4 ms·

That totally makes sense. The original Star Trek, of course, was completely unconcerned with issues like race relations, social justice, equality, multicultura

That totally makes sense. The original Star Trek, of course, was completely unconcerned with issues like race relations, social justice, equality, multiculturalism, and all that other socialist garbage. If only we could go back to those long-ago days of the 1960s when nobody ever talked about these terrible newfangled hippie-dippie ideals!

WalterSear 9y ago
Not everyone equates the later with the former, fwiw.
- outsidetheparty 9y ago
  I honestly don't know what you mean by this?
  - WalterSear 9y ago
    That some people perceive a distinction to between "race relations, social justice, equality, multiculturalism, and all that other socialist garbage," and SJWism and PC culture.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - outsidetheparty 9y ago
      Oh, I see. The temptingly glib response would be to say that those people are wrong, and leave it at that. Instead I guess I'll say that those people should try to be clearer about whatever distinction it is that they do see between those things, because just using "SJW" as a pejorative without explanation tends to look like a rejection of those ideals.
  - WalterSear 9y ago
    What's more, your deleted comment is why they will continue to have a difference of opinion with you.
    - outsidetheparty 9y ago
      You're not wrong there. I deleted it so I could take the time to expand on it beyond that glib knee-jerk reaction, which I regret posting even for the very brief period it was online.
      - Jtsummers 9y ago
        Go to your profile, put a number into the "Delay" field. This is how I (usually) deal with my urge to post glib knee-jerk reactions. I have two minutes to edit and/or delete them before anyone else can see them.
        outsidetheparty 9y ago
        Thank you! I didn't know what that meant; that's a really useful feature.
        Jtsummers 9y ago
        I set it up after making a regrettable post that was replied to before I could delete it. It wasn't the worst thing I could've posted, but as I recall it wasn't a fair reply to whoever it was. I strongly dislike people doing that to me because it completely disrupts the conversation flow. So to resolve the conflict, I give myself two minutes to be able to freely delete things, which is still short enough that the conversation won't be unduly delayed.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        WalterSear 9y ago
        Woah! Thanks for this.
alexasmyths 9y ago
The original Star Trek I think did it with reason. I think 2017 is not the 1960's - and the problem is 'populist social leftism' is still using the 1960's playbook. It's tired, it lacks nuance. The new Star Trek's remind me of the Canadian government's 'soft propaganda' in 'Degrassi Street' - which is lampooned spectacularly well on 'Kroll Show'. And I don't use the term 'propaganda' lightly - it's state sponsored 'youth education' - again, which can be positive, but it's always going to be a hint 'North Korea' no matter how you cut it. I think motives are not so bad ... but we live in a new world. It's not so easy as 'putting a traditionally marginalized person in a leading role' anymore. That's all fine, but it's not thoughtful. It's Disney. And lazy. As evidence of this culture - here you have a show that puts extraordinary attention on putting 'marginalized people into leading roles' - and yet the storyline is 'still racist'. This is getting ridiculous. How about 'it's just not good'. Because it's not? Coen Brothers said it right - while 'diversity might be important' - the most important thing is the story'. Start with the story, focus on the story. If you start with a social objective, it's just going to come out all wrong, and be 'bad'. Like the new Star Trek. Sadly. "If only we could go back to those long-ago days of the 1960s when nobody ever talked about these terrible newfangled hippie-dippie ideals!" It's not a 'hippie dippy idea' in 2017 to have a 'Black Woman' in charge of something. It's not common, but nobody will bat an eye, and I really don't think the vast, vast majority of people care one way or another. It's not the 1960's. There are a lot of interesting stories to tell, that may very well involve 'non classical' views, so let's tell them.
- outsidetheparty 9y ago
  > It's not a 'hippie dippy idea' in 2017 to have a 'Black Woman' in charge of something. I completely agree! But neither is it "saddling the show with SJWism and PC culture." It's just... a normal, unremarkable thing, which as you say the vast majority of people won't care about one way or the other.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    I think the commenter has a point. From a review: "T'Kuvma, the Klingon leader, has a rallying cry of “Remain Klingon .... loathes the Federation ideals of equality, diversity, and peace. " Those are nice ideals, and the work in a nation like America, which is 'an idea'. But consider for a moment that 95% of people outside America live in 'ethnic groups' - and who's ethnic identities are existentially challenged by an American led corporate-globalism. I live in Quebec, where the issue is real. The decline of the 'Francophone' culture - which is very different than the 'rest of North America' - can be measured. It's not doing so badly, but it's an issue: new immigrants want to speak English, and be 'Anglo' (i.e. not just language), meaning at one point in the future 'there is no Quebec'. I'm not hyperbolic, I think it will be ok - but my point is the issue is fully legit. Literally two hours ago I had a convo in a cafe with a French girl studying finance 'in English' to move to 'New York' 'where the money is' (literally her words). I agree with the commenter (maybe for different reasons) because I feel that many outside America will simply see 'The Federation' as a metaphor for 'Americanisation'. "We are morally superior" "Your culture is barbaric" "Give up your stupid cultures and norms, and become like us, speak English, and put a Starbucks on every street corner" Even though that might not be the intent - often, it really is pragmatically that. 'Free Trade' with America, which is 10x bigger than any partner really means: "once we have even trade, our companies will devour yours". Imagine if Canada-US had 'free trade' on ownership of Telecoms. Do you think Bell Canada would buy Verizon? No. Sprint, Verizon and AT&T would instantly buy Telus, Rogers and Bell (their Canadian counteroparts). 100% of the 'good jobs' would go to the US, in Canada, only 'tech support' and 'local marketing' would remain. But because the 'balance sheet' would look better, economists like it (and have convinced even left-of-center politicians of this). Yes - ideas such as 'equal pay for equal work' are fairly universal ... but cultural context is relevant. You know what would be more 'authentically Star Trek'? ----> the 'Prime Directive' !!! "Don't mess with other cultures!" If they stuck to the 'Prime Directive' maybe they'd be more appreciative/understanding of the Klingon's views instead of just starting a war (!) with them :) FYI - the original Klingon's I don't think were politicized in this context, of course I think Rodenberry may have used them as a stand-in for the Soviets or whatever. (Soviets were hard-core egalitarians though, at least on paper. More female Engineers than males in Soviet Russia). Anyhow: "Disney Social Politics" does not fit very well in the rest of the world. Even though Americans think they might be 'doing good' by promoting specific values, like so many things, we know the parable about 'good intentions'. Let's try the 'Prime Directive' (except when it comes to stopping things like genocide etc..) I like that one :).
micheljones 9y ago
Dear Sir, thank you for your valuable snarkasm. You have proven me wrong on all accounts. The neoreligion of SJWism and PC culture that you subscribe to cannot be wrong in any way, and is always 100% right. I have seen the error of my ways and humbly accept my punishment.
- outsidetheparty 9y ago
  Yes, I can definitely tell you're interested in having a serious and thoughtful discussion about these issues, and can see that it would really be worth my time to engage with your nuanced opinions on the matter.
  - micheljones 9y ago
    Nice reversal attempt. Keep that snarkasm going!

