4 ms·

If you're referring to the Emerald Chain plot, I think you may have missed the point. The party offering wasn't interested in rule of law. There was no long-te

If you're referring to the Emerald Chain plot, I think you may have missed the point. The party offering wasn't interested in rule of law. There was no long-term peace to be had with authoritarians who would only be content with peace as long as it was peace that put them above the law.

pessimizer 4y ago
That's exactly the point of view that I'm condemning, so it looks like I did understand it and they didn't reverse it. The "rule of law" (with scare quotes because there is no in-universe government of the galaxy to be violating the laws of) was the desire to punish the "authoritarian" who was making an honest offer of unconditional peace. Please save us from that rule-of-law, and deliver us to the authoritarians.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Yes. All of Earth would have had peace had they merely accepted the rule of Khan and his supermen. ... of all the deviations from Roddenberry's vision one could criticize Discovery for, I think this criticism fits least. (They didn't "reverse" it so much as Osyraa died in the subsequent events that season and since the Chain was authoritarian, it collapsed without its mafia boss at the head. Dictatorships are such fragile things).
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    If Khan honestly (and verifiably) offers the Earth an unconditional end to a devastating war that they he and his forces were entirely equipped to continue indefinitely, anybody who turns him down (because they won't get to personally try and execute Khan) is a psychopath who thinks life is a game. If you think Roddenberry would think that was cool, I disagree, but I'd be happy to condemn Roddenberry, too. I'm not bothered by "deviations from Roddenberry's vision" as much as I'm bothered by a show that requires me to identify with objectively awful people to enjoy it. --- edit: > Dictatorships are such fragile things You know that the writers choose how things turn out, right? It wasn't a real dictatorship, so you shouldn't take any life lessons from how it ended. There won't be any deus ex machina in real life to save elites from the consequences of similar decisions.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      IIRC the plot correctly, the notion wasn't the admiral would "personally execute" Osyraa, it's that she would be tried for her crimes. I think even under Emerald Chain law, not Federation law (though I can't quite recall to that level of detail). She refused, for obvious reasons. It's a tad fraught to speculate what Roddenberry would have thought of the new Star Trek, but he fought in World War II so I'd imagine he'd understand the position that one does not accept the peace terms of, well, rulers who place themselves in a position where they are the only authority. > you shouldn't take any life lessons from how it ended Agreed. For example, I don't worry over-much about whether Admiral Vance's adherence to the principles of Starfleet over a tenuous peace that would last until the dictator across the table decided it had ended wouldn't make for good realpolitik. In reality, countries make strange bedfellows when dealing with powerful opponents all the time. Of course, history suggests those decisions have consequences, but c'est la réalité. > There won't be any deus ex machina in real life to save elites from the consequences of similar decisions. I sure hope not.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        > it's that she would be tried for her crimes. It's that she was going to be given a show trial for crimes she was obviously guilty of and that would obviously deserve the worst penalty that the system could deliver. So it was to be pointless humiliation before pointless execution. > he fought in World War II so I'd imagine he'd understand the position that one does not accept the peace terms of, well, rulers who place themselves in a position where they are the only authority. Is this about that one time when Hitler offered the world unconditional peace and the world turned it down in exchange for the hope of maybe one day bringing him to trial? > a tenuous peace that would last until the dictator across the table decided it had ended I was hoping this is what the story was about, but the mechanical lie detector machine gimmick that couldn't be fooled said that this was not the case. Any secret treachery is something that you're adding that the writers made explicitly impossible to add. > history suggests those decisions have consequences Exactly what historical parallel are you pointing to that involved a magic truth machine?
        4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago

That's exactly the point of view that I'm condemning, so it looks like I did understand it and they didn't reverse it. The "rule of law" (with scare quotes because there is no in-universe government of the galaxy to be violating the laws of) was the desire to punish the "authoritarian" who was making an honest offer of unconditional peace. Please save us from that rule-of-law, and deliver us to the authoritarians.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Yes. All of Earth would have had peace had they merely accepted the rule of Khan and his supermen. ... of all the deviations from Roddenberry's vision one could criticize Discovery for, I think this criticism fits least. (They didn't "reverse" it so much as Osyraa died in the subsequent events that season and since the Chain was authoritarian, it collapsed without its mafia boss at the head. Dictatorships are such fragile things).
- pessimizer 4y ago
  If Khan honestly (and verifiably) offers the Earth an unconditional end to a devastating war that they he and his forces were entirely equipped to continue indefinitely, anybody who turns him down (because they won't get to personally try and execute Khan) is a psychopath who thinks life is a game. If you think Roddenberry would think that was cool, I disagree, but I'd be happy to condemn Roddenberry, too. I'm not bothered by "deviations from Roddenberry's vision" as much as I'm bothered by a show that requires me to identify with objectively awful people to enjoy it. --- edit: > Dictatorships are such fragile things You know that the writers choose how things turn out, right? It wasn't a real dictatorship, so you shouldn't take any life lessons from how it ended. There won't be any deus ex machina in real life to save elites from the consequences of similar decisions.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    IIRC the plot correctly, the notion wasn't the admiral would "personally execute" Osyraa, it's that she would be tried for her crimes. I think even under Emerald Chain law, not Federation law (though I can't quite recall to that level of detail). She refused, for obvious reasons. It's a tad fraught to speculate what Roddenberry would have thought of the new Star Trek, but he fought in World War II so I'd imagine he'd understand the position that one does not accept the peace terms of, well, rulers who place themselves in a position where they are the only authority. > you shouldn't take any life lessons from how it ended Agreed. For example, I don't worry over-much about whether Admiral Vance's adherence to the principles of Starfleet over a tenuous peace that would last until the dictator across the table decided it had ended wouldn't make for good realpolitik. In reality, countries make strange bedfellows when dealing with powerful opponents all the time. Of course, history suggests those decisions have consequences, but c'est la réalité. > There won't be any deus ex machina in real life to save elites from the consequences of similar decisions. I sure hope not.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > it's that she would be tried for her crimes. It's that she was going to be given a show trial for crimes she was obviously guilty of and that would obviously deserve the worst penalty that the system could deliver. So it was to be pointless humiliation before pointless execution. > he fought in World War II so I'd imagine he'd understand the position that one does not accept the peace terms of, well, rulers who place themselves in a position where they are the only authority. Is this about that one time when Hitler offered the world unconditional peace and the world turned it down in exchange for the hope of maybe one day bringing him to trial? > a tenuous peace that would last until the dictator across the table decided it had ended I was hoping this is what the story was about, but the mechanical lie detector machine gimmick that couldn't be fooled said that this was not the case. Any secret treachery is something that you're adding that the writers made explicitly impossible to add. > history suggests those decisions have consequences Exactly what historical parallel are you pointing to that involved a magic truth machine?
      - 4y ago