The Klingons. They attacked a Federation system, and Burnham reciprocated. If a Russian navy ship was to fire on a town in Alaska they'd probably get blown out of the sea before they got back to Russian waters. Why? Because the terms of the peace treaty do not allow the Russians to attack US soil.
That's a ridiculously hyperbolic way to describe the Klingons putting a disruptor bolt through a automated comm relay in a system with no population....and then not firing on the Federation ship which comes to investigate and repair it. If the threshold for war was as ridiculous as you suggest we wouldn't have gotten out of the 60's without a nuclear exchange between the US and USSR. Things happened out in the open oceans alone during the Cold War that would terrify you if you knew about them.
What's funny is Burnham is supposedly a scientist an and explorer but demanded they go Curtis LeMay on the Klingons over a com-relay and tried to stage a mutiny when told to shut up and stop overreacting. Stupid.
There is 'bending the rules' and then there's 'being a **** moron'.
you're not quite understanding the difference here.
Actually, I do understand the difference. I understand this is fiction and I still question whether or not you've actually watched much Star Trek over the years. Burnham did not take any greater risks than anyone before or since her has in Trek lore.
There's bending the rules, and then there's treason. If those same events happened today in a confrontation between the US and say ... Russia, Burnham would likely be executed. And she would deserve it.
I love the actress, but the character simply has no redeeming qualities. I think I'd cheer if she took a batleth to the chest in a future episode.
I doubt it. You're overlooking what may be the most important aspect of this. Who shot first?
The Klingons. They attacked a Federation system, and Burnham reciprocated. If a Russian navy ship was to fire on a town in Alaska they'd probably get blown out of the sea before they got back to Russian waters. Why? Because the terms of the peace treaty do not allow the Russians to attack US soil.
They had no difinitive proof that the Klingons had destroyed the relay, all they knew was that the Klingons had a formidable vessel within Federation territory. They had no way of knowing, as we the viewers did, that the Klingons were there with the intent to start a war. For all they knew, a diplomatic solution was still possible, but if Burnham's mutiny had been successful she would most certainly have ignited a war regardless of the Klingons intentions.
And attacking a town is completely different, that would be a clear act of war. A better analogy would be the Russians damaging a buoy or something, would you want an officer in our Navy to start a war over something as relatively trivial as that?
"Trivial"? violating the truce is trivial? In-universe it made no sense for the Klingons to be there for peaceful reasons.
The fundamental difference between Burnham and the other Captains is the simple divide between selfless behavior and selfish behavior.
Leads like classic-Kirk, Picard, and Sisko would occasionally bend or break the rules, but it was generally for the benefit of others and they would accept the consequences afterwards. To be fair Janeway, Archer, and reboot-Kirk were also quite a bit selfish, and fans have indeed called BS on it. Janeway is often caricatured as a supervillain, Archer as an unqualified man-child, and nuKirk as a frat boy idiot.
Burnham seems to do as she pleases and rationalizes it by telling herself that she is smarter than everyone else. Everything I've seen from her character so far seems to indicate that she has an inferiority-superiority complex. She was raised by the elder civilization of Vulcan, a species known for both their brains and brawn. Surrounded by these smarter and stronger individuals left her with a big chip on her shoulder. She has an insatiable need to prove that she is worthy of the superior Vulcans, but that means she can never admit that other species are her equals as she views them as inferior to the Vulcans.
We see this reflected early on in Ep 1, when she practically pushes Saru out of the way to use his console to perform his duties. She then insists on doing the away mission herself instead of sending a specialist. When she wakes up from the EVA she rushes to the bridge to speak to the captain in person rather than sending a message via the ships intercom or through a messenger. She contacts Sarek to have him reaffirm her preconceived notions about Klingons, and ignores his warnings about her prejudices. She then makes her case and attacks the Captain when she rejects the idea. All of this hints at a lack of respect towards her ship mates, she doesn't trust them to do their own jobs.
From a single short clip I've seen from Ep 2, her behavior towards everyone on the Shenzou was even worse when she first arrived, with Sarek even trying to get her to rein it in... speaking of Sarek, earlier I made a joke about the Federation and its nepotism... I had intended it as a joke, but apparently from what I've heard in reviews and seen in that one clip this is now a statement of fact.
Despite her claims that she is doing everything for the good of the crew and Federation, it seems from her actions that she is actually doing it to feed her own neurosis. She needs to convince herself that she is right, because admitting that she is wrong would mean admitting that she isn't worthy of her Vulcan upbringing.
On a different note, I see nobody has commented about the Ep 2 tribunal. I've only seen some still images in reviews, but that looked ominous and very wrong for the Federation. The accused standing in a spotlight in a dimly lit room, with anonymous judges perched in the dark without even the chance for legal council. Is this how CBS really views the Federation? I guess they have to make the punishment look unjust in order to make Burnham's return to duty look reasonable by comparison.
