Is it more controversial or less than an interracial kiss on tv in the 60's or a russian serving with an american in the height of the cold war? The circle where this episode remains controversial is growing much smaller in diameter very rapidly.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
What if it had been something even more controversial like a transgendered individual flaunting their new identity - like we see with many trills? Oh, we've seen it already. There's some interesting episodes for All to consider on DS9 especially. Also with Beverly in TNG. I'm trying to think of any trill npcs in game but am drawing blank. I wonder if mirror Kira's love for Kira counts also?
One could say that LGBT relationships were portrayed in DS9 mirror universe episodes, but personally i found those acts as being in character for the provocative/violent/manipulative nature of those in the mirror universe. Not really a positive endorsement.
Is it more controversial or less than an interracial kiss on tv in the 60's or a russian serving with an american in the height of the cold war? The circle where this episode remains controversial is growing much smaller in diameter very rapidly.
Is it growing smaller? I cannot speak for the US, but when i look in the Netherlands i feel the often militant attitude of the LGBT rights movement has actually turned the tide against them. Things like marriage and equal rights for adoption have been fixed, but when i speak to some TRIBBLE/bi friends of mine we get the impression that the public support is growing smaller.
While relatively minor in the Netherlands, i get the impression that this backlash is rapidly gaining momentum with Russia being a prime example.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
(...)
The one thing we can all agree on is that LGBT relations are controversial (if this is warranted or not is a discussion for another time/place) and anybody could have seen in advance that people would find it offensive.
When you know this then the wisdom of adding a LGBT couple can be questioned.
(...)
Seriously? Wow... just wow...
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Is it more controversial or less than an interracial kiss on tv in the 60's or a russian serving with an american in the height of the cold war? The circle where this episode remains controversial is growing much smaller in diameter very rapidly.
More and more TV Shows and movies are including them without being a central point to a story. It is becoming more common place. I didn't find it distracting at all.
"More and more TV shows and movies are including them under financial pressure, lawsuits, and threats"
One could say that LGBT relationships were portrayed in DS9 mirror universe episodes, but personally i found those acts as being in character for the provocative/violent/manipulative nature of those in the mirror universe.
I took it more that Kira really was into herself. Ha. Picture the young narcissus pining away at his reflection in the water.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
I took it more that Kira really was into herself. Ha. Picture the young narcissus pining away at his reflection in the water.
It would fit the narcissistic nature of "Mirror Kira"
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
I specifically mentioned heterosexual and meant that. I was asking for in game presentations of "straight" couples. I dont think we have had an STO "on screen" hetero couple. Im thinking some people might be upset at the whole thing because there wasnt even an on screen straight couple. I could care less either way. Im just trying to figure out why some people are upset, beyond the typical "homophobe" assumption.
Miral and the guy who dies are established as exes. You also have Neelix and his mate. There's also Scotty and his girlfriend Cassidy and an Orion with a Starfleet officer in the same mission. The Vulcan Love Slave holoprogram that fell in love with her owner, although that's a patrol people skip, and pretty much all of the Orion women seen are in heterosexual relationships, albeit ones that involve slavery. It was even established that the Orions have been manipulating the High Council by selling off hundreds of Orions who are now owned by members of the High Council and that J'mpok is infatuated with the sister of the lead Orion (who isn't a slave). Plus most of Risa.
STO is remarkably light on romance/soap opera as Star Trek goes. There's more than some Star Trek games but far less than you'd see in any season of any Trek show.
I will say that it was at least not extremely overt and many children will miss it (as some of the adults did). But I feel parents have the right to be aware when things like this are brought up in a game context and not be blindsided by them. I am previewing the episode and have a chance to be a responsible parent to my teenage sons who play STO and have a discussion about it. If Cryptic wants to set this as a precedent and abuse my trust in their discretion, then I either need to preview every single episode before my sons get a chance to play it or I need to prevent them from playing at all. Either way, Cryptic, do you really want people preventing their kids from logging in at convenient times?
I think it's a shame that this is something you feel the need to filter a child's exposure to although I commend your level of dedication as a parent.
What we saw here was not really any different, standards-wise, from DS9 or Doctor Who and it seems to me that the bigger concern should be with someone getting impaled and vaporized.
Star Trek has had lesbians and bisexual characters before. This is just the first time they didn't kiss.
