Look at the quote I have been using for my signature. That's from a TOS Episode from 1968. Since day one Star Trek has been about inclusion and diversity. Why the TRIBBLE are people crying about the series continuing to do what it has always done?
Dr. Miranda Jones: I understand, Mr. Spock. The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity.
Mr. Spock: And the ways our differences combine, to create meaning and beauty.
Waggghh there arent enough white peeps on Star trek.
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
Ugh, white men afraid of losing their privileges? Why the TRIBBLE are they watching Star Trek? We're better of without those whiners.
^ 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
"Star Trek has always been great at covering global historic social issues which is why its been able to remain so popular, but in the SJW world, they like to bring problems to the forefront that don’t actually exist. They talk as if the LGBT community, blacks and women are getting beaten in the streets just for walking outside. They need to scream about how we’re all equal while filling themselves into separate social groups, each a hair’s breath from fighting among themselves as to who’s the most discriminated against, they demand tolerance yet crucify anyone with a more conservative view that just want to get on with their lives. I just hope that Star Trek isn’t going to pander to the minority of the SJW and Keyboard Warriors as they’re referred to."
"I’ve covered above what forced diversity will bring to Star Trek – in regard to Gene Roddenberry’s opinion a little story has always stuck in my mind I once read. It was when Patrick Stewart was cast as Picard in TNG back in 1987, someone asked him what people will think about casting a bald man as the captain. His reply was nobody will care in the 24th Century.
And that’s my opinion, that’s what Star Trek has taught me, regardless of what your sexual orientation is, male or female, black or white. I really don’t care, you’re not that important in the grand scale of things, nobody is. If the only thing that defines you is the colour of your skin or who you have sex with, then you’re a pretty boring person. But can you entertain me for 45 minutes? Yes? Then great, my favourite Star Trek show as I’ve mentioned is DS9 – that has a black captain and a female first officer.
Gene Roddenberry wanted to show that we can all work together regardless of background or where we come from, hence why you had Chekov – a Russian who flew the Enterprise as well as Uhura the black female comm’s operative. Remember this was in the 1960’s. The relationship between the US and Russia, as well as race relations, were very bad then. But neither of that was ever brought up in the storyline – it didn’t matter. They were there to do a job."
True Words.
Anyone who feels the need to belittle, berate, ridicule, shame, mock or ostracise someone for voicing this, is a hypocrite who fails to practice the so-called 'tolerance' which they preach. The tolerance which Star Trek has always demonstrated.
This is not 1984. 1984 was a warning, not a manual to follow. And yet Big Brother is here. Watching. With all the loyal Party Members ready to skin another for what their echo-chamber deems WrongSpeech, ThoughtCrime. No, it's called Free Speech! Nothing hateful in what that person said whatsoever, just honest. Congratulations, Liberal Left, you won the culture war, and became the very thing you claimed to despise: Bigots, oppressors, silencers of dissenting opinion. Fascists.
Welcome to Cardassia! Guilty until proven guilty. Beatings will continue until moral improves. The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father. Beatings will continue until morale improves.
"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
Yes, you're all poor victims of PC. I'll light a candle in memory of true freedom and honesty if I have time later on.
^ 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
They do raise a valid point. It's one thing to express disinterest in such things - to focus more on what a person can and will do in a given situation, rather than biological or psychological minutia like skin pigmentation, gender or sexual preference - but it's quite another to force 'equality' based on them.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
How are they 'forcing' diversity by just casting? Nowhere in the trailers have they made it even remotely exploitative. Also, some of Trek's best storylines are about being black ("Far Beyond the Stars") or exploring LGBT ("The Outcast"). As for the actresses, Michelle Yeoh's acting (which she was nominated for several times) was amazing opposite Chow Yun-Fat in Crouching, likewise Sonequa's acting on Walking Dead was really emotive. I'd hire them.
How are they 'forcing' diversity by just casting?(...)
I was going to ask the same. The "complaint" is not a valid point. There are people complaining that too many non-white non-male non-straight people have been cast before anything was shown of the actual show. How is that not simple bigotry? What is valid about this complaint? And in addition, as hawku said, social issues have always been a part of Star Trek. It is nonsensical to praise the "spirit of star Trek" on the one side and then complain about "too much diversity".
^ 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
> @hawku001x said: > How are they 'forcing' diversity by just casting?
