Comment on Phasers set to "Bitch please"

Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Stamets@startrek.website ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Well, as someone who’s gay, I’d say that the representation from Stamets and Culber didn’t feel forced or natural. If Stamets were straight and Culber were a woman then nothing would change. If Adira wasn’t non-binary then nothing would change. If Grey wasn’t trans then nothing would change. Stamets was on screen for like two episodes before you ever find out that he’s gay. Culber on for one. Adira doesn’t mention that they’re non-binary until halfway through Season 3 and the reaction is literally just “Okay” and they move on. Grey only has two throwaway lines mentioning a previous transition. Their characters are all well established without their sexuality or identity having any impact on the show. It would all be the same characters but straight. The show goes out of its way to demonstrate that being gay, trans or non-binary has literally nothing to do with the content of your character.

  I am getting slightly tired though of seeing people who aren’t part of the community saying that the representation of us ‘feels forced’. Our mere existence isn’t forced.

  source

  • Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Calm down.

    You don’t need to go into full attack Mode here. Im happy for you, that you felt repretented. I did not feel the way they handled it felt like good representstion. I’d be happy to see more representstion in general, I just wish it would be embedded into a better told story. If you are cool with the way it’s done: Good for you.

    I am getting slightly tired though of seeing people who aren’t part of the community saying that the representation of us ‘feels forced’. Our mere existence isn’t forced. Moreover, are you really the one who gets to judge this? After people trying to kill us for decades, and then using us for marketing purposes, now y’all wanna judge whether our existence is “forced”?

    This is a beautiful example of heteronormativity at work. You can disagree with me on how and if Discovery did a good job of representing LGBTQI+. topic or not without assuming my sexuality or implying thst I called out for the war on gays, thank you very much.

    source

    • Stamets@startrek.website ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I am calm. If I was in attack mode it would be very different.

      Im happy for you, that you felt repretented. I did not feel the way they handled it felt like good representstion.

      Why? You have not yet explained or elaborated that point. You’ve just went “Nah. Not good.” Meanwhile that representation has won literal awards from multiple different international organizations that are specifically devoted to LGBTQIA+ representation.

      ’d be happy to see more representstion in general, I just wish it would be embedded into a better told story.

      There is a massive difference between “the story isn’t a good one and gay characters shouldn’t be brought down by bad writing” and “this is bad representation and feels forced”. You did not originally say that it was “embedded into a better told story” originally which is what I’m responding to.

      This is a beautiful example of heteronormativity at work.

      Correct. I assumed you were straight because I have yet to meet anyone from the LGBTQIA+ community who would be so self-sabotaging that they say it’s bad representation while being wildly unclear about your stance and opinion. While it’s a little on me to make an assumption, you can’t exactly blame me when for my entire life I’ve been forced to justify my simple existence to people who constantly judge me day after day by what they think the standard is. Not only that but generally I think that if someone is going to be giving the opinion on whether or not the representation is good of a particular group, they should openly be saying that they’re part of the group. Otherwise it just sounds like you’re a complete stranger looking in and judging the representation on behalf of a group that never asked for it.

      Gay characters are allowed to exist. The representation was fine and probably the best representation that we’ve gotten in a while. Moreover, it’s the only representation we’ve gotten on a large scale in Star Trek at any point in history. And once again, it has won literal awards for its representation.

      source

      • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I feel like often criticism of how representation is done in media is really just veiled criticism that it’s normalized in the show.

        It’s like representation should only be blatant and pandering (so it can be called woke by the same people) or so far in the background it’s easy to ignore it or not catch it if you’re not who’s being represented.

        I love that it’s just business as usual in these shows and the representation is organic, because that’s real life.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • unreasonabro@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      your depression is getting the better of you

      source

      • Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I’m fine, thanks for your concern.

        source
  • lugal@sopuli.xyz ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    A gay couple in a series today is as forced as a black woman on the bridge in the 60s. The people who complained about the latter are the same kind of people who complain about the former today and not even notice the latter. It’s also the same kind of people who won’t notice either in the future and complain about what ever. Star trek handled political topics very well from the beginning by showing it as normal and making it a topic in allegories, sometimes making it explicit like when Kirk and Bones talk about how the “cold war on earth in the 20th century never got hot” or how wrong the Vietnam war “was”.

    You want your star trek before it was political? You can’t be talking about TOS, not even the first pilot. Maybe the intro?

    source
  • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It did bother me a little that Adira was adopted by Stamets and Culber, only because it sort of felt like “let’s keep all the LGBT+ characters together” in a way, but I love that there’s a nonbinary primary character on Star Trek.

    source

    • Stamets@startrek.website ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      To be fair, that trope is called ‘adopted family’ and is incredibly popular within the gay community itself, which makes sense when you think about it. It usually comes from a place that one LGBT+ person has been abandoned by everyone in their life so other LGBT+ step in to help because they know what it’s been like their whole lives. Overall it’s actually a very large part of the LGBT+ community and the primary driving force as to why people say “YOU’RE GROOMING OUR KIDS!” Someone will disown an LGBT+ youth, that youth reaches out to people similar for them for help, those people help, and then the parents get enraged.