There is 'bending the rules' and then there's 'being a **** moron'.
you're not quite understanding the difference here.
Actually, I do understand the difference. I understand this is fiction and I still question whether or not you've actually watched much Star Trek over the years. Burnham did not take any greater risks than anyone before or since her has in Trek lore.
There's bending the rules, and then there's treason. If those same events happened today in a confrontation between the US and say ... Russia, Burnham would likely be executed. And she would deserve it.
I love the actress, but the character simply has no redeeming qualities. I think I'd cheer if she took a batleth to the chest in a future episode.
I doubt it. You're overlooking what may be the most important aspect of this. Who shot first?
The Klingons. They attacked a Federation system, and Burnham reciprocated. If a Russian navy ship was to fire on a town in Alaska they'd probably get blown out of the sea before they got back to Russian waters. Why? Because the terms of the peace treaty do not allow the Russians to attack US soil.
They had no difinitive proof that the Klingons had destroyed the relay, all they knew was that the Klingons had a formidable vessel within Federation territory. They had no way of knowing, as we the viewers did, that the Klingons were there with the intent to start a war. For all they knew, a diplomatic solution was still possible, but if Burnham's mutiny had been successful she would most certainly have ignited a war regardless of the Klingons intentions.
And attacking a town is completely different, that would be a clear act of war. A better analogy would be the Russians damaging a buoy or something, would you want an officer in our Navy to start a war over something as relatively trivial as that?
"Trivial"? violating the truce is trivial? In-universe it made no sense for the Klingons to be there for peaceful reasons.
Which is why additional ships were enroute to provide backup. Simply being there isn't a sign of hostile intentions though, and after decloaking the Klingon vessel had taken no threatening actions. Starfleet is an organization that seeks diplomacy over violence whenever possible, under these circumstances it makes no sense for a Starfleet officer to execute an unprovoked attack, and it's idiotic for an officer to attempt a mutiny to do so.
Yes, we as viewers are aware that T'kuvma is attempting to start a war, and that it's probably best to conduct a pre-emptive strike, but that's only because we see the Klingon perspective as well.
Discovery is a reboot. Established lore does not apply. They could give these Klingons a tail and two heads if they wanted to.
I'm sorry but a part of me has to laugh at this statement, on the contrary i'm not being rude but rather an objective point of view on that comment which presents a great deal of irony.
It wasn't too long ago when everyone enjoyed JJTrek coming to the screens with those supporters defending it and they welcomed it with open arms even though it had nothing to do with any of the series except the fact it was created in the prime universe with the red matter catalyst on the Romulan star, where it promptly collapsed into a black hole and allowed the Nerada to travel through. I hated it from the start.
Now Discovery is out there and i don't hate it or jjtrek any more. Now all of a sudden everyone else is making the same excuse i made that JJTrek is this and that and everyone else hate Discovery. This is no reboot despite your objection, it's a continuation of the established prime universe even if some things don't make a lot of sense just yet.
I didn't hate JJTrek (though I thought it was silly at times) and I don't hate Discovery. Me (and several media outlets) categorizing Discovery as a reboot has nothing to do with hate or rejection. It's based on the differences on how this timeperiod should look according to canon, and how it actually looks in Discovery. This isn't just about appearences though but also about traits and the underlying philosophy of "Prime Trek". And while Discovery does take place in the Prime Universe it doesn't mean that it cannot be a revamped Prime Universe.
It all comes down to this. How much do they have to change shell and core of a franchise in order to call it a reboot? It was a point I was trying to make earlier with the Star Wars example, Some in this thread think, the changes are not big enough to break the boundaries of a persistant Prime Universe in which Enterprise, TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9 are set. I think they are. And people (not you, mirrorchaos) can call my stupid all they want. Insults only weaken their case.
I will continue watching the series but this is my opinion after everything I read and saw so far.
Discovery is a reboot. Established lore does not apply. They could give these Klingons a tail and two heads if they wanted to.
I'm sorry but a part of me has to laugh at this statement, on the contrary i'm not being rude but rather an objective point of view on that comment which presents a great deal of irony.
It wasn't too long ago when everyone enjoyed JJTrek coming to the screens with those supporters defending it and they welcomed it with open arms even though it had nothing to do with any of the series except the fact it was created in the prime universe with the red matter catalyst on the Romulan star, where it promptly collapsed into a black hole and allowed the Nerada to travel through. I hated it from the start.
Now Discovery is out there and i don't hate it or jjtrek any more. Now all of a sudden everyone else is making the same excuse i made that JJTrek is this and that and everyone else hate Discovery. This is no reboot despite your objection, it's a continuation of the established prime universe even if some things don't make a lot of sense just yet.
I didn't hate JJTrek (though I thought it was silly at times) and I don't hate Discovery. Me (and several media outlets) categorizing Discovery as a reboot has nothing to do with hate or rejection. It's based on the differences on how this timeperiod should look according to canon, and how it actually looks in Discovery. This isn't just about appearences though but also about traits and the underlying philosophy of "Prime Trek". And while Discovery does take place in the Prime Universe it doesn't mean that it cannot be a revamped Prime Universe.
