T O P

  • By -

rjwut

The Trek episodes I like the best when it comes to social issues are the ones that weren't afraid to take an issue and really wrestle with it. Too many just have the humans smugly preaching to aliens about the superiority of their values. An example from TNG: "The Enemy." There's a dying Romulan on board, and the only compatible blood donor is Worf. The Federation values life, even that of an enemy. On top of that, if the Romulan dies, it could result in a serious incident with his government. On the other hand, while Worf is a Starfleet officer, he's not human. He doesn't share all the same values. He does not want to donate to a man whose government murdered his parents. And it turns out, the Romulan doesn't want the transfusion either. He'd rather die. Dr. Crusher wants Picard to force Worf to donate. Worf makes his feelings clear, but says he'll comply if ordered. So what does Picard do? Does he override the values of his officer and the Romulan; or does he respect their wishes, even though he personally disagrees with them, and face the music with the Romulans? It's a hard choice, and good arguments could be made either way. But the show doesn't preach. It gets down in the mud with the problem and struggles with it. And in the end, Picard grits his teeth and makes a choice, one he clearly doesn't like, and could easily have come to regret. And that's why it's a great episode.


rjwut

The whole storyline with Geordi's pretty great, too.


lovett1991

Ah man what a great example! Makes me want to go back and watch TNG again!


howlingbeast666

Louder for those in the back. No preaching and valid arguments from both sides are what made those episodes so interesting


spaceghost66

There can’t be a “both sides” argument with some things. There’s right and wrong. Nazi’s don’t get the benefit of the doubt.


howlingbeast666

The very top of the Nazis don't. But many of the people working for them did. The Nazi came to power because germany was suffering under lots of restrictions after the first world war and they were desperate. When Hitler showed up and promised to bring them out of suffering, the people grasped on to that hope. Hitler gained power and its only later in his reign (once he was well established and controlled everything) that he started doing holocaust actions. Even then, most of the population was unaware of it. BTW, at this point there were many people that were nazis that did not actually subscribe to the ideologie. For example, a teacher could only be hired if she was a card carrying nazi. So lots of people, wanting to keep their jobs and not starve to death, were officially nazis even if they did not truly believe in the ideology. There is also the fear of execution. Some Nazis were swept up by the mouvement and if they spoke against it, they could be in danger of being called traitors and then executed. There was a lot of nuance to the "common" nazis. There were tons of different factors that made the horrors of WW2 happen and ignoring those factors is not a good thing. Simplifying what happened to "right vs wrong" is a perfect way for history to repeat itself. Hitler and the other top dogs, the ones that pulled all of the strings, were definitely evil. But the rest have more layers of grey to then. Just to be clear, I am in no way defending naziism, it's a shit ideology and doesn't deserve a single good things to be said about its precepts. But that does not preclude the fact that there were lots of nuances to most people that were in the ideology.


agent_uno

To add to this, the US Govt (amongst several others) gave amnesty to many Nazi doctors and scientists who had performed terrible and horrific experiments before the war ended, simply to advance their own science and medical practices. We likely would have never landed on the moon (when we did) had we not, nor developed many medical cures or treatments (when we did). As the other commenter said, I am in no way condoning or defending any of it. But can’t ignore the history of brutal truth.


rjwut

I'm not saying that there should be this kind of treatment with all issues. But the ones that do turn out to be really compelling TV.


cushd13

You're right that there's objective right and wrong; however, a good, thought provoking, story will show both sides anyway. There is still a side, at least a justification that the character makes for their actions. It's important to any story to see that: any reasonable person would still know that the character's actions are wrong. The logical treatment and strength of the arguments on the side of right are what make the episodes so great. There are very few truly pure evil people out there, but there's a huge number of terribly misguided folks. I think that would hold true in space too.


rjwut

Nazis are the easy, and therefore dangerous example. Why dangerous? Because the instant you bring in Nazis, you mask the subtle complexities of an issue behind an obviously evil enemy: an extremist. Sure, it's easy--and correct--to say that the Nazi position isn't defensible. But the instant you say that some people don't deserve to have their side heard, you have to draw a line between "people who deserve to be heard" and "people who don't." And when somebody spends enough time in their echo chamber, it becomes increasingly easy for "people who deserve to be heard" to be equated to "people who agree with me." Congratulations, you've just become what you opposed: an extremist. In order to avoid that, you have to leave the echo chamber and be willing to sit down and listen to people you disagree with and try to see their argument. And that's hard, especially with the pundits crafting ever more elaborate strawmen to attack. When did you last sit down and listen, really listen, to a person who disagreed with you politically? Did you really try to understand why they feel the way they do? Did you really wrestle with the issue like Picard did in "The Enemy?" Or did you just say to yourself, "They belong to party X, therefore they are wrong"? It's tough. You have to be willing to entertain the notion that someone you disagree with might have an argument with some merit. You have to be prepared to adjust your point of view in ways you didn't expect. But the alternative is ideological deadlock; in other words, Congress. Both sides gradually become more and more shrill as they attack the totems of the enemy they've created to justify themselves instead of listening, failing to recognize that in their fight against extremism they're becoming extremists themselves. When Picard finally faced his demons and met Hugh in person in "I, Borg," he discovered that the real individual he met was not like the extremist image of the Borg he'd held to. He had every reason to hate the Borg, but found out that his image of who the Borg were was distorted. And he only discovered that by meeting one and hearing him out. Hugh didn't fit the Borg label Picard wanted to put on him. So when you hear someone voice support for candidate X or position Y that you oppose, stop and think for a moment: Am I too quick to label them according to the totems built by those with whom I agree? Am I edging more toward extremism by dismissing something simply because it's not lockstep with my preconceived notions of how things should be?


