|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 5:31:56 GMT 1
I look at it this way, if a person doesn’t have this “malady,” they have no idea what these people and their loved ones are going through. They human beings, no more, no less than me. It’s not helping them stop this from happening by being mean about it. Nor is it productive for a narrow group of people to decide for them what they must do. I think compassion and understanding is the better way. Sometimes just let it be. I’m not perfect and know I have a sharp, often unforgiving tongue, but I’m for the underdog. I attack the big dogs not the weak ones. Everyone has loved ones ThorsAunt...and the rest with the whole sanctimonious spiel, that may as well be noise. You just make me roll my eyes at times...you have no self-awareness that is one problem with you. Everyone is open to criticism. Everyone. There is no special protected class, amigo Okay, now it’s personal. Lady Death Lady is removing her Lord & Taylor gloves. There is good faith criticism and there is bad faith ridicule. My comedy…that is loved here, thank you for the compliment…is based in political incorrectness and irreverence for conformity, but my political posts are based in critical thinking. And I’ve put in work. I have a unique vantage point of being born when and where I was and tens years of rigor of formal study. Add in years of learning to write fiction and essays. The truth is I am the libertarian here because I’m not interested in removing anyone’s right to live their life as they damn well please….with the usual exceptions, you know. There is no template of well-being or self help book that will get people simply to treat others no differently than they expect to be treated themselves. And I don’t blanket condemn anyone even for their mistaken political beliefs. My father was the classic post WWII white male segregationist who mourned the Lost Cause. He used the n-word flagrantly. And he was also a good man whom I’ve witnessed help others no matter their color when he could. I grew up in a social/political climate not unlike Harper Lee did, but without the Depression Era stuff. Therefore, I know most people are not as beastly as their attitudes can be. My daddy was a product of his own upbringing and life experiences. He saw with his own eyes the aftermath of Adolf Hitler. He cook and fed people whom he described as walking skeletons. He must had PTSD out the whazoo. I didn’t understand that at time. And he was well read in William F Buckley, Russell Kirk, etc. He’d loved Jordan Peterson. But he was wrong about a lot. It’s like this, there are people who make fun of an old man, who is obviously not senile, but with a speech impediment, who is doing all he can in earnest to fix a huge existential crisis in my nation. I have few illusions Joe can do much though, because there’s too much FUBAR and time is running out. But I will defend my reasons for voting for him. But I pretty much know what’s coming and understand your anxiety as a young man with a lot years ahead of you. Plus, I’m an old person too, so please stop with the old people bigotry, thank you. Then there are others who still insist the 2020 election was stolen, despite the tons of evidence otherwise. Or that no coup t’dat was attempted, even though all known facts are confirming it did. A simple perusal using non-Alt media and some critiquing will reveal who the Grifter in Chief was before he got in the boat ran for president. And linking the young man to who killed and injured the people of Highland Park, IL, to the transsexual community with no information why he wore a dress to his murder spree as if he and they are of same mind, is ridiculous and insulting. It’s ridicule of a totally unrelated group of people to this heinous act, not criticism of why there is rampant violence, gun and spiritual, from all quarters in the United States of America. How are things working out in Australia? Biz, the irony I fed off of like Thor feds off the Bifrost is, I have had intelligent, insightful, empathetic, artful critical analysis, multidimensional, and good comradeship while discussing a fantasy realm. But things go sidereal in real time. The political content of this thread started long before I came here. I never realized Star Trek franchise was having problems. If I offended you or anyone else, I apologize. LokisMom is done talking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 6:14:43 GMT 1
Everyone has loved ones ThorsAunt...and the rest with the whole sanctimonious spiel, that may as well be noise. You just make me roll my eyes at times...you have no self-awareness that is one problem with you. Everyone is open to criticism. Everyone. There is no special protected class, amigo Okay, now it’s personal. Lady Death Lady is removing her Lord & Taylor gloves. There is good faith criticism and there is bad faith ridicule. My comedy…that is loved here, thank you for the compliment…is based in political incorrectness and irreverence for conformity, but my political posts are based in critical thinking. And I’ve put in work. I have a unique vantage point of being born when and where I was and tens years of rigor of formal study. Add in years of learning to write fiction and essays. The truth is I am the libertarian here because I’m not interested in removing anyone’s right to live their life as they damn well please….with the usual exceptions, you know. There is no template of well-being or self help book that will get people simply to treat others no differently than they expect to be treated themselves. And I don’t blanket condemn anyone even for their mistaken political beliefs. My father was the classic post WWII white male segregationist who mourned the Lost Cause. He used the n-word flagrantly. And he was also a good man whom I’ve witnessed help others no matter their color when he could. I grew up in a social/political climate not unlike Harper Lee did, but without the Depression Era stuff. Therefore, I know most people are not as beastly as their attitudes can be. My daddy was a product of his own upbringing and life experiences. He saw with his own eyes the aftermath of Adolf Hitler. He cook and fed people whom he described as walking skeletons. He must had PTSD out the whazoo. I didn’t understand that at time. And he was well read in William F Buckley, Russell Kirk, etc. He’d loved Jordan Peterson. But he was wrong about a lot. It’s like this, there are people who make fun of an old man, who is obviously not senile, but with a speech impediment, who is doing all he can in earnest to fix a huge existential crisis in my nation. I have few illusions Joe can do much though, because there’s too much FUBAR and time is running out. But I will defend my reasons for voting for him. But I pretty much know what’s coming and understand your anxiety as a young man with a lot years ahead of you. Plus, I’m an old person too, so please stop with the old people bigotry, thank you. Then there are others who still insist the 2020 election was stolen, despite the tons of evidence otherwise. Or that no coup t’dat was attempted, even though all known facts are confirming it did. A simple perusal using non-Alt media and some critiquing will reveal who the Grifter in Chief was before he got in the boat ran for president. And linking the young man to who killed and injured the people of Highland Park, IL, to the transsexual community with no information why he wore a dress to his murder spree as if he and they are of same mind, is ridiculous and insulting. It’s ridicule of a totally unrelated group of people to this heinous act, not criticism of why there is rampant violence, gun and spiritual, from all quarters in the United States of America. How are things working out in Australia? Biz, the irony I fed off of like Thor feds off the Bifrost is, I have had intelligent, insightful, empathetic, artful critical analysis, multidimensional, and good comradeship while discussing a fantasy realm. But things go sidereal in real time. The political content of this thread started long before I came here. I never realized Star Trek franchise was having problems. If I offended you or anyone else, I apologize. LokisMom is done talking. Thanks for your life story but it isnt relevant with all due respect. Please show me where there was old people bigotry, be specific? We were talking about politics in entertainment-stay on topic if you can manage that..and I can only speak for myself but I wasnt offended in the slightest. Again self-awareness is not a strong suit of yours.. People can disagree in politics thats the nature of it. There are many solutions but people dont agree thats the problem ie this is pretty much politics in a nutshell Now if you want to discuss more politics in entertainment go right ahead, if it's anything else I am simply not interested anymore Good day
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 8:09:57 GMT 1
Okay, now it’s personal. Lady Death Lady is removing her Lord & Taylor gloves. There is good faith criticism and there is bad faith ridicule. My comedy…that is loved here, thank you for the compliment…is based in political incorrectness and irreverence for conformity, but my political posts are based in critical thinking. And I’ve put in work. I have a unique vantage point of being born when and where I was and tens years of rigor of formal study. Add in years of learning to write fiction and essays. The truth is I am the libertarian here because I’m not interested in removing anyone’s right to live their life as they damn well please….with the usual exceptions, you know. There is no template of well-being or self help book that will get people simply to treat others no differently than they expect to be treated themselves. And I don’t blanket condemn anyone even for their mistaken political beliefs. My father was the classic post WWII white male segregationist who mourned the Lost Cause. He used the n-word flagrantly. And he was also a good man whom I’ve witnessed help others no matter their color when he could. I grew up in a social/political climate not unlike Harper Lee did, but without the Depression Era stuff. Therefore, I know most people are not as beastly as their attitudes can be. My daddy was a product of his own upbringing and life experiences. He saw with his own eyes the aftermath of Adolf Hitler. He cook and fed people whom he described as walking skeletons. He must had PTSD out the whazoo. I didn’t understand that at time. And he was well read in William F Buckley, Russell Kirk, etc. He’d loved Jordan Peterson. But he was wrong about a lot. It’s like this, there are people who make fun of an old man, who is obviously not senile, but with a speech impediment, who is doing all he can in earnest to fix a huge existential crisis in my nation. I have few illusions Joe can do much though, because there’s too much FUBAR and time is running out. But I will defend my reasons for voting for him. But I pretty much know what’s coming and understand your anxiety as a young man with a lot years ahead of you. Plus, I’m an old person too, so please stop with the old people bigotry, thank you. Then there are others who still insist the 2020 election was stolen, despite the tons of evidence otherwise. Or that no coup t’dat was attempted, even though all known facts are confirming it did. A simple perusal using non-Alt media and some critiquing will reveal who the Grifter in Chief was before he got in the boat ran for president. And linking the young man to who killed and injured the people of Highland Park, IL, to the transsexual community with no information why he wore a dress to his murder spree as if he and they are of same mind, is ridiculous and insulting. It’s ridicule of a totally unrelated group of people to this heinous act, not criticism of why there is rampant violence, gun and spiritual, from all quarters in the United States of America. How are things working out in Australia? Biz, the irony I fed off of like Thor feds off the Bifrost is, I have had intelligent, insightful, empathetic, artful critical analysis, multidimensional, and good comradeship while discussing a fantasy realm. But things go sidereal in real time. The political content of this thread started long before I came here. I never realized Star Trek franchise was having problems. If I offended you or anyone else, I apologize. LokisMom is done talking. Thanks for your life story but it isnt relevant with all due respect. Please show me where there was old people bigotry, be specific? We were talking about politics in entertainment-stay on topic if you can manage that..and I can only speak for myself but I wasnt offended in the slightest. Again self-awareness is not a strong suit of yours.. People can disagree in politics thats the nature of it. There are many solutions but people dont agree thats the problem ie this is pretty much politics in a nutshell Now if you want to discuss more politics in entertainment go right ahead, if it's anything else I am simply not interested anymore Good day The argument is about legitimate positive criticism vs deflationary comments meant to ridicule. Some political statements above were made by others already, so my added commentary is fairplay. Lev maligned Biden as senile not with any actual medical knowledge that he is. That photo of him holding crib notes does not prove he used them, nor even if he did, that he’s senile. It is cruel and unfair ridicule, not a legitimate critique. And I take it as a personal insult to my intelligence because I think it is being used to deflate my confidence in my well reasoned, if too liberal for some here’s taste, political decision. I know I made the right choice with sound facilities. The alternative choice has spent six years now never speaking one positive word about anything without he slams someone somewhere. And he’s been proven a liar over and over. This is not my assumption. The man speaks freely. And I share because I am opening up myself so others may get idea of why I have come to my conclusions. I’m attempting to be living 3-dimensional person who has hopes and dreams just like men on the right do. But if it’s mudslinging folks want to do, I will do that too. People can disagree in politics thats the nature of it.A problem arises when the subject is things like liberals are degenerate pedophiles because they approve of a drag show somewhere with kids in attendance. That’s not something we can both agree to disagree on. There is no common ground with that kind of assertion. Those are fighting words. Over on V1, I got pixelated dick pic of Hunter Biden slammed in my face. Now how am I supposed to argue with that? It’s ludicrous to think that is fit way to have a conversation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 8:40:13 GMT 1
