Comment on The Stars of Star Trek: Section 31 Know Why You're Nervous About the Movie
toast@retrolemmy.com 1 week agoYeah. Reading the article, Section 31 seems great if you just want to just shit on everything else in the franchise. Nope, not for me.
mina@berlin.social 1 week ago
@toast
I mean, in DS9, section 31 were clearly villains, right?
@ThirdMoonOfPluto
astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 1 week ago
It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Section 31 is supposed to be. Sloan wasn’t a good guy. 31 actively tried to commit genocide.
The idea behind them is that arguments of ends justifying the means and “getting dirty” to preserve higher ideals is morally, philosophically, and practically bankrupt. The Federation didn’t need 31 to win the war, and in fact, their methods would have made it much worse. Section 31 as a plot device exists to show us that there will always be those looking to use higher ideals to support terrible actions, and we must be constantly vigilant against them.
It truly pains me how that message has been twisted, and people think Section 31 are not only good guys but also cool.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 week ago
Do we know that for certain? The cure to the virus was actually pretty fundamental to the Female Changeling ordering the Jem’Hadar to stand down. She refused to surrender until Odo linked with her and cured her.
pupbiru@aussie.zone 6 days ago
i think that the existence of the disease is more of a maguffin than the point that the solution was achieved without section 31… the “problem” could have been any number of things and the fact that it’s s31 is more an interesting plot device to create other narratives around, rather than degrading the ultimate point
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 week ago
What, then, is the message in the episode where Sisko “would do it all again” concerning assassinating a political rival and faking evidence to bring the Romulans into the war against the Dominion?
inverted_deflector@startrek.website 6 days ago
It certainly shows that the federation doesnt need a weird shadowy organization to skirt the rules and make morally ambiguous decisions.
pupbiru@aussie.zone 6 days ago
episodes shouldn’t be assumed to be exploring the same moral or philosophical points… it’s very difficult to explore complex logical arguments through innuendo whilst also maintaining a consistent grounding for all of them
and also, the decision is left up to the viewer: by presenting situations that both (perhaps) cross, and do not cross the line it allows us to form our own opinions, rather than the shows writers convince us of their idea of what’s right and wrong
toast@retrolemmy.com 1 week ago
Villains or heroes isn’t the issue. It’s the argument that we need a group that doesn’t play by the rules that apply to the rest of society that I find problematic.
Shouldn’t we strive for a world in which the rules really do apply to all? Can’t we hope to conceive of a set of laws standards by which we should all be judged? Isn’t the world of Star Trek meant in some way to be aspirational, rather than just a reflection of what we have now?
MalikMuaddibSoong@startrek.website 1 week ago
We live in a world that has
wallsfederation worlds, and those federation worlds have to be guarded.Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Barclay?
williams_482@startrek.website 6 days ago
Yes?
Lieutenant Barklay and the huge, powerful, and successful paramilitary organization who employs him are exactly who is supposed to guard Federation worlds. Which is what they do.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 week ago
They were definitely villains in the series…but I don’t think DS9 ever made a strong case that they weren’t necessary (nor do I think they were trying to).
Right up until the end, the morphogenic virus was critical to the end of the war.
mina@berlin.social 1 week ago
@ValueSubtracted
I wanted to watch the series again, anyway. It's been a time.
As I remember it, they left it rather ambiguous, which is the actual point.
If moral choices were easy, we wouldn't have to think about them too much.
Yes, the virus ended the war, but at what price?
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 week ago
I completely agree.
I’ve often thought that there must have been plenty of Section 31 operations that didn’t rise to the level of, you know, genocide, and that those operations were likely more ambiguous.
I’m hoping that whatever they’re up to in this movie is more in that vein - almost certainly illegal, but probably more ethically murky?
reddig33@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I think the dark humor is what kills this for me. A “mission impossible” style spy show set in the Star Trek universe would be fine. An empress from the mirror universe who gets her kicks killing and eating people isn’t anything I’m interested in.
Corgana@startrek.website 1 week ago
Villains who’s engineered virus forced the Dominion to the negotiating table… just saying.
“Good and evil isn’t as black and white as TNG portrayed it” is kinda DS9’s whole deal.
marlowe221@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Right, it’s Sisko’s “It’s easy to be an angel in paradise…” from season 1. That’s the main theme of the whole show - how do the Federation’s ideals hold up in significantly less than ideal conditions? What does it mean to be “the good guys” when all of the choices in front of you are varying degrees of bad?
People always mention the later season, understandably so, but it carries through the entire series. In some ways, it’s even more prominent in the early seasons when DS9 is portrayed as being pretty remote, Federation back up is far away, the main cast is own their own, and the e Cardassian fleet is always nearby.