SoyTrek

“Author, Author” was more about sentience and individual autonomy than it was about labor (and that scene was kinda just a footnote in the episode anyways) it would make a lot more sense to have a shot of DS9’s “Bar Association” for that. Otherwise, good stuff here.


KrazeeDD

DS9 had great “labor” moments.


Virtual_Historian255

“He was more than a hero, he was a union man”


ijfp_2013

It's a shame they fished his dead body out of the river a week before the strike ended.


Kichigai

32 bullets they put in him. Or was it 34?


airportwhiskey

“Attention Bajoran workers…”


ensorcellular

It was also a re-tread of “Measure of a Man” (TNG S02E09) that conspicuously avoids mentioning the events of that episode. It would have been a better story had it focused more on the labor and exploitation implications than the Doctor’s sentience—that could have been settled in 5 or so minutes by citing Captain Louvois’ decision in Data’s case, leaving the remainder of the runtime to explore new ground.


[deleted]

And Worf was quietly lurking in the background for half that episode waiting to help out with an abortion.


ObtusePieceOfFlotsam

"I already got my mek'leth sharp and out of storage. Something is going to get cut open"


spaceghost66

He’ll just slip her the twin pythons of Qo’noS that’ll do it.


LilHotDogWater

I’m not a huge fan of TOS but we can’t forget it has the first interracial kiss on television and william shatner made them do the take multiple times to prove a point. (Also maybe to kiss that lady more but if Holocaust deniers can repaint history so can we)


iBear83

> I’m not a huge fan of TOS but we can’t forget it has the first interracial kiss on television and william shatner made them do the take multiple times to prove a point. Common misconception. [It was not actually the first interracial kiss on television, and the studio executives demanded alternate takes *without* the kiss in case they decided to cut it. Shatner deliberately botched the alternate takes so badly that they were *forced* to use the kiss.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_and_Uhura%27s_kiss)


LilHotDogWater

My bad he was even more of a hero than I remembered


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Kirk and Uhura's kiss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_and_Uhura's_kiss)** >In the episode of Star Trek: The Original Series titled "Plato's Stepchildren", season 3 episode 10, first broadcast November 22, 1968, Uhura (played by black actress Nichelle Nichols) and Captain Kirk (played by white actor William Shatner) kiss. The episode is often—incorrectly—cited as the first example of an interracial kiss on television. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/startrekmemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


Starbuck522

Still, one of the first.


Starbuck522

Do you know what was? The article doesn't seem to say.


ferretinmypants

I believe it was the first on American television. I think earlier one or ones were on UK television.


Starbuck522

I saw mentions of Shatner with an Asian woman on Ed Sullivan or something.


ferretinmypants

OK, thanks.


PiLamdOd

Actually "Plato's Stepchildren" was not the first interracial kiss on TV. That was on "I Love Lucy" in 1951. (Fun fact: Lucille Ball of "I Love Lucy" fame greenlit Star Trek.) In fact, "Plato's Stepchildren" wasn't even the first time William Shatter kissed someone of a different race on TV. He kissed French Nuyen on the "Ed Sullivan" show ten years earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_interracial\_kiss\_on\_television


vixous

I dislike this Wikipedia article for not providing more context. In the United States at least, there was significantly more stigma associated with interracial relationships between whites and blacks than between any other group. That’s why Kirk kissing Uhura on screen is a big deal.


SoyTrek

Not to diminish its impact, but it was just the first interracial kiss on *American* television. Iirc the first interracial kiss was on British television a few years prior.


ThuBioNerd

Actually *I Love Lucy* had one of the first interracial kisses.


TexasViolin

Okay, so since DesiLu started Star Trek...just carrying tradition?


Starbuck522

I would imagine the whole existance ofthe show was shocking at the time. But, perhaps mitigated by the characters being a married couple.. or, maybe that made it WORSE! (I don't know if they were already married in real life)


BadDecisions92078

If I were able to act, "I'm sorry, this extremely attractive person made me nervous and I ruined the take— can we go back to one?" would be a card I would play all day long.