Thanks for your life story but it isnt relevant with all due respect. Please show me where there was old people bigotry, be specific? We were talking about politics in entertainment-stay on topic if you can manage that..and I can only speak for myself but I wasnt offended in the slightest. Again self-awareness is not a strong suit of yours.. People can disagree in politics thats the nature of it. There are many solutions but people dont agree thats the problem ie this is pretty much politics in a nutshell Now if you want to discuss more politics in entertainment go right ahead, if it's anything else I am simply not interested anymore Good day The argument is about legitimate positive criticism vs deflationary comments meant to ridicule. Some political statements above were made by others already, so my added commentary is fairplay. Lev maligned Biden as senile not with any actual medical knowledge that he is. That photo of him holding crib notes does not prove he used them, nor even if he did, that he’s senile. It is cruel and unfair ridicule, not a legitimate critique. And I take it as a personal insult to my intelligence because I think it is being used to deflate my confidence in my well reasoned, if too liberal for some here’s taste, political decision. I know I made the right choice with sound facilities. The alternative choice has spent six years now never speaking one positive word about anything without he slams someone somewhere. And he’s been proven a liar over and over. This is not my assumption. The man speaks freely. And I share because I am opening up myself so others may get idea of why I have come to my conclusions. I’m attempting to be living 3-dimensional person who has hopes and dreams just like men on the right do. But if it’s mudslinging folks want to do, I will do that too. People can disagree in politics thats the nature of it.A problem arises when the subject is things like liberals are degenerate pedophiles because they approve of a drag show somewhere with kids in attendance. That’s not something we can both agree to disagree on. There is no common ground with that kind of assertion. Those are fighting words. Over on V1, I got pixelated dick pic of Hunter Biden slammed in my face. Now how am I supposed to argue with that? It’s ludicrous to think that is fit way to have a conversation. First of all you are dragging things from other boards now-this isnt the place for that. You know why i did that, I specifically attacked his fitness for the presidency. So have many, many others. Just because he is old, he is not immune form criticism. Every president should be criticized and that is an important matter. Stop trying to paint me a certain way. Be honest... I didnt realise you were so delicate, if you dont want to play soccer dont enter the field with your soccer boots. There will be contact with the ball. This is politics-aint a light subject Yes and do you know why it evolved in that particular way with the topic we are speaking about; you suddenly shifted gears..and what you said again, wasnt relevant. Did you think you were speaking with bots? We are all humans, you arent special.. Now stop playing the victim card...
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 10:02:42 GMT 1
The argument is about legitimate positive criticism vs deflationary comments meant to ridicule. Some political statements above were made by others already, so my added commentary is fairplay. Lev maligned Biden as senile not with any actual medical knowledge that he is. That photo of him holding crib notes does not prove he used them, nor even if he did, that he’s senile. It is cruel and unfair ridicule, not a legitimate critique. And I take it as a personal insult to my intelligence because I think it is being used to deflate my confidence in my well reasoned, if too liberal for some here’s taste, political decision. I know I made the right choice with sound facilities. The alternative choice has spent six years now never speaking one positive word about anything without he slams someone somewhere. And he’s been proven a liar over and over. This is not my assumption. The man speaks freely. And I share because I am opening up myself so others may get idea of why I have come to my conclusions. I’m attempting to be living 3-dimensional person who has hopes and dreams just like men on the right do. But if it’s mudslinging folks want to do, I will do that too. People can disagree in politics thats the nature of it.A problem arises when the subject is things like liberals are degenerate pedophiles because they approve of a drag show somewhere with kids in attendance. That’s not something we can both agree to disagree on. There is no common ground with that kind of assertion. Those are fighting words. Over on V1, I got pixelated dick pic of Hunter Biden slammed in my face. Now how am I supposed to argue with that? It’s ludicrous to think that is fit way to have a conversation. First of all you are dragging things from other boards now-this isnt the place for that. You know why i did that, I specifically attacked his fitness for the presidency. So have many, many others. Just because he is old, he is not immune form criticism. Every president should be criticized and that is an important matter. Stop trying to paint me a certain way. Be honest... I didnt realise you were so delicate, if you dont want to play soccer dont enter the field with your soccer boots. There will be contact with the ball. This is politics-aint a light subject Yes and do you know why it evolved in that particular way with the topic we are speaking about; you suddenly shifted gears..and what you said again, wasnt relevant. Did you think you were speaking with bots? We are all humans, you arent special.. Now stop playing the victim card... Actually you dragged it in. Yeah why not? Lately sure but you know otherwise on Monkeys. Look at all my thread history.
As for victim card, you and others seem constantly victimized by any content in these stories you think is a slam against your identity or ideology. However casting a black actor to play Captain America hardly makes you a victim. If you have a problem with Marvel or Star Trek, you don’t have to watch them. I cannot pretend a lie is the truth to spare your feelings. And isn’t that one of mantras from the Right: Fuck your feelings?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 10:20:22 GMT 1
First of all you are dragging things from other boards now-this isnt the place for that. You know why i did that, I specifically attacked his fitness for the presidency. So have many, many others. Just because he is old, he is not immune form criticism. Every president should be criticized and that is an important matter. Stop trying to paint me a certain way. Be honest... I didnt realise you were so delicate, if you dont want to play soccer dont enter the field with your soccer boots. There will be contact with the ball. This is politics-aint a light subject Yes and do you know why it evolved in that particular way with the topic we are speaking about; you suddenly shifted gears..and what you said again, wasnt relevant. Did you think you were speaking with bots? We are all humans, you arent special.. Now stop playing the victim card... Actually you dragged it in. Yeah why not? Lately sure but you know otherwise on Monkeys. Look at all my thread history.
As for victim card, you and others seem constantly victimized by any content in these stories you think is a slam against your identity or ideology. However casting a black actor to play Captain America hardly makes you a victim. If you have a problem with Marvel or Star Trek, you don’t have to watch them. I cannot pretend a lie is the truth to spare your feelings. And isn’t that one of mantras from the Right: Fuck your feelings? Obviously we know each other on Monkeys and I was defending myself. You were like beforehand, Do you have a gender issue? You talk about it a lot.
Please elaborate on that, Ill wait... No we just dont like politics in our entertainment-wherever it may lie on the spectrum. Not a difficult concept to grasp. Please do keep up... As for your last statement..getting a bit testy arent we? Now I like to go to Michelle Obama for inspiration, she is an incredible African American woman after all-"When they go low. We go high."
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 10:40:15 GMT 1
The difference is that television writers of the past were more skilled at their jobs and had greater respect and appreciation for the material they were writing. It's a common misconception that Star Trek TOS, TNG, DS9, and even VOG were devoid of political commentary. TOS featured stories highlighting Cold War tensions, the growing futility of the conflict in Vietnam, and the struggle for social justice via the civil rights movement. DS9 had an ongoing examination of antisemitism and the holocaust in its depiction of the occupation of Bajor by the Nazi-like Cardassia. There are myriad additional examples from Star Trek shows of the 90s and early 2000s. Star Trek Enterprise tackled 9/11 with its Xindi story arc. Today's Star Trek writers and producers seem to lack subtlety, empathy, and the practical wisdom needed to see an issue from both sides. As far as I've been able to observe, they also lack a genuine love and appreciation for the genre. Many of the writers of legacy Star Trek were plucked from the ranks of fandom. Today's writers, by necessity, are careerist journeymen who go from gig to gig chasing incremental pay raises and Emmy-winning/nominated showrunners. There is no particular love for a franchise or a genre tied to what they do anymore. Their worth as writers amongst their peers is connected directly to the prestige they've earned. It is far better to write something that is "important" than it is to write something good. In all fairness, it's not just a failing of craft. The nature of political discourse today also drives the approach to modern Star Trek. Political debate has become more tribalistic and vitriolic. In today's landscape, if someone disagrees with your viewpoint politically, they are not only wrong but also wicked and inhuman. In the past, politically/socially themed episodes of Star Trek were presented in a way that allowed users to reflect on the issue(s) and determine how they felt about them without much prodding or guidance. The stories demonstrated their viewpoint without needing the additional hard elbow to the viewer's side, saying, "See? Racism bad, okay?" Today's approach is far more instructive to the point of trying to dictate what you should feel and borderline shaming you if you hold a different viewpoint. The writing is heavy-handed and filled with virtue-signaling that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how best to use science fiction as a delivery system for commentary on some of the biggest obstacles to humankind reaching its full potential. There is no reason for people of the 31st century to be struggling with a young person's pronouns. The whole idea of Star Trek is that we put those biases aside long ago and learned to work and live alongside each other despite our differences.We can not know that for sure unless we build a time machine and go to the 31st century, therefore there’s no reason to think they might not still be strugglingly. However if we could build a machine to go there, I seriously there will any struggling between human beings going on. We are all ready cancel each other out right. And that’s not science fiction. Again this “trying to dictate” how we should feel is only from your POV. See none of this “virtual signaling.” Can you give an example? I’ve seen all the Marvel content and I have Disney+. List an series, episode, and start time for the scene and why you think this is virtue. I need to see what your seeing before I can critique it. Like it is, I feel anything a person nowadays might do could be seen as virtual signaling. Do I impress people as being politically correct? Apparently according to some, I am. Virtues are vices And vices are verses, with no deadly sin left untuned.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 15:40:59 GMT 1
Actually you dragged it in. Yeah why not? Lately sure but you know otherwise on Monkeys. Look at all my thread history.
As for victim card, you and others seem constantly victimized by any content in these stories you think is a slam against your identity or ideology. However casting a black actor to play Captain America hardly makes you a victim. If you have a problem with Marvel or Star Trek, you don’t have to watch them. I cannot pretend a lie is the truth to spare your feelings. And isn’t that one of mantras from the Right: Fuck your feelings? Obviously we know each other on Monkeys and I was defending myself. You were like beforehand, Do you have a gender issue? You talk about it a lot.