My biggest hope out of all this mess is that the Devs, writers and PWE do not back track on this groundbreaking addition to the game to do so would only pamper to the minority while excluding the group of people who for one praise this addition.
"Groundbreaking addition"?
Wow... I'm sorry I passionately disagree. I strongly support a person's right to be with whomever they choose, I personally found the way they represented that TRIBBLE couple to be quite offensive. The "over protective" girlfriend was simply rude, mean and overbearing in her hyper sensitivity towards the player character. What I saw was a writer leaning on the stereotypical "grumpy TRIBBLE" (to put it politely) personality that many TRIBBLE women are labeled with. Not every TRIBBLE couple is comprised of one woman and one man-hating woman who wishes she was a man and that is EXACTLY how that couple came across.
Either do it right and be respectful or don't do it at all... The game certainly does not need any more of this and honestly I would like them to simply edit that mission and pull that dialog out. It added nothing to the story and only reinforces misplaced stereotypes.
I'm very disappointed in the writers and hope the dev team takes a real long, hard look at how they can improve their story telling. This isn't PVE Queue online with some token Star Trek mumbo jumbo thrown in to keep their license. They have a huge opportunity here and are blowing it with weak character and plot development.
More like a klingon with the worst hangover one can imagine.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
I think it's a shame that this is something you feel the need to filter a child's exposure to although I commend your level of dedication as a parent.
What we saw here was not really any different, standards-wise, from DS9 or Doctor Who and it seems to me that the bigger concern should be with someone getting impaled and vaporized.
Star Trek has had lesbians and bisexual characters before. This is just the first time they didn't kiss.
I think Bluegeek was speaking in terms of a child being confronted with same sex couples for the first time, through this game, and the parent then has to be able to discuss it with a child when the parent is t prepared to at that time. Its not a far stretch to take the topic of same sex relationships with a child and walk right into having to have the sex talk. At least thats what I took away from it.
While the game is rated for teens, who most likely understand samesex relationship there are adults who let younger children play that might not and then the parent is confronted with having to talk about something they might have wanted to speak to the child at a later age. Thats why some parents mint have to filter.
My attitude toward it is if an adult allows a child to play a game above their maturity level (and the parent should have the last word on what that maturity level is, no matter the rating), then it is thier duty to filter to game content to determine what the child should be exposed to.
If anything deserves a flamewar it's the atrocious horrible "KLING ON!!" pun in the war poster they added to the loading screens <-< that one is so bad it can cause you to bleed internally XD
ktamradio If you are looking for some nice music while playing clicky clicky click!
If anything deserves a flamewar it's the atrocious horrible "KLING ON!!" pun in the war poster they added to the loading screens <-< that one is so bad it can cause you to bleed internally XD
Well at least it wasn't so bad that your eyeballs popped out and spontaneously exploded.
Unless you were typing blind there in which case i owe you an apology.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
As someone who worked within the retail side of the gaming industry all I will say about exposing their under age child or anyone under age to this game or any game, film or music with an age rating is:
"If you understand that this game is not suitable or designed for the age of the child or persons you want to play it and you have any reservations about its content do not allow them to play it"
So I have to admit that when I see people saying “oh now I have to vet my child playing this game, watching this film or hearing this music” then they are obviously too young to play it and you shouldn't expose them to its content it's as simple as that.
Like films and certain music things have age restrictions for a reason and you cannot ask the makers/designers of the media in question to alter the content to fit yours or anyone's needs. You also cannot blame the makers/designers of said media about content that now stops anyone under the correct age from playing as all/any content additions would have to meet certain and strict guidelines before being added.
All Media rating boards have strict guidelines on how and what material gets what rating, and although this rating is a “Guideline” and Law in regards to exposure of the media by retailers or companies who distribute or make it ultimately it is down to the respective person/parent on or if they allow anyone under the age on the box so to speak to play, watch or listen to it and if they allow anyone under the correct age range to be exposed then it’s their duty to either Vet it or then face the consequences of allowing them to do so.
to all the people who disapprove of the same-sex couple, i like playing this game to get away from all the red-neck reactionary close-minded hatefulness that certain parts of the world hold dear.
this game is set in a possible future where all that nonsense has been left behind.
you don't like it, then don't play it, we won't miss you.