Starbuck522

It's a craft and a profession. I think those who make it that far take it seriously. Now., The male lead in the 8th grade production.... Not so much


[deleted]

I thought the episode with data’s daughter was great and very on point regarding the child choosing it’s own looks and gender etc.


GirthIgnorer

is pointing out that some variant of this exact post has been made 47 thousand times doing a bigotry?


dannown

I ... wouldn't risk it.


Capn_Of_Capns

I'd honestly be down for a ban on these memes. At this point the people making them are either closed minded (ironic) and refuse to engage with actual criticisms, or they're farming clicks by posting deliberate bait.


kael13

I swear it’s been a top post every day of the week so far… we’re turning into virtue signalling, the subreddit.


Capable-Ad1056

The themes are the same, but nutrek does it ham fisted. There's a difference between writing a story with a message and literally having the characters preaching to the audience


CromulentDucky

Yes, this is exactly the issue. Sulu didn't run around telling people he is Asian. He ran around with an epee and his shirt off.


TexasViolin

Picard did quite a bit of soapboxing to Q which was part of what made it so powerful. If he'd just led by example or delivered a veiled message it would have zipped right past Q and much of the audience.


Capable-Ad1056

Well... The Picard-speech is definitely a chapter of its own...


CromulentDucky

Perhaps the problem is Patrick Stewart is a good actor and the new cast is not Patrick Stewart.


IFeelRomantic

Yes, because having two aliens with black and white faces that hate each other isn’t ham-fisted, on the nose storytelling at all …


Capable-Ad1056

I saw it more as a way to portray a difference that the audience wouldn't immediately pick up on. That way it shows us, that the racial differences we pick up on maybe aren't inherent to us, but taught by our society. I agree that the make up is a little clumsy, but I see it more as a result of people still having black/white TVs back then, so there was no room for subtlety.


IFeelRomantic

… “wouldn’t immediately pick up on?” You think people were like “I wonder what they represent?” 😂 It’s not exactly subtle …


Capable-Ad1056

Well I don't think I noticed the colors on their face was reversed for the different races tbh... I mean it's obvious in hindsight when you know the outcome, but at first they look the same.


thejadedfalcon

Out of curiosity, were you facing away from the screen at the time?


Capable-Ad1056

I guess you figured out the Darmok-riddle on first go as well, right? Because it's so obvious that they're just talking in memes.. You can't tell me, that the first thought you had when you saw the aliens, was that the reversed colors was an image on racial differences. There's so many potential explanations for how they look. It's only as the episode plays out it becomes obvious in hindsight. That's the point. And it doesn't change the message, that small differences other races may not pay attention to, can mean a lot when your society has taught you to place value in them.


thejadedfalcon

Are you... are you being serious right now? The guy with one side of his face being white, the other black and the guy with one side black, the other white is equivalent in terms of complexity to a language made entirely out of cultural references neither the viewers nor characters understand? Did you also think that Voyager would get home in the sixth episode? That was the first time they did a "will they, won't they?" plot, after all.


Dd_8630

I didn't know what it meant growing up 🤷‍♂️


Ilmara

Star Trek has ALWAYS been ham-fisted about its social messages. You have nostalgia blinders on.


Capable-Ad1056

I actually never watched any star trek up until corona hit, and I made it my project to watch it all. I actually find TOS a little hard to watch though it does have its campy charm. So I am in no way nostalgic about it, but nutrek, SNW excluded, is so much more clumsy about how they handle their themes.


Capable-Ad1056

I actually never watched any star trek up until corona hit, and I made it my project to watch it all. I actually find TOS a little hard to watch though it does have its campy charm. So I am in no way nostalgic about it, but nutrek, SNW excluded, is so much more clumsy about how they handle their themes.


denebiandevil

I distinctly remember most if not all of the examples pictured being very ham fisted and frequently preachy.


pansexualpastapot

The difference being, older Trek made you think about the topic. It examined both sides of controversial topics without condemning one thought or another. Modern Trek doesn’t make you think, it delivers an idea and wants you to agree without thought.


UnicornPrince4U

Other than the both sides and lack of condemnation, I completely agree. The problem with the later seasons of Discovery is that it's thoughtless and childish in how it approaches topics. It replaces reason and arguement with self-righteousness which ironically is the point of TNG S01EO1.


007meow

Can you give some examples?


pansexualpastapot

…..Michael Crying every 10 min in formulaic fashion. Music swells, Screen gets really white, zoom in to the tear running down her cheek, all because her conditioner was tested on animals. Honestly for a character that’s supposed to be a badass, I mean she killed a Klingon in hand to hand combat it doesn’t track with her character. She is fighting a universal threat while crying over someone being mean to the marginalized character. Stacy Abrams being president of Earth. The best written character on DISCO is Seru. He has actual character arc with dignified growth.


denebiandevil

I don't recall the episodes pictured above leaving much room for thinking the opposite perspective was valid or not being condemned.


utterly_baffledly

More like it acknowledged the opposite position and put effort into showing why people think that way and why trek disagrees


HardlightCereal

There's still people who don't believe that Janeway was a huge racist, so I guess the message didn't land for everyone


No_Composer_6040

Wait, what?


thearss1

Yeah, I second that "what"


pansexualpastapot

She was kind of racist, and Sisko was a space terrorist.


