Comment on It's sad that people completely misunderstand what Star Trek is about.
JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 day agoI thought I did a reasonable job of explaining the narrative distinction in my comment. Maybe you could be specific about which part you don’t understand, or which part with which you might disagree?
Kirk@startrek.website 1 day ago
yeah sure so im curious to know what “forced inclusion” means and how we’re supposed to tell it apart from regular inclusion.
JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Which part of my explanation did you not understand or disagree with?
Kirk@startrek.website 23 hours ago
Your explanation didn’t explain what “forced inclusion” means and what makes it different from regular inclusion. Maybe you could give an example of each from Star Trek?
JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
I think it did. If you disagree please tell me how. I provided two examples.
ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I can’t speak for the other poster, but the way I see is is that “forced inclusion” is where the script directs viewer attention to it in a protracted, unnatural manner that is not pertinent to the plot. For instance, the script may be as blunt as a character saying “Wow, I can’t believe you made it this far despite being a marginalized out-group,” or it could be slightly more subtle by having offering a stereotyped representation of marginalized out-group without any kind of deeper exploration. I.e. Tokenism
Star Trek, for the most part, dove into social subjects deeper than other media at the time. Like other users have pointed out, TOS confronted racism and gender roles head on by placing a black female character on the bridge. Never drawing attention to those traits was such a strong rebuke against racism and male chauvinism that no more needed to be said. In my view, that is inclusion that is not forced upon the viewer; it is implied, but unless the viewer is explicitly looking for it, they’d never notice.
Kirk@startrek.website 23 hours ago
Ok makes sense but did SFA do that? If so, when?