WalterSear 9y ago

Not everyone equates the later with the former, fwiw.

outsidetheparty 9y ago
I honestly don't know what you mean by this?
- WalterSear 9y ago
  That some people perceive a distinction to between "race relations, social justice, equality, multiculturalism, and all that other socialist garbage," and SJWism and PC culture.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - outsidetheparty 9y ago
    Oh, I see. The temptingly glib response would be to say that those people are wrong, and leave it at that. Instead I guess I'll say that those people should try to be clearer about whatever distinction it is that they do see between those things, because just using "SJW" as a pejorative without explanation tends to look like a rejection of those ideals.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  What's more, your deleted comment is why they will continue to have a difference of opinion with you.
  - outsidetheparty 9y ago
    You're not wrong there. I deleted it so I could take the time to expand on it beyond that glib knee-jerk reaction, which I regret posting even for the very brief period it was online.
    - Jtsummers 9y ago
      Go to your profile, put a number into the "Delay" field. This is how I (usually) deal with my urge to post glib knee-jerk reactions. I have two minutes to edit and/or delete them before anyone else can see them.
      - outsidetheparty 9y ago
        Thank you! I didn't know what that meant; that's a really useful feature.
        Jtsummers 9y ago
        I set it up after making a regrettable post that was replied to before I could delete it. It wasn't the worst thing I could've posted, but as I recall it wasn't a fair reply to whoever it was. I strongly dislike people doing that to me because it completely disrupts the conversation flow. So to resolve the conflict, I give myself two minutes to be able to freely delete things, which is still short enough that the conversation won't be unduly delayed.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - WalterSear 9y ago
        Woah! Thanks for this.