Please elaborate on that, Ill wait... No we just dont like politics in our entertainment-wherever it may lie on the spectrum. Not a difficult concept to grasp. Please do keep up... As for your last statement..getting a bit testy arent we? Now I like to go to Michelle Obama for inspiration, she is an incredible African American woman after all-"When they go low. We go high." It is a legitimate question and you and most the Right Wingers do post a lot about it. You guys are very upset…along with everything else you’re upset about. Not to mention all the nonexistent things you’re upset about, like liberal groomers and a non-stolen election. From my point of view, there’s no reason for me to be concerned about something that’s ultimately none of my business and do not have control over. So far the only transsexuals I know are in the regular media. If I met one in RIL, I didn’t notice. I don’t do social media like Twitter, so I don’t come in contact with influencers, but from my understanding, these are like hornets that attack a picnic. As for your last statement..getting a bit testy arent we? Now I like to go to Michelle Obama for inspiration, she is an incredible African American woman after all-"When they go low. We go high."Look at that sentence. Mercy. Thx for reminding me what Obama’s race is…when we go high, blah, blah, blah, blah. I’ve never entertained the notion of going high while you dorks keep taking cheap shots and blaming Libs for your lack of factual knowledge. You babes make unfounded claims with no hard evidence, then expect others to prove you wrong. It’s frustrating. You did read the above statement: I’m not politically correct. And another thing, I’m not very good at suffering fools gladly.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 12, 2022 15:49:45 GMT 1
The difference is that television writers of the past were more skilled at their jobs and had greater respect and appreciation for the material they were writing. It's a common misconception that Star Trek TOS, TNG, DS9, and even VOG were devoid of political commentary. TOS featured stories highlighting Cold War tensions, the growing futility of the conflict in Vietnam, and the struggle for social justice via the civil rights movement. DS9 had an ongoing examination of antisemitism and the holocaust in its depiction of the occupation of Bajor by the Nazi-like Cardassia. There are myriad additional examples from Star Trek shows of the 90s and early 2000s. Star Trek Enterprise tackled 9/11 with its Xindi story arc. Today's Star Trek writers and producers seem to lack subtlety, empathy, and the practical wisdom needed to see an issue from both sides. As far as I've been able to observe, they also lack a genuine love and appreciation for the genre. Many of the writers of legacy Star Trek were plucked from the ranks of fandom. Today's writers, by necessity, are careerist journeymen who go from gig to gig chasing incremental pay raises and Emmy-winning/nominated showrunners. There is no particular love for a franchise or a genre tied to what they do anymore. Their worth as writers amongst their peers is connected directly to the prestige they've earned. It is far better to write something that is "important" than it is to write something good. In all fairness, it's not just a failing of craft. The nature of political discourse today also drives the approach to modern Star Trek. Political debate has become more tribalistic and vitriolic. In today's landscape, if someone disagrees with your viewpoint politically, they are not only wrong but also wicked and inhuman. In the past, politically/socially themed episodes of Star Trek were presented in a way that allowed users to reflect on the issue(s) and determine how they felt about them without much prodding or guidance. The stories demonstrated their viewpoint without needing the additional hard elbow to the viewer's side, saying, "See? Racism bad, okay?" Today's approach is far more instructive to the point of trying to dictate what you should feel and borderline shaming you if you hold a different viewpoint. The writing is heavy-handed and filled with virtue-signaling that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how best to use science fiction as a delivery system for commentary on some of the biggest obstacles to humankind reaching its full potential. There is no reason for people of the 31st century to be struggling with a young person's pronouns. The whole idea of Star Trek is that we put those biases aside long ago and learned to work and live alongside each other despite our differences.We can not know that for sure unless we build a time machine and go to the 31st century, therefore there’s no reason to think they might not still be strugglingly. However if we could build a machine to go there, I seriously there will any struggling between human beings going on. We are all ready cancel each other out right. And that’s not science fiction. Again this “trying to dictate” how we should feel is only from your POV. See none of this “virtual signaling.” Can you give an example? I’ve seen all the Marvel content and I have Disney+. List an series, episode, and start time for the scene and why you think this is virtue. I need to see what your seeing before I can critique it. Like it is, I feel anything a person nowadays might do could be seen as virtual signaling. Do I impress people as being politically correct? Apparently according to some, I am. Virtues are vices And vices are verses, with no deadly sin left untuned. Okay… it's clear that you feel modern Star Trek, or maybe all Star Trek, is flawless in its handling of progressive issues. Some of us do have concerns about it, though. Take a scene like this where a Jr. officer on Discovery chooses, what I feel, is an inappropriate moment for their coming-out party. The tone they take with their CO is weirdly one of admonishment - they appear to take a defensive posture as if expecting a rebuke or ill-treatment. Their CO, Lt. Stamets, is gay. He likely neither needed to make a public announcement about his sexuality in engineering nor - I assume - would he have done it while trying to deal with a ship's crisis. Had Adira's tone not been filled with the anachronistic anxiety and apprehension associated with that same scene unfolding in the 21st century, it might have come off as less instructive and demonstrative. The writers seem to be more interested in portraying themself as sensitive and aware than accurately representing the world of Star Trek. The Federation has encountered more than one non-binary species. They've also dealt with species where gender is literally a mutable construct. A non-binary Wesley Crusher stand-in should barely raise an eyebrow. Putting aside their poor timing for a moment, why would Ensign Tal signal apprehension when announcing their status? Were they persecuted by anyone on Earth in the 22nd or 32nd century? That would seem odd. Did any crew member give them a reason to think they might be shunned for being non-binary? In the past, a situation like this might have been handled by using a proxy figure to represent the affected group — for example, an alien who is black on one side and white on the other. Or a species that is joined and therefore could swap sexes from iteration to iteration. I understand that those literal examples I'm making might be hammy by today's sci-fi standards, but the technique is still valid. Addressing the issue so literally lacks creativity and subtlety and just comes off as agenda-driven. Of course these are just my opinions… In any event, in all deference to you and your views, I'm closing this line of discussion before it becomes too heated or openly hostile. Sincere thanks for your time and input.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 12, 2022 17:16:35 GMT 1
Thank you lord death man for taking the time to give these examples and your input.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 17:45:04 GMT 1
We can not know that for sure unless we build a time machine and go to the 31st century, therefore there’s no reason to think they might not still be strugglingly. However if we could build a machine to go there, I seriously there will any struggling between human beings going on. We are all ready cancel each other out right. And that’s not science fiction. Again this “trying to dictate” how we should feel is only from your POV. See none of this “virtual signaling.” Can you give an example? I’ve seen all the Marvel content and I have Disney+. List an series, episode, and start time for the scene and why you think this is virtue. I need to see what your seeing before I can critique it. Like it is, I feel anything a person nowadays might do could be seen as virtual signaling. Do I impress people as being politically correct? Apparently according to some, I am. Virtues are vices And vices are verses, with no deadly sin left untuned. Okay… it's clear that you feel modern Star Trek, or maybe all Star Trek, is flawless in its handling of progressive issues. Some of us do have problems with it. Take a scene like this where a Jr. officer on Discovery chooses what I feel is an inappropriate moment for their coming-out party. The tone they take with their CO is weirdly one of admonishment - they appear to take a defensive posture as if expecting a rebuke or ill-treatment. Their CO, Lt Stamets, is gay. He likely neither needed to make a public announcement about his sexuality in engineering nor - I assume - would he have done it while trying to deal with a ship's crisis. Had Adira's tone not been filled with the anachronistic anxiety and apprehension associated with that same scene unfolding in the 21st century, it might have come off as less instructive and demonstrative. The writers seem to be more interested in portraying themself as sensitive and aware than accurately representing the world of Star Trek. The Federation has encountered more than one non-binary species. They've also dealt with species where gender is literally a mutable construct. A non-binary Wesley Crusher stand-in should barely raise an eyebrow. Putting aside their poor timing for a moment, why would Ensign Tal take a defensive posture when announcing their status? Were they persecuted by anyone on Earth in the 22nd or 32nd century? That would seem odd. Did any crew member give them a reason to think they might be shunned for being non-binary? In the past, a situation like this might have been handled by using a proxy figure to represent the affected group — for example, an alien who is black on one side and white on the other. Or a species that is joined and therefore could swap sexes from iteration to iteration. I understand that those literal examples I'm making might be hammy by today's sci-fi standards, but the technique is still valid. Addressing the issue so literally lacks creativity and subtlety and just comes off as agenda-driven. Of course these are just my opinions. I'm closing this line of discussion before it becomes openly hostile. Thanks for your input. Free The Enterprise! Of course these are just my opinions. I'm closing this line of discussion before it becomes openly hostile. Thanks for your input.Oh, LDM, that’s not fair at all to close down leaving me silent like Michael Corleone shutting the door in Kay’s face. Oh, you male of species. Without us women to raise you…. Even so, I hope you read this and if you think I’ve openly hostile, it’s all on you. I’ve been hostile not once. But it does seem some can’t handle a female as hard nosed as me. I think I must be frightening. Moving forward. Okay… it's clear that you feel modern Star Trek, or maybe all Star Trek, is flawless in its handling of progressive issues.(And you’re familiar with my verbal style and I’m not shrill, but generally jovial. So, please read this with that voice. Let me stop you there, LDM. Before we continue, let’s review what I have said about Star Trek in this thread, not what you have told readers what I think about it. 1) Why does everything have to be a political agenda? 2) SNW captures the essence of Roddenberry’s original. This is coming from someone who saw the original Star Trek series when it first aired and have been a fan for over 50 years. I literally felt like a kid again watching the premiere episode. 3) to GM who is frustrated at it’s unavailable in NE: That’s sad you think Star Trek should go fuck itself. I’m not real sure why you’re blaming a really good sci-fi show that has a positive message that humans might survive a few more centuries on the foibles of a streaming services. Frankly, we need more “Star Trek” today and less unrepentant, nihilistic carnage seen in too, too many movies and TV shows. As I said, the show is worthwhile for any sci fi fans while, that’s the only advice I share. If it becomes available, I think you’ll enjoy it. That’s all. Sorry to have upset you about it. 4) In response to #1: that’s the question myself along with millions of other people keep askingPerhaps your mistaking “an agenda” with a genuine liberal philosophy in the narrative they are writing and producing. The only reason liberal is a bad word or thing to be is because you say it is. I don’t think that at all, nor do I think conservative is a bad thing. It’s having only one religion, one party, one way to live one’s life to the exclusion of other points of view that is unhealthy for any society, but particularly in the 21st century. 5) this isn’t about what’s liberal or conservative or how I feel about liberalism. I just want people’s personal politics out of the tv showsFor any good writer, this is impossible to do. Writing requires honesty. Gene Roddenberry never hid his “agenda.” He sneaked in his commentary because the very conservative TV networks…where a husband and wife couldn’t be filmed innocently in bed together…would not let him otherwise. Believe me, the Kirk-Uhura Kiss was very controversial at the time. And a lot markets never aired that episode. It wasn’t uncommon to censor TV that featured unacceptable mores like race mixing, birth control, or homosexuality in conservative regions. (Actually in the 1960s and 1970s it seemed as a nation, we could handle Black People slowly entering the All White World of Television Land. But there were plenty of folks who, just like now, going ape over it. They were not comfortable seeing a different race in their homes.) I’m not saying these shifts are good or bad, only they occur naturally. Organized religion has long been a means to control the chaos, but the agenda of religion evolved(s) via culture, which is motley in most cases. In other words, there was no one in the beginning who thought religion was just means of social or political control. And finally, the reason it’s not an agenda is because there is no one behind the scenes operating it. An agenda implies a meeting. Liberalism like conservatism is a discursive, roiling cultural shifting that happens all the time. It’s simple physics called Entropy, a fundamental property of the universe. So, if there’s been a prevalent “agenda” in American entertainment during its history, it has been overwhelming conservative. The “liberal agenda” is more recent and any film company has the right to their “agenda,” be it Marvel or Clint Eastwood. 6) What is “virtue signaling?” Give me a specific TV episode I can access; your rationale why it is virtue signaling per your definition; and I will deconstruct it. Because my theory is this “virtue signaling” is what we humans are engaged in most of the time. Because we all have messages to push and find ways to shoehorn it and we all don’t want to hear the other side. 7) is a long essay about the Original ST The Kiss episode. Skip. 8) is about Thor 4. Skip. 9) I haven’t said that politics have not been inserted into TV shows, and perhaps it is more so now, or seems that way due to the high proliferation of content. 40+ years ago, there was some cable, but it was mostly the Big Three doing the dramas and comedies. And as per Star Trek, politics were very much a part of some shows from the beginning. The Golden Age of TV had Playhouse 90 with writers like Paddy Chayefsky and other prestige drama. 12 Angry Men was originally a teleplay for Studio One. The TV viewing experience has changed dramatically since 40 years ago. People seem more invested in it than when JR was shot. I daresay percentage-wise, there are no political shows now, than in 1975 when Nixon was being exposed for what he was. SNL premiered that year. Even so, most TV and movies are not political. Plus, the demographics have changed and it’s not the old all white audience, middle class families who buy products from the TV sponsors who pay for shows anymore. 10) im not saying your position is that there are no politics but you see it as no different than in decades past and I see it as hugely different with political activists posing as writersThis is your opinion. And insulting to writers who work have many long years to learn and improve their craft. If you know for sure writers are posing as political activists, then show me some proof. Why deflate someone in such a way? Are there any conservative screenwriters posing as political activists? You know what I hate being "forced" on me in movies and TV: product placement. I pay to see a movie, not a Pepsi ad. 11) joke 12) joke 13) joke 14) Political debate has become more tribalistic and vitriolic. In today's landscape, if someone disagrees with your viewpoint politically, they are not only wrong but also wicked and inhuman.