      While it is a bit of a “Let’s keep them together”, I genuinely think it was done by the LGBT+ folks themselves and just keeping to representing the community in general. That and Adira does have more in common with Stamets than anyone else on board.

      source

      • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        That makes sense. Thanks for that perspective.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • kshade@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    To me the relationship between Stamets and Culber felt like the single island of humanity and goodness in the four seasons I almost got through. And then they fridged Culber, only to then bring him back with mushroom trauma. Not really the woke thing to do. Adira and Gray just seemed kinda pointless from what I remember, despite the somewhat interesting backstory.

    What I found forced and entirely unnecessary was Lt. Connolly in the first episode of the second season.

    source
• emptyother@programming.dev ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Can’t LGBT+ be included unless its meaningful? I dont like that “pandering” argument. It is too easy to misuse, too subjective.

  I want them included in bad shows as much as in good shows. I want a random background person to be gay just as much as an important character. Best case would be if we didnt even raise an eyebrow on seeing a LGBT+ character and rather critizise their acting or plot instead of blaming “pandering”. I dont hear anyone call forcing a unecessary romantic straight subplot into a plot for “pandering”.

  source

  • Stamets@startrek.website ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I dont hear anyone call forcing a unecessary romantic straight subplot into a plot for “pandering”.

    That line needs to be screamed from the heavens. For every single person who claims that “Oh their sexuality or identity feels forced” they seem to have no problem with stuff like Hulk and Black Widow having a relationship, or baby t-shirts saying surprisingly sexual stuff (or at least innuendo). Or saying that their kids are dating someone else simply because their child dares to be friends with the opposite sex.

    It’s exhausting. Everytime there is a gay character it has to meet some random standard that does not exist for any straight characters.

    source
  • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Best case would be if we didnt even raise an eyebrow on seeing a LGBT+ character

    This is what I’ve liked about Discovery in particular. It feels to meet like it’s just organic and normal. They don’t highlight or make a spectacle of the LGBT+ characters’ gender/identity and it’s just there, normal and regular, just like in real life.

    source
• Daqu@feddit.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The stories suck and neither fanservice nor wokeness save new trek from being worse than the trek from our youth.

  source
• Lavitz@lemmings.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Gloomy have you ever watched Star Trek? Like not just watched the pretty lights on the TV but ingested the story? The idea of the new episodes being more “woke” than the classic, TNG or DS9 is garbage.

  source

  • Stamets@startrek.website ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I was so blinded by the ‘bad representation of homosexuality’ nonsense that I missed the environmentalism aspect. Environmentalism is too much for Star Trek?! The Voyage Home (just a single example) is explicitly about environmentalism and how hunting/pollution led to the extinction of marine life. If I spent 30 seconds on google I’d probably find another half dozen episodes that are specifically about it or the impacts of it.

    source

    • LucyLastic@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Tom Paris literally became an eco-terrorist for one episode

      source
    • Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Im not saying Envormentalim is too much for Star Trek. Nor am I saying Queer topic are. That’s simply not what I wrote anywhere.

      I said they felt tucked on. Read my comment below got some more detail, if you want to.

      But thanks anyway for your input, I have done some more reading and somewhat have to agree with you.

      ST:D did indeed treat Queer topic with respect. It’s still a shitty show and I see the pandering aspect of it. I do still wish it would have been embedded in a better story (and way of telling said story). But I do stand corrected in regards to their overall handling Queer topics.

      It’s been some time since I watched ST:D and it was a quite negative experience overall. I suppose that lead to me not seeing the positives in it. I did some more reading now and see where you are coming from.

      Thanks again for your input.

      source
  • Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I have, yes, since I was about 10. Ive seen all of old Trek up to DS9 multiple times. Im not saying New is more woke.

    Im saying that progressiv and “woke” ideas used to be told in a orgsnic way that felt natural to the world they were told in. Modern Star Trek, to me, is badly told stories with fanservice and woke ideas glued onto them in an awkward way.

    source

    • Lavitz@lemmings.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Buddy at the time Sisco being Sisco was a big deal. It was not organic and it definitely wasn’t accepted by everyone. You need more context for the times when the past series came out. You don’t feel like the past series are pushing the boundaries because those boundaries have already been pushed. All of that stuff has been normalized and accepted in part because of Star Trek.

