millions of posts.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
Religion, politics and yes, sexuality (lgbt is nothing compared to inter-species relationships) are all part of Star Trek. Trek is a fictional story about the future of our known reality. It is hard not to discuss these things when it comes to Trek. In essence this is still a discussion about the game and Trek in general.
It's completely fine to discuss those subjects within Star Trek or the game. However the problems start when someone makes the first comment about those subjects outside of Trek or the game.
It's completely fine to discuss those subjects within Star Trek or the game. However the problems start when someone makes the first comment about those subjects outside of Trek or the game.
I don't understand this notion that we should somehow only have our worldviews challenged when we deem it appropriate. I find it bizarre for at least two reasons. First, it seems clear that given how unpleasant it can be to be criticized, many people would simply choose to avoid it entirely if it were an option, and that strikes me as an almost dystopian outcome. Second, the claim to being open-minded about such topics as long as they happen only in the time, place, and context of our choosing seems like a contradiction in terms.
I don't understand this notion that we should somehow only have our worldviews challenged when we deem it appropriate. I find it bizarre for at least two reasons. First, it seems clear that given how unpleasant it can be to be criticized, many people would simply choose to avoid it entirely if it were an option, and that strikes me as an almost dystopian outcome. Second, the claim to being open-minded about such topics as long as they happen only in the time, place, and context of our choosing seems like a contradiction in terms.
Again, these aren't my rules, I was simply commenting on what the rules say.
Comments
I ate it all to get through all the debates.
Make some more!!!!!
Well... time to pop more then
When religious scripture is presented in open discussion it never ends well.
I have for one have now had my fill of this topic.
Some men like men
Some women like Women
And some people like both.
its a fact. . that some people agree with and some don't, I do not condone the comments of hate and bile but I also do not condone the comments aimed back.
As a TRIBBLE man myself if we the LGBT community want acceptance from all we have to try and not only educate but also be tolerant of others who don't share our view otherwise we are no better than they are.
I am making this last post off topic to say I have to agree here, lets get back on topic and moderate ourselves, I am only going to only respond off topic if quoted, lets be adults and get on topic.
I want more than that, I want the devs to make us really care for those characters or know them a bit more so it has meaning.
Yet here you are?... that's a real head-scratcher and you just stated the obvious... NEXT!
Officially Nerfed In Early 2410
It is the first highlight with them together. Maybe it is a plan to do more with them over time. Just like movies, books, and tv shows character development takes a while. What was the real point even mentioning the relationship in Delta Flight, it was there then death.
Except that the assertions that it fails the Vito Russo test are false:
1) Identifiably LGBT - check. "Mate" in this context seems pretty explicit.
2) Doesn't totally define the character - check. B'Eler is a mission specialist who you consult with about the fairly important question of what level of risk is acceptable for the mission. The fact that she's in a same sex relationship is more or less irrelevant to the discussion of whether it's worth the smallish risk of catastrophe to save a little time on the mission. As a character B'Eler is defined much more by her role on the mission than anything else. That some people believe otherwise and focus exclusively on the character's sexuality is on them, not on Cryptic.
3) Character is important to the plot - check. See above - B'Eler takes on an important role in the story Cryptic wanted to tell here, about making command decisions and priorities. You can feel that the story itself wasn't well executed, or that it wasn't even an interesting idea to begin with, but that doesn't mean that it fails the Vito Russo test. Nothing says that the plot can't be trite, just that the character in question is important to it (whatever it is).
All I can think is that there are two misunderstandings here. The first is that having a character which fails the Vito Russo test (arguably Trevana is guilty of being there only because she's an over-protective appendage to B'Eler) doesn't mean that the episode as a whole fails. As long as there is a character which meets the test (and B'Eler does, hands down), then the episode as a whole passes. By way of analogy, go back to the Bechdel test which the Vito Russo test comes from - a movie passes if it meets the criteria. It does not then fail if there is a female extra in the next scene who gets no lines.
Second, and more importantly, people seem to be confusing the idea that the CHARACTER has to be important to the plot with the idea that the RELATIONSHIP has to be important to the plot, which is the exact opposite of the intent of the test. The purpose of the Vito Russo test is to prevent the exact kind of token-ism that happens when the ONLY time LGBT issues get mentioned is if the whole plot is going to revolve around that point. It is a way of critiquing the notion that LGBT relationships should by default not be included unless the plot somehow forces the issue, because that notion implies that LGBT relationships are not (or should not be) considered as unremarkable and commonplace as any other relationship.
Objectively, the plot Cryptic put together for this mission involves, in part, a discussion of the risks of the mission, and while we might argue with the execution (I think it would have been cool to make this an actual player choice, but whatever), clearly there had to be some character for the player to discuss this with. If Trevana was replaced by a male named Trevan, I don't think anyone would claim that the scene was included to promote a heterosexist social agenda, which makes it pretty clear that the merit of the scene is independent of the sexuality of the characters involved, which means Cryptic's choice to include an LGBT relationship there a textbook example of passing the Vito Russo test with flying colors.