So, red-necks have a lock on close-minded hatefulness? How close-minded and hateful of you. How is it that you are so much better than anyone-else, that you can be so more enlightened than another segment of people, that you claim have hatred, but yet you are allowed to speak hatred towards them and not be as bad as those you insult?
to all the people who disapprove of the same-sex couple, i like playing this game to get away from all the red-neck reactionary close-minded hatefulness that certain parts of the world hold dear.
this game is set in a possible future where all that nonsense has been left behind.
you don't like it, then don't play it, we won't miss you.
If this is not trolling or inflaming and don't know what it is. Kinda of a strange since for some this is a escape from the real world of innuendos and biased liberal mentality that tries always to force something in someone minds. I'm sure it works both ways if you "really" try to escape reality.
As of now most of this discussion has remained civil except for some who called out the hate/bigot card if they questioned anything. If you like the red color and I like pink. Are you going to call someone hateful because of the difference in taste? At least we can agree to disagree but nobody is questioning a lifestyle at all. True understanding of diversity works for all not just some and civility should be a guide when expressing one's view rather than name calling.
I think Bluegeek was speaking in terms of a child being confronted with same sex couples for the first time, through this game, and the parent then has to be able to discuss it with a child when the parent is t prepared to at that time. Its not a far stretch to take the topic of same sex relationships with a child and walk right into having to have the sex talk. At least thats what I took away from it.
While the game is rated for teens, who most likely understand samesex relationship there are adults who let younger children play that might not and then the parent is confronted with having to talk about something they might have wanted to speak to the child at a later age. Thats why some parents mint have to filter.
My attitude toward it is if an adult allows a child to play a game above their maturity level (and the parent should have the last word on what that maturity level is, no matter the rating), then it is thier duty to filter to game content to determine what the child should be exposed to.
As i said earlier, i knew my father was TRIBBLE before elementary school. I got the sex talk when i got my first gf in high school (obviously id already had sex ed in school by then).
A kid being exposed to the concept of homosexuality needs no more explanation than "some people like boys, some like girls" or some such. I mean, what are you going to say when you go to the mall and they ask why two teenage boys are kissing?
Knowing about TRIBBLE people =/= knowing about TRIBBLE sex.
As someone who worked within the retail side of the gaming industry all I will say about exposing their under age child to this game or any game with an age rating is
"if you understand that this game is not suitable or designed for the age of the child or persons you want to play it and you have any reservations about its content do not allow them to play it"
so when I see people saying oh now I have to vet my child playing this game then they are obviously too young to play it and you shouldn't expose them to its content it's as simple as that, like films and certain music things have age restrictions for a reason.
While I agree, I have no issue with a parent "vetting" the content that thier child is exposed to. Thats part of being a parent. The issue that Bluegeek is mentioning, I think, is that he considers the content has changed with this (probably for his younger child), not because he hates a group of people, but that he may now have to explain things to his child that he might wanted to have put off to a later time. After filtering, he may decide to restrict the younger children from the game if he feels that its past what he is ing to discuss with them at the moment. His decision either way.
Honestly, it amazes me how many parents let a child play a game and dont do research into the content.
You know what I don't like in STO? The "Execute for Incompetence" doff mission on the KDF side. I find it quite objectionable to kill somebody just because somebody did not live up to expectations (and now let's all think back to the grades we had at school).
But: it makes sense within the ST universe. This is the way the fictional society of the future is portrayed. I cannot be surprised that it happens. I do not use this doff mission (and its close relatives). I still use "forced labor camp", so maybe I am not really living up to my own standards.
The point is: this is a fictional universe. Things happen in this fictional universe that I may not agree with. They may even not be portrayed negatively despite me not agreeing with them. That is something that I have to keep in mind. If it riles me enough (it doesn't) I will stop engaging in this fictional universe.
As for the mates here: this is something that was bound to happen, or was at least very conceivable, within a ST environment. Anybody who spent enough time with ST should be aware that this IP has a history of being more progressive on such social issues. If you find yourself to be more on the conservative end of the scale, this is something that you should keep in mind.
This holds especially when it comes to parenting decisions. In an ideal world, parents would indeed know all the content of stuff their kids interact with up to a certain age. But at the same time we all know that would be impractical to nearly impossible to really do. But if you do not think it an appropriate topic for teens, you as a parent should be aware that anything Star Trek is risky territory. And then either leave it be for kids or single check the content before allowing the young'uns in.