      You have the right to not like the new Star Trek series but you can’t blame it on it being progressive and woke because that’s always been Star Treks MO.

      source
    • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Seems like your problem is that it’s normalized in the new shows and not being made to be a spectacle.

      I’d love examples of how the story of the newer shows has progressive ideas “glued onto them” and how representation could be better done.

      source

      • Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I have spend some time reading and have to agree with you. I do stand by some of my statements and am happy to provide examples:

        Environmental Issus

        I refer to “Sanctuary” (ST:D S3E08) here. The underlying message of the episode is, of course, pro environmental. My main issue is, that it is so very very not subtle about it. The obvious good guy of COURSE is an “empath” and OF COURSE everybody on the planet is oh so nice to animals, to a point of asking them kindly to leave again (powered by a magical space laser), instead of forcing them out. And OF COURSE they live in complete harmony with nature, because THEY ARE THE GOOD GUYS, CAN’T YOU SEE HOW F-ING GOOD THEY ARE.

        It’s tiering. It’s so so obvious who are the goodies and the badies. There is no grey here, nothing thought provoking. This is, in my opinion, pandering to the left crowd.

        Which I am member of. I count myself as someone, who is very much interested in the whole topic of climate chance, systems collapse and environmental movement. It’s a topic that matters to me. Here it is not driven forward. The episode isn’t showing anything new; it’s not presenting any solutions; it’s not highlighting any problems. It doesn’t trust its audience with the ability to think for themselves. It’s like getting pre-chewed food. You don’t have to question anything, don’t have to conclude anything. It’s just plane obvious how this should be viewed. The whole episode comes down to Environmentalism = Good Anti-Enviromentalism = Bad. And I agree. But this episode is using the pro Environmental stance of the characters to drive the point home how good and nice they are.
        The episode would be the same if they landed on a planet where the bad guys are threatening to kill all puppies and the good guys are the only ones defending them. It’s lazy and it’s bad writing and it reduces a very important issue of our time (I’d go so far as to say the most important issue of our time) to a mere backdrop.

        Let me compare that to, for example, the way how the Malon are presented in Voyager. Of course the mask appears to be the same, just from the other side (pollution = bad). But there are at least some nuances to this theme. I’ll not go into so much detail, but the fact that Voyager is literally offering them a solution to their problem (of pollution) and they turn it down because there is a whole industry around managing pollution at least is a critical take on our modern society, without patronizing the audience too much.

        Queerness

        The “forced” aspect I was thinking about, when I wrote my original comment, mainly comes from the way how Sevens and Rafis relationship is treated in ST:Picard.

        To me it felt like there was no organic build up to it. It just popped up and then disappeared again. There was no real build up to it, in my opinion (!). This is what I mean when I say tucked on. It would make no difference if one of the two has a different sex. It would still feel of and weirdly out of character. It’s very much in line with how season one and two of ST:P treat their storylines, which are often oversimplified, dumbed down and often not explored to the extend they would have deserved. Rafis and Sevens relationship felt glued on and almost like an afterthought. That’s what I mean pandering to the left crowd. It’s not organic or natural, it’s just forced into there (and the only reason I can think of is to hold up a Neon sign about how woke they are).

        ST:D handled, things way better, as I have learned after doing some reading up on the topic over the last couple of hours.

        Homosexual, Trans- and Non-Binary characters are treated in a positive light, and, at least in the case of gay persons, normalized, as @Stamets has pointed out upthread. I’d wish for ST:D to take this one farer, as detailed below, but hey, it’s definitely the right direction to walk in. Plus, I now do indeed feel they treated Queer topics with respect (after reading about it some more).

        It’s a shame how it is embedded in a shitshow of a story, but after reading some of the comments here and doing some more research I absolutely have to agree: They handled it fine. I do stand corrected in that regard and am happy to admit so.

        My remaining problem with Non-Binarity, and how it is treated, is how it is still handled as something out of the ordinary. I would prefer ST to uphold it’s utopian take on things. In a utopian world Non-Binarity would be a non-issue. I think it would have been a much more revolutionary stance if ST:D showed people choosing /changing and modifying their pronouns regularly, without it being in the spotlight too much. Because, if one thought this to its end, that’s the kind of future society that has arrived beyond the dichotomy of binary genders.

        Think about how being vegetarian is presented in ST:TNG. Humanity has simply moved on from it. There are a few remarks towards this here and there, but mainly it is treated as a given. I would have loved for ST:D to take a similar approach to Non-Binarity.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• David_Eight@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  As a rather left leaning Person I have no problem with TOS beeing “woke” in general.

  The way how “woke” ideas are implemented just feels like pandering to the audience. Black, Asian and female characters… At least they got rid of number one after the pilot, no need to pander to the female audience with two women on the bridge crew.

  -Gloomys grandfather probably

  source
• isthereanydeal@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Take my upvote

  source