Tell me about it. I get called a pedophile groomer about every other day. 15) sorry but I am not about to feel guilty about insulting writers who prioritize their own political agenda over good story. They need to be condemned and they are the ones that ruin television and movies for people that just want to be entertained without a dose of partisan politics shoved down their throat.You should feel bad if that is not what they are doing. If you said that of me, I would be very pissed off right now, because I know I'm not the awful person that posers are. You just assume it because it runs counter to your own political sensibilities...which is just find. But please don't make it out to be something it is not. Are we not tearing each other's humanity apart fast enough for you? Jesus. Believe me, I do not begrudge conservative filmmaking. Clint Eastwood is a fine director, but his movie about Sully Sullenberger was straight up right winger and made out the evil government NTSB was hounding him, trying to blame the crash on him, when that's not what happened. Like any in air crash investigation, every aspect has to be thoroughly investigated for public safety. Sully's status as a public hero does not come before air safety. He was cleared of any wrong-doing by them. And I've seen SNWs and it is not political. It's cultural. 16) When you made that jerky Abrams comment above, only one episode had aired. I saw that episode and there was no reference to 1/6 or Abrams. And 1/6 will get its very own mini-series very soon. And there will be no "alternative" ending. the “jerky” comment: I hear they are injecting January 6th as the start of world war 3 and other stuff with Stacey Abrams so f-ck them and this franchise and their political activism. There are no writers anymore. There are activists that have a modern day political message to get across. I wanted to get on board with the new Star Trek because I grew up loving Star Trek. But obviously their own personal political goals are what motivated them and I want no part of that.My point being is you seem to have made up your mind that posers (from where?) are writing liberal indoctrination TV shows without benefit of seeing if your prediction came true or not. 17) yes. Take out the Stacy Abrams part and the rest still standsSince only one episode aired, where any references to 1/6 specifically written to insult you for being pro-1/6? If you are. 18) This is not a political board, but you made this thread so with your comments about a Georgia politicians that Trump has demonized because she stood up to him. So, I think I know what you were going for. Jay. I came here to talk about how good SNWs is and an homage to the original, but somehow it became a bitch and moan about a script that, as far as I can tell, was never written. As far a 1/6 is concerned, Trump is guilty as hell and to the folks who keep believing his con and insisting his election was stolen with zero proof other than what Trump has told them, I don't respect their opinions on politics anyway. If you want to talk about the Star Trek episodes, I'm here. 19) I’m only speaking as one of the original Trekkies and they nailed it with the first episode. After 55 years, I got a few moments of what it felt like watching the first episode that aired on NBC. This was back when if you missed tonight’s episode, you were out of luck. For me at least, I felt like kid again. No one here can deflate that. I don’t want to over analyze or have to defend my emotions. Live long and prosper. 20) joke 21) I get it. My opinion on the quality of the franchise is not what I wanted to share. Sometimes it’s fun to not judge things, but enjoy in the moment. What the original episode gave to a lot of teens of my generation was hope for a better future, rather than repeating the same hatreds over and over. We need a lot of that now and god bless the makers of that first episode. Like Kirk at the end of the Wrath of Khan, I felt young again. 22) remaining posts are irrelevant to the topic. Repeat: Okay… it's clear that you feel modern Star Trek, or maybe all Star Trek, is flawless in its handling of progressive issues.My point is after all that labor is, you set me up with a logical fallacy. But I’ll clear this up, I never made any of those assertions. Some of us do have problems with it.
Take a scene like this where a Jr. officer on Discovery chooses what I feel is an inappropriate moment for their coming-out party. The tone they take with their CO is weirdly one of admonishment - they appear to take a defensive posture as if expecting a rebuke or ill-treatment.I watched the clip, though I’ve not seen this series, so I can only analyze it out of context. First off, while I’m not opposed to a person wanting a gender pronoun application they feel comfortable with, I hate the use of they as a singular. It’s sounds grammatically ignorant. “They is down the street.” “Thanks, Cletus.” As for the scene, considering Star Trek from the beginning, the conceit is the crew acts as a family unit. Personal issue discussions are a part of the narrative dialogue. This scene might seem anachronistic since all STs are set in a classless society and gender issue would settled, you think, but the stories use current issues as conflict devices. This has been the main framework for the original series. Almost every episode tackled issues troubling America at the time. Back to the beginning of my “essay,” this is the original ethos of the original, so not continuing this literary tradition would be a slight to the Founding Father, Gene Roddenberry. Accusations of virtue signaling chokes the possibility the accused can refute the claim. Or for a writer to deliver a good script. For one thing, there’s no reason given why it should not be done other than it is unpleasant for the listener to hear. (Another classic TV show that VS’d like crazy was The Twilight Zone.) I certainly support equal rights and protection under the law, so I don’t view this character or their comments negatively. Is this virtue signaling? After reading the article above that explains it, I see no objective reality to the notion. VS is the subjective opinion of listener and no writer should have to apologize for their narratives. I not saying these shows are not political, cultural, or even preachy, because they are, but it’s not a poise nor an agenda where X amount of Lib virtue signaling is demanded by the sinister TV Control. Since you don’t know the motives of the writers, why assume the worst? I’ve a spent over a decade with a writers group and know a lot of successful regional sci fi and fantasy writers who sell at comic cons and such. Being keen observers and generally empathic are natural traits of good writers, they would not be good or writers if they were not. Certainly accusing VS is a means of termination of any debate because it mildly demonizes the opposition. So, I bristle at false, negative assumptions. This also diminishes the long years of crafting their skills and success to write them off as hacks because one scene makes someone uncomfortable. And accusation of VS as point out, is also virtue signaling. So, mote in gods eye. The writers seem to be more interested in portraying themself as sensitive and aware than accurately representing the world of Star Trek.I will strongly disagree with this like I said above. Your dissing my peeps. It’s close to killing the messenger. If a writer has be so very careful that she or he can’t offend anyone, how is the creative going happen. And lastly, my standby comment: The product belongs to Paramount, they can do with scripts what they damn please. This is capitalist nation. When did we lose respect for free (the) enterprise?