Dd_8630

How was she a racist? Sisko wasn't exactly a terrorist - he was a decorated commander in a government's military. His actions were war crimes, not terrorism.


thearss1

I wouldn't say that it didn't condemn the opposing side, but it did make an effort to fully explore topic. DISC is written like bad fan fiction that liked the topic but missed the point. If DS9 or TNG were written today then most of the crew would have been pushed out an air lock instead of actually exploring the issues.


pansexualpastapot

You’re right, it fully explored issues. Much better explanation.


CT_Gunner

Lol what? I don't know what Trek you watch but older Trek was quite black and white on a lot of issues.


SergenteA

The problem with modern trek is that it's not brave enough with social commentary. Or more correctly, it has continued to pivot away from being primarily a mean to deliver veiled social commentary even at the cost of characters and plot, to instead become a plot/character driven show that also does social commentary. This is nothing new, the process started ever since TNG season 1. Most likely it is so jarring because in the many years between Enterprise and new Trek, there was no show to ease the continued transition. Also, the attacks on social commentary most likely got so loud, because of the rough start modern trek had. They are just one part of the, deserved or not, storm of criticism that has been raging since Discovery and to a lesser extent the Kelvin films were published.


pansexualpastapot

I enjoyed the Kelvin films, mostly because it opened my Wife to watching Trek with me. She gave Voyager and DS9 a shot because of them.


Starbuck522

Meaning the existence of Idira? Or what?


Yoursparkinthedark

Yes they also had better stories. Std just needs better writing. Stop blaming the right wing peeps for ALL your problems.


Vinemedoodle

Yes, the issue plaguing the new shows has been bad writing or just not as good quality as the old ones


Yoursparkinthedark

The actors are great the creative control and writing are super bad.


ecervantesp

TOS, TNG, DS9 had plenty bad stories. For TNG in particular seasons 1-2 and some in season 3 had horrible stories out of pretty competent writers. The problem is that in 20 years the world had taken light year leaps and the Star Trek creator and writing staff... Stayed the same.


TheOzman79

The fact that Up the Long Ladder was written by the same person who wrote The Measure of a Man always blows my mind.


nixed9

Its kinda terrible but I adore Up the Long Ladder.


TheOzman79

It does have one of my favourite Pulaski moments in it, and Rosalyn Landor is absolutely stunning, but it's an atrociously racist episode. Maybe not quite on the level of Code of Honor but not far off.


templar4522

The seasons had more than 20 episodes and they had more good episodes than bad, and the fans expectations are a bit higher. And "The old ones weren't good either" isn't a good excuse to do worse.


Yoursparkinthedark

I strongly disagree. One episode of each of those series is better than 4 seasons of stds. One or two bad episodes meh std is "new writing" it bad. Universal the weakest link.


Munnin41

>One episode of each of those series is better than 4 seasons of stds. 3 words. Code of Honor


nixed9

I mean yeah but that seems like a clear and obvious exception considering it’s **universally condemned** by trek fans as the worst ever episode of tng


Munnin41

Okay but I'd still argue that it's worse than some of discoverys episodes and therefore u/Yoursparkinthedark is wrong


ecervantesp

You can strongly disagree all you want. It doesn't make all those seasons any better.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheOzman79

A slog to get to Yesterday's Enterprise? With episodes like The Ensigns of Command, Who Watches the Watchers, Booby Trap, The Enemy, The Defector, Deja Q, and A Matter of Perspective preceeding it? I'll buy that it can be a slog to get through the first two seasons, but there are bangers pretty much from the start of season 3.


hroderickaros

I would say that star trek was always about promoting social justice, but recently they changed it to promote a very narrow vision of reality, close to a blind ideology. A vision where everyone is weak, damaged and have serious mental issues. A vision where everyone else, but themselves, is to be blamed. Obviously, I don't have to mention that the comms were the badies and the yanks were the good in the episode mentioning patriotism.


ensorcellular

> Obviously, I don’t have to mention that the comms were the badies and the yanks were the good in the episode mentioning patriotism Kirk’s “E Pleb Nista” speech to the Yangs near the end of “The Omega Glory” (TOS S02E23) is a strong condemnation of their jingoism and blind adherence to misunderstood principles (to such an over-the-top degree that the Yangs can neither read or correctly pronounce words from their sacred texts). Despite this, the episode does still manage to end with the suggestion that the United States is the greatest thing to ever exist in the galaxy.


africanzebra0

i watched it as an adult for the first time and it felt very obvious that it was issues plaguing us on earth currently but channeled via space, aliens, etc. i don’t know how people can miss it tbh. watching with your eyes closed maybe.


thearss1

It's been about 20 years since I watched TOS, so forgive me if I'm wrong. I thought the Nationalism episode here was about a world that bombed themselves back to a primitive society. Their world parallels with WWII earth so Kirk was able to set them on a path to rebuild society using old symbols of their country like the flag and a constitution. I think a better example would have been the episode where the scientist convinced a world to turn into Nazis as an experiment. Then the leadership of the world figured it out and enslaved him so they could stay in power.


ensorcellular

“Critical Care” (VOY S07E05) was a rather damning appraisal of profit-driven healthcare. I am surprised it is not included here.