With that being said, I also disagree that this is mature content. As others have said, for starters there is the question of us killing gazillions of people. Somebody claimed that children react to that better than to sexual topics, but I would like to see proof - surely a death in its vicinity, especially a violent one, will harm a kid more than two people liking each other. And even if not, won't it set a worse precedent to "teach" children that killing others is okay (Necessary sometimes, maybe - I still disagree - but a standard course of action) than to let them know some people of the same gender like each other? And even if it inclined children to become TRIBBLE, which it doesn't, nobody would be hurt by that, while a kid which thinks that violence is a viable solution to any trouble may well hurt others. And yet the topic of death existing is not mature as such. It is a part of life. Children have to know about death. They don't have to know every gory detail, much less shown it. And children have to know about the existence of people of the same gender being attracted to each other. Not every detail has to be explained (and it isn't here), you may not agree with them existing, but they do.
Plus, homosexuality is not only about sex. When people talk about "shoved down their throats", I guess they see it as a similar TMI territory as knowing what kind of roleplay your neighbors are up to come the dark hours. But homosexuality is more than just wanting to bonk somebody of the same gender. It is also wanting to share a life with somebody of the same gender. Of going on vacations together, buying a home, going to the movies, shopping, going to parties, all that and more. If you are saying "I'm okay with people being TRIBBLE as long as they keep it within their own walls", you are basically depriving them of leading a normal life as we others do. They wouldn't be able to bring their spouse to a wedding, as we heterosexuals do, when we are shoving our orientation down other people's throats. They wouldn't be able to choose their furniture together, they can't go to the movies. Agreed, two men (or two women) slobbing their tongues inside each other in public is annoying and constitutes an annoyance, but so does a man and a woman doing the same. (And by the way, I am also annoyed by those supposedly sexy female Orions running around, barely clothed, maximized chest settings, using those perceivedly sexy, in my opinion quite silly, poses of "cute" or "seductive". I like the idea of seeing nice women with a lack of clothing as much as the next heterosexual guy, but I do not like TRIBBLE being shoved in my face every other corner in the Klingon academy - still, part of the ST universe, so I'll have to live with it).
Which brings me to my last point: the perceived backslash. Yes, voices are getting louder that equality has gone too far, that LGBT are nowadays oppressing other people (which they don't, nobody tells heterosexuals they should keep everything within their walls or shut up about having partners or suchlike). But I have the strong feeling that this is a result of a changing time. In the olden days, TRIBBLE people were considered an aberration, almost everybody agreed, no need to talk about it much longer. This has changed a lot - in the European Union more people agree than disagree that TRIBBLE people should have the same rights as straight couples. Which means that those who oppose feel the need to voice their opinion more loudly.
And I would bet this was known to Cryptic or PWE or whoever was responsible for greenlighting this episode. That today this topic is controversial and that including this fact of life will rile people. So I doubt it was a mistake, as some seem to think, that they forgot about it. I would venture the guess that they decided that portraying a future society that is open to LGBT made more sense than pleasing this part of the customer base. So I also guess that losing some players is a side effect that was accepted. It may be a financially bad decision. It may be an extension of liberal Hollywood Intelligenzija. But I am quite certain they knew what they were doing.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
biased liberal mentality that tries always to force something in someone minds.
The question remains, though, who is really trying to force the other side?
TRIBBLE people and their biased liberal supporters who want you to accept their way of life?
Or those who want TRIBBLE people to not exist or at least not be visible, thus forcing them to not lead a normal life with a household and similar stuff?
Both are forcing in a way, but the second intrusion into other people's lifes seems way more massive to me.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
As i said earlier, i knew my father was TRIBBLE before elementary school. I got the sex talk when i got my first gf in high school (obviously id already had sex ed in school by then).
A kid being exposed to the concept of homosexuality needs no more explanation than "some people like boys, some like girls" or some such. I mean, what are you going to say when you go to the mall and they ask why two teenage boys are kissing?
Knowing about TRIBBLE people =/= knowing about TRIBBLE sex.
I didnt say it had anything to do with TRIBBLE sex, its never been about TRIBBLE sex. Due to your situation, you were exposed to same sex relationships at a young age, so was I. If you didnt notcie the many times I have mntioned, I refer to younger children that probably havent had the sex talk (like the 7 year old of my friend). Having to explain same sex relationships can lead quickly to asking about sex itself, something a parent typiclally want to put off until they think they are ready to understand it.
I have also mentioned that parents of children that they allow to play a game that is more mature than they are should monitor and filter it, so to the very least they can be prepared to discuss things with thier child.
