Is Star Trek only for Lefties?

[LilSaihah]

I don't know what to think, honestly. I'm not a lefty on most things, but I've usually enjoyed Star Trek. I'm not sure who is right or wrong here.

It seems pretty obvious. Steve defines "conservative" as "racist". He's wrong.

[Elegiac]

First of all you were the one who brought up the apolitical portion, which was irrelevant to my post. But it becomes more philosophical in how earth would be exploring the universe (diplomacy over war except in a lot of the later Star Treks, non interference, what is life), there are a lot more larger questions being asked than the questions being asked in the current political system in the US.

That's not what is meant by "political" in this context.

But I mean it's ironic you'd mention the Prime Directive when that concept is a pretty explicit commentary on imperialism.

I know you just want to talk about just interviews outside the show instead of the actual show, but in order to understand the question asked in the OP you have to have some knowledge of the show, instead of what you want the show to say, and sure there can be political commentary in it at times, but the philosophy of star trek, when you remove most of the problems we have today, becomes more about asking more grand philosophical questions instead how to solve a lot of the problems we have today.

Nice implication that people who point out the social commentary in Star Trek and use interviews, memoirs, etc. on the production as backing for their statements haven't actually watched the show, lol.

But no, I'm not interested in Thermian Arguments. The society depicted in Star Trek is post-scarcity, but the society that the creator of the Star Trek mythos lived in was and is not.

[Every Pwny]

That's not what is meant by "political" in this context.

But I mean it's ironic you'd mention the Prime Directive when that concept is a pretty explicit commentary on imperialism.

Sure, it's anti-imperialism and not interfering in the natural development of species, even if that species is going to be wiped out, but it is something they violate on occasion as well. I don't think right or left wing ideals are about imperialism, but then people make up a lot of strawmen to attack the side they don't like so maybe that is something you believe. But then again this gets away from the question asked in the op.

Nice implication that people who point out the social commentary in Star Trek and use interviews, memoirs, etc. on the production as backing for their statements haven't actually watched the show, lol.

But no, I'm not interested in Thermian Arguments. The society depicted in Star Trek is post-scarcity, but the society that the creator of the Star Trek mythos lived in was and is not.

You've really pointed out nothing other than to say "yes it is", while ignoring the show, racism has been eliminated in the Star Trek universe for the federation, but in TOS sexism has definitely not been. The crews and orders are coming from earth, which is a utopia, this is pointed out many times across the different series, and once you take away the scarcity problems a lot of today's problems become irrelevant. Many problems of today stem from the need for resources, once that is no longer an issue a lot of ideologies of today become pointless. You are really attempting to ignore how much post scarcity would effect a society and how irrelevant left or right ideologies of the US becomes in star trek because of this.

[silveth]

Hmmm, I didn't know a good si/fi that happens to have a democratic, resource abundant capitalist system could only be liked by those that lean one way or another.

I thought it was just a good si/fi.

Since everyone seems to be talking left or right wing, where do the moderates fit?

I am sure someone will jump in to tell me what my opinion of the show has to be, because it obviously can't just be good si/fi world created by a talented entertainer.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Star Trek, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and ENT was politically inoffensive. They just told good stories.

Then we reached the reboot era, which when they started shoving agenda down our throats. *cough* Michael Burnum *cough* Picard being about the evils of the US military industrial complex and moral grandstanding *cough*

[JohnBrown1917]

Star Trek, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and ENT was politically inoffensive. They just told good stories.

Then we reached the reboot era, which when they started shoving agenda down our throats. *cough* Michael Burnum *cough* Picard being about the evils of the US military industrial complex and moral grandstanding *cough*

If you get offended by that... oh boy.
But yeah, that sort of stuff is nothing new to star trek, how did you watch it all while missing every political point the writers made?

[Endus]

Star Trek, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and ENT was politically inoffensive. They just told good stories.

Then we reached the reboot era, which when they started shoving agenda down our throats. *cough* Michael Burnum *cough* Picard being about the evils of the US military industrial complex and moral grandstanding *cough*

What "agenda" do you think Burnham was "pushing"? That women are capable? That non-whites are? That's about the only kind of "agenda" she could be seen as representing.

As for ST: Picard; Picard was grandstanding constantly in TNG. He has entire episodes where he morally grandstands before what is effectively God himself, incarnate as Q. And wins, by outmoralizing God.

I also really don't get where you think there was any suggestion that the military industrial complex was "bad". When Riker showed up with a massive fleet of top-of-the-line starships, that was a victory. There was never any hint of this in the show. You're making it up, and it has no basis.

[Orange Joe]

Because you could make the next iteration of the show even more enjoyable to everyone by giving positive and negative feedback which then informs the next generation of artists about how they could improve the franchise.

Ahhh... The height of arrogance. "I know whats better for you than you do."

[PC2]

Ahhh... The height of arrogance. "I know whats better for you than you do."

No the way art works is that it's never perfect, it's always flawed and can be criticized and improved via feedback.

[Endus]

No the way art works is that it's never perfect, it's always flawed and can be criticized and improved via feedback.

And yet, again, "I don't like a thing" is not criticism, and does not speak to any flaws. And addressing that complaint does not necessarily improve anything, and indeed, poses a serious risk of diminishing the creator's vision and intent.