It all comes down to this. How much do they have to change shell and core of a franchise in order to call it a reboot? It was a point I was trying to make earlier with the Star Wars example, Some in this thread think, the changes are not big enough to break the boundaries of a persistant Prime Universe in which Enterprise, TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9 are set. I think they are. And people (not you, mirrorchaos) can call my stupid all they want. Insults only weaken their case.
I will continue watching the series but this is my opinion after everything I read and saw so far.
In the end we will have to see where Discovery goes, i am keeping an open view on what CBS has put before us as there is little reasons to dismiss it this early. So i completely understand what you are saying, but there is just a part of this whole thing which i can't help but notice with the rebooted JJTrek.
At this point it's just too early to consider the possibilty if this is a form of informal reboot or if it will establish on the canoncal prime timeline and universe a lot more the further the series goes in seasons. again a lot of things still up in the air right now not making a lot of sense.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
On a different note, I see nobody has commented about the Ep 2 tribunal. I've only seen some still images in reviews, but that looked ominous and very wrong for the Federation. The accused standing in a spotlight in a dimly lit room, with anonymous judges perched in the dark without even the chance for legal council. Is this how CBS really views the Federation? I guess they have to make the punishment look unjust in order to make Burnham's return to duty look reasonable by comparison.
Rule n° "I-don't-know" of crappy writing: if you're not sure your character will be considered sympathetic to the audience by her/his actions, make those who disagree with their actions more unsympathetic than her/him, so the audience will side with the less horrible side.
Sure, sure, did he say that in the episode where Kor captures Organia and effectively takes the entire planet prisoner?
You are missing the point. We cannot grab some random piece of previous Trek lore to ascribe motivations to these characters that are not presented within the confines of this show.
These Klingons are isolationists who apparently venture forth at random times to slaughter their neighbors until their victims get sick of it and shoot back. We have not seen any evidence that they are taking slaves.
All we know about the Klingons is that they murder sentients and look for reasons to murder sentients. For some inexplicable reason, a race of murderers needs a reason to go out and murder.
It was a huge face-palm moment when the cloaked Klingon "blade ship" rammed the Europa and they both blew up. I was aghast at how stupid and wasteful that was. It really hammered home that these Klingons are mindless murderers. It just felt so contrived. That the Klingons had to be these 2 dimensional murder machines in order for Micheal to have this self-destructive action-packed series of events so that she could be "right".
Cruiser is not uniquely a military designation, it doe snot use destroyers or dreadnoughts (except for the Vengeance, a Section 31 ship), they're armed because they're not fecking idiots unlike you. How long do you think they'll last in the frontier unarmed moron? Are wildlife photographers a military because they go into the bust with knives? As for the military court, that goes with the paramilitary organisational structure, duh. How else do you propose they do it?
How adorable.
I call you out on you being totally wrong and this is what you retort with?
No dear, the designations of Heavy Cruiser (the Constitution class), Frigate (the Miranda class), Destroyer (Saladin class), and Dreadnought (Federation Class) all are military designations. The fact that you have degenerated into vitriol and are attacking me personally shows me I've won this tiff.
You're wrong, and you know it which is why you came unglued in this post.
Well it wasn't established in TOS in the slightest and was outright un-established in TNG. They are explorers constantly out of their depth in conflicts they are not intended for. As for Star Trek II-VI?
Starfleet uses a military code of conduct, it uses military rank designations, it uses armed ships tasked with military duties, and it functions in the same manner that the Royal Navy of Britain did in so far as exploration is concerned.
In the movies from the 1980s we see this further emphasized.
Kirk's son tells his mother (Doctor Marcus) in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
"I've tried to tell you before, scientists have always been pawns of the military!"
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
Nicely taken out of context. Kirk is referring to the United States military, not starfleet.
Star Trek IV: established that starfleet is a military force which is why Spock assures the admiralty that their exploration duties would not be effected even in peacetime.
Captain Spock: Two months ago, a Federation starship monitored an explosion on the Klingon moon, Praxis. We believe it was the result of over-mining and insufficient safety precautions. The moon's decimation means a deadly contamination of their ozone layer. They will have depleted their supply of oxygen in approximately fifty Earth years. Due to their enormous military budget the Klingons do not have the resources to combat this catastrophe. Last month, at the behest of the Vulcan ambassador, I opened a dialogue with Gorkon, Klingon chancellor of the High Council. He proposes to begin negotiations at once.
Admiral Cartwright: Negotiations for what?
Captain Spock: The dismantling of our starbases and outposts along the Neutral Zone, an end to nearly 70 years of unremitting hostility which the Klingons can no longer afford.
What Spock is talking about here is the end to the neutral zone, not the end of the military force known as starfleet.
