star wars is too woke i like the show about the socialist utopia rule

"You know those Ferengi really have some good ideas..."

Corporations have a tendency to ruin all art for the sake of profit. It's infuriating.

I think the best response to that kind of crap is what you said, with the addition of "and when did you start caring? When Fox news told you to care."

If you're feeling extra spicy you can add a comment about being a sheep lol

It was mostly indignation over me not kissing his ass and telling him he's right, I'm generally one of the few in my family that will stand up to him at all never the less consistently, he's pretty charming and the family that have never lived with him all think he's just great usually, but he always has this condescending way of telling me "you weren't alive then so you don't know" as if there aren't interviews with Roddenberry that confirms these things, or if it's broader politics, as if encyclopedias and news article didn't exist back then. Then when I knocked down that argument he just defaulted back to "well it's too woke and preachy now" while citing examples of preachyness that are just examples of inclusivity in the show.

I'll say this, my pop apparently helped do clean up at ground zero after 9/11, he was a guard at Rikers at the time and I could see him volunteering for it, but he's also kind of a bullshit artists so we're never sure what's fully the truth. However fact or fiction he's never been the same since that day, we all lost a bunch of people we knew, and we all have a lot of friends who lost close relatives and it impacted not only us but our community, because it's a fire firefighter town we live in, we live next to the former chief and down the block from the station house and my pop hangs out at the bar near the station house. After 9/11 he fell down the Fox News hole and never was the same again, and now i gotta hear some "woke" bullshit every time he talks about something he seems to not understand.

So overall the reaction was a lot of indignation, a little bit of arguing followed by a hasty hang up.

Username checks out. Not sure if you were waiting for that...

It's a special case of the more general rule: right-wing free-market anyone is self-deluding.

Live long and peace out, bitches.

Only the british ones.

I’m not trying to undermine the idea that Star Trek was progressive for its time, far from it, but since no one else has pointed this out, I thought I’d say it. Star Trek was NOT the first interracial kiss on television. In fact, the actors’ lips never touched in the shot.

Well, sort of. I’ve been reading William Shatner’s autobiography, and they had to fight really hard to include an interracial kiss. The network was going to forbid it, telling Rodenberry that televisions across the South would rather black out their televisions for an hour than allow something so highly offensive. When he insisted upon it, they kept making concessions Rodenberry wouldn’t agree to, like instead having Uhura kiss Spock, since it there would be a little more disconnect between reality. Eventually, Rodenberry offered to film the kiss both ways—one way with their lips actually touching, the other with Uhura’s back to the camera as they embraced, giving the illusion that they kissed without their lips ever touching. The actors were really upset about it, because It was originally going to be a passionate kiss, but the only way they allowed it to be filmed on television was if the actors displayed clear discomfort—which could be used to reinforce the idea that interracial relationships were bad.

Soo…yeah! That’s your Star Trek history lesson for the day! (I’ve never watched the original episode, I’ve only watched TNG and Discovery for myself, so this is all secondary info, but if you watch the episode, you can see for yourself.)

I think with Disney and a lot of companies now it's more obvious that they are consciously trying to "look good" vs Star Trek was a lot more genuine and authentic with it's intention to include these things, and it was challenging status quo back then whereas today it's very mainstream (which is a good thing). This is also what I think is (sometimes intentionally) misinterpreted with the "woke" concerns from the right, cause criticizing the company for morally branding themselves can be legit, but only if the actual idea of including and respecting people isn't lumped in with it. A legit issue with these huge companies that exploit workers is how they commodify their visibly "diverse" employees and claim the virtue for themselves rather than all the effort it took from workers to actually be treated with dignity. Amazon may very well be welcoming and inclusive but they're gonna fight their diverse employees when they want better conditions and pay. DEI doesn't erase the inherent conflict between employers and employees.

I mean, so long as you see the satire of the film, that's not incompatible.

Eugenics program? So this Khan guy is a good guy?

Farscape is too queer, that's why i like Lexx

It has an alien species where the religious group has quotes that are directly from Carl Sagan (and they're have more of a philosophy than a religion, at least in most ways). It generally treats religion with more respect than Roddenberry did, in a "all religion has some good parts to it, but extremism is a problem" kind of way.

One of its major plot arcs is all about how democracies fall into fascism. I thought it was a bit heavy handed at the time, but now it feels too real.

Skirts around a pair of characters in a lesbian relationship, but like most shows at the time, it doesn't come right out and say it. They 100% banged one night, though.

It's also military science fiction. That always seems to invite right wingers who love the asthetic but ignore the themes. Same problem with Star Trek and Star Wars.

Well let's see, there's an episode with a dockworker's strike, in which a "negotiator" is sent in who's position is basically "I'll pretend to ask nicely but the only tactic I have is this in-universe law that says I can use the military to force you back to work." The letter of that in-universe law (the "Rush Act") is "The local military commander can break strikes by any means he deems necessary." And Commander Sinclair decides to pay the dockworkers what they demand out of the military budget of the station. So the union ultimately wins.