alexasmyths 9y ago

The original Star Trek I think did it with reason. I think 2017 is not the 1960's - and the problem is 'populist social leftism' is still using the 1960's playbook. It's tired, it lacks nuance. The new Star Trek's remind me of the Canadian government's 'soft propaganda' in 'Degrassi Street' - which is lampooned spectacularly well on 'Kroll Show'. And I don't use the term 'propaganda' lightly - it's state sponsored 'youth education' - again, which can be positive, but it's always going to be a hint 'North Korea' no matter how you cut it. I think motives are not so bad ... but we live in a new world. It's not so easy as 'putting a traditionally marginalized person in a leading role' anymore. That's all fine, but it's not thoughtful. It's Disney. And lazy. As evidence of this culture - here you have a show that puts extraordinary attention on putting 'marginalized people into leading roles' - and yet the storyline is 'still racist'. This is getting ridiculous. How about 'it's just not good'. Because it's not? Coen Brothers said it right - while 'diversity might be important' - the most important thing is the story'. Start with the story, focus on the story. If you start with a social objective, it's just going to come out all wrong, and be 'bad'. Like the new Star Trek. Sadly. "If only we could go back to those long-ago days of the 1960s when nobody ever talked about these terrible newfangled hippie-dippie ideals!" It's not a 'hippie dippy idea' in 2017 to have a 'Black Woman' in charge of something. It's not common, but nobody will bat an eye, and I really don't think the vast, vast majority of people care one way or another. It's not the 1960's. There are a lot of interesting stories to tell, that may very well involve 'non classical' views, so let's tell them.

outsidetheparty 9y ago
> It's not a 'hippie dippy idea' in 2017 to have a 'Black Woman' in charge of something. I completely agree! But neither is it "saddling the show with SJWism and PC culture." It's just... a normal, unremarkable thing, which as you say the vast majority of people won't care about one way or the other.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  I think the commenter has a point. From a review: "T'Kuvma, the Klingon leader, has a rallying cry of “Remain Klingon .... loathes the Federation ideals of equality, diversity, and peace. " Those are nice ideals, and the work in a nation like America, which is 'an idea'. But consider for a moment that 95% of people outside America live in 'ethnic groups' - and who's ethnic identities are existentially challenged by an American led corporate-globalism. I live in Quebec, where the issue is real. The decline of the 'Francophone' culture - which is very different than the 'rest of North America' - can be measured. It's not doing so badly, but it's an issue: new immigrants want to speak English, and be 'Anglo' (i.e. not just language), meaning at one point in the future 'there is no Quebec'. I'm not hyperbolic, I think it will be ok - but my point is the issue is fully legit. Literally two hours ago I had a convo in a cafe with a French girl studying finance 'in English' to move to 'New York' 'where the money is' (literally her words). I agree with the commenter (maybe for different reasons) because I feel that many outside America will simply see 'The Federation' as a metaphor for 'Americanisation'. "We are morally superior" "Your culture is barbaric" "Give up your stupid cultures and norms, and become like us, speak English, and put a Starbucks on every street corner" Even though that might not be the intent - often, it really is pragmatically that. 'Free Trade' with America, which is 10x bigger than any partner really means: "once we have even trade, our companies will devour yours". Imagine if Canada-US had 'free trade' on ownership of Telecoms. Do you think Bell Canada would buy Verizon? No. Sprint, Verizon and AT&T would instantly buy Telus, Rogers and Bell (their Canadian counteroparts). 100% of the 'good jobs' would go to the US, in Canada, only 'tech support' and 'local marketing' would remain. But because the 'balance sheet' would look better, economists like it (and have convinced even left-of-center politicians of this). Yes - ideas such as 'equal pay for equal work' are fairly universal ... but cultural context is relevant. You know what would be more 'authentically Star Trek'? ----> the 'Prime Directive' !!! "Don't mess with other cultures!" If they stuck to the 'Prime Directive' maybe they'd be more appreciative/understanding of the Klingon's views instead of just starting a war (!) with them :) FYI - the original Klingon's I don't think were politicized in this context, of course I think Rodenberry may have used them as a stand-in for the Soviets or whatever. (Soviets were hard-core egalitarians though, at least on paper. More female Engineers than males in Soviet Russia). Anyhow: "Disney Social Politics" does not fit very well in the rest of the world. Even though Americans think they might be 'doing good' by promoting specific values, like so many things, we know the parable about 'good intentions'. Let's try the 'Prime Directive' (except when it comes to stopping things like genocide etc..) I like that one :).

micheljones 9y ago

Dear Sir, thank you for your valuable snarkasm. You have proven me wrong on all accounts. The neoreligion of SJWism and PC culture that you subscribe to cannot be wrong in any way, and is always 100% right. I have seen the error of my ways and humbly accept my punishment.

outsidetheparty 9y ago
Yes, I can definitely tell you're interested in having a serious and thoughtful discussion about these issues, and can see that it would really be worth my time to engage with your nuanced opinions on the matter.
- micheljones 9y ago
  Nice reversal attempt. Keep that snarkasm going!