As far as what I would do in the situation you gave? First, I hope that my child is at an age and wisdom that can understand what I have to discuss with them. Then I will be as honest as I can with them. But I really hope that that discussion wont happen until after I can discuss with them about where babies come from first. I dont want to have to do a double discussion on those topics all at once, which a relative of mine did have to do at the same time, stemming from tthe discussion kn same sex relationships.
Comments
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
That's the curse of having one of the most frequently quoted posts in a topic. :P
One could say that LGBT relationships were portrayed in DS9 mirror universe episodes, but personally i found those acts as being in character for the provocative/violent/manipulative nature of those in the mirror universe. Not really a positive endorsement.
Is it growing smaller? I cannot speak for the US, but when i look in the Netherlands i feel the often militant attitude of the LGBT rights movement has actually turned the tide against them. Things like marriage and equal rights for adoption have been fixed, but when i speak to some TRIBBLE/bi friends of mine we get the impression that the public support is growing smaller.
While relatively minor in the Netherlands, i get the impression that this backlash is rapidly gaining momentum with Russia being a prime example.
Seriously? Wow... just wow...
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
^
This exactly.
"More and more TV shows and movies are including them under financial pressure, lawsuits, and threats"
Fixed that for you.
In his defense, he didn't say "first" he just states that it happened in the 60's.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
It would fit the narcissistic nature of "Mirror Kira"
There';s a KDF mission in STO where the Klingon player recovers the sword and gives it to Kahless.
Miral and the guy who dies are established as exes. You also have Neelix and his mate. There's also Scotty and his girlfriend Cassidy and an Orion with a Starfleet officer in the same mission. The Vulcan Love Slave holoprogram that fell in love with her owner, although that's a patrol people skip, and pretty much all of the Orion women seen are in heterosexual relationships, albeit ones that involve slavery. It was even established that the Orions have been manipulating the High Council by selling off hundreds of Orions who are now owned by members of the High Council and that J'mpok is infatuated with the sister of the lead Orion (who isn't a slave). Plus most of Risa.
STO is remarkably light on romance/soap opera as Star Trek goes. There's more than some Star Trek games but far less than you'd see in any season of any Trek show.
Proof? And I don't mean "person X said it is so"
Join Starfleet,
Boldly go where no man has gone before,
Meet interesting new species, and Kill them!
Why would someone be sued for not?
I think it's a shame that this is something you feel the need to filter a child's exposure to although I commend your level of dedication as a parent.
What we saw here was not really any different, standards-wise, from DS9 or Doctor Who and it seems to me that the bigger concern should be with someone getting impaled and vaporized.
Star Trek has had lesbians and bisexual characters before. This is just the first time they didn't kiss.
"Groundbreaking addition"?
Wow... I'm sorry I passionately disagree. I strongly support a person's right to be with whomever they choose, I personally found the way they represented that TRIBBLE couple to be quite offensive. The "over protective" girlfriend was simply rude, mean and overbearing in her hyper sensitivity towards the player character. What I saw was a writer leaning on the stereotypical "grumpy TRIBBLE" (to put it politely) personality that many TRIBBLE women are labeled with. Not every TRIBBLE couple is comprised of one woman and one man-hating woman who wishes she was a man and that is EXACTLY how that couple came across.
Either do it right and be respectful or don't do it at all... The game certainly does not need any more of this and honestly I would like them to simply edit that mission and pull that dialog out. It added nothing to the story and only reinforces misplaced stereotypes.
I'm very disappointed in the writers and hope the dev team takes a real long, hard look at how they can improve their story telling. This isn't PVE Queue online with some token Star Trek mumbo jumbo thrown in to keep their license. They have a huge opportunity here and are blowing it with weak character and plot development.
Captain Ariel Trueheart Department of Temporal Investigations
U.S.S. Valkyrie - NCC 991701
=/\= ================================= =/\=
So, basically, she was a Klingon. Noted.
More like a klingon with the worst hangover one can imagine.
I think Bluegeek was speaking in terms of a child being confronted with same sex couples for the first time, through this game, and the parent then has to be able to discuss it with a child when the parent is t prepared to at that time. Its not a far stretch to take the topic of same sex relationships with a child and walk right into having to have the sex talk. At least thats what I took away from it.