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 17:56:12 GMT 1
Thank you lord death man for taking the time to give these examples and your input. I hope you read my response and consider my thoughts before condemning me.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 12, 2022 18:13:19 GMT 1
Thank you lord death man for taking the time to give these examples and your input. I hope you read my response and consider my thoughts before condemning me. the only thing I condemn is your continued mischaracterization of my comments to the point of basically calling me a homophobe at one point, the suggestion that I am pro 1/6, that I made a “jerky comment” insulting somebody for merely mentioning one’s name, and the suggestion that I ruined this thread for you by making it too political after you’ve made countless posts delving deeply into you personal political beliefs. Other than that, no problems here. Have a nice day
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 19:04:24 GMT 1
I hope you read my response and consider my thoughts before condemning me. the only thing I condemn is your continued mischaracterization of my comments to the point of basically calling me a homophobe at one point, the suggestion that I am pro 1/6, that I made a “jerky comment” insulting somebody for merely mentioning one’s name, and the suggestion that I ruined this thread for you by making it too political after you’ve made countless posts delving deeply into you personal political beliefs. Other than that, no problems here. Have a nice day That is a debate, not a condemnation. I get insulted constantly in lieu of any consideration I might have a valid point. Jayman you wrote a paragraph that was insulting to Star Trek to suggest they would stoop so low as to trivialize a massive tragedy that has damaged America probably beyond repair, and may bring it down because the two totally different and opposing realities that brought about 1/6. Either Trump lost or he won. Right now both exist in virtual superposition like a Schroedinger’s Cat waiting on history to catch up. As for me calling you a homophobe or a supporter of 1/6, please go back and reread what I wrote. I enumerated my verbatim responses to your comments, so indicate by number where I said this. I don’t like this being left open so others will think I called you things when we are standing on the proof I did not. Another than the jerky comment, I did not once mischaracterize your comments; call you a homophobic or even implied it; nor suggest that you are pro 1/6. I was alluding to our national inability to decide what objective reality is. We are debating, which cannot be by definition one sided. I have conceded these show insert political content, but my position is accusations of virtue signaling implies a sinister intent and even conspiracy. I don’t think that’s happening and frankly to label shows is spoiler culture. After going through the gauntlet with you boys, I’m with Grandmaster, fuck Star Trek. My joy I wanted to share got side track. And it is all my own fault. I should’ve known, debating even fantasy TV has become impossible. LDM’s example as I see it is not meant to inculcate anyone into a liberal worldview. It’s simply liberals writing a script.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 12, 2022 20:42:16 GMT 1
If you constantly get insulted, that has nothing to do with me as I did not insult you personally. I have read your comments and do not need to reread them and I see no point in going over this line by line. I expressed an opinion on how I didn't like how politics are presented in television. Lorddeathman expressed my sentiments in a more artful and articulate way than I did and that is why he is the awesome wordsmith that he is. I have no problem with debate and this is not about me being offended. But It's like you're having a completely different conversation and going into all these areas that I never even touched upon and coming to conclusions about me based on things I didn't even say. It was not in any way my intention to strike up a political debate. but you seem to be a very political person that wants to veer off in that direction and I am not interested in that. I have other forums for that that have a political section. True enough, I was the one that originally brought up politics here but in the context that I want less partisan politics and think there is too much of that. That said, there's not much more for me to say here without rehashing the same stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 12, 2022 22:02:14 GMT 1
Okay… it's clear that you feel modern Star Trek, or maybe all Star Trek, is flawless in its handling of progressive issues. Some of us do have problems with it. Take a scene like this where a Jr. officer on Discovery chooses what I feel is an inappropriate moment for their coming-out party. The tone they take with their CO is weirdly one of admonishment - they appear to take a defensive posture as if expecting a rebuke or ill-treatment. Their CO, Lt Stamets, is gay. He likely neither needed to make a public announcement about his sexuality in engineering nor - I assume - would he have done it while trying to deal with a ship's crisis. Had Adira's tone not been filled with the anachronistic anxiety and apprehension associated with that same scene unfolding in the 21st century, it might have come off as less instructive and demonstrative. The writers seem to be more interested in portraying themself as sensitive and aware than accurately representing the world of Star Trek. The Federation has encountered more than one non-binary species. They've also dealt with species where gender is literally a mutable construct. A non-binary Wesley Crusher stand-in should barely raise an eyebrow. Putting aside their poor timing for a moment, why would Ensign Tal take a defensive posture when announcing their status? Were they persecuted by anyone on Earth in the 22nd or 32nd century? That would seem odd. Did any crew member give them a reason to think they might be shunned for being non-binary? In the past, a situation like this might have been handled by using a proxy figure to represent the affected group — for example, an alien who is black on one side and white on the other. Or a species that is joined and therefore could swap sexes from iteration to iteration. I understand that those literal examples I'm making might be hammy by today's sci-fi standards, but the technique is still valid. Addressing the issue so literally lacks creativity and subtlety and just comes off as agenda-driven. Of course these are just my opinions. I'm closing this line of discussion before it becomes openly hostile. Thanks for your input. Free The Enterprise! Of course these are just my opinions. I'm closing this line of discussion before it becomes openly hostile. Thanks for your input.Oh, LDM, that’s not fair at all to close down leaving me silent like Michael Corleone shutting the door in Kay’s face. Oh, you male of species. Without us women to raise you…. Even so, I hope you read this and if you think I’ve openly hostile, it’s all on you. I’ve been hostile not once. But it does seem some can’t handle a female as hard nosed as me. I think I must be frightening. Moving forward. Okay… it's clear that you feel modern Star Trek, or maybe all Star Trek, is flawless in its handling of progressive issues.(And you’re familiar with my verbal style and I’m not shrill, but generally jovial. So, please read this with that voice. Let me stop you there, LDM. Before we continue, let’s review what I have said about Star Trek in this thread, not what you have told readers what I think about it. 1) Why does everything have to be a political agenda? 2) SNW captures the essence of Roddenberry’s original. This is coming from someone who saw the original Star Trek series when it first aired and have been a fan for over 50 years. I literally felt like a kid again watching the premiere episode. 3) to GM who is frustrated at it’s unavailable in NE: That’s sad you think Star Trek should go fuck itself. I’m not real sure why you’re blaming a really good sci-fi show that has a positive message that humans might survive a few more centuries on the foibles of a streaming services. Frankly, we need more “Star Trek” today and less unrepentant, nihilistic carnage seen in too, too many movies and TV shows. As I said, the show is worthwhile for any sci fi fans while, that’s the only advice I share. If it becomes available, I think you’ll enjoy it. That’s all. Sorry to have upset you about it. 4) In response to #1: that’s the question myself along with millions of other people keep askingPerhaps your mistaking “an agenda” with a genuine liberal philosophy in the narrative they are writing and producing. The only reason liberal is a bad word or thing to be is because you say it is. I don’t think that at all, nor do I think conservative is a bad thing. It’s having only one religion, one party, one way to live one’s life to the exclusion of other points of view that is unhealthy for any society, but particularly in the 21st century. 5) this isn’t about what’s liberal or conservative or how I feel about liberalism. I just want people’s personal politics out of the tv showsFor any good writer, this is impossible to do. Writing requires honesty. Gene Roddenberry never hid his “agenda.” He sneaked in his commentary because the very conservative TV networks…where a husband and wife couldn’t be filmed innocently in bed together…would not let him otherwise. Believe me, the Kirk-Uhura Kiss was very controversial at the time. And a lot markets never aired that episode. It wasn’t uncommon to censor TV that featured unacceptable mores like race mixing, birth control, or homosexuality in conservative regions. (Actually in the 1960s and 1970s it seemed as a nation, we could handle Black People slowly entering the All White World of Television Land. But there were plenty of folks who, just like now, going ape over it. They were not comfortable seeing a different race in their homes.) I’m not saying these shifts are good or bad, only they occur naturally. Organized religion has long been a means to control the chaos, but the agenda of religion evolved(s) via culture, which is motley in most cases. In other words, there was no one in the beginning who thought religion was just means of social or political control. And finally, the reason it’s not an agenda is because there is no one behind the scenes operating it. An agenda implies a meeting. Liberalism like conservatism is a discursive, roiling cultural shifting that happens all the time. It’s simple physics called Entropy, a fundamental property of the universe. So, if there’s been a prevalent “agenda” in American entertainment during its history, it has been overwhelming conservative. The “liberal agenda” is more recent and any film company has the right to their “agenda,” be it Marvel or Clint Eastwood. 6) What is “virtue signaling?” Give me a specific TV episode I can access; your rationale why it is virtue signaling per your definition; and I will deconstruct it. Because my theory is this “virtue signaling” is what we humans are engaged in most of the time. Because we all have messages to push and find ways to shoehorn it and we all don’t want to hear the other side. 7) is a long essay about the Original ST The Kiss episode. Skip. 8) is about Thor 4. Skip. 9) I haven’t said that politics have not been inserted into TV shows, and perhaps it is more so now, or seems that way due to the high proliferation of content. 40+ years ago, there was some cable, but it was mostly the Big Three doing the dramas and comedies. And as per Star Trek, politics were very much a part of some shows from the beginning. The Golden Age of TV had Playhouse 90 with writers like Paddy Chayefsky and other prestige drama. 12 Angry Men was originally a teleplay for Studio One. The TV viewing experience has changed dramatically since 40 years ago. People seem more invested in it than when JR was shot. I daresay percentage-wise, there are no political shows now, than in 1975 when Nixon was being exposed for what he was. SNL premiered that year. Even so, most TV and movies are not political. Plus, the demographics have changed and it’s not the old all white audience, middle class families who buy products from the TV sponsors who pay for shows anymore. 10) im not saying your position is that there are no politics but you see it as no different than in decades past and I see it as hugely different with political activists posing as writersThis is your opinion. And insulting to writers who work have many long years to learn and improve their craft. If you know for sure writers are posing as political activists, then show me some proof. Why deflate someone in such a way? Are there any conservative screenwriters posing as political activists? You know what I hate being "forced" on me in movies and TV: product placement. I pay to see a movie, not a Pepsi ad. 11) joke 12) joke 13) joke 14) Political debate has become more tribalistic and vitriolic. In today's landscape, if someone disagrees with your viewpoint politically, they are not only wrong but also wicked and inhuman.
Tell me about it. I get called a pedophile groomer about every other day. 15) sorry but I am not about to feel guilty about insulting writers who prioritize their own political agenda over good story. They need to be condemned and they are the ones that ruin television and movies for people that just want to be entertained without a dose of partisan politics shoved down their throat.You should feel bad if that is not what they are doing. If you said that of me, I would be very pissed off right now, because I know I'm not the awful person that posers are. You just assume it because it runs counter to your own political sensibilities...which is just find. But please don't make it out to be something it is not. Are we not tearing each other's humanity apart fast enough for you? Jesus. Believe me, I do not begrudge conservative filmmaking. Clint Eastwood is a fine director, but his movie about Sully Sullenberger was straight up right winger and made out the evil government NTSB was hounding him, trying to blame the crash on him, when that's not what happened. Like any in air crash investigation, every aspect has to be thoroughly investigated for public safety. Sully's status as a public hero does not come before air safety. He was cleared of any wrong-doing by them. And I've seen SNWs and it is not political. It's cultural. 16) When you made that jerky Abrams comment above, only one episode had aired. I saw that episode and there was no reference to 1/6 or Abrams. And 1/6 will get its very own mini-series very soon. And there will be no "alternative" ending. the “jerky” comment: I hear they are injecting January 6th as the start of world war 3 and other stuff with Stacey Abrams so f-ck them and this franchise and their political activism. There are no writers anymore. There are activists that have a modern day political message to get across. I wanted to get on board with the new Star Trek because I grew up loving Star Trek. But obviously their own personal political goals are what motivated them and I want no part of that.My point being is you seem to have made up your mind that posers (from where?) are writing liberal indoctrination TV shows without benefit of seeing if your prediction came true or not. 17) yes. Take out the Stacy Abrams part and the rest still standsSince only one episode aired, where any references to 1/6 specifically written to insult you for being pro-1/6? If you are. 18) This is not a political board, but you made this thread so with your comments about a Georgia politicians that Trump has demonized because she stood up to him. So, I think I know what you were going for. Jay. I came here to talk about how good SNWs is and an homage to the original, but somehow it became a bitch and moan about a script that, as far as I can tell, was never written. As far a 1/6 is concerned, Trump is guilty as hell and to the folks who keep believing his con and insisting his election was stolen with zero proof other than what Trump has told them, I don't respect their opinions on politics anyway. If you want to talk about the Star Trek episodes, I'm here. 19) I’m only speaking as one of the original Trekkies and they nailed it with the first episode. After 55 years, I got a few moments of what it felt like watching the first episode that aired on NBC. This was back when if you missed tonight’s episode, you were out of luck. For me at least, I felt like kid again. No one here can deflate that. I don’t want to over analyze or have to defend my emotions. Live long and prosper. 20) joke 21) I get it. My opinion on the quality of the franchise is not what I wanted to share. Sometimes it’s fun to not judge things, but enjoy in the moment. What the original episode gave to a lot of teens of my generation was hope for a better future, rather than repeating the same hatreds over and over. We need a lot of that now and god bless the makers of that first episode. Like Kirk at the end of the Wrath of Khan, I felt young again. 22) remaining posts are irrelevant to the topic. Repeat: Okay… it's clear that you feel modern Star Trek, or maybe all Star Trek, is flawless in its handling of progressive issues.My point is after all that labor is, you set me up with a logical fallacy. But I’ll clear this up, I never made any of those assertions. Some of us do have problems with it.