To be honest, this thread has been breaking the rules from the start:
By that definition, *ANY* comment that is even *SLIGHTLY* negative about *ANYONE's* sexuality is against the forum rules. So is politics, which started in post #15. However, based on this thread's continued existence, it would seem the mods are allowing these discussions to take place, for some reason, as long as they do not get too heated.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I find it funny that you can't talk about the LGBLT (Intentional) on the forums yet they exist in the game. It's like Cryptic/PWE is saying "Yes they're there but shhhhh.... don't talk about them". So is the LGBLT suppose to be the Illuminati of STO? **DUN DUN DUN*** :rolleyes:
To be clear, the quote I posted does *not* say you can't talk about LGBT issues, it says you cannot say anything *negative* about the topic. But the reality is, it is not possible to talk about LGBT issues on the internet without someone saying something negative or controversial. So while the topic itself is not technically off limits, it is essentially de facto off limits.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
If I remember correctly, it is Jewish tradition to let the Earth "rest" once every seven years (which is the most basic form of crop rotating) in parallel with instructions for the sabath. A section of the land is rested and the crops are planted in he rest of the land. It is regards to the schmita, which is in Leviticus.
Can't speak to cotton-poly blends. Isnt polyester a synthetic that came about well after the writing of the Torah or even the New Testament?
Dont forget the shots at peoples religions and beliefs as well.
So everything in regards to the LGBLT is suppose to be flowers, rainbows, and unicorns (or just rainbows)... otherwise it's breaking the rules? That seems a bit pointless and one-sided don't you think? If you don't want controversy, don't allow controversial topics, organizations, politics, etc etc into the forums AND the game. de facto or not... I feel there should be more definition on that area. OR we can have our fingers crossed in hopes that people will play it safe... oh wait... too late.:rolleyes:
Something which many users in the forum abuse.
They're not my rules, I'm just pointing them out to some people who were acting like it was the recent religious discussion that was suddenly making the thread break the rules, when in reality that had been going on from the start.
But to your point, I agree that when certain topics cannot be realistically discussed without a certain amount of negativity manifesting itself, and then you are going to call that negativity rule breaking, that those topics should simply not be allowed.
I mean, there are plenty of places on the internet to discuss virtually any topic you want to discuss. Sometimes its best to just keep a video game forum focused on discussing the video game, and not RL issues. But hey, considering all of the controversial topics discussed in this thread(sexuality, politics, and religion), it honestly seems to have gone pretty well. Which is encouraging.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Sometimes? I'd say always... I cannot think of 1 good reason why either a game OR it's forums should have an open door policy on RL issues.
Trevana's reason to be there is fer role as part of the away team. She also states that she is responsible for the safety of the team on the mission as well, how does that fall into 'only there as an over-protective appendage' territory?
We think you are beautiful as well.
How about "Because the claim that it is the wrong time/wrong forum has historically been a tool of the privileged to prevent challenges to the Status Quo that they deemed threatening to that privilege?"
It's not unfair that the rules let people be open about their self identity while simultaneously forbidding people from attacking that identity. That's a feature, not a bug. Unless you are prepared to argue that video games should be completely devoid of plot or characterizations, your assertion rings hollow. The idea that you should not be challenged by a video game (or a video game forum, as the case may be) because you don't want to be exposed to ideas which make you uncomfortable (especially without the "right" to criticize those ideas in an attempt to reassert your preferred worldview) is tantamount to saying anyone who would maybe like to see something different than you should simply be silenced until YOU deign let them participate as equals.
Point blank, you did not criticize the scene on Delta Flight for making a generally throwaway mention of a presumably heterosexual relationship during a pre-mission briefing scene (I believe - if I'm wrong, feel free to link me to the thread where you railed against Cryptic forcing a conservative hetero-normative worldview on everyone while you just wanted to play a game). You thus have no leg to stand on to be critical of the relationship here, unless you believe that LGBT relationships by their very nature should not be included, but heterosexual relationships are fine. If you do believe that, I refer you to the top of the post - you are asserting that because you perceive your worldview as "normal" and "noncontroversial", anything which challenges that worldview should be excluded from "your" game because it's "not the place" for those challenges to happen.
Religion, politics and yes, sexuality (lgbt is nothing compared to inter-species relationships) are all part of Star Trek. Trek is a fictional story about the future of our known reality. It is hard not to discuss these things when it comes to Trek. In essence this is still a discussion about the game and Trek in general.
I don't think she IS merely an over-protective appendage, but because she is given considerably less screen time and character development, I can easily foresee people arguing about how much her relationship to B'Eler does/doesn't define her character. I think that's a much less clear cut argument than B'Eler, and irrelevant to my argument to boot because as long as B'Eler meets, I win. If Trevana does too, great, but I don't win "more" if she does, and if she doesn't I still don't lose. From a perceptual standpoint, however, I prefer to concede ground on those sideshow debates early and explicitly so that nobody gets confused down the line when I concede a point that I know is irrelevant but nevertheless looks like a victory for my opponent.
All of which is to say - I agree with you that Trevana is fine too, but B'Eler is the easier to defend.
It's completely fine to discuss those subjects within Star Trek or the game. However the problems start when someone makes the first comment about those subjects outside of Trek or the game.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I don't understand this notion that we should somehow only have our worldviews challenged when we deem it appropriate. I find it bizarre for at least two reasons. First, it seems clear that given how unpleasant it can be to be criticized, many people would simply choose to avoid it entirely if it were an option, and that strikes me as an almost dystopian outcome. Second, the claim to being open-minded about such topics as long as they happen only in the time, place, and context of our choosing seems like a contradiction in terms.
Again, these aren't my rules, I was simply commenting on what the rules say.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008