Its true dude, there are wayyyyyyy too much white peeps in Star trek shows. Previous creators were all pandering to this minority group. Good DSC can finally stop this forced pandering
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
It is clearly pandering having a black woman, oriental guy, and Russian kid on one show. Much overkill. And apparently the first officer won't even be human. When will this gods forsaken representation stop!!!!!
Next thing you know we'll be having black or female captains forced upon us. Social politics!? Not in my Star Trek.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Does everything have to include politics/race issues now?
And when including politics/race issues, does it have to hit us over the head with a large blunt instrument?
Are political/race issue-themed threads allowed now? Or are we taking advantage of the fact the Mods may not be looking today?
Threads like this occur when people have too much time on their hands and too much access to the Internet. Rabble rousing and demagogery are still rabble rousing and demagogery. Regardless of who starts it. Some overly self important individual posts a blog about something which probably did not occur to the producers of the new show. Next, we have people here who should have more intelligence, and a lot more common sense, than this overreacting.
Some days, people here make me ashamed to admit I am a Star Trek fan. Or that I particpate in these forums. Or play STO.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
How are they 'forcing' diversity by just casting? Nowhere in the trailers have they made it even remotely exploitative. Also, some of Trek's best storylines are about being black ("Far Beyond the Stars") or exploring LGBT ("The Outcast"). As for the actresses, Michelle Yeoh's acting (which she was nominated for several times) was amazing opposite Chow Yun-Fat in Crouching, likewise Sonequa's acting on Walking Dead was really emotive. I'd hire them.
How are they 'forcing' diversity by just casting?(...)
I was going to ask the same. The "complaint" is not a valid point. There are people complaining that too many non-white non-male non-straight people have been cast before anything was shown of the actual show. How is that not simple bigotry? What is valid about this complaint? And in addition, as hawku said, social issues have always been a part of Star Trek. It is nonsensical to praise the "spirit of star Trek" on the one side and then complain about "too much diversity".
The lack of information, unfortunately, works both ways... but yes, premature judgment in either direction may not be advisable.
It is clearly pandering having a black woman, oriental guy, and Russian kid on one show. Much overkill. And apparently the first officer won't even be human. When will this gods forsaken representation stop!!!!!
Next thing you know we'll be having black or female captains forced upon us. Social politics!? Not in my Star Trek.
The typical ST episode didn't care, though. They had a wide variety of people, but they rightly felt that this should be the norm rather than the exception, especially in the culture and period they were portraying - consequently, they didn't focus too much on the matter. These days, I'm more inclined to assume the worst when it comes to things like these, partly because of the attention they receive.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
(...)These days, I'm more inclined to assume the worst when it comes to things like these, partly because of the attention they receive.
Would you care to elaborate this? I'd lik to maybe just understand the point of conflict here.
^ 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
(...)These days, I'm more inclined to assume the worst when it comes to things like these, partly because of the attention they receive.
Would you care to elaborate this? I'd lik to maybe just understand the point of conflict here.
Pre-release focus on minority characters, rather than letting the story speak for itself. For example, we already know that one of the Discovery crew is TRIBBLE. How do we know? Press release said so. Before Beyond was released, we were unnecesarily told that Sulu was TRIBBLE. The shot of his hand on the control where his wedding band was visible, was all that was needed to foreshadow him being met at the docking port by his family. The picture of his daughter tagged to the helm, that was belaboring the point. And what did we see? A few seconds of him hugging another guy, and the family then walking off. Nice to see, tastefully handled, not treating it as anything out of the ordinary. All good. So announcing it as a pre-release point? Virtue-signalling. Playing to gender-politics. Unnecessary, and unwelcomed by the man they were trying to honour.
I would presume that that is the kind of thing that dalolorn is refering to.
@Dalolorn, if I've spoken out of place, please let me know.
"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
"They talk as if the LGBT community, blacks and women are getting beaten in the streets just for walking outside."
Spoken like a true child of straight white male privilege. You don't think that's happening? Go to the bedside of Micah Fletcher, in Portland. Tell him people aren't being "beaten in the street" for being minorities. For that matter, go to the memorials for Ricky Best and Taliesin Namkai-Meche and try telling that to their families. These men were slain, just a few days ago, for daring to come to the defense of two Middle-Easter-looking teenage girls, one of whom was wearing a hijab.
Or tell that to these two Brooklyn men, slashed in the street for being homosexuals just last March.
