Funny events in anti-woke world

[Dwarvenhobble]

Have you considered the possibility that you are just boring? Melodramatically obsessed with unimportant bullshit?

yes I have. Though based on posting histories I have to very much consider the possibility so are those posters and certain posters have a history of mysteriously taking "Drive by" shots at people and not stating to actually engage with what's said in reply because their aim is to try and irritate, insult or smear not actually discuss.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Right-wingers trying to appropriate Star Trek is very cringe

Eh, Star Trek has never been quite as left wing as people claim. And tends to rest on its progressive laurels too much.

Though, I'm not saying you're wrong.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Eh, Star Trek has never been quite as left wing as people claim. And tends to rest on its progressive laurels too much.

I think it's important to remember that, as a serialised TV show with three distinct eras, Star Trek has been written by and with creative input from a huge number of people, some of whom were massive tools. It was also made over several decades, during which societal standards changed a lot.

It's not surprising to me that right wingers are drawn to Star Trek, but it's also not surprising to me that left wingers are. On one hand, Star Trek is about an unaccountable paramilitary force that goes around acting like cops, who aggressively defend their own values (values which right winger's might think they share because everyone thinks they are Dumbo), who often have clear, unambiguous enemies to fight and which often revolves around the idea of individual personal worth or the achievements of "heroic" individuals. On the other hand, Star Trek is about a utopian society where all of humanity lives together in harmony, where people are usually gentle and kind to each other, where science and peaceful problem solving are valued and where authority is often questioned or disregarded when it conflicts with moral responsibility.

I think the only thing both sides can agree on is that Discovery era Star Trek is pretty awful, and only really caters to a kind of vacuous neoliberalism which is frankly offensive to everyone.

 

[Dalisclock]

No, they're free to hold it in and develop kidney problems, or just piss their pants, it's their choice to do it in a bottle.

That's just the free market at work, people!

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'm only a right winger in so much as I'm to the right of Chairman Mao.
If people don't want Star Trek used against them maybe they should stop acting like Cardassians

So, I'm going down an ADD rabbit hole on this one, but I don't actually care, this is fascinating to me..

Did you get who the Cardassians were?

They're not just any authoritarian society, are they? They're not the Klingons, they don't value war for the sake of war. They don't oppose the federation because of some social Darwinist belief in the inherent value of war. The Cardassians have beliefs, they have an ideology. They have an ideology which is diametrically opposed to the ideology of the federation in a way that is very consistently characterized. The Cardassian interrogator in the episode you are referring to brings his child into the room where he tortures people, and to prevent her empathizing with Picard he tells her a story about how humans aren't like them, that they don't love their children in the same way Cardassians do. Families come up constantly in the depictions of Cardassian society, their propaganda constantly references their families. Everything they do is framed as being for the protection and preservation of their society, their way of life, their families, against those who are not like them.

Have you figured it out yet?

The Cardassians are fascists. They're not generic authoritarians or bad people in space, they're specifically fascists. They don't torture Picard because they want him to stop saying mean things about their lights on Twitter, they do it because they see him as an inferior, as merely a tool to be used, because the idea that someone different from than can be their equal in personhood is the negation of everything they believe. The number of lights does not matter, there is no purpose to them in making Picard believe that there are 5 lights. What matters is breaking his will and eradicating his individual personhood.

That's why using that metaphor in this context is cringe, it shows you missed something very important and, more importantly, it indicates a warped sense of perspective. You haven't been tortured by a fascist regime. Comparing your own experience to something so extreme, even if it's fictional, is really very silly.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I think the only thing both sides can agree on is that Discovery era Star Trek is pretty awful, and only really caters to a kind of vacuous neoliberalism which is frankly offensive to everyone.

Oh, really? I was hoping it was better than that-- haven't watched it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think it's important to remember that, as a serialised TV show with three distinct eras, Star Trek has been written by and with creative input from a huge number of people, some of whom were massive tools. It was also made over several decades, during which societal standards changed a lot.

True.

Oh, really? I was hoping it was better than that-- haven't watched it.

Neither, but I'm led to believe that it claims to be progressive on LGBT issues, as it has a scene where 2 male characters brush their teeth together.

That was one of the reasons I gave it a miss.

 

[Hawki]

Neither, but I'm led to believe that it claims to be progressive on LGBT issues, as it has a scene where 2 male characters brush their teeth together.

That was one of the reasons I gave it a miss.

Stamets and Cubler ARE gay though, and ARE married. There's no ambiguity, nor is it ever brought attention to.

I think they did try to get some 'woke points' on Burnham though.

 

[Chimpzy]

I'm only a right winger in so much as I'm to the right of Chairman Mao.
If people don't want Star Trek used against them maybe they should stop acting like Cardassians


Happens very much on both sides like the shocking number of people who thought Five Night At Freddy's was endorsing child murder...........I wish I were joking.

View attachment 4114View attachment 4113View attachment 4115

Well, that is rather dumb of these people. Being pro-life and making games about child murder are not mutually exclusive. Pro-lifers are only concerned with keeping an embryo/fetus alive until birth. What happens after the kid is born is not longer their remit.