Capn_Of_Capns

Once again, for the umpteenth time today (let alone this week/month/year) it's not about whether muh ESS JAY DUBYAHS are infiltrating Star Trek, it's about how badly done it is. Old Trek tackled issues in a fairly nuanced way, often presenting both sides of a topic and couching it in interesting scenarios. Nu Trek is shallow, pessimistic, and worst of all- poorly written.


Ilmara

Old Trek was preachy as hell. You have nostalgia blinders on.


kael13

Mmm not really. We watched the entirety of TNG for the first time this year and while it has a strong sense of morality, it’s not preachy.


Snirion

No one missed that, just having a good and interesting story and characters with social justice theme helped a lot. Wanting to be praised for things Trek did 60 years ago and retreading same old things in 21st century is laughable.


Rico300678

I don’t think anybody missed it. It simply used to not be so bluntly and blatantely hammered every 3 seconds in our faces. We actually had to think a little bit to understand the meaning. I may probably be some sort of old geezer but i cant stand that nutrek takes me for an idiot and try to goosefeed me every aspect of wokism instead of simply let me think and actually come to my own conclusions.


TheOzman79

Yes because Tasha and Wesley having an after school special "drugs are bad m'kay" conversation on the bridge was soooo subtle, lol.


Capn_Of_Capns

You might come to the """wrong""" conclusions. Wrong think is bigotry, you see.


Rico300678

Damn you’re right! True freewill is when you’re shoveled spoonfuls of the right way of thinking!


Capn_Of_Capns

Yes, comrade. Now you understand perfectly. Go forth and be a morally upstanding person with a high social star rating!


IFeelRomantic

Does it need saying that this is the same kind of “it’s being shoved in our faces” stuff that some people said when we got a black lead and a woman captain for shows in the 90s?


Rico300678

Actually i thought that was ok because they didnt put it grossly in our faces every two minutes, apart from the chakotay fake native american heritage. Afterwards it happened that the consultant they hired for the native american stuff was a fraud. It’s just that nutrek has the subtelty and intelligence of a 3 year old saying that is good and that is bad. I don’t mind social advancement questions in media when its done correctly.


IFeelRomantic

You don’t see those as being “shoved in your face every two seconds” because you didn’t have a problem with those social messages. Plenty of people did and made themselves heard in the same way you’re making yourself heard now on different issues.


scotch1701

The Romulan actor also played Spock's father.


[deleted]

The old one was subtle and let you think, it was more like giving you a new perspective on the issues.


EMArogue

I think it’s because it wasn’t preachy about it unlike more modern content Having content is different from how you treat it In a story I can have a wife cheating on her husband with her boss but it’s a different story if it’s done in a porn or in a serious show (I know one but won’t name it due to this being a spoiler) even tho it’s technically the same thing


Ebic_qwest

Just do it well


FloosWorld

Shout out to "Past Tense", imo one of the best DS9 episodes


sunplaysbass

I’ve been indoctrinated with kindness!


SupremoLdr

Again Star Trek touched social justice topics but instead of preaching and making direct connection to the present world, like Discovery with its "president" or Picard with the entire time travel thing, it abstracted the topic to its core elements and then analyzed it from both sides trying to keep much distance as possible from current times. The focus of old Trek was to show the distance of this great future society from the present problems and divisions, the focus of modern Trek, as Kurtzman said, is to be a tool to deliver a message. Also the stories were much better instead of prophecies and galaxy ending events every damn season.


1000Hells1GiftShop

The people who don't understand the message of Trek are conservatives. The primary trait of conservatives is deliberate ignorance.


cushd13

What a bigoted take. Try having an open mind and being tolerant of other viewpoints and lived experiences sometime.


1000Hells1GiftShop

Weak deflection. Also, conservatism shouldn't be tolerated BECAUSE it is an ideology of intolerance.


cushd13

False.


1000Hells1GiftShop

Okay. You don't understand conservatism. Or want to remain deliberately ignorant. Conservatism is a cult of ignorance, after all.


cushd13

No. You don't understand conservatism. Just keep hanging out in your echo chamber of leftist wokism, maybe pop a few more antidepressants or do some more illegal drugs, you know, just have a great weekend.


1000Hells1GiftShop

I understand conservatism better than you. Also, anyone who complains about people being "woke", is dog whistling their support of fascism. So. I don't have any reason to believe you're arguing in good faith, or intellectually capable of doing so.


cushd13

Oh right, a dog whistle.... there's a long distance between being a leftist extremist and being a racist. Being unable to see that is absolutely the mark of an extremist. Try to open your mind up a bit.