While the game is rated for teens, who most likely understand samesex relationship there are adults who let younger children play that might not and then the parent is confronted with having to talk about something they might have wanted to speak to the child at a later age. Thats why some parents mint have to filter.
My attitude toward it is if an adult allows a child to play a game above their maturity level (and the parent should have the last word on what that maturity level is, no matter the rating), then it is thier duty to filter to game content to determine what the child should be exposed to.
Well at least it wasn't so bad that your eyeballs popped out and spontaneously exploded.
Unless you were typing blind there in which case i owe you an apology.
"If you understand that this game is not suitable or designed for the age of the child or persons you want to play it and you have any reservations about its content do not allow them to play it"
So I have to admit that when I see people saying “oh now I have to vet my child playing this game, watching this film or hearing this music” then they are obviously too young to play it and you shouldn't expose them to its content it's as simple as that.
Like films and certain music things have age restrictions for a reason and you cannot ask the makers/designers of the media in question to alter the content to fit yours or anyone's needs. You also cannot blame the makers/designers of said media about content that now stops anyone under the correct age from playing as all/any content additions would have to meet certain and strict guidelines before being added.
All Media rating boards have strict guidelines on how and what material gets what rating, and although this rating is a “Guideline” and Law in regards to exposure of the media by retailers or companies who distribute or make it ultimately it is down to the respective person/parent on or if they allow anyone under the age on the box so to speak to play, watch or listen to it and if they allow anyone under the correct age range to be exposed then it’s their duty to either Vet it or then face the consequences of allowing them to do so.
So, red-necks have a lock on close-minded hatefulness? How close-minded and hateful of you. How is it that you are so much better than anyone-else, that you can be so more enlightened than another segment of people, that you claim have hatred, but yet you are allowed to speak hatred towards them and not be as bad as those you insult?
If this is not trolling or inflaming and don't know what it is. Kinda of a strange since for some this is a escape from the real world of innuendos and biased liberal mentality that tries always to force something in someone minds. I'm sure it works both ways if you "really" try to escape reality.
As of now most of this discussion has remained civil except for some who called out the hate/bigot card if they questioned anything. If you like the red color and I like pink. Are you going to call someone hateful because of the difference in taste? At least we can agree to disagree but nobody is questioning a lifestyle at all. True understanding of diversity works for all not just some and civility should be a guide when expressing one's view rather than name calling.
As i said earlier, i knew my father was TRIBBLE before elementary school. I got the sex talk when i got my first gf in high school (obviously id already had sex ed in school by then).
A kid being exposed to the concept of homosexuality needs no more explanation than "some people like boys, some like girls" or some such. I mean, what are you going to say when you go to the mall and they ask why two teenage boys are kissing?
Knowing about TRIBBLE people =/= knowing about TRIBBLE sex.
While I agree, I have no issue with a parent "vetting" the content that thier child is exposed to. Thats part of being a parent. The issue that Bluegeek is mentioning, I think, is that he considers the content has changed with this (probably for his younger child), not because he hates a group of people, but that he may now have to explain things to his child that he might wanted to have put off to a later time. After filtering, he may decide to restrict the younger children from the game if he feels that its past what he is ing to discuss with them at the moment. His decision either way.
Honestly, it amazes me how many parents let a child play a game and dont do research into the content.
But: it makes sense within the ST universe. This is the way the fictional society of the future is portrayed. I cannot be surprised that it happens. I do not use this doff mission (and its close relatives). I still use "forced labor camp", so maybe I am not really living up to my own standards.
The point is: this is a fictional universe. Things happen in this fictional universe that I may not agree with. They may even not be portrayed negatively despite me not agreeing with them. That is something that I have to keep in mind. If it riles me enough (it doesn't) I will stop engaging in this fictional universe.
As for the mates here: this is something that was bound to happen, or was at least very conceivable, within a ST environment. Anybody who spent enough time with ST should be aware that this IP has a history of being more progressive on such social issues. If you find yourself to be more on the conservative end of the scale, this is something that you should keep in mind.
This holds especially when it comes to parenting decisions. In an ideal world, parents would indeed know all the content of stuff their kids interact with up to a certain age. But at the same time we all know that would be impractical to nearly impossible to really do. But if you do not think it an appropriate topic for teens, you as a parent should be aware that anything Star Trek is risky territory. And then either leave it be for kids or single check the content before allowing the young'uns in.