And those are just the top headlines I could find from recently. From this country.
But yeah. You go ahead and tell us how everyone's treated equally these days, and nobody's being attacked in the streets for being homosexual or a minority.
"They talk as if the LGBT community, blacks and women are getting beaten in the streets just for walking outside."
Spoken like a true child of straight white male privilege. You don't think that's happening? Go to the bedside of Micah Fletcher, in Portland. Tell him people aren't being "beaten in the street" for being minorities. For that matter, go to the memorials for Ricky Best and Taliesin Namkai-Meche and try telling that to their families. These men were slain, just a few days ago, for daring to come to the defense of two Middle-Easter-looking teenage girls, one of whom was wearing a hijab.
Or tell that to these two Brooklyn men, slashed in the street for being homosexuals just last March.
And those are just the top headlines I could find from recently. From this country.
But yeah. You go ahead and tell us how everyone's treated equally these days, and nobody's being attacked in the streets for being homosexual or a minority.
If you've got a problem with it, take it up with the writer of the article, guy, those're their words, not mine.
And hey, way to cherry-pick examples. If you want to start posting statistics about violence, show all the statistics for the whole area and year, not just ones which align with your virtue-signalling. Go on, prove the guy wrong. Crime statistics for the year in those areas. Let's see who's really getting beaten up in the area.
Also, will you lay off the complex statements and strawmen? It's irritating AF, and shows you have no argument beyond outraged hyperbole. The dude wasn't saying that nobody was ever being attacked in the streets for being a minority, were they. So why go there? What they said, was "They talk as if the LGBT community, blacks and women are getting beaten in the streets just for walking outside." Not the same as what you're trying to bend the narrative to say they said, so why go there?
"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
"They talk as if the LGBT community, blacks and women are getting beaten in the streets just for walking outside."
Spoken like a true child of straight white male privilege. You don't think that's happening? Go to the bedside of Micah Fletcher, in Portland. Tell him people aren't being "beaten in the street" for being minorities. For that matter, go to the memorials for Ricky Best and Taliesin Namkai-Meche and try telling that to their families. These men were slain, just a few days ago, for daring to come to the defense of two Middle-Easter-looking teenage girls, one of whom was wearing a hijab.
Or tell that to these two Brooklyn men, slashed in the street for being homosexuals just last March.
And those are just the top headlines I could find from recently. From this country.
But yeah. You go ahead and tell us how everyone's treated equally these days, and nobody's being attacked in the streets for being homosexual or a minority.
Ok, how is that relevant? Is it normal? No. Sure, it happens, so does getting attacked for being white. If you don't think that happens... well... you're not looking.
@silverlobes2676 said: > (...) So announcing it as a pre-release point? Virtue-signalling. Playing to gender-politics. Unnecessary, and > unwelcomed by the man they were trying to honour. > > I would presume that that is the kind of thing that dalolorn is refering to. > > @Dalolorn, if I've spoken out of place, please let me know.
Thank you for explaining it, but I still do not understand. I understand and have written about the rather "clumsy" honouring of Takei's work before so that I get and we put that aside. But what does "playing to gender-politics" mean?
^ 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
@silverlobes2676 said:
> (...) So announcing it as a pre-release point? Virtue-signalling. Playing to gender-politics. Unnecessary, and
> unwelcomed by the man they were trying to honour.
>
> I would presume that that is the kind of thing that dalolorn is refering to.
>
> @Dalolorn, if I've spoken out of place, please let me know.
Thank you for explaining it, but I still do not understand. I understand and have written about the rather "clumsy" honouring of Takei's work before so that I get and we put that aside. But what does "playing to gender-politics" mean?
The best way I can explain it, might be to compare it to 'targeted marketing'. Knowing that there is an audience for The Product, so announcing things about The Product, which the supplier knows will gain the attention of the target audience.
LGBT is a sizable marketing demographic, so saying "We haz a TRIBBLE character!" is likely to gain the attention and interest of the LGBT community. The only downside, is that it comes across as clumsy advertising, rather than being subtle. Had they said nothing whatsoever before the release of Beyond, I doubt there would have been anywhere near as much commentary made about Sulu's family.
"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
@silverlobes2676 So it all comes down to criticize the marketing strategy? Because being included in significant portions of pop-culture is also very important for someone in the process of accepting who they are. Even if it was done to sell the product, the resulting effect might benefit one group and not affect the other at all. What harm has been done justifying any kind of emotional reaction by those not affected?