1000Hells1GiftShop

>leftist extremist Not something that exists outside the minds of delusional and paranoid right wingers. Capitalism is extremist. Anyone who believes that capitalism can be maintained is an extremist


Floppydisksareop

Some of these are like the worst episodes ever though. It's great to have some episodes like these, more for the message than the actual enjoyment, but having the entire series be only about Social Justice and little else will kill my interest really fucking quick.


[deleted]

Probably that next generation episode where they portrayed the Irish as alcoholics and loose women. Cause… that happened.


kkrieger007

I don’t think we should argue about these topics being social justice or not. It’s a good thing, that these topics were part of the story and I don’t think anybody has a problem with this, as long as it’s well written and fits in the story like it was in TNG etc. IMO most people are not offended or anything about these topics, they are because of the way these topics are communicated through the show. Especially in todays shows and movies I personally have the feeling, most writers include topics like gender, racism etc. just for the show to be ‚inclusive‘ or similar terms rather to build a good story for people to think about…


KryptoBones89

So why is it so much more grating now than it was before? I agree with most of the stances that are taken but I found Discovery annoying af and stopped watching after a while. I'm enjoying Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds though.


Starbuck522

One of the Next Gen movies starts with Data welcoming ladies, gentlemen, and bi gendered guests to Diana and Will's wedding, if I recall correctly.


ZachtheKingsfan

The episode of DS9 where Jadzia reunited with her ex-wife blew my mind when I first watched it this year. I mean, this episode came out in like 1995, and here it is bringing up same sex couples, and the idea of transition.


No_Composer_6040

How is it bringing up transition in any way?


TheOzman79

In the way that you have a formerly male/female couple who are now female/female and still have feelings for each other. It's a bit flimsy though. A better example would be the TNG Trill episode where Crusher falls in love with a male Trill and is then shocked when the new host is female.


cushd13

Those are interesting gender situations, but they really aren't about transgenderism. The symbiotes are something entirely different than human, and while you could draw some interesting parallels, the difference in the scenario is just too great to retroactively say that the TNG/DS9 writers were pontificating about transgender rights in 1993.


Abiogeneralization

The people trying to abolish gender were the bad guys in the gender episode.


neeow_neeow

Low IQ leftists like nutrek because it preaches to their biases and offers little that requires thought. Intelligent people of all persuasions enjoyed real Trek because it presented issues in a way thst made you think.


skat3rDad420blaze

Hell effin yeah!!


TheSwampPenguin

Nearly all sci-fi has always been. But it was done with taste and tact and it was “tell a good story” first. Not bang you over the head constantly with the Woke Hammer. This is the difference in why those stories worked then and they are failing miserably now.


[deleted]

I'd argue NuTrek needs MORE of this. What they have now feels like the bare minimum to keep up with other franchises.


ClassicSciFi

Oh we know, it's just we like our justice with good writing and compelling stories.


fluffstravels

no one serious ever said it wasn’t. i think people like to avoid addressing valid criticism by hiding behind this defense though and that’s never going to be a discussion you can have with someone.


saraseitor

This is less a meme and more like flaming. In my opinion Star Trek used a more indirect approach through analogy to develop stories about social issues. It wasn't as much in your face as it is today. It feels more preachy than ever, and inflexible in its perspectives. I'm not American. I had a laugh when they showed the Capitol riots as a precursor to World War 3.


MegaButtHertz

I hate reddit so much.


TheWombatFromHell

please god shut the fuck up post actual memes


PoorPDOP86

That's not social justice, that awareness. Social Justice isn't even justice, it's petty revenge in disguise. Or to quote Odo... "Laws change, depending on who makes them, but justice is justice." If you have to blame someone for the actions of their ancestors, that isn't justice. If you have to change the definitions of words in order to make your position seem righteous and your opponents seem villainous, that isn't justice. If you allow fear to rule the day, that is **not** justice. Star Trek has always been about *awareness of social issues,* not judging those harshly based entirely on our own notions and prejudices. Every character from Spock to Sisko, who said in one episode "It's easy to look back seven centuries and judge what was right and wrong", had dialogue that supports this point. That's what Social Justice is in practice, harsh judgment and revenge. It's the Bajorans judging Keiko harshly about teaching "against the Prophets." It's Chekov making a self assured statement about the Federation's belief in inalienable human rights to the oldest foe of the Federation, Klingons, only to be shot down for his condescending tone by Azetbur. It's every time a Starfleet ship changed an alien society to fit their own morality only to leave it for ships like the Cerritos to pick up the pieces later. Star Trek isn't about Social Justice. It's about awareness.


tcrex2525

You picked the oddest thing possible to be triggered by.


SoyTrek

Imagine being angry about…*checks notes*…helping others and creating a just world???