Take a scene like this where a Jr. officer on Discovery chooses what I feel is an inappropriate moment for their coming-out party. The tone they take with their CO is weirdly one of admonishment - they appear to take a defensive posture as if expecting a rebuke or ill-treatment.I watched the clip, though I’ve not seen this series, so I can only analyze it out of context. First off, while I’m not opposed to a person wanting a gender pronoun application they feel comfortable with, I hate the use of they as a singular. It’s sounds grammatically ignorant. “They is down the street.” “Thanks, Cletus.” As for the scene, considering Star Trek from the beginning, the conceit is the crew acts as a family unit. Personal issue discussions are a part of the narrative dialogue. This scene might seem anachronistic since all STs are set in a classless society and gender issue would settled, you think, but the stories use current issues as conflict devices. This has been the main framework for the original series. Almost every episode tackled issues troubling America at the time. Back to the beginning of my “essay,” this is the original ethos of the original, so not continuing this literary tradition would be a slight to the Founding Father, Gene Roddenberry. Accusations of virtue signaling chokes the possibility the accused can refute the claim. Or for a writer to deliver a good script. For one thing, there’s no reason given why it should not be done other than it is unpleasant for the listener to hear. (Another classic TV show that VS’d like crazy was The Twilight Zone.) I certainly support equal rights and protection under the law, so I don’t view this character or their comments negatively. Is this virtue signaling? After reading the article above that explains it, I see no objective reality to the notion. VS is the subjective opinion of listener and no writer should have to apologize for their narratives. I not saying these shows are not political, cultural, or even preachy, because they are, but it’s not a poise nor an agenda where X amount of Lib virtue signaling is demanded by the sinister TV Control. Since you don’t know the motives of the writers, why assume the worst? I’ve a spent over a decade with a writers group and know a lot of successful regional sci fi and fantasy writers who sell at comic cons and such. Being keen observers and generally empathic are natural traits of good writers, they would not be good or writers if they were not. Certainly accusing VS is a means of termination of any debate because it mildly demonizes the opposition. So, I bristle at false, negative assumptions. This also diminishes the long years of crafting their skills and success to write them off as hacks because one scene makes someone uncomfortable. And accusation of VS as point out, is also virtue signaling. So, mote in gods eye. The writers seem to be more interested in portraying themself as sensitive and aware than accurately representing the world of Star Trek.I will strongly disagree with this like I said above. Your dissing my peeps. It’s close to killing the messenger. If a writer has be so very careful that she or he can’t offend anyone, how is the creative going happen. And lastly, my standby comment: The product belongs to Paramount, they can do with scripts what they damn please. This is capitalist nation. When did we lose respect for free (the) enterprise? Apologies for exiting the conversation abruptly; I didn't intend to offend anyone. The discussion was becoming too unwieldy to navigate. There are conversations within conversations, sidebars, and digressions, all happening in parallel. Some of us are discussing politics and history. Some are talking about Strange New Worlds or the Star Trek franchise in general. At the same time, other threads have descended into addressing real and/or perceived sleights. Add to this a mysterious interloper who prefers to remain anonymous while they pour gasoline unto the flames, and it all becomes a bit much. I think the central question remains. Should politics play a prominent role in fictionalized media? I wish I were as confident as Jayman in my answer. I do have this to offer, though. Every day, the average American is being ground into hamburger with the mean-spirited and vicious discourse that passes for political debate in our country. It's in the news cycle. It's in the workplace. It permeates American life's most banal activities; going to the gym, driving to the store, or walking your dog. It seems that the only way to get away from it is to be asleep or deceased. To quote a beautifully written piece of largely non-political entertainment… "Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church..."
For those of us who are political animals and thrive on these daily Hunger Games, this must be a paradise. The rest of us rely on escapist fantasies to temporarily free our minds from the horrors of modern living. Television, movies, and books used to provide that escape. Some of us would prefer to keep it that way. It is possible to make great art that highlights social issues of the day without making them an extension of corrosive political discourse.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 12, 2022 22:28:51 GMT 1
I believe you summed it up well Lord Death Man , I like television to as a form of escapism. Sure ofcourse there are going to be politics in Star Trek because there is war involved and all sort of things going on. but as you pointed out, there are different degrees of it and all a matter of the way it's presented. I am a big fan of TOS, TNG, and DS9 and at no point did liberal or conservative politics cross my mind, nor did I ever feel like I was hearing talking points coming from a political pundit. I'm sure somebody can point out examples of how this is or that is liberal, but I'm just saying how I felt when I watched Star Trek growing up and in recent year. I was watching Star Trek and the only thing on my mind was the story and the show. This goes back to what your were saying earlier about the way it was presented in the past and the subtleties of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 22:58:14 GMT 1
Obviously we know each other on Monkeys and I was defending myself. You were like beforehand, Do you have a gender issue? You talk about it a lot.
Please elaborate on that, Ill wait... No we just dont like politics in our entertainment-wherever it may lie on the spectrum. Not a difficult concept to grasp. Please do keep up... As for your last statement..getting a bit testy arent we? Now I like to go to Michelle Obama for inspiration, she is an incredible African American woman after all-"When they go low. We go high." It is a legitimate question and you and most the Right Wingers do post a lot about it. You guys are very upset…along with everything else you’re upset about. Not to mention all the nonexistent things you’re upset about, like liberal groomers and a non-stolen election. From my point of view, there’s no reason for me to be concerned about something that’s ultimately none of my business and do not have control over. So far the only transsexuals I know are in the regular media. If I met one in RIL, I didn’t notice. I don’t do social media like Twitter, so I don’t come in contact with influencers, but from my understanding, these are like hornets that attack a picnic. As for your last statement..getting a bit testy arent we? Now I like to go to Michelle Obama for inspiration, she is an incredible African American woman after all-"When they go low. We go high."Look at that sentence. Mercy. Thx for reminding me what Obama’s race is…when we go high, blah, blah, blah, blah. I’ve never entertained the notion of going high while you dorks keep taking cheap shots and blaming Libs for your lack of factual knowledge. You babes make unfounded claims with no hard evidence, then expect others to prove you wrong. It’s frustrating. You did read the above statement: I’m not politically correct. And another thing, I’m not very good at suffering fools gladly. Again, look at my thread history. "the rightwingers" again..there's your brush again..we arent the Borg. Some of them bring it up a lot I agree and for quite a while now but that isnt me What's wrong with mentioning Michelle's race? Is it because she's...never mind heeheehee Oh this is so ironic after you tried to label me as an old person bigot. Also it really depends on the context but you like using brushes and making blanket statements. That's the ThorsAunt special
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 13, 2022 2:06:37 GMT 1
It is a legitimate question and you and most the Right Wingers do post a lot about it. You guys are very upset…along with everything else you’re upset about. Not to mention all the nonexistent things you’re upset about, like liberal groomers and a non-stolen election. From my point of view, there’s no reason for me to be concerned about something that’s ultimately none of my business and do not have control over. So far the only transsexuals I know are in the regular media. If I met one in RIL, I didn’t notice. I don’t do social media like Twitter, so I don’t come in contact with influencers, but from my understanding, these are like hornets that attack a picnic. As for your last statement..getting a bit testy arent we? Now I like to go to Michelle Obama for inspiration, she is an incredible African American woman after all-"When they go low. We go high."Look at that sentence. Mercy. Thx for reminding me what Obama’s race is…when we go high, blah, blah, blah, blah. I’ve never entertained the notion of going high while you dorks keep taking cheap shots and blaming Libs for your lack of factual knowledge. You babes make unfounded claims with no hard evidence, then expect others to prove you wrong. It’s frustrating. You did read the above statement: I’m not politically correct. And another thing, I’m not very good at suffering fools gladly. Again, look at my thread history. "the rightwingers" again..there's your brush again..we arent the Borg. Some of them bring it up a lot I agree and for quite a while now but that isnt me What's wrong with mentioning Michelle's race? Is it because she's...never mind heeheehee Oh this is so ironic after you tried to label me as an old person bigot. Also it really depends on the context but you like using brushes and making blanket statements. That's the ThorsAunt special I got my voice heard in this thread for those interested.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 13, 2022 3:37:06 GMT 1
Free The Enterprise! Of course these are just my opinions. I'm closing this line of discussion before it becomes openly hostile. Thanks for your input.Oh, LDM, that’s not fair at all to close down leaving me silent like Michael Corleone shutting the door in Kay’s face. Oh, you male of species. Without us women to raise you…. Even so, I hope you read this and if you think I’ve openly hostile, it’s all on you. I’ve been hostile not once. But it does seem some can’t handle a female as hard nosed as me. I think I must be frightening. Moving forward. Okay… it's clear that you feel modern Star Trek, or maybe all Star Trek, is flawless in its handling of progressive issues.(And you’re familiar with my verbal style and I’m not shrill, but generally jovial. So, please read this with that voice. Let me stop you there, LDM. Before we continue, let’s review what I have said about Star Trek in this thread, not what you have told readers what I think about it. 1) Why does everything have to be a political agenda? 2) SNW captures the essence of Roddenberry’s original. This is coming from someone who saw the original Star Trek series when it first aired and have been a fan for over 50 years. I literally felt like a kid again watching the premiere episode. 3) to GM who is frustrated at it’s unavailable in NE: That’s sad you think Star Trek should go fuck itself. I’m not real sure why you’re blaming a really good sci-fi show that has a positive message that humans might survive a few more centuries on the foibles of a streaming services. Frankly, we need more “Star Trek” today and less unrepentant, nihilistic carnage seen in too, too many movies and TV shows. As I said, the show is worthwhile for any sci fi fans while, that’s the only advice I share. If it becomes available, I think you’ll enjoy it. That’s all. Sorry to have upset you about it. 4) In response to #1: that’s the question myself along with millions of other people keep askingPerhaps your mistaking “an agenda” with a genuine liberal philosophy in the narrative they are writing and producing. The only reason liberal is a bad word or thing to be is because you say it is. I don’t think that at all, nor do I think conservative is a bad thing. It’s having only one religion, one party, one way to live one’s life to the exclusion of other points of view that is unhealthy for any society, but particularly in the 21st century. 