That's why Cartwright is concerned about the fleet being dismantled, because IT IS A MILITARY FORCE.
You're drivel in reply is making it hard for me to accept that.
I realize that facts are hard for someone as emotionally invested in this TRIBBLE as you are, but they are clear.
"Star Trek": Discovery is a complete reboot of what Star Trek is/was and has no continuity with the other series. It is a joke to anybody who likes/liked Gene's vision of the future.
Oh muh Gud, black on the bridge!!! Red alert. Git.
Is that all you've got? The worn out racist card? If that's your best, you are woefully unprepared to deal with me.
Having a gorgeous Negro-woman as the lead isn't a problem for me at all. I love looking at her and her acting was actually quite good despite the third-grade scribbling of a script she had to work with. What is a problem for me is how the CHARACTER she is playing was written. Her race is immaterial since the script isn't race-specific. A female character being named Michael and being what amounts to another Mary Sue IS what is SJW-style "anti-Patriarchy" garbage. Having the villains be religious is anti-theist SJW garbage. Having the only "white" Klingon need to be reassured of his inclusion is anti-Caucasian SJW garbage. Having the token **** is SJW-pandering like he's some kind of trophy or ribbon so CBS can say "we're inclusive". Her race has ZERO to do with any of that.
We really care about your opinion on this, really, truly. You seem like a lovely level headed guy who's so at home watching a show about an ongoing mission to seek out new life and new civilisations and going boldly.
We? What, you have multiple personality disorder?
There is no we about this tiff between you and me.
You have proven with your commentary that TRIBBLE really is about Boldly whining where no snowflake has been triggered before.
You, and those like you have convinced me of the type of person that is attracted to this bovine-fecal matter, and has solidified my choice to not spend a dime on it.
I've had this argument with Artan and a few others before, infact we had an entire thread dedicated to it that was going strong for over a month at one time. You will not convince them. Despite the overwhelming and inconvertible evidence that Starfleet is infact military, they take the handful of times that important characters have said it is not as proof. They don't understand that a statement is not evidence. I could say the US is not a democracy, does that make it true? Hell no, and when you examine how the government functions you find it most certainly is a democracy, it's the same thing with defining Starfleet as military.
Don't waste your time arguing about it, that subset of Trekkies start acting very dim and unintelligent on this topic, incapable of critical thinking.
Cruiser is not uniquely a military designation, it doe snot use destroyers or dreadnoughts (except for the Vengeance, a Section 31 ship), they're armed because they're not fecking idiots unlike you. How long do you think they'll last in the frontier unarmed moron? Are wildlife photographers a military because they go into the bust with knives? As for the military court, that goes with the paramilitary organisational structure, duh. How else do you propose they do it?
How adorable.
I call you out on you being totally wrong and this is what you retort with?
No dear, the designations of Heavy Cruiser (the Constitution class), Frigate (the Miranda class), Destroyer (Saladin class), and Dreadnought (Federation Class) all are military designations. The fact that you have degenerated into vitriol and are attacking me personally shows me I've won this tiff.
You're wrong, and you know it which is why you came unglued in this post.
Well it wasn't established in TOS in the slightest and was outright un-established in TNG. They are explorers constantly out of their depth in conflicts they are not intended for. As for Star Trek II-VI?
Starfleet uses a military code of conduct, it uses military rank designations, it uses armed ships tasked with military duties, and it functions in the same manner that the Royal Navy of Britain did in so far as exploration is concerned.
In the movies from the 1980s we see this further emphasized.
Kirk's son tells his mother (Doctor Marcus) in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
"I've tried to tell you before, scientists have always been pawns of the military!"
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
Nicely taken out of context. Kirk is referring to the United States military, not starfleet.
Star Trek IV: established that starfleet is a military force which is why Spock assures the admiralty that their exploration duties would not be effected even in peacetime.
Captain Spock: Two months ago, a Federation starship monitored an explosion on the Klingon moon, Praxis. We believe it was the result of over-mining and insufficient safety precautions. The moon's decimation means a deadly contamination of their ozone layer. They will have depleted their supply of oxygen in approximately fifty Earth years. Due to their enormous military budget the Klingons do not have the resources to combat this catastrophe. Last month, at the behest of the Vulcan ambassador, I opened a dialogue with Gorkon, Klingon chancellor of the High Council. He proposes to begin negotiations at once.
Admiral Cartwright: Negotiations for what?
Captain Spock: The dismantling of our starbases and outposts along the Neutral Zone, an end to nearly 70 years of unremitting hostility which the Klingons can no longer afford.
What Spock is talking about here is the end to the neutral zone, not the end of the military force known as starfleet.
That's why Cartwright is concerned about the fleet being dismantled, because IT IS A MILITARY FORCE.
You're drivel in reply is making it hard for me to accept that.
I realize that facts are hard for someone as emotionally invested in this TRIBBLE as you are, but they are clear.