 

[Agema]

Stamets and Cubler ARE gay though, and ARE married. There's no ambiguity, nor is it ever brought attention to.

But, I think, they also consitute the first overtly homosexual relationship in Star Trek.

If I remember rightly, David Gerrold, a major Star Trek writer from the early days, claims Roddenberry had agreed to include homosexuality in Star Trek for TNG. He also says someone else with a very big say in the Star Trek universe blocked it. And then also blocked it for DS9, Voyager & Enterprise. Gerrold, himself homosexual as I recall, was quite aggrieved about this.

Presumably, the only reason homosexuality finally arrived in Star Trek is that whoever was blocking it was either shuffled out from creative control or somehow felt it could no longer be resisted.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So, I'm going down an ADD rabbit hole on this one, but I don't actually care, this is fascinating to me..

Did you get who the Cardassians were?

They're not just any authoritarian society, are they? They're not the Klingons, they don't value war for the sake of war. They don't oppose the federation because of some social Darwinist belief in the inherent value of war. The Cardassians have beliefs, they have an ideology. They have an ideology which is diametrically opposed to the ideology of the federation in a way that is very consistently characterized. The Cardassian interrogator in the episode you are referring to brings his child into the room where he tortures people, and to prevent her empathizing with Picard he tells her a story about how humans aren't like them, that they don't love their children in the same way Cardassians do. Families come up constantly in the depictions of Cardassian society, their propaganda constantly references their families. Everything they do is framed as being for the protection and preservation of their society, their way of life, their families, against those who are not like them.

Have you figured it out yet?

The Cardassians are fascists. They're not generic authoritarians or bad people in space, they're specifically fascists. They don't torture Picard because they want him to stop saying mean things about their lights on Twitter, they do it because they see him as an inferior, as merely a tool to be used, because the idea that someone different from than can be their equal in personhood is the negation of everything they believe. The number of lights does not matter, there is no purpose to them in making Picard believe that there are 5 lights. What matters is breaking his will and eradicating his individual personhood.

That's why using that metaphor in this context is cringe, it shows you missed something very important and, more importantly, it indicates a warped sense of perspective. You haven't been tortured by a fascist regime. Comparing your own experience to something so extreme, even if it's fictional, is really very silly.

"And remember Children the Big Scary Maga Chuds will doom you all and probably will be mass shooters and secretly want you dead it's impossible for the police to be your friend they're all corrupt bastards who will happily shoot you dead......."

Sorry what was that about people seeing others as inferior and I dunno unenlightened or similar?

I'd say the bigger cringe is the seeming lack of awareness of just how applicable said metaphor is.

 

[Terminal Blue]

He also says someone else with a very big say in the Star Trek universe blocked it.

It's Rick Berman.

Rick Berman essentially took over the production side of Star Trek as a franchise as Roddenberry got too ill to continue. He had little personal creative or film experience, although he did direct several episodes. Berman was essentially responsible for managing the Star Trek franchise during the Next Generation era, although he had varying levels of involvement in each particular series.

To be fair to Berman, he was put in a difficult position. He had to serve as an intermediary between the very conservative US TV industry and the generally very liberal creative teams who actually made the show. However, I think it says a lot that he is almost universally disliked among the people who actually made the show, and several have since come out to accuse him of various unpleasant things too numerous to list here.

In particular, Berman absolutely refused to allow any gay stuff in Star Trek, which is why even in episodes which very explicitly deal with queer themes (like "The Outcast" or "Rejoined") the show always needs to add some kind of no-homo for the characters themselves. There was an enormous tension between a lot of the actors and writers, who wanted to add gay stuff, and Berman who absolutely refused. What's doubly weird about this is that Berman is also at least partly responsible for a lot of the aggressive sexualization of shows like Voyager and Enterprise when compared to the others.

And it's weird, because when you look back on this era it's pretty obvious that a lot of the actors are playing their characters as queer, far more authentically so than some of the actual canonical queer stuff in Discovery, but the show just won't let them come out and say it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

"And remember Children the Big Scary Maga Chuds will doom you all and probably will be mass shooters and secretly want you dead it's impossible for the police to be your friend they're all corrupt bastards who will happily shoot you dead......."

Sorry what was that about people seeing others as inferior and I dunno unenlightened or similar?

I'd say the bigger cringe is the seeming lack of awareness of just how applicable said metaphor is.

And that is why what you are doing is cringe.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know you were the arbiter of what is and isn't valid criticism.

...Says the person decrying certain criticisms he doesn't like as invalid.

"Harmful" and claims he'd "Caused harm" are very specific terms used to illicit and emotional response without having to actual reveal what happened and allow people to judge on their own it is a rather deliberately manipulative method to try and frame a persons actions to have them condemned based on the framing not the reality. It's about getting people to believe the lie.

Uh-huh. But it's not a factual claim, and it's objectively not libelous.

*Ahem*

I believe that what you're writing here is harmful.

Now sue me. You can screenshot that and present it in a court. If it's libelous, sue me.

Funny because none of those three posters ever bothered to clarify their actual position in the end.

Who gives a shit? That's irrelevant to what we're arguing.