5) this isn’t about what’s liberal or conservative or how I feel about liberalism. I just want people’s personal politics out of the tv showsFor any good writer, this is impossible to do. Writing requires honesty. Gene Roddenberry never hid his “agenda.” He sneaked in his commentary because the very conservative TV networks…where a husband and wife couldn’t be filmed innocently in bed together…would not let him otherwise. Believe me, the Kirk-Uhura Kiss was very controversial at the time. And a lot markets never aired that episode. It wasn’t uncommon to censor TV that featured unacceptable mores like race mixing, birth control, or homosexuality in conservative regions. (Actually in the 1960s and 1970s it seemed as a nation, we could handle Black People slowly entering the All White World of Television Land. But there were plenty of folks who, just like now, going ape over it. They were not comfortable seeing a different race in their homes.) I’m not saying these shifts are good or bad, only they occur naturally. Organized religion has long been a means to control the chaos, but the agenda of religion evolved(s) via culture, which is motley in most cases. In other words, there was no one in the beginning who thought religion was just means of social or political control. And finally, the reason it’s not an agenda is because there is no one behind the scenes operating it. An agenda implies a meeting. Liberalism like conservatism is a discursive, roiling cultural shifting that happens all the time. It’s simple physics called Entropy, a fundamental property of the universe. So, if there’s been a prevalent “agenda” in American entertainment during its history, it has been overwhelming conservative. The “liberal agenda” is more recent and any film company has the right to their “agenda,” be it Marvel or Clint Eastwood. 6) What is “virtue signaling?” Give me a specific TV episode I can access; your rationale why it is virtue signaling per your definition; and I will deconstruct it. Because my theory is this “virtue signaling” is what we humans are engaged in most of the time. Because we all have messages to push and find ways to shoehorn it and we all don’t want to hear the other side. 7) is a long essay about the Original ST The Kiss episode. Skip. 8) is about Thor 4. Skip. 9) I haven’t said that politics have not been inserted into TV shows, and perhaps it is more so now, or seems that way due to the high proliferation of content. 40+ years ago, there was some cable, but it was mostly the Big Three doing the dramas and comedies. And as per Star Trek, politics were very much a part of some shows from the beginning. The Golden Age of TV had Playhouse 90 with writers like Paddy Chayefsky and other prestige drama. 12 Angry Men was originally a teleplay for Studio One. The TV viewing experience has changed dramatically since 40 years ago. People seem more invested in it than when JR was shot. I daresay percentage-wise, there are no political shows now, than in 1975 when Nixon was being exposed for what he was. SNL premiered that year. Even so, most TV and movies are not political. Plus, the demographics have changed and it’s not the old all white audience, middle class families who buy products from the TV sponsors who pay for shows anymore. 10) im not saying your position is that there are no politics but you see it as no different than in decades past and I see it as hugely different with political activists posing as writersThis is your opinion. And insulting to writers who work have many long years to learn and improve their craft. If you know for sure writers are posing as political activists, then show me some proof. Why deflate someone in such a way? Are there any conservative screenwriters posing as political activists? You know what I hate being "forced" on me in movies and TV: product placement. I pay to see a movie, not a Pepsi ad. 11) joke 12) joke 13) joke 14) Political debate has become more tribalistic and vitriolic. In today's landscape, if someone disagrees with your viewpoint politically, they are not only wrong but also wicked and inhuman.
Tell me about it. I get called a pedophile groomer about every other day. 15) sorry but I am not about to feel guilty about insulting writers who prioritize their own political agenda over good story. They need to be condemned and they are the ones that ruin television and movies for people that just want to be entertained without a dose of partisan politics shoved down their throat.You should feel bad if that is not what they are doing. If you said that of me, I would be very pissed off right now, because I know I'm not the awful person that posers are. You just assume it because it runs counter to your own political sensibilities...which is just find. But please don't make it out to be something it is not. Are we not tearing each other's humanity apart fast enough for you? Jesus. Believe me, I do not begrudge conservative filmmaking. Clint Eastwood is a fine director, but his movie about Sully Sullenberger was straight up right winger and made out the evil government NTSB was hounding him, trying to blame the crash on him, when that's not what happened. Like any in air crash investigation, every aspect has to be thoroughly investigated for public safety. Sully's status as a public hero does not come before air safety. He was cleared of any wrong-doing by them. And I've seen SNWs and it is not political. It's cultural. 16) When you made that jerky Abrams comment above, only one episode had aired. I saw that episode and there was no reference to 1/6 or Abrams. And 1/6 will get its very own mini-series very soon. And there will be no "alternative" ending. the “jerky” comment: I hear they are injecting January 6th as the start of world war 3 and other stuff with Stacey Abrams so f-ck them and this franchise and their political activism. There are no writers anymore. There are activists that have a modern day political message to get across. I wanted to get on board with the new Star Trek because I grew up loving Star Trek. But obviously their own personal political goals are what motivated them and I want no part of that.My point being is you seem to have made up your mind that posers (from where?) are writing liberal indoctrination TV shows without benefit of seeing if your prediction came true or not. 17) yes. Take out the Stacy Abrams part and the rest still standsSince only one episode aired, where any references to 1/6 specifically written to insult you for being pro-1/6? If you are. 18) This is not a political board, but you made this thread so with your comments about a Georgia politicians that Trump has demonized because she stood up to him. So, I think I know what you were going for. Jay. I came here to talk about how good SNWs is and an homage to the original, but somehow it became a bitch and moan about a script that, as far as I can tell, was never written. As far a 1/6 is concerned, Trump is guilty as hell and to the folks who keep believing his con and insisting his election was stolen with zero proof other than what Trump has told them, I don't respect their opinions on politics anyway. If you want to talk about the Star Trek episodes, I'm here. 19) I’m only speaking as one of the original Trekkies and they nailed it with the first episode. After 55 years, I got a few moments of what it felt like watching the first episode that aired on NBC. This was back when if you missed tonight’s episode, you were out of luck. For me at least, I felt like kid again. No one here can deflate that. I don’t want to over analyze or have to defend my emotions. Live long and prosper. 20) joke 21) I get it. My opinion on the quality of the franchise is not what I wanted to share. Sometimes it’s fun to not judge things, but enjoy in the moment. What the original episode gave to a lot of teens of my generation was hope for a better future, rather than repeating the same hatreds over and over. We need a lot of that now and god bless the makers of that first episode. Like Kirk at the end of the Wrath of Khan, I felt young again. 22) remaining posts are irrelevant to the topic. Repeat: Okay… it's clear that you feel modern Star Trek, or maybe all Star Trek, is flawless in its handling of progressive issues.My point is after all that labor is, you set me up with a logical fallacy. But I’ll clear this up, I never made any of those assertions. Some of us do have problems with it.
Take a scene like this where a Jr. officer on Discovery chooses what I feel is an inappropriate moment for their coming-out party. The tone they take with their CO is weirdly one of admonishment - they appear to take a defensive posture as if expecting a rebuke or ill-treatment.I watched the clip, though I’ve not seen this series, so I can only analyze it out of context. First off, while I’m not opposed to a person wanting a gender pronoun application they feel comfortable with, I hate the use of they as a singular. It’s sounds grammatically ignorant. “They is down the street.” “Thanks, Cletus.” As for the scene, considering Star Trek from the beginning, the conceit is the crew acts as a family unit. Personal issue discussions are a part of the narrative dialogue. This scene might seem anachronistic since all STs are set in a classless society and gender issue would settled, you think, but the stories use current issues as conflict devices. This has been the main framework for the original series. Almost every episode tackled issues troubling America at the time. Back to the beginning of my “essay,” this is the original ethos of the original, so not continuing this literary tradition would be a slight to the Founding Father, Gene Roddenberry. Accusations of virtue signaling chokes the possibility the accused can refute the claim. Or for a writer to deliver a good script. For one thing, there’s no reason given why it should not be done other than it is unpleasant for the listener to hear. (Another classic TV show that VS’d like crazy was The Twilight Zone.) I certainly support equal rights and protection under the law, so I don’t view this character or their comments negatively. Is this virtue signaling? After reading the article above that explains it, I see no objective reality to the notion. VS is the subjective opinion of listener and no writer should have to apologize for their narratives. I not saying these shows are not political, cultural, or even preachy, because they are, but it’s not a poise nor an agenda where X amount of Lib virtue signaling is demanded by the sinister TV Control. Since you don’t know the motives of the writers, why assume the worst? I’ve a spent over a decade with a writers group and know a lot of successful regional sci fi and fantasy writers who sell at comic cons and such. Being keen observers and generally empathic are natural traits of good writers, they would not be good or writers if they were not. Certainly accusing VS is a means of termination of any debate because it mildly demonizes the opposition. So, I bristle at false, negative assumptions. This also diminishes the long years of crafting their skills and success to write them off as hacks because one scene makes someone uncomfortable. And accusation of VS as point out, is also virtue signaling. So, mote in gods eye. The writers seem to be more interested in portraying themself as sensitive and aware than accurately representing the world of Star Trek.I will strongly disagree with this like I said above. Your dissing my peeps. It’s close to killing the messenger. If a writer has be so very careful that she or he can’t offend anyone, how is the creative going happen. And lastly, my standby comment: The product belongs to Paramount, they can do with scripts what they damn please. This is capitalist nation. When did we lose respect for free (the) enterprise? Apologies for exiting the conversation abruptly; I didn't intend to offend anyone. The discussion was becoming too unwieldy to navigate. There are conversations within conversations, sidebars, and digressions, all happening in parallel. Some of us are discussing politics and history. Some are talking about Strange New Worlds or the Star Trek franchise in general. At the same time, other threads have descended into addressing real and/or perceived sleights. Add to this a mysterious interloper who prefers to remain anonymous while they pour gasoline unto the flames, and it all becomes a bit much. I think the central question remains. Should politics play a prominent role in fictionalized media? I wish I were as confident as Jayman in my answer. I do have this to offer, though. Every day, the average American is being ground into hamburger with the mean-spirited and vicious discourse that passes for political debate in our country. It's in the news cycle. It's in the workplace. It permeates American life's most banal activities; going to the gym, driving to the store, or walking your dog. It seems that the only way to get away from it is to be asleep or deceased. To quote a beautifully written piece of largely non-political entertainment… "Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church..."