^ 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
"Star Trek has always been great at covering global historic social issues which is why its been able to remain so popular, but in the SJW world, they like to bring problems to the forefront that don’t actually exist. They talk as if the LGBT community, blacks and women are getting beaten in the streets just for walking outside. They need to scream about how we’re all equal while filling themselves into separate social groups, each a hair’s breath from fighting among themselves as to who’s the most discriminated against, they demand tolerance yet crucify anyone with a more conservative view that just want to get on with their lives. I just hope that Star Trek isn’t going to pander to the minority of the SJW and Keyboard Warriors as they’re referred to."
"I’ve covered above what forced diversity will bring to Star Trek – in regard to Gene Roddenberry’s opinion a little story has always stuck in my mind I once read. It was when Patrick Stewart was cast as Picard in TNG back in 1987, someone asked him what people will think about casting a bald man as the captain. His reply was nobody will care in the 24th Century.
And that’s my opinion, that’s what Star Trek has taught me, regardless of what your sexual orientation is, male or female, black or white. I really don’t care, you’re not that important in the grand scale of things, nobody is. If the only thing that defines you is the colour of your skin or who you have sex with, then you’re a pretty boring person. But can you entertain me for 45 minutes? Yes? Then great, my favourite Star Trek show as I’ve mentioned is DS9 – that has a black captain and a female first officer.
Gene Roddenberry wanted to show that we can all work together regardless of background or where we come from, hence why you had Chekov – a Russian who flew the Enterprise as well as Uhura the black female comm’s operative. Remember this was in the 1960’s. The relationship between the US and Russia, as well as race relations, were very bad then. But neither of that was ever brought up in the storyline – it didn’t matter. They were there to do a job."
True Words.
Anyone who feels the need to belittle, berate, ridicule, shame, mock or ostracise someone for voicing this, is a hypocrite who fails to practice the so-called 'tolerance' which they preach. The tolerance which Star Trek has always demonstrated.
This is not 1984. 1984 was a warning, not a manual to follow. And yet Big Brother is here. Watching. With all the loyal Party Members ready to skin another for what their echo-chamber deems WrongSpeech, ThoughtCrime. No, it's called Free Speech! Nothing hateful in what that person said whatsoever, just honest. Congratulations, Liberal Left, you won the culture war, and became the very thing you claimed to despise: Bigots, oppressors, silencers of dissenting opinion. Fascists.
Welcome to Cardassia! Guilty until proven guilty. Beatings will continue until moral improves. The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father. Beatings will continue until morale improves.
YES........thank you!
Anybody figure out we are talking about a TV show with a long history of entertainment and inclusion?
If one feels the need to even bring up the SJW sewage about something people are trying to enjoy because it is entertainment, then that person is the intolerant hypocrite they pretend to be a "warrior".
Crazy Idea #449: How about we wait and see how well written, acted, filmed, and presented BEFORE some pseudo-H.L Mencken takes to his magical keyboard to "inform" the rest of us about their un- & mis-informed point of view.
@silverlobes2676 So it all comes down to criticize the marketing strategy? Because being included in significant portions of pop-culture is also very important for someone in the process of accepting who they are. Even if it was done to sell the product, the resulting effect might benefit one group and not affect the other at all. What harm has been done justifying any kind of emotional reaction by those not affected?
Well, there's several points to consider there, which I'll address in turn:
- Yes, it's a criticism of the marketing strategy.
- Yes, inclusion is definitely important, but using it as a selling point, at the expense of other equally interesting things, is then bad strategy. For example, from what we see in the trailer, Number One would appear to be half-Vulcan. That wasn't something they felt the need to mention in early press releases, when they said that they would be having a TRIBBLE officer, although it is still definitely a point of interest and informative about the other character.
- The harm done, is not really harm as such, but a case of to those not in the LGBT community, that kind of announcement can have several connotations. An example, is that one of the complaints most often levelled at the work of Russell T Davies, is his frequent references to homosexuality in his work. Many felt that it was 'pushing an agenda' (their words, not mine) So on that regard, the mention of a TRIBBLE character, when it's not really relevant to the plot, comes across as unnecessarily drawing attention to the subject. Another example is that the release mentioning having a TRIBBLE character, but not of a half-Vulcan character, or perhaps more information about Captain Lorca, could appear 'agenda pushing' due to the absence of that other usefull information. Just as the Beyond release about Sulu being TRIBBLE was clumsy. Had they instead mentioned something about meeting Sulu's daughter, that would still generate the interest as to who is the other parent, and then when we get to the airlock scene, it would be an interesting twist which could have been worked out as being a refeence to George Takei. But doing what they did, as you said, it was clumsy.