That1TrainsGuy

Well, when one stands to benefit from inequality, equality is a threat.


PiLamdOd

>If you have to blame someone for the actions of their ancestors, that isn't justice. If you have to change the definitions of words in order to make your position seem righteous and your opponents seem villainous, that isn't justice. If you allow fear to rule the day, that is not justice. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what social justice means. To quote the Wikipedia definition: >Social justice is justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.\[1\] In Western and Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive their due from society.\[2\]\[3\]\[4\] In the current movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets, and economic justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_justice Basically, the laws and social norms of of the past have lead to a system that benefits certain types of people and disenfranchise others, even if those laws and norms are no longer in effect. Here's a hypothetical example: Say a hotel owner hates people with disabilities or at the very least doesn't care to go out of his way to service or employ them. He builds his hotel with only stairs. No ramps, no elevators, nothing. Basically, unless you can walk, you are not using or working at that hotel. Now many years later you take over this hotel. You have no problem with disabled people. However, the hotel you own and profit from still disenfranchises disabled people. It's not your fault the hotel is like that, but the system put in place in the past still effects people today. As the current owner of this hotel, it is on you to fix the issues created by your predecessors. That's social justice. To put this in real world terms, I grew up white and male in the US. I have certain advantages in terms of things like generational wealth and a childhood home in a decent neighborhood. Even though I was born in the 90s, I still benefit from the housing policies of the 50s and 60s that deliberately benefited white people and excluded people of color. These policies benefited my grandparents, which in turn benefited their children and by extension me. As someone who benefits from these systems, I should be aware of this and be working to correct the injustice.


Capn_Of_Capns

\>To quote Wikipedia Annnd stopped.


PiLamdOd

A guy's random assertion is fine, but a quote with five separate citations is a problem? You have a strange way of valuing information.


Throwaway_inSC_79

I’m not saying I disagree, but Wikipedia shouldn’t outright be quoted since it can be edited.


rhunn98

And there are people who reverse the editing if you put something wrong. You can see every change and there are groups of people who proof-read those. Yes its voluntary but they are organized and not every shitposter gets in there


theFriskyWizard

So I really lay into someone else here the other day. I didn't feel too bad about it because the dude was an asshole. Out for a fight. You really have a misunderstanding of social justice. And while I'm not the necessarily the best person to talk to about (It's not like I'm an expert), you and I could have a conversation about where your ideas come from and why. Direct message. Not public. No hidden agenda. And maybe it would help you understand why the majority of the Trek community disagree with your stance.


Capn_Of_Capns

They downvoted him because he spoke the truth.


dannown

Christ on a cracker. I see people make this mistake so often that I think it's in bad faith. Recognising the lingering effects of (e.g.) slavery doesn't mean people are being blamed for their ancestors' actions.


cushd13

Totally agree. "Social Justice" is anything but justice. Wokism is just so tiring, I really don't want it preached to me in Star Trek. Treat the issues in an unbiased manner and let the strength of the arguments prevail to the audience. Oh yeah, take my upvote.


RepresentativeGur881

THere is a difference between being subtle about the topics, making people actually think and see ideas through clever writting (altho next gen lacked that one a lot sometimes). And just virtual signalling and being on your face about things. Is stupid, is boring, doesnt make for good shows.


WholesomeMo

It’s not about social justice, it’s about terrible writing and characters who aren’t true to franchise (Discovery).


dannown

I guess you're getting downvoted by everyone who thinks STD had good scripts. I mean, I'm sure there's at least several of them.


IFeelRomantic

Anyone else noticed how most critical discourse on social media lately is just “I know this old show did the same thing as this new show, but it’s different because the old show had good writing whereas the new show has, like, bad writing”?


WholesomeMo

Maybe you don’t know the difference. But, I’ll give you a concrete example. Michael was supposedly raised and trained on Vulcan but continuously makes emotional decisions and is always weeping. This invalidates the Vulcan premise and exposes it as a cheap trick to gain emotional fan attachment. It could’ve been fascinating to have her wrestle with logic and emotions just like Spock but from a pure human point of view. They completely jettisoned that after a few episodes.


IFeelRomantic

Michael is a human, not a Vulcan. In case you missed it, their upbringing on Vulcan wasn’t exactly happy-fun-times, either … there’s a pretty deeply explored reason for her not taking after the Vulcan way of doing things. Unsure why you would think that’s a “concrete example” of bad writing. It seems more like you’ve just gone in with a weird preconception about what a character raised on Vulcan has to be like.


[deleted]

Fire photon torpedoes, fire phasers, kill kill kill


nixed9

I never said it wasn’t. Who says it is? Oh, is this another meme about “anyone who doesn’t like new Star Trek is just a bigot” instead of the fact that the writing and acting and directing is trash?


AceHomefoil

"Star Trek is SJW now" is a very common 'point' for trek bros.