"Star Trek": Discovery is a complete reboot of what Star Trek is/was and has no continuity with the other series. It is a joke to anybody who likes/liked Gene's vision of the future.
Oh muh Gud, black on the bridge!!! Red alert. Git.
Is that all you've got? The worn out racist card? If that's your best, you are woefully unprepared to deal with me.
Having a gorgeous Negro-woman as the lead isn't a problem for me at all. I love looking at her and her acting was actually quite good despite the third-grade scribbling of a script she had to work with. What is a problem for me is how the CHARACTER she is playing was written. Her race is immaterial since the script isn't race-specific. A female character being named Michael and being what amounts to another Mary Sue IS what is SJW-style "anti-Patriarchy" garbage. Having the villains be religious is anti-theist SJW garbage. Having the only "white" Klingon need to be reassured of his inclusion is anti-Caucasian SJW garbage. Having the token **** is SJW-pandering like he's some kind of trophy or ribbon so CBS can say "we're inclusive". Her race has ZERO to do with any of that.
We really care about your opinion on this, really, truly. You seem like a lovely level headed guy who's so at home watching a show about an ongoing mission to seek out new life and new civilisations and going boldly.
We? What, you have multiple personality disorder?
There is no we about this tiff between you and me.
You have proven with your commentary that TRIBBLE really is about Boldly whining where no snowflake has been triggered before.
You, and those like you have convinced me of the type of person that is attracted to this bovine-fecal matter, and has solidified my choice to not spend a dime on it.
I enjoyed reading that
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
yeah, i'm pretty sure the federation council didn't authorize the relocation of the ba'ku by force, so as soon as the first son'a disruptor was fired, it became an illegal operation
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Never saw the Menagerie (only watched 3 or 4 episodes of TOS), but my impression of Insurrection was that Picard was doing what all military members have been instructed to do since the fall of **** Germany, and that is to disobey all unlawful orders.
So you're judging a character based on limited, ignorant knowledge of the IP. Got it. You may want to watch more Trek and you'll see that Burnham's actions aren't so different from anyone else in the various shows and films.
You've also got the events of "Insurrection" wrong. As you will recall, the whole operation had the approval of the Federation Council, so there was no "unlawful order". Immoral yes, but not illegal.
Are you sure you've ever watched any Star Trek?
Approval =/= lawful. Hitler and his associates approved of the Holocaust, but the orders to conduct it were still unlawful, which is why the "I was just following orders" excuse was never accepted. The operation in Insurrection wasn't that extreme, but it still went against the Prime Directive so it was Picard's duty to disobey those orders.
As for not watching TOS, part of the reason is that the first episode I caught on TV years ago featured the crew of the Enterprise encountering the various gods of Greek mythology on some random planet, I think one of them even briefly killed Scotty but I can't remember for sure. Since then I just can't take TOS seriously, and the only specific episodes I watched on Netflix are Balance of Terror and Doomsday Machine. I've always meant to watch Space Seed, but never got around to it for some reason.
I don't think the story is going to follow: Starfleet doing scientific exploration and meeting new aliens, as much. It may still happen as a side line, but it will probably be served with a heavy dose of: "hit the enemy behind the lines".
Nothing that people expect from Star Trek.
"Spend your life doing strange things with weird people." -- UNK
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
wow, you guys are arguing about one of arguably the worst 'Star Trek' movies ever made...
I disagree on that, I actually enjoyed it. Not to go even further off topic, but if I were to rate each movie it would go something like this:
1: (10) tie between Wrath of Kahn and First Contact
2: (9.5) Undiscovered Country
3: (9) Trek '09
4: (8.8) Insurrection
5: (8.5) Beyond
6: (8.2) Into Darkness
7: (8) Voyage Home
8: (6) Generations
9: (3) Nemesis
10: (2) Search for Spock
11: (0.5) The Motion Picture
12: (0.000000005) The Final Frontier
Is that all you've got? The worn out racist card? If that's your best, you are woefully unprepared to deal with me.
Having a gorgeous Negro-woman as the lead isn't a problem for me at all. I love looking at her and her acting was actually quite good despite the third-grade scribbling of a script she had to work with. What is a problem for me is how the CHARACTER she is playing was written. Her race is immaterial since the script isn't race-specific.
Okay, stop referring to it as "race."
While it is a correct from a purely definitive standpoint (i.e. - , a group of people sharing common physical traits such as skin color or eye shape), the proper term to use is actually "ethnicity."
The most apt definition of "race" is "a group of people who all share a common ancestor." Since ALL humanity shares a common ancestor, technically the only "race" is the human race. To say otherwise is to imply that only one ethnicity is human and the others are not, and THAT is derogatory.
A female character being named Michael and being what amounts to another Mary Sue IS what is SJW-style "anti-Patriarchy" garbage.
Let's ignore the utter hilarity of a person who is supposed to be anti-Patriarchy being given a traditionally male name.
Having the villains be religious is anti-theist SJW garbage.
