Since Discovery, despite the Star Trek writers repeatedly beating us over the head with this, I still somehow didn’t catch onto the pattern. If there is a through-line to all the new shows, the notion that acknowledging one’s own vulnerability is a sign of individual strength, and that showing support when others are being vulnerable around, is also a sign of individual strength.
This may not feel “woke” in the way it’s usually understood, but I really think it’s pushing a long overdue envelope, and one that is arguably more important to our times than a half-black half-white face representing the “illogical” nature of racism.
When I read the angry tweets about the new series (ie; the “pussification of men”, etc.) I can’t even force myself to see them as coming from anything other than weak, scared people who are too afraid of what the world would think of them if they expressed their authentic selves. They want to scare the rest of us into being as scared as they are, because they believe it will make them feel less alone. But loneliness can only be fixed by showing vulnerability.
And that’s the root of the problems in our modern era, isn’t it? Deeply insecure people hurting others in a desperate effort to not be hurt themselves. They haven’t always portrayed this concept in a graceful way, but kudos to Star Trek for keeping up the tradition of asking it’s audience: “What is it you’re so afraid of?”
MotoAsh@piefed.social 2 days ago
Why are you even listening to the opinions of CHUDs?
The problem with new trek isn’t “wokeness”, too little or too much. It’s that they abandoned what made Trek so unique: It’s supposed to be a time after humanity has dealt with all of the stupid in-fighting and conservative BS. It’s supposed to be about a time when the drama doesn’t come from inside the house. When humanity is exploring the stars, not having a moment.
It’s just a complete lack of imagination. It’s not like Trek has ever been wanting for drama. They just decided to write new Trek in the lamest, same-old Hollywood way possible.
T156@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Though they clearly haven’t, even if they think so. For example, if you’re not an organic humanoid, it’s very much up in the air whether you’ll be treated as a person, or as an inconvenience.
The Measure of a Man was constrained to apply to that one instance, in Data’s case, and he had the Sutherland automatically assuming the worst of him and nearly comm itting mutiny. Both the ExoComps and the EMH suffer from people thinking they’re malfunctioning and factory resetting/lobotomising them.
If you’re in a war with the Federation, it’s very much up in the air whether they’ll stick to their own rules of conflict. The moment they feel threatened, they’ll do things like unleash a deadly bio-weapon/memetic-weapon against your species, start laying self-replicating mines, or just make plans to blow up your homeworld. At best, your fate is left to the whims of a handful of admirals and captains.
Even within the Federation, Admiral Satie was not a isolated instance. She only made two mistakes, in going up against an unusually accepting crew that would bat for one of their own, and losing her composure in front of another admiral. If she hadn’t, her crusade against Romulans in Starfleet would have continued unabated.
The fact that she could start it would suggest that those attitudes exist and are underlying within Starfleet. At least, on a significant enough level that she wasn’t treated as being unusually paranoid about a non-issue.
tomenzgg@midwest.social 21 hours ago
Also, – watching at the age I am now – it’s hard for me to not notice how much of a given carceral justice is taken as a given rather than anything remotely more restorative.
And treatment of mental disability still unfomfortably mirrors our current system than anything I’d hope for so far into the future.
I think we can accept that the premise is we’ve made astounding strides and there are still areas of improvement; I don’t think that tarnishes the hopeful and utopian dream at the heart of Star Trek.
Kirk@startrek.website 1 day ago
I agree 100%, but I’m also saying that’s exactly what’s happening and we’ve (at least I) just been too blind to see it until SFA. This current era is portraying a future where “strength” doesn’t mean swallowing your pain in order to conform and being ashamed of what makes you different. Real strength is the ability to be your true self, and (more importantly) the strength to radically accept others for being their true selves.
TOS taught us there’s no need to fear people with different skin color. SFA is teaching us that there’s no need to fear someone for exposing their vulnerabilities and expressing their emotions in a healthful way. It’s a radical concept for our time.
MotoAsh@piefed.social 1 day ago
Star Trek has always been about accepting others for who they are. They make that explicitly clear many times in their interactions with other species and cultures.
CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
And yet all the drama is derived directly from real world human issues, so what makes a difference between Starfleet characters creating it or some fictional alien race? The latter too closely resembles “American exceptionalism” by acting like Starfleet always has all the answers and can do no wrong and these uncultured foreign aliens need to bend to our will in order to solve their problems. I don’t see that being super appealing considering everything that is happening currently.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 day ago
Yeah, I’ve always found the “Starfleet must always be in the right” mentality to be patronizing at best, imperialistic at worst.
MotoAsh@piefed.social 1 day ago
That is a grossly terrible charictarization of what it’s supposed to be…
No wonder everything is going to hell if people cannot even understand what it means to be done working through shit…
Wolf314159@startrek.website 1 day ago
You seem to have almost completely missed the point of allegory and metaphor in TOS. “Time after humanity has dealt with” as you put it is just a literary device to soften the impact when the show was inevitably confronted or viewed by real racists. It was never a really view of the future. It was always a reflection of our present through the lens of futurism, a clever narrative framing device. That narrative framing device could not possibly remain unchangeable through multiple generations without loosing everything that made it work. Attempting to do so, i.e. keeping the storytelling framework completely unchanged and not adapting to new generations and new social dynamics, would have shown a lack of creativity and imagination.
The show was from a time when the U.S. thought they had beaten fascism (past tense, done, a part of the past) and would soon beat racism, classism, etc. From a time when imperialism was seen as a fundamentally good social force by most of the imperialist public. Today we (mostly) know better. We will probably never truly erase any of them. They are things we’ll have to remain vigilant for. A show today patronizing us with their perfected utopian society which remains VERY imperialist without shining a light on that contradiction just would not work. A show lacking any interpersonal drama also would not work and it’s not even something that was really true for TOS, just a weird kink Roddenberry got into when producing TNG. That’s the context of the way Star Trek has changed and it matters.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 15 hours ago
I think all the time about how early TNG largely reflected the falsehoods we were being sold at the time - that all of these things were Past Problems.