So to sum it up, it's bad marketing, because it doesn't take into consideration how it will be perscieved by all the audience. It focusses on a target demographic, and forgets everyone else. It's "Rat's head and ox's neck" or, "don't lose sight of the forest for the trees". I hope that explains better for you.
"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
Comments
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Mr. Spock: And the ways our differences combine, to create meaning and beauty.
-Star Trek: Is There in Truth No Beauty? (1968)
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
"I’ve covered above what forced diversity will bring to Star Trek – in regard to Gene Roddenberry’s opinion a little story has always stuck in my mind I once read. It was when Patrick Stewart was cast as Picard in TNG back in 1987, someone asked him what people will think about casting a bald man as the captain. His reply was nobody will care in the 24th Century.
And that’s my opinion, that’s what Star Trek has taught me, regardless of what your sexual orientation is, male or female, black or white. I really don’t care, you’re not that important in the grand scale of things, nobody is. If the only thing that defines you is the colour of your skin or who you have sex with, then you’re a pretty boring person. But can you entertain me for 45 minutes? Yes? Then great, my favourite Star Trek show as I’ve mentioned is DS9 – that has a black captain and a female first officer.
Gene Roddenberry wanted to show that we can all work together regardless of background or where we come from, hence why you had Chekov – a Russian who flew the Enterprise as well as Uhura the black female comm’s operative. Remember this was in the 1960’s. The relationship between the US and Russia, as well as race relations, were very bad then. But neither of that was ever brought up in the storyline – it didn’t matter. They were there to do a job."
True Words.
Anyone who feels the need to belittle, berate, ridicule, shame, mock or ostracise someone for voicing this, is a hypocrite who fails to practice the so-called 'tolerance' which they preach. The tolerance which Star Trek has always demonstrated.
This is not 1984. 1984 was a warning, not a manual to follow. And yet Big Brother is here. Watching. With all the loyal Party Members ready to skin another for what their echo-chamber deems WrongSpeech, ThoughtCrime. No, it's called Free Speech! Nothing hateful in what that person said whatsoever, just honest. Congratulations, Liberal Left, you won the culture war, and became the very thing you claimed to despise: Bigots, oppressors, silencers of dissenting opinion. Fascists.
Welcome to Cardassia! Guilty until proven guilty. Beatings will continue until moral improves. The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father. Beatings will continue until morale improves.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
I was going to ask the same. The "complaint" is not a valid point. There are people complaining that too many non-white non-male non-straight people have been cast before anything was shown of the actual show. How is that not simple bigotry? What is valid about this complaint? And in addition, as hawku said, social issues have always been a part of Star Trek. It is nonsensical to praise the "spirit of star Trek" on the one side and then complain about "too much diversity".
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
> How are they 'forcing' diversity by just casting?
Its true dude, there are wayyyyyyy too much white peeps in Star trek shows. Previous creators were all pandering to this minority group. Good DSC can finally stop this forced pandering
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
Next thing you know we'll be having black or female captains forced upon us. Social politics!? Not in my Star Trek.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
And when including politics/race issues, does it have to hit us over the head with a large blunt instrument?
Are political/race issue-themed threads allowed now? Or are we taking advantage of the fact the Mods may not be looking today?
Threads like this occur when people have too much time on their hands and too much access to the Internet. Rabble rousing and demagogery are still rabble rousing and demagogery. Regardless of who starts it. Some overly self important individual posts a blog about something which probably did not occur to the producers of the new show. Next, we have people here who should have more intelligence, and a lot more common sense, than this overreacting.
Some days, people here make me ashamed to admit I am a Star Trek fan. Or that I particpate in these forums. Or play STO.
The lack of information, unfortunately, works both ways... but yes, premature judgment in either direction may not be advisable.