No. Just no. The Klingons are not religious. They have NEVER been religious. According to legend, the Klingons slew their gods because they were more trouble than they were worth.
Speaking of prophecy does not make a religion. After all, the word "prophecy" is just a fancy word for prediction, and if prophecy did equal religion, then we'd all be worshipping at the alter of the Weather Channel before High Priest Jim Cantore.
Having the only "white" Klingon need to be reassured of his inclusion is anti-Caucasian SJW garbage.
Voq isn't "white." He's albino.
Equating a medical condition to an ethnicity is low. Stop that.
Having the token **** is SJW-pandering like he's some kind of trophy or ribbon so CBS can say "we're inclusive".
Assuming the word that got censored is what I think it is, they did the same thing to Sulu in Beyond, and they didn't shove it in our faces. Hell, The Orville has two men in a loving relationship with a recently hatched child, and I don't hear anyone complaining about that.
I honestly think people are seeing offense because they want to, not because it's actually there.
Space Barbie Extraordinaire. Got a question about Space Barbie? Just ask.
Things I want in STO:
1) More character customization options such as more clothing options, letting the toon complexion affect the entire body, not just the head. Also a true RGB color picker applied to all costume and appearance options, which would allow for true appearance customization and homogenous colors instead of "this same exact color looks vastly different on two different pieces."
2) Bridge customization, not bridge packs. Let us pick a general layout and adjust the color palette, console appearance, and chair types, as well as more ready room layout options.
3) Customizable ground weapons, i.e. The aesthetic look of phaser dual pistols but they shoot antiproton bolts. For obvious reasons this would only apply to standard ground weapons.
4) For the love of Q please revamp Plasma Ground Weapons. They look like demented Supersoakers right now.
5) True Vanity Impulse and Deflector effects similar to Vanity Shields.
6) A greater payout for hitting T6 Reputations. Currently it takes more time and resources to get from T5 to T6 than it does to get from nothing to T5. Make that grind really pay out at the end.
7) Mirrorverse Refugee event similar to AoY/Delta/Gamma, complete with new Mirrorverse recruits for all factions.
8) Independent Faction, because yo ho yo ho a pirate's life for me!
Yes I did have them all correctly explained to me by a very smart and wonderful man named Mister Frank Breslin. Not only did he know the fancy words, he truly understood their meanings and proper usage.... unlike some people here who think cutting and pasting from Google makes them intelligent...
More tedious defensive deflection
That you have to quote me, yet deliberately refer to me in the third person in an attempt to undermine my understanding of fallacies, is not only further proof of me hitting the nail on the head and triggering your double-down reflex even further, but proof that you have no legitimate rebuttal
Hiding behind the name of a former-teacher in an attempt to transfer credibility, that is a low I would not have expected even of you. Pathetic
Just have the good grace to admit that you were using a fallacy, rather than providing a legitimate response to patrickngo's observation. Or do you actually think that an appeal to hypocrisy, is a valid defence and justification?
And as an FYI, I don't use Google, but cute attempt at an ad hom. Shows that that's all you've got
*Extrabecause
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
No. Just no. The Klingons are not religious. They have NEVER been religious. According to legend, the Klingons slew their gods because they were more trouble than they were worth.
Speaking of prophecy does not make a religion. After all, the word "prophecy" is just a fancy word for prediction, and if prophecy did equal religion, then we'd all be worshipping at the alter of the Weather Channel before High Priest Jim Cantore.
Klingons in other eras are not religious. Discovery-era Klingons seem incredibly religious. The dialogue and framing really paint T'kuvma as some sort of messiah figure. He acts like a messiah figure. The other Klingons treat him as a messiah figure.
These Klingons may not worship a God, but they appear to be worshiping T'Kuvma, the second coming of Kah'less. I wonder how TRIBBLE off the Klingons are now? The Federation did murder their messiah hours after they murdered the torchbearer.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Comments
That's a ridiculously hyperbolic way to describe the Klingons putting a disruptor bolt through a automated comm relay in a system with no population....and then not firing on the Federation ship which comes to investigate and repair it. If the threshold for war was as ridiculous as you suggest we wouldn't have gotten out of the 60's without a nuclear exchange between the US and USSR. Things happened out in the open oceans alone during the Cold War that would terrify you if you knew about them.
What's funny is Burnham is supposedly a scientist an and explorer but demanded they go Curtis LeMay on the Klingons over a com-relay and tried to stage a mutiny when told to shut up and stop overreacting. Stupid.
My character Tsin'xing
Leads like classic-Kirk, Picard, and Sisko would occasionally bend or break the rules, but it was generally for the benefit of others and they would accept the consequences afterwards. To be fair Janeway, Archer, and reboot-Kirk were also quite a bit selfish, and fans have indeed called BS on it. Janeway is often caricatured as a supervillain, Archer as an unqualified man-child, and nuKirk as a frat boy idiot.