With that being said, I also disagree that this is mature content. As others have said, for starters there is the question of us killing gazillions of people. Somebody claimed that children react to that better than to sexual topics, but I would like to see proof - surely a death in its vicinity, especially a violent one, will harm a kid more than two people liking each other. And even if not, won't it set a worse precedent to "teach" children that killing others is okay (Necessary sometimes, maybe - I still disagree - but a standard course of action) than to let them know some people of the same gender like each other? And even if it inclined children to become TRIBBLE, which it doesn't, nobody would be hurt by that, while a kid which thinks that violence is a viable solution to any trouble may well hurt others. And yet the topic of death existing is not mature as such. It is a part of life. Children have to know about death. They don't have to know every gory detail, much less shown it. And children have to know about the existence of people of the same gender being attracted to each other. Not every detail has to be explained (and it isn't here), you may not agree with them existing, but they do.
Plus, homosexuality is not only about sex. When people talk about "shoved down their throats", I guess they see it as a similar TMI territory as knowing what kind of roleplay your neighbors are up to come the dark hours. But homosexuality is more than just wanting to bonk somebody of the same gender. It is also wanting to share a life with somebody of the same gender. Of going on vacations together, buying a home, going to the movies, shopping, going to parties, all that and more. If you are saying "I'm okay with people being TRIBBLE as long as they keep it within their own walls", you are basically depriving them of leading a normal life as we others do. They wouldn't be able to bring their spouse to a wedding, as we heterosexuals do, when we are shoving our orientation down other people's throats. They wouldn't be able to choose their furniture together, they can't go to the movies. Agreed, two men (or two women) slobbing their tongues inside each other in public is annoying and constitutes an annoyance, but so does a man and a woman doing the same. (And by the way, I am also annoyed by those supposedly sexy female Orions running around, barely clothed, maximized chest settings, using those perceivedly sexy, in my opinion quite silly, poses of "cute" or "seductive". I like the idea of seeing nice women with a lack of clothing as much as the next heterosexual guy, but I do not like TRIBBLE being shoved in my face every other corner in the Klingon academy - still, part of the ST universe, so I'll have to live with it).
Which brings me to my last point: the perceived backslash. Yes, voices are getting louder that equality has gone too far, that LGBT are nowadays oppressing other people (which they don't, nobody tells heterosexuals they should keep everything within their walls or shut up about having partners or suchlike). But I have the strong feeling that this is a result of a changing time. In the olden days, TRIBBLE people were considered an aberration, almost everybody agreed, no need to talk about it much longer. This has changed a lot - in the European Union more people agree than disagree that TRIBBLE people should have the same rights as straight couples. Which means that those who oppose feel the need to voice their opinion more loudly.
And I would bet this was known to Cryptic or PWE or whoever was responsible for greenlighting this episode. That today this topic is controversial and that including this fact of life will rile people. So I doubt it was a mistake, as some seem to think, that they forgot about it. I would venture the guess that they decided that portraying a future society that is open to LGBT made more sense than pleasing this part of the customer base. So I also guess that losing some players is a side effect that was accepted. It may be a financially bad decision. It may be an extension of liberal Hollywood Intelligenzija. But I am quite certain they knew what they were doing.
The question remains, though, who is really trying to force the other side?
TRIBBLE people and their biased liberal supporters who want you to accept their way of life?
Or those who want TRIBBLE people to not exist or at least not be visible, thus forcing them to not lead a normal life with a household and similar stuff?
Both are forcing in a way, but the second intrusion into other people's lifes seems way more massive to me.
I didnt say it had anything to do with TRIBBLE sex, its never been about TRIBBLE sex. Due to your situation, you were exposed to same sex relationships at a young age, so was I. If you didnt notcie the many times I have mntioned, I refer to younger children that probably havent had the sex talk (like the 7 year old of my friend). Having to explain same sex relationships can lead quickly to asking about sex itself, something a parent typiclally want to put off until they think they are ready to understand it.
I have also mentioned that parents of children that they allow to play a game that is more mature than they are should monitor and filter it, so to the very least they can be prepared to discuss things with thier child.
As far as what I would do in the situation you gave? First, I hope that my child is at an age and wisdom that can understand what I have to discuss with them. Then I will be as honest as I can with them. But I really hope that that discussion wont happen until after I can discuss with them about where babies come from first. I dont want to have to do a double discussion on those topics all at once, which a relative of mine did have to do at the same time, stemming from tthe discussion kn same sex relationships.