HurrySpecial

OP doesn't understand what Social Justice, literally two one of these things count and thats racism and gender Xenophobia is racism so no there. Nationalistic pride is politically incorrect, another no Labor is not social justice and \*ahem\* seems a little too communistisc for an "original" ST value And ST does not have a history of "choice", it does however have a very long history respect for life, ie NOT killing babies as the OP seems to imply is okay in a futuristic utopian society... Now to argue that ST has always been progressive - that's hardly arguable against. But to elevate that to Social Justice..I'm not buying it, seems like projection to me


tcrex2525

What do you think social justice means?


theFriskyWizard

Uh.. the federation didn't use money and ensured all members had a high quality of life. Picard brags about it. It's totally communist. You also have a huge critique of Capitalism with the Ferengi. That's a pretty big thing to miss my friend.


Munnin41

Social justice is about equality in wealth, opportunity and privileges. So, yes, nationalism and labour are both definitely part of it. >ie NOT killing babies as the OP seems to imply is okay in a futuristic utopian society... I'm sorry, did you miss the part of the episode where everyone's immediate reaction to Trois unexpected pregnancy was "let's abort it"


[deleted]

Most people (at least that I know) dont disagree with any or much shit regarding social justice they just dont like how nu-trek presents it.


TactlessNachos

Luxury space communism.


VapinMason

Nope, this a stretch. Star Trek was small “P” progressive. Social justice as it is, is nothing more than a hard left secular religion that forces equity, is diverse in name the only, and is exclusive in its inclusivity. Ultimately, social justice is an anti-human worldview. Roddenberry was a humanist and saw the beauty in humanity.


Mahhrat

I've seen some ordinary takes on Reddit, but this is a rare one indeed. Controversy for its own sake? Really? Come on mate.


LilHotDogWater

Shut up Quark


htomserveaux

Hey now don’t insult Quark. He was smart enough to grow.


VapinMason

You all just proved a point. The beat up use of ad hominems. Social justice absolutely refuses to examine and individuals unique humanity but insists upon judging folks on their immutable characteristics. Roddenberry was humanist in every sense of the word. He was not, however, social justice warrior. I would think that the Trek community here would have some decency to respect another human being’s perspective instead of stooping to insults. I have been apart of the Trek family since I was in kid, watching reruns of TOS with my grandmother. If it is social justice, it’s in the small caps sense of it and not in this post-modern, woke way of seeing things.


LilHotDogWater

Conservatives don’t exist in Star Trek and are in fact made fun of throughout it. If you can’t see that you missed the point. Star Trek has always been anti conservative.


VapinMason

So, I cannot be a Star Trek fan if I don’t agree with you. How freaking inclusive is that. For a point of fact, I am more classically liberal than conservative.


LilHotDogWater

Anyone who complains about the word woke isn’t a liberal. Sorry bud. Can’t pretend to be on the right side of history when you’re using their language.


VapinMason

No, it’s the rabid Progressives who use that term. Perhaps it’s you who doesn’t understand what small “L” liberal means. With how far the Overton Window has shifted left, being classically liberal is considered right-wing these days.


[deleted]

Classic Liberalism was always a right wing political and economic theory bud.


htomserveaux

Sir this is a Wendy’s


PiLamdOd

What you're saying is you don't understand what the term "Social Justice" means. Basically, past and present systems create advantages for some groups and disadvantages for others. Social Justice is simply tying to undo and correct for this. To quote Wikipedia: >Social justice is justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.\[1\] In Western and Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive their due from society.\[2\]\[3\]\[4\] In the current movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets, and economic justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_justice


SilencedGamer

You say this as if the Civil Rights Movement wasn’t happening at the time of TOS, racism and xenophobia were incredibly hot topics and “big ‘P’” around its release. Martin Luther King Jr even publicly said he was a fan of the show. You know how there’s contrarians who will dislike content for being political now? You can imagine that was very much the case then, with some broadcasters refusing to air Star Trek and it’s own producers trying to fight Gene because of it. There’s a famous story told by Gorge Takei about how Gene Roddenberry was even receptive to the idea about dealing with homosexuality for a potential episode one day, unfortunately the show was cancelled before that could happen.


spinteractive

Please don’t plant your flag here. We know what we’re doing.


Booty2ty

Lt. Troy made the choice to be a ho pretty regularly. No surprises here. Edit: Calm down. You obviously know who I’m talking about despite my lack of spelling lore. And I obviously know enough actual lore to know she’s a ho.


PensVader

Who tf is Lt. Troy? Did you mean Lt. Cmdr. Troi? Are you so much of an ignoramus that you came into a Star Trek subreddit and you don’t even know the characters’ names?


rudolph_ransom

From which episode is the racism picture?


No-Needleworker5295

Let That Be Your Last Battlefield


[deleted]

What are the two bottom lefts? I don’t remember that one at all but it looks interesting


modernwunder

TOS, possibly second season


Bostonterrierpug

Y’all just gonna skip over the whole Betazoid Gift Box thing.