Burnham seems to do as she pleases and rationalizes it by telling herself that she is smarter than everyone else. Everything I've seen from her character so far seems to indicate that she has an inferiority-superiority complex. She was raised by the elder civilization of Vulcan, a species known for both their brains and brawn. Surrounded by these smarter and stronger individuals left her with a big chip on her shoulder. She has an insatiable need to prove that she is worthy of the superior Vulcans, but that means she can never admit that other species are her equals as she views them as inferior to the Vulcans.
We see this reflected early on in Ep 1, when she practically pushes Saru out of the way to use his console to perform his duties. She then insists on doing the away mission herself instead of sending a specialist. When she wakes up from the EVA she rushes to the bridge to speak to the captain in person rather than sending a message via the ships intercom or through a messenger. She contacts Sarek to have him reaffirm her preconceived notions about Klingons, and ignores his warnings about her prejudices. She then makes her case and attacks the Captain when she rejects the idea. All of this hints at a lack of respect towards her ship mates, she doesn't trust them to do their own jobs.
From a single short clip I've seen from Ep 2, her behavior towards everyone on the Shenzou was even worse when she first arrived, with Sarek even trying to get her to rein it in... speaking of Sarek, earlier I made a joke about the Federation and its nepotism... I had intended it as a joke, but apparently from what I've heard in reviews and seen in that one clip this is now a statement of fact.
Despite her claims that she is doing everything for the good of the crew and Federation, it seems from her actions that she is actually doing it to feed her own neurosis. She needs to convince herself that she is right, because admitting that she is wrong would mean admitting that she isn't worthy of her Vulcan upbringing.
On a different note, I see nobody has commented about the Ep 2 tribunal. I've only seen some still images in reviews, but that looked ominous and very wrong for the Federation. The accused standing in a spotlight in a dimly lit room, with anonymous judges perched in the dark without even the chance for legal council. Is this how CBS really views the Federation? I guess they have to make the punishment look unjust in order to make Burnham's return to duty look reasonable by comparison.
Which is why additional ships were enroute to provide backup. Simply being there isn't a sign of hostile intentions though, and after decloaking the Klingon vessel had taken no threatening actions. Starfleet is an organization that seeks diplomacy over violence whenever possible, under these circumstances it makes no sense for a Starfleet officer to execute an unprovoked attack, and it's idiotic for an officer to attempt a mutiny to do so.
Yes, we as viewers are aware that T'kuvma is attempting to start a war, and that it's probably best to conduct a pre-emptive strike, but that's only because we see the Klingon perspective as well.
I didn't hate JJTrek (though I thought it was silly at times) and I don't hate Discovery. Me (and several media outlets) categorizing Discovery as a reboot has nothing to do with hate or rejection. It's based on the differences on how this timeperiod should look according to canon, and how it actually looks in Discovery. This isn't just about appearences though but also about traits and the underlying philosophy of "Prime Trek". And while Discovery does take place in the Prime Universe it doesn't mean that it cannot be a revamped Prime Universe.
It all comes down to this. How much do they have to change shell and core of a franchise in order to call it a reboot? It was a point I was trying to make earlier with the Star Wars example, Some in this thread think, the changes are not big enough to break the boundaries of a persistant Prime Universe in which Enterprise, TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9 are set. I think they are. And people (not you, mirrorchaos) can call my stupid all they want. Insults only weaken their case.
I will continue watching the series but this is my opinion after everything I read and saw so far.
In the end we will have to see where Discovery goes, i am keeping an open view on what CBS has put before us as there is little reasons to dismiss it this early. So i completely understand what you are saying, but there is just a part of this whole thing which i can't help but notice with the rebooted JJTrek.
At this point it's just too early to consider the possibilty if this is a form of informal reboot or if it will establish on the canoncal prime timeline and universe a lot more the further the series goes in seasons. again a lot of things still up in the air right now not making a lot of sense.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
These Klingons are isolationists who apparently venture forth at random times to slaughter their neighbors until their victims get sick of it and shoot back. We have not seen any evidence that they are taking slaves.
All we know about the Klingons is that they murder sentients and look for reasons to murder sentients. For some inexplicable reason, a race of murderers needs a reason to go out and murder.
It was a huge face-palm moment when the cloaked Klingon "blade ship" rammed the Europa and they both blew up. I was aghast at how stupid and wasteful that was. It really hammered home that these Klingons are mindless murderers. It just felt so contrived. That the Klingons had to be these 2 dimensional murder machines in order for Micheal to have this self-destructive action-packed series of events so that she could be "right".
I've had this argument with Artan and a few others before, infact we had an entire thread dedicated to it that was going strong for over a month at one time. You will not convince them. Despite the overwhelming and inconvertible evidence that Starfleet is infact military, they take the handful of times that important characters have said it is not as proof. They don't understand that a statement is not evidence. I could say the US is not a democracy, does that make it true? Hell no, and when you examine how the government functions you find it most certainly is a democracy, it's the same thing with defining Starfleet as military.