A lot of people are mistaking subjective preference for objective fact. If you don't like a thing, just go enjoy something else. Complaining that you don't like the thing isn't criticism, doesn't help anything or anyone, and is just an expression of a completely unwarranted entitlement complex.

[PC2]

And yet, again, "I don't like a thing" is not criticism, and does not speak to any flaws. And addressing that complaint does not necessarily improve anything, and indeed, poses a serious risk of diminishing the creator's vision and intent.

A lot of people are mistaking subjective preference for objective fact. If you don't like a thing, just go enjoy something else. Complaining that you don't like the thing isn't criticism, doesn't help anything or anyone, and is just an expression of a completely unwarranted entitlement complex.

Okay but for me I already said that I like Star Trek overall and I never said "I don't like Star Trek" so I can't really go into a detailed criticism unless we're talking about a specific episode or movie.

[Endus]

Okay but for me I already said that I like Star Trek overall and I never said "I don't like Star Trek" so I can't really go into a detailed criticism unless we're talking about a specific episode or movie.

It's not that broad.

If you really dislike, say, Star Trek: Discovery, and think it's not the kind of Star Trek you want to see, well, that's not criticism. You're not being critical, at all. You're just stating a personal subjective taste. The only response that warrants is a heart "K". It does not suggest any change should be made, it only suggests it wasn't to your taste.

Any argument that everyone else shouldn't like it because you don't like it, that's the arrogance Orange Joe was talking about. I've had this out with people in multiple threads, and I'll point out that some of their reasons don't hold up to scrutiny, and others are purely subjective, and I'll usually get called a "liar" or some kind of agent working for the production team, solely because I happened to like a thing, and someone else didn't. And I'm never demanding anyone like the thing in question. I've never made that argument, because it's a ridiculous thing to ask. But they demand that I stop liking it, all the time, and that's equally fucking ridiculous.

Not liking a thing is not criticism, and doesn't mean you have a defensible reason why others should not like the thing. Which should be fine; I don't demand everyone hate zucchini, just because I don't. But they're not satisfied with that; they have to try and ruin it for everyone who does like it. That's shitty behaviour, and isn't about criticism; it's arrogance and bullying.


Case in point here, with this thread; don't like political allegory? Then maybe you just don't like Star Trek all that much. That's fine; go watch something else. Don't waste your time complaining about its political messaging and demanding everyone else change their opinions on it. We're fine with that messaging; it's one of the things we like. So piss off. You don't like it? K. So what? It doesn't matter if you like it or not. If enough of us do like it, they'll keep making it, and you don't get to have a say in that.

[Jotaux]

Hmmm, I didn't know a good si/fi that happens to have a democratic, resource abundant capitalist system could only be liked by those that lean one way or another.

I thought it was just a good si/fi.

The federation is not capitalist in the slightest. I still enjoy it, well except for discovery, as soon as I saw the Klingons I noped out of there.

[Temp name]

Is it just for lefties? Nah, I think right handed people can enjoy it too.

But seriously, thinking only people of one political ideology can enjoy a piece of fiction is ridiculous. Lord of the Rings is set in a world where kings are a thing, and they're regularly brought up, but no one talks about how only people in support of monarchies can enjoy that.

[Rennadrel]

It seems pretty obvious. Steve defines "conservative" as "racist". He's wrong.

If you aren't a neo-Marxist intersectionalist, you might as well be a Nazi, because that's how those lunatics treat everyone who isn't on their far side of the spectrum.

[Cruor]

I enjoyed Star Trek TNG, and Voyager is "ok" I have not watched Picard yet but I hear it has stupid leftie political messages. As others have said, the writers and actors are mainly left wing, so what can you do. TNG didnt have too many issues, I dont recall much forced diversity except the amount of female/non white admirals kinda stuck out like a sore thumb. Like there are 3 black people on a crew of 1014 on the Enterprise but 1/2 the admirals are black or female, kinda felt like pandering. Anyway, I'm as far to the right as you can get on this forum and I enjoyed Star Trek more than I didn't. I wish the Federation wasn't so soft (avoiding a fight at almost any cost) but overall was entertaining.

[Elegiac]

I enjoyed Star Trek TNG, and Voyager is "ok" I have not watched Picard yet but I hear it has stupid leftie political messages. As others have said, the writers and actors are mainly left wing, so what can you do. TNG didnt have too many issues, I dont recall much forced diversity except the amount of female/non white admirals kinda stuck out like a sore thumb. Like there are 3 black people on a crew of 1014 on the Enterprise but 1/2 the admirals are black or female, kinda felt like pandering. Anyway, I'm as far to the right as you can get on this forum and I enjoyed Star Trek more than I didn't. I wish the Federation wasn't so soft (avoiding a fight at almost any cost) but overall was entertaining.

Pretty much a decent summary of why Star Trek isn't for right wingers since they clearly aren't capable of understanding the point of it.

[Elegiac]

Entertainment isn't for any political orientation.

Certain political orientations, however, are better able to grasp the themes and messages in any given bit of entertainment. Especially when a certain orientation has a hate boner for literary or film criticism as a matter of political platform.

[Rozz]

This thread will be closed. The topic is not really fitting for Gen-OT, Politics, or Cinema / TV Shows / Music / Books considering the intended discussion.