Star trek longposting

The question of social justice has been on my mind as of late.

Looking over some of the recent Discovery-related bannings, I can't say I agree with the harshness or hastiness with which these have been dealt, nor the reasoning behind them.

One thing that I find problematic is the insensitivity of one crowd of posters in equating Trek (and geek) culture with what we might call today's "woke politics". This is not only inaccurate, but at times I cant help but think is intentionally incendiary.

In fact I can't think of a better example of "cultural appropriation" than to identify Trek as a "social justice" icon.

Now to be fair, I dont think anyone disagrees that Trek has always dealt with progressive issues and hot button topics of the day. Anyone who thinks Trek is purely spaceships and lasers and warp drives clearly doesnt understand Trek. But I think we're forgetting the historical context of its fandom and social commentary.

Trek wasn't always "cool". Geek culture has historically been the default landing space of awkward social rejects. Because of this, there's always been a distinct character of openness and acceptance in these fandoms that celebrates differences in opinions, or at least the ability to talk about them. A fandom of outcasts has to be accepting of differences on the account of their commonality being that they are different.

In a way, geek fandom mimics the series. When the Federation encounters "new life" and "new civilizations", its _first_ instinct is to open hailing frequencies and extend every olive branch to in an attempt to reconcile differences. You could literally be an unintelligible crystalline entity that destroys whatever life it touches, an enemy trespassing the neutral zone, a space jellyfish attacking a temple, or cyborg drones from a hostile empire. Hailing frequencies open. Transmit peace signs. We mean you no harm.

Above all else, the ability to discuss, to reason, to introspect. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy all have their own way of meeting the new aliens, but during their course they talk not just with the aliens, but among themselves about how best to get past their troubles. So many times, Picard could simply use his superior rank, firepower, or political leverage just to get his way, but what does he do? He composes the most eloquent well thought out speech to convince them to aid him willingly.

There's a stark contrast between that and one unpalatable element of today's "woke" culture that knows no forgiveness, proportionality, or nuance in its punishments. Say the wrong thing, push the wrong hot buttons, and all objections are irrelevant. Resistance is futile. Assimilate the exact formulation of words and ideas we want or be erased forever.

Well to any one out there who may be listening, I say this: There can be no social justice so long as law is absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.

Equating one with the other, when in this respect they are polar opposites, then punishing any dissent, is like torturously claiming there are five lights. Rather than the accepting, open environment born of social outcasts who have nowhere to go, we foster an environment that nourishes bullies who mock those with social anxiety. Rather than a place where people have an understanding - and forgiveness - of social awkwardness, we establish the place where one has to be most careful of social norms.

I hope this illustrates in depth why it's not just wrong to identify these movements together - it's grating, like the bully who not only makes you do his homework, but also somehow convinces the teacher that you copied off of him. Progressive social ideas long preceded today's "social justice" movements, indeed, may have helped create these movements, even as the woke crowd spits on some of its ideas. But it's over presumptuous to identify them as the same thing.

I can't characterize the objections to modern takes on Star Trek and other geek icons as simple bigotry, or ignorance of Star Trek. Quite the opposite.

Trek often stood against the status quo. The Uhura kiss didn't get lashback because fans were fed up with interracial kissing on TV. The Uhura kiss got lashback because it took TV where no show had gone before, and much of the lashback was from people who didn't know what the show was about to begin with.

A show that goes against the establishment to further acceptance is one thing; a show that simply expresses the establishment's views on minorities is another. I can see why some people would object not to having a minority, but to that being an overbearing part of the series. Indeed, merely inserting a token minority in the series doesn't really do it anymore because we've had Vulcans, Klingons, Ferengi, blind people, robots, and Ensign Kim.

If people object to the "wokeness" on those grounds, it's in fact because of the lack of wokeness. It's one thing to show an interracial kiss that has never happened before. It's another thing to cast a strong black female lead in a Hollywood where strong black female leads are becoming a trope and some of the richest, most powerful entertainers on the planet are strong black female leads. It's one thing for Gene Roddenberry to specifically assemble a racially diverse cast during the cold war. It's another thing to villainize an "oppressive" white man for mansplaining after two decades worth of movies villainizing oppressive white men. For these to be hailed as achievements by the same social bullies who find the anti-geek jokes of Big Bang Theory funny is an astounding lack of understanding or appreciation of what Trek had achieved.

I have always found the preference of Trek series as a matter of taste, and whichever political leanings revealed by such a mere curiosity. But the character of endorsement for Discovery has stopped being just preference, but rather is being taken as a core character failing, from which there is no recovery, as if disagreeing with the quality of the series were proof a priori of being a sexist racist pig.

This hasn't always been the case. Fans have long been able to complain about specific episodes or even entire seasons of Trek without being accused of evil. I personally find seven of nine to be an amazing and interesting character, and Jery Ryan's Borg performance unequaled, but I have trouble stomaching how badly Star Trek Voyager of Nine had to revolve around her. I dont ever recall opinions of that nature being demonized on the grounds of being afraid of strong female characters. There are more than a handful TNG episodes I'd be happy to sleep through. That doesn't mean I hate children, am an anti (or pro) capitalist, have rebellious tendencies, hate mariachi bands or what have you. My tastes are simply that, my tastes, and in those instances, they didn't hit home.

I personally havent watched Discovery. Yet. I don't intend to skip it, Im just in the middle of a TNG rewatch that I suspect will take months before I progress production chronologically all the way to the Abrams remakes and Discovery. But the speed with which Discovery criticism is silenced on the grounds of association with "garbage" ideas is concerning.

It all began when we as a culture took down a bigot and an abuser, a man who admitted his guilt and who will answer for his crime. But the hunt didn't end there. Other men are being silenced based on insinuation and innuendo, some to the point where their career stands in ruins. Have we become so fearful? Have we become so cowardly that we must extinguish a man because he has shared the tastes of a current enemy? Shitposters, let us not condemn Simon Tarses, or anyone else, because of their preferred series, or investigate others for their innocent associations. I implore you, do not continue with this proceeding. End it now.

(to the inevitable wall of text tldr why did u write this comments, it's a hobby, the ensign kim quip made this whole thing worth it, and magnificent isnt it)