Don't waste your time arguing about it, that subset of Trekkies start acting very dim and unintelligent on this topic, incapable of critical thinking.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Approval =/= lawful. Hitler and his associates approved of the Holocaust, but the orders to conduct it were still unlawful, which is why the "I was just following orders" excuse was never accepted. The operation in Insurrection wasn't that extreme, but it still went against the Prime Directive so it was Picard's duty to disobey those orders.
As for not watching TOS, part of the reason is that the first episode I caught on TV years ago featured the crew of the Enterprise encountering the various gods of Greek mythology on some random planet, I think one of them even briefly killed Scotty but I can't remember for sure. Since then I just can't take TOS seriously, and the only specific episodes I watched on Netflix are Balance of Terror and Doomsday Machine. I've always meant to watch Space Seed, but never got around to it for some reason.
I don't think the story is going to follow: Starfleet doing scientific exploration and meeting new aliens, as much. It may still happen as a side line, but it will probably be served with a heavy dose of: "hit the enemy behind the lines".
Nothing that people expect from Star Trek.
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
I disagree on that, I actually enjoyed it. Not to go even further off topic, but if I were to rate each movie it would go something like this:
1: (10) tie between Wrath of Kahn and First Contact
2: (9.5) Undiscovered Country
3: (9) Trek '09
4: (8.8) Insurrection
5: (8.5) Beyond
6: (8.2) Into Darkness
7: (8) Voyage Home
8: (6) Generations
9: (3) Nemesis
10: (2) Search for Spock
11: (0.5) The Motion Picture
12: (0.000000005) The Final Frontier
Okay, stop referring to it as "race."
While it is a correct from a purely definitive standpoint (i.e. - , a group of people sharing common physical traits such as skin color or eye shape), the proper term to use is actually "ethnicity."
The most apt definition of "race" is "a group of people who all share a common ancestor." Since ALL humanity shares a common ancestor, technically the only "race" is the human race. To say otherwise is to imply that only one ethnicity is human and the others are not, and THAT is derogatory.
Let's ignore the utter hilarity of a person who is supposed to be anti-Patriarchy being given a traditionally male name.
No. Just no. The Klingons are not religious. They have NEVER been religious. According to legend, the Klingons slew their gods because they were more trouble than they were worth.
Speaking of prophecy does not make a religion. After all, the word "prophecy" is just a fancy word for prediction, and if prophecy did equal religion, then we'd all be worshipping at the alter of the Weather Channel before High Priest Jim Cantore.
Voq isn't "white." He's albino.
Equating a medical condition to an ethnicity is low. Stop that.
Assuming the word that got censored is what I think it is, they did the same thing to Sulu in Beyond, and they didn't shove it in our faces. Hell, The Orville has two men in a loving relationship with a recently hatched child, and I don't hear anyone complaining about that.
I honestly think people are seeing offense because they want to, not because it's actually there.
Things I want in STO:
1) More character customization options such as more clothing options, letting the toon complexion affect the entire body, not just the head. Also a true RGB color picker applied to all costume and appearance options, which would allow for true appearance customization and homogenous colors instead of "this same exact color looks vastly different on two different pieces."
2) Bridge customization, not bridge packs. Let us pick a general layout and adjust the color palette, console appearance, and chair types, as well as more ready room layout options.
3) Customizable ground weapons, i.e. The aesthetic look of phaser dual pistols but they shoot antiproton bolts. For obvious reasons this would only apply to standard ground weapons.
4) For the love of Q please revamp Plasma Ground Weapons. They look like demented Supersoakers right now.
5) True Vanity Impulse and Deflector effects similar to Vanity Shields.
6) A greater payout for hitting T6 Reputations. Currently it takes more time and resources to get from T5 to T6 than it does to get from nothing to T5. Make that grind really pay out at the end.
7) Mirrorverse Refugee event similar to AoY/Delta/Gamma, complete with new Mirrorverse recruits for all factions.
8) Independent Faction, because yo ho yo ho a pirate's life for me!
That you have to quote me, yet deliberately refer to me in the third person in an attempt to undermine my understanding of fallacies, is not only further proof of me hitting the nail on the head and triggering your double-down reflex even further, but proof that you have no legitimate rebuttal
Hiding behind the name of a former-teacher in an attempt to transfer credibility, that is a low I would not have expected even of you. Pathetic
Just have the good grace to admit that you were using a fallacy, rather than providing a legitimate response to patrickngo's observation. Or do you actually think that an appeal to hypocrisy, is a valid defence and justification?
And as an FYI, I don't use Google, but cute attempt at an ad hom. Shows that that's all you've got
*Extrabecause
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
These Klingons may not worship a God, but they appear to be worshiping T'Kuvma, the second coming of Kah'less. I wonder how TRIBBLE off the Klingons are now? The Federation did murder their messiah hours after they murdered the torchbearer.
edit: Seriously? Ha'cked off is profanity?
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"