For those of us who are political animals and thrive on these daily Hunger Games, this must be a paradise. The rest of us rely on escapist fantasies to temporarily free our minds from the horrors of modern living. Television, movies, and books used to provide that escape. Some of us would prefer to keep it that way. It is possible to make great art that highlights social issues of the day without making them an extension of corrosive political discourse. Should politics play a prominent role in fictionalized media?Whether we are agree or disagree on this, it is moot because of freedom of speech, creative expression, and capitalism. The only way left to stop this situation from upsetting you more is to boycott and demonstrate against the production companies to pressure them to censor out all potentially controversial material that might upset anyone in any way. The industry itself can as whole readopt the hardened Hays Code used by Hollywood after HUAC began purging and banning Hollywood of controversial filmmakers and screenwriters like Dalton Trumbo. These committees can post online the filmmakers and actors who are expressing their political views in public like Red Channels did in the 1950s. So returning to 1950s style of voluntary censorship could work until the Constitution is rewritten to give a federal agency the power to control all speech and thought. In other words, total censorship of all disturbing content with racial quotas in place and historically accurate casting. This would include all sexual references outside of woman-man or man-woman marriage, no nudity, and 95% of no violence. The amount of shear violence and softcore pornography I’m sure offends hundreds of millions as much as liberal content does you. (I can’t handle too much violence myself any more.) Add in any depictions of religion must conform to Christian values. And the above satire. It’s absurd to think we can fix society where no one will not get their feelings hurt. Most of this upset can be eliminated by more of us adopting a more mature attitude about it. Every day, the average American is being ground into hamburger with the mean-spirited and vicious discourse that passes for political debate in our country
I can’t sympathize here because we had a former president who was as mean-spirited and vicious as they come, and a criminal and traitor. This is the most important political discourse we need to agree on: no one is above law. We, for our own national security need to come to an agreement on what is truth, or the “marriage” is over with. Or one side must reside in silent submission to the radical far right. It's in the news cycle. It's in the workplace. It permeates American life's most banal activities; going to the gym, driving to the store, or walking your dog. It seems that the only way to get away from it is to be asleep or deceased.
This is a scary comment and I don’t know how to respond to without further offending you. Right now I feel trapped into not even saying anything at all forever because, and I’m sorry, you are being paranoid and hysterical. Questions one and two are debatable. Question three leaves no room for debate. Can you tone it down or is this a non-negotiable? Most of the vicious discourse is composed whataboutisms, put downs, jeremiads, and revenge talk. Do you think only liberals are to blame for this? Because I feel like my mere political and spiritual existence is a threat to a lot of people who have moved further right of conservatism. And you guys need quantity what is acceptable and non-acceptable for the rest of us to adopt. That’s only fair. We need specifics on the New Right and Wrong so we don’t accidentally get on the wrong of the authorities.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 22, 2022 17:19:58 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jun 12, 2023 19:56:30 GMT 1
I recently regained access to Paramount+ and so far I have watched the first 3 episodes of season 1 of "Strange New Worlds". So far I love it even though it has it's imperfections. The flaws are more than drowned out by the fact that it actually feels like Star Trek. It's focused on exploration for a change and the crew are not constantly bickering with each other and are able to work as a cohesive team. Anson Mount is fantastic so far. Also, after 3 episodes, I already know the names and jobs of all of the bridge crew. I couldn't say that after watching 3 whole seasons of "Discovery". I hope the show continues to entertain like it has in the first 3 eps.
I have also been watching season 3 of "Lower Decks" (7 episodes so far) and I love that show for the humor and all of the easter eggs. This is the right way to do a satire from a fans point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on Jun 13, 2023 1:03:54 GMT 1
Also, after 3 episodes, I already know the names and jobs of all of the bridge crew. I couldn't say that after watching 3 whole seasons of "Discovery". I was the same way. After three seasons of that show I still can't remember the name of the blonde guy or anyone outside of Burnham, Saru and Tilly.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA CAT! on Jun 14, 2023 18:13:07 GMT 1
New season premiers June 15, 2023. Should be interesting. Not everyone is up to date so I can't say what I'm most looking forward too beyond a new injection of the show.
Lower Decks has been holding it down for a while. It's my favourite of the current Star Trek Shows. Strange New Worlds, I'm half-expecting the other boot to drop, but it keeps not dropping. It's doing quite well.
I've heard the last season of Picard really picked up after it became Star Trek: The Next Generation part II. I couldn't get past 5 or so episodes, although it seemed well cast.
I couldn't get past 5 episodes of Discovery. Last I remember was a young Harry Mudd in a prison with... I don't even remember which regular cast member was in there with him.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jun 27, 2023 16:00:37 GMT 1
I finished season 1. Overall I am enjoying the show and it feels much more like Star Trek than Discovery ever did. However, the show has problems. The biggest of whicvh is an issue that it shares with Discovery and that is the complete and total disregard for continuity. Why make a show in an established franchise if you are not even going to make an effort to follow existing canon? I find it extremely annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jun 27, 2023 20:29:22 GMT 1
I finished season 1. Overall I am enjoying the show and it feels much more like Star Trek than Discovery ever did. However, the show has problems. The biggest of whicvh is an issue that it shares with Discovery and that is the complete and total disregard for continuity. Why make a show in an established franchise if you are not even going to make an effort to follow existing canon? I find it extremely annoying. Amen to that. How do we go from Khan and his "augments" being a group of megalomaniacal psychotics to them being virtually a protected class of refugees in need of asylum? In Star Trek, genetic augmentation, at least amongst humans, was proven to breed superior intellect and physical prowess with the unfortunate side effect of mental instability. I always like that idea because it shows that there are consequences for tampering with our natural evolution. I like Strange New Worlds well enough, but they've got to start respecting canon instead of trying to retcon everything.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA CAT! on Jun 27, 2023 20:59:13 GMT 1
I finished season 1. Overall I am enjoying the show and it feels much more like Star Trek than Discovery ever did. However, the show has problems. The biggest of whicvh is an issue that it shares with Discovery and that is the complete and total disregard for continuity. Why make a show in an established franchise if you are not even going to make an effort to follow existing canon? I find it extremely annoying. Amen to that. How do we go from Khan and his "augments" being a group of megalomaniacal psychotics to them being virtually a protected class of refugees in need of asylum? In Star Trek, genetic augmentation, at least amongst humans, was proven to breed superior intellect and physical prowess with the unfortunate side effect of mental instability. I always like that idea because it shows that there are consequences for tampering with our natural evolution. I like Strange New Worlds well enough, but they've got to start respecting canon instead of trying to retcon everything. It's not over yet. I liked the episode because it used the law in its decision instead of making it a landmark case that changed everything, a la Doctor Bashir in Deep Space Nine. Despite all the speeches Una was granted asylum and thusly spared prosecution only on a technicality.
My impression though I could be wrong is Khan and his crew were self-radicalized by their own greatness whereas Una never was. There is a lot to be said for Starfleet's reaction to genetic enhancements but it leaves behind the people who had it inflicted on them and never chose it for themselves, oddly enough like Bashir.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jun 27, 2023 21:23:55 GMT 1
Amen to that. How do we go from Khan and his "augments" being a group of megalomaniacal psychotics to them being virtually a protected class of refugees in need of asylum? In Star Trek, genetic augmentation, at least amongst humans, was proven to breed superior intellect and physical prowess with the unfortunate side effect of mental instability. I always like that idea because it shows that there are consequences for tampering with our natural evolution. I like Strange New Worlds well enough, but they've got to start respecting canon instead of trying to retcon everything. It's not over yet. I liked the episode because it used the law in its decision instead of making it a landmark case that changed everything, a la Doctor Bashir in Deep Space Nine. Despite all the speeches Una was granted asylum and thusly spared prosecution only on a technicality. My impression though I could be wrong is Khan and his crew were self-radicalized by their own greatness whereas Una never was. There is a lot to be said for Starfleet's reaction to genetic enhancements but it leaves behind the people who had it inflicted on them and never chose it for themselves, oddly enough like Bashir. I completely agree with the sentiment shared regarding Una's alien heritage and the legal loophole in the recent episode. It made for an interesting and suspenseful episode but played too fast and loose with established lore. Not every episode needs to scrutinize and challenge the underpinnings of the show's universe. However, I do think there's a certain degree of flexibility required when it comes to adhering to canon. If a story is compelling enough, or if an aspect of the canon is notably flawed or absurd, I'd say there's room for reinterpretation or modification. The foundation of lore and canon shouldn't be unshakeable but rather able to evolve in meaningful and interesting ways. My problem with modern Star Trek is that they're making changes to canon as a referendum on Rodenberry's established lore, which they feel is inadequate in some way. Overall, I've been really pleased with the development of Number One. That being said, one of the major issues I've found with these prequels is the logical inconsistencies they create. They tend to disrupt the sequence of events in the universe, making it difficult to align them with the older stories. This can be quite disconcerting as it throws into question the integrity of the universe as we know it. In relation to Julian's case, it struck me as odd that no one mentioned Number One as a precedent. This oversight, intentional or not, could have potentially saved his parents from imprisonment. It's instances like these where maintaining a solid continuity becomes essential. And yes, taylorfirst1 , I completely share your annoyance with the dismissal of canon and lore as irrelevant. In my opinion, a well-developed and respected fictional history is crucial for the cohesion of a universe. It's the bedrock upon which the credibility of a series is built. Ignoring or distorting it thoughtlessly can ultimately undermine the very essence of the universe. So while I think there's room for flexibility and evolution, the backbone of the universe – the lore and canon – should remain respected but not invincible. It's a delicate balance to maintain, but when done right, it can yield exceptional storytelling.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 5, 2023 20:51:59 GMT 1
We are now 3 episodes into season 2. The first 3 episodes all fall in the range between ok and total shit (you guess which is which). Not a great start but I'm hopeful. But I have 2 general questions.
1. When are we going to see some new worlds in this show titled "Strange New Worlds"? Almost every episode is about The Federation or Star Fleet or Earth. Lets get out on the edge of known space and do some exploring.
2. Are there any main characters who just had a plain old boring life before they joined Star Fleet? This is the Federation which is supposed to be as close to utopia as you can get after all. Why do modern "writers" think every character has to have some tragic back story in order to be interesting? SMH.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 10, 2023 21:04:16 GMT 1
Episode 4 was actually pretty good. At least we got back to exploring strange planets.
|
|