4 ms·

The mirror universe is fascist, and sexist and racist. The normal one, well, everything is shown to be run by a military organization, Starfleet, ranging from

by hef19898 3y ago

The mirror universe is fascist, and sexist and racist. The normal one, well, everything is shown to be run by a military organization, Starfleet, ranging from exploration to first contact and diplomacy. Federation ambassadors are portrayed as spoiled, clueless clows. All while attributing Starfleet a clear moral superiority. And even shows like DS9, the Maquis angle hints at some moral dilema regarding the occupied colonies, show that obedience, following orders and some higher moral principle trump whatever pro-Maquis Starfleet personl might think. Because after all, if the heros ignore protocol or orders they never stabd against Starfleet. Overall, it is pretty militaristic in nature.

thx-2718 3y ago
So I think we're operating on different interpretations of the term 'militaristic'. Star Trek primarily depicts the Federations (of planets) Military on the frontier of their space. The society within the Federation is generally a democratic one and the use of Star Fleet is not to invade. "Starfleet's function was to explore unknown territory on the behalf of the Federation government, to defend the Federation and its allies from threats, to further Federation policies and interests throughout interstellar space, and, when applicable, to initiate first contact with newly-discovered worlds and to engage in diplomatic negotiations on the behalf of the Federation. " https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Federation_Starfleet https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Federation_Starfleet "Unlike its traditional rivals who derive power from a single dominant species subjugating other races within the boundaries of their empire, the Federation's various Member States join willingly and are equals in the Federation's democratic society." https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/United_Federation_of_Pla... contrast that with: "Militarism is the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values. It may also imply the glorification of the military and of the ideals of a professional military class and the "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state (see also: stratocracy and military junta).... Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of many nations throughout history. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism "A stratocracy is a form of government headed by military chiefs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocracy "A military junta is a government led by a committee of military leaders. The term junta means "meeting" or "committee" and originated in the national and local junta organized by the Spanish resistance to Napoleon's invasion of Spain in 1808." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_junta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_junta
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > society within the Federation is generally a democratic one and the use of Star Fleet is not to invade Militaristic != imperial. If your society's smart and ambitious aspire to join your military, you're a militaristic culture.
  - thx-2718 3y ago
    You didn't read past that clearly. If we can't even agree on the simple understanding and general meaning of a word or term it's kind of hard to have a useful discussion.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > You didn't read past that clearly On what basis? Your own definition highlights glorification. That, to me, is the essence of a militaristic (versus martial) culture.
      - thx-2718 3y ago
        > and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values > Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of many nations throughout history > predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state (see also: stratocracy and military junta) What parts of that can you not understand are clearly in contrast to the society of the Federation?
        hef19898 3y ago
        National interests: Enforcing the prime directive and expanding the Federation through the discovery, and inclusion, of planets and civilisation. Also, diplomacy seems to mainly handled by starfleet, so soft power is handed over to the military. This also covers the aggressive expension bit. Starfleet is portrayed as the defining element of the Federation. And throughout history, the military handling all aspects of civil admin was a very rare exception. Even just the majority is extemely rare. Once the military controls it, well, we are beyond a militaristic society and squarely in military dictatorship territory.

thx-2718 3y ago

So I think we're operating on different interpretations of the term 'militaristic'. Star Trek primarily depicts the Federations (of planets) Military on the frontier of their space. The society within the Federation is generally a democratic one and the use of Star Fleet is not to invade. "Starfleet's function was to explore unknown territory on the behalf of the Federation government, to defend the Federation and its allies from threats, to further Federation policies and interests throughout interstellar space, and, when applicable, to initiate first contact with newly-discovered worlds and to engage in diplomatic negotiations on the behalf of the Federation. " https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Federation_Starfleet https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Federation_Starfleet "Unlike its traditional rivals who derive power from a single dominant species subjugating other races within the boundaries of their empire, the Federation's various Member States join willingly and are equals in the Federation's democratic society." https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/United_Federation_of_Pla... contrast that with: "Militarism is the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values. It may also imply the glorification of the military and of the ideals of a professional military class and the "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state (see also: stratocracy and military junta).... Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of many nations throughout history. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism "A stratocracy is a form of government headed by military chiefs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocracy "A military junta is a government led by a committee of military leaders. The term junta means "meeting" or "committee" and originated in the national and local junta organized by the Spanish resistance to Napoleon's invasion of Spain in 1808." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_junta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_junta

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> society within the Federation is generally a democratic one and the use of Star Fleet is not to invade Militaristic != imperial. If your society's smart and ambitious aspire to join your military, you're a militaristic culture.
- thx-2718 3y ago
  You didn't read past that clearly. If we can't even agree on the simple understanding and general meaning of a word or term it's kind of hard to have a useful discussion.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > You didn't read past that clearly On what basis? Your own definition highlights glorification. That, to me, is the essence of a militaristic (versus martial) culture.
    - thx-2718 3y ago
      > and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values > Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of many nations throughout history > predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state (see also: stratocracy and military junta) What parts of that can you not understand are clearly in contrast to the society of the Federation?
      - hef19898 3y ago
        National interests: Enforcing the prime directive and expanding the Federation through the discovery, and inclusion, of planets and civilisation. Also, diplomacy seems to mainly handled by starfleet, so soft power is handed over to the military. This also covers the aggressive expension bit. Starfleet is portrayed as the defining element of the Federation. And throughout history, the military handling all aspects of civil admin was a very rare exception. Even just the majority is extemely rare. Once the military controls it, well, we are beyond a militaristic society and squarely in military dictatorship territory.