There's several times when some character, often a human but sometimes an alien, walks up to some other kind of alien and says "We don't want you FREAKS coming in and stealing our JOBS!" and they're always depicted as obviously in the wrong. Basically in the script it says "A Republican happens, and gets dealt with."

There's a whole episode with a religious exchange, all the various aliens are invited to demonstrate their planet's "dominant religion." When it's the human's turn, Sinclair takes the alien crew down a hallway with a long line of various different kinds of priests, ministers, monks, etc. The first guy in line is an atheist. The point being "Earth is diverse as fuck, yo."

The show just barely glances off a lesbian relationship, and the show's attitude says "What? You didn't have a problem with the five other romantic couples we've seen so far, what's your problem with this one?"

Oh, then there's the whole major plot of a socially conservative president sliding Earth's entire government into totalitarianism with the backing of a hostile alien race thing.

I don't recall reading that anywhere. I do remember seeing WW2 referenced, especially with respect to the dogfights.

Very interesting! I knew the Vietnam thing but I'm not into Star Wars.

The Klingon way!

I don’t think you can discount first contact’s affect on that shift. Finding out you’re not alone in the universe would surely have a massive societal impact.

Many tech companies are led by neurodiverse people, too. Zuckerberg is definitely not just the typical billionaire sociopath.

I've overall enjoyed enterprise, even if it's not my favorite. I don't like how many multiparty storylines there are, but they weren't so terrible that I stopped watching.

Why does it feel so much like a white person trying to throw a gang sign?

To reply to myself, because it merits its own giant text box: for anarchist-minded folks like myself, I'd highly recommend reading Homage to Catalonia, because it gives some glimpse of how things might work in a less-hierarchical military (in the cases like in Trek's Starfleet that weapons are sometimes unfortunately needed).

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0201111.txt

The main sections I want to quote are:

The essential point of the system was social equality between officers and men. Everyone from general to private drew the same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette, you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was understood that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood that when you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not as superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.s but there was no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to produce within the militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society. Of course there was no perfect equality, but there was a nearer approach to it than I had ever seen or than I would have thought conceivable in time of war.

But I admit that at first sight the state of affairs at the front horrified me. How on earth could the war be won by an army of this type? It was what everyone was saying at the time, and though it was true it was also unreasonable. For in the circumstances the militias could not have been much better than they were. A modern mechanized army does not spring up out of the ground, and if the Government had waited until it had trained troops at its disposal, Franco would never have been resisted. Later it became the fashion to decry the militias, and therefore to pretend that the faults which were due to lack of training and weapons were the result of the equalitarian system. Actually, a newly raised draft of militia was an undisciplined mob not because the officers called the private 'Comrade' but because raw troops are always an undisciplined mob. In practice the democratic 'revolutionary' type of discipline is more reliable than might be expected. In a workers' army discipline is theoretically voluntary. It is based on class-loyalty, whereas the discipline of a bourgeois conscript army is based ultimately on fear. (The Popular Army that replaced the militias was midway between the two types.) In the militias the bullying and abuse that go on in an ordinary army would never have been tolerated for a moment. The normal military punishments existed, but they were only invoked for very serious offences. When a man refused to obey an order you did not immediately get him punished; you first appealed to him in the name of comradeship. Cynical people with no experience of handling men will say instantly that this would never 'work', but as a matter of fact it does 'work' in the long run. The discipline of even the worst drafts of militia visibly improved as time went on. In January the job of keeping a dozen raw recruits up to the mark almost turned my hair grey. In May for a short while I was acting-lieutenant in command of about thirty men, English and Spanish. We had all been under fire for months, and I never had the slightest difficulty in getting an order obeyed or in getting men to volunteer for a dangerous job. 'Revolutionary' discipline depends on political consciousness--on an understanding of why orders must be obeyed; it takes time to diffuse this, but it also takes time to drill a man into an automaton on the barrack-square. The journalists who sneered at the militia-system seldom remembered that the militias had to hold the line while the Popular Army was training in the rear. And it is a tribute to the strength of 'revolutionary' discipline that the militias stayed in the field at all. For until about June 1937 there was nothing to keep them there, except class loyalty. Individual deserters could be shot--were shot, occasionally--but if a thousand men had decided to walk out of the line together there was no force to stop them. A conscript army in the same circumstances--with its battle-police removed--would have melted away. Yet the militias held the line, though God knows they won very few victories, and even individual desertions were not common. In four or five months in the P.O.U.M. militia I only heard of four men deserting, and two of those were fairly certainly spies who had enlisted to obtain information. At the beginning the apparent chaos, the general lack of training, the fact that you often had to argue for five minutes before you could get an order obeyed, appalled and infuriated me. I had British Army ideas, and certainly the Spanish militias were very unlike the British Army. But considering the circumstances they were better troops than one had any right to expect.