They didn't condone abuse or harassment. That's the only relevant point to your accusation that they condoned abuse or harassment.

You made an accusation that they held a specific position, and now you're pointing to other shit they didn't say as a justification? It's pathetic.

On your thief example. So you'd ignore the muddy footprints, the broken window, the glass cuts on the persons wrist and say they did nothing wrong because there is no CCTV footage showing them taking the item.

All of which is context relevant to the allegation.

You haven't provided a damn thing relevant to the accusation. You've just moaned that they brought up criticism when you don't think they should have done, and then moaned that they didn't lay out what their position was afterwards. None of that's even remotely relevant.

You made a false accusation. Three times.

 

[Silvanus]

That was one of the reasons I gave it a miss.

What do you have against dental hygiene?

 

[AnxietyProne]

I'm only a right winger in so much as I'm to the right of Chairman Mao.

And I'm only an extreme leftist in so much I'm to the left of Rush Limbaugh. Yet still I'm constantly called a straight up COMMUNIST by right wingers.

Cry moar.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

And that is why what you are doing is cringe.

Except that wouldn't be cringe then that would be self realisation and introspection hitting in that the metaphor was so applicable..........

And I'm only an extreme leftist in so much I'm to the left of Rush Limbaugh. Yet still I'm constantly called a straight up COMMUNIST by right wingers.

Cry moar.

No thanks it's rather nice in the pit, you want me to save you a spot for when it's inevitably decided you didn't toe the line enough?
I mean back in the day I said it was stupid seeing Sarah Palin pushing American Sniper and saying people who didn't see it just hated America and it's Troops.
These days it's people saying unless you like x film you hate all women and I say that's stupid now.

In the past I said it was bad of Wall Mart when they were denying health insurance coverage for contraceptives and firing employees who talked about it or talked about using it.
I stand against corporate over-reach now too.

what changed other than who was benefiting from the actions being done?
I've not vastly changed on my positions on things.

Just a funny observation of how things have changed and not for the better IMHO

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

...Says the person decrying certain criticisms he doesn't like as invalid.

...say the persons trying to present what at best is borderline Libel if not outright libel as criticism and having to resort to semantic to do so rather than the spirit of the claims being made.

Uh-huh. But it's not a factual claim, and it's objectively not libelous.

*Ahem*

I believe that what you're writing here is harmful.

Now sue me. You can screenshot that and present it in a court. If it's libelous, sue me.

Except the way it was presented on the Subedit was as an objective claim not merely a personal opinion

His actions and words have hurt a lot of (typically) underrepresented people....

Not I believe his actions have hurt people. An objective statement that they have hurt people and not specifically stating "Their feelings"

Who gives a shit? That's irrelevant to what we're arguing.

They didn't condone abuse or harassment. That's the only relevant point to your accusation that they condoned abuse or harassment.

You made an accusation that they held a specific position, and now you're pointing to other shit they didn't say as a justification? It's pathetic.

So was criticism irrelevant to what the people they were replying to were on about. So it's fine for some people to be irrelevant to try and conflate or deflect but not ok to be irrelevant in the way you call it out?

Tell me if they won't refute my claim how do you know they don't condone harassment and abuse?

All of which is context relevant to the allegation.

You haven't provided a damn thing relevant to the accusation. You've just moaned that they brought up criticism when you don't think they should have done, and then moaned that they didn't lay out what their position was afterwards. None of that's even remotely relevant.

You made a false accusation. Three times.

Oh I thought context didn't matter so unless you caught the thief with the item in their possession you couldn't say they stole it?

If people won't lay out a position then how can you claim to know their position?

Or is this the say way despite telling you 18 times what my position was you still refused to accept it and claim I had some evil ulterior motive?

 

[Agema]

And I'm only an extreme leftist in so much I'm to the left of Rush Limbaugh. Yet still I'm constantly called a straight up COMMUNIST by right wingers.

I used to be a leftist and then I realised they also believed equality, fair treatment and welfare was also deserved by non-whites, women, immigrants, homosexuals, Muslims and Jews. So I thought fuck that shit and signed up with the far right instead, and now everyone calls me a Nazi instead.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I used to be a leftist and then I realised they also believed equality, fair treatment and welfare was also deserved by non-whites, women, immigrants, homosexuals, Muslims and Jews. So I thought fuck that shit and signed up with the far right instead, and now everyone calls me a Nazi instead.

And then you meet the ones who believe in equity and societal justice meaning that they want to treat people badly because people in the past would have treated people like them badly and so it's only fair to do it back in the here and now to balance the scales so to speak without realising they're merely perpetuating the same cycle.

But hey I'm apparently evil because I don't automatically support feel good knee jerk moves that aren't all properly thought through.

When the standards are right or left and if you're deemed not one you must be the other it's pretty funny to me and plenty of others in the proverbial pit because we didn't choose to be here we were tossed in here for crime like not thinking Ghotbusters 2016 is the best film ever or criticising Battlefield V. I guess voting remain, being in favour of gay marriage, having literally spoken out over a gay game developer having his revenue cut off and other such stuff means nothing in the grant order of things because I don't toe the line all the time.