The typical ST episode didn't care, though. They had a wide variety of people, but they rightly felt that this should be the norm rather than the exception, especially in the culture and period they were portraying - consequently, they didn't focus too much on the matter. These days, I'm more inclined to assume the worst when it comes to things like these, partly because of the attention they receive.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Would you care to elaborate this? I'd lik to maybe just understand the point of conflict here.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Janeway and Hernandez would like to have a word with you.
I would presume that that is the kind of thing that dalolorn is refering to.
@Dalolorn, if I've spoken out of place, please let me know.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Or tell that to these two Brooklyn men, slashed in the street for being homosexuals just last March.
Or newly-commissioned 2nd Lt Richard Collins III, stabbed to death at a bus stop for being black.
And those are just the top headlines I could find from recently. From this country.
But yeah. You go ahead and tell us how everyone's treated equally these days, and nobody's being attacked in the streets for being homosexual or a minority.
And hey, way to cherry-pick examples. If you want to start posting statistics about violence, show all the statistics for the whole area and year, not just ones which align with your virtue-signalling. Go on, prove the guy wrong. Crime statistics for the year in those areas. Let's see who's really getting beaten up in the area.
Also, will you lay off the complex statements and strawmen? It's irritating AF, and shows you have no argument beyond outraged hyperbole. The dude wasn't saying that nobody was ever being attacked in the streets for being a minority, were they. So why go there? What they said, was "They talk as if the LGBT community, blacks and women are getting beaten in the streets just for walking outside." Not the same as what you're trying to bend the narrative to say they said, so why go there?
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
My character Tsin'xing
> (...) So announcing it as a pre-release point? Virtue-signalling. Playing to gender-politics. Unnecessary, and
> unwelcomed by the man they were trying to honour.
>
> I would presume that that is the kind of thing that dalolorn is refering to.
>
> @Dalolorn, if I've spoken out of place, please let me know.
Thank you for explaining it, but I still do not understand. I understand and have written about the rather "clumsy" honouring of Takei's work before so that I get and we put that aside. But what does "playing to gender-politics" mean?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Maybe TOS "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" is more suited to their level of comprehension.
LGBT is a sizable marketing demographic, so saying "We haz a TRIBBLE character!" is likely to gain the attention and interest of the LGBT community. The only downside, is that it comes across as clumsy advertising, rather than being subtle. Had they said nothing whatsoever before the release of Beyond, I doubt there would have been anywhere near as much commentary made about Sulu's family.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
YES........thank you!
Anybody figure out we are talking about a TV show with a long history of entertainment and inclusion?
If one feels the need to even bring up the SJW sewage about something people are trying to enjoy because it is entertainment, then that person is the intolerant hypocrite they pretend to be a "warrior".
Crazy Idea #449: How about we wait and see how well written, acted, filmed, and presented BEFORE some pseudo-H.L Mencken takes to his magical keyboard to "inform" the rest of us about their un- & mis-informed point of view.
- Yes, it's a criticism of the marketing strategy.
- Yes, inclusion is definitely important, but using it as a selling point, at the expense of other equally interesting things, is then bad strategy. For example, from what we see in the trailer, Number One would appear to be half-Vulcan. That wasn't something they felt the need to mention in early press releases, when they said that they would be having a TRIBBLE officer, although it is still definitely a point of interest and informative about the other character.
- The harm done, is not really harm as such, but a case of to those not in the LGBT community, that kind of announcement can have several connotations. An example, is that one of the complaints most often levelled at the work of Russell T Davies, is his frequent references to homosexuality in his work. Many felt that it was 'pushing an agenda' (their words, not mine) So on that regard, the mention of a TRIBBLE character, when it's not really relevant to the plot, comes across as unnecessarily drawing attention to the subject. Another example is that the release mentioning having a TRIBBLE character, but not of a half-Vulcan character, or perhaps more information about Captain Lorca, could appear 'agenda pushing' due to the absence of that other usefull information. Just as the Beyond release about Sulu being TRIBBLE was clumsy. Had they instead mentioned something about meeting Sulu's daughter, that would still generate the interest as to who is the other parent, and then when we get to the airlock scene, it would be an interesting twist which could have been worked out as being a refeence to George Takei. But doing what they did, as you said, it was clumsy.
So to sum it up, it's bad marketing, because it doesn't take into consideration how it will be perscieved by all the audience. It focusses on a target demographic, and forgets everyone else. It's "Rat's head and ox's neck" or, "don't lose sight of the forest for the trees". I hope that explains better for you.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth