1

Topic: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

This side discussion about episode 2x8 was split off the main discussion thread, see https://forum.next-episode.net/viewtopi … 92#p178792.

2

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

This last episode was absolutely horrific as well, so now we glorify murder? In Star Trek on top of that, the show that was supposed to portray a BETTER more civilized future of higher morals than today? Even worse, committed on duty in an organization built on order and discipline? Just because some clown think somebody else "deserves it"?

The scariest part of all the liberal bullshit politics is not the "diversity" and sex-stuff it promotes, it is the repulsive values and morals it is trying to establish. That we no longer shall have law and order or proper behaviour, and that violence, murder, blood vengeance and stuff like that is ok if you considers yourself morally superior to others, or a "victim."

3

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

dofus wrote:

This last episode was absolutely horrific as well, so now we glorify murder? In Star Trek on top of that, the show that was supposed to portray a BETTER more civilized future of higher morals than today? Even worse, committed on duty in an organization built on order and discipline? Just because some clown think somebody else "deserves it"?

The scariest part of all the liberal bullshit politics is not the "diversity" and sex-stuff it promotes, it is the repulsive values and morals it is trying to establish. That we no longer shall have law and order or proper behaviour, and that violence, murder, blood vengeance and stuff like that is ok if you considers yourself morally superior to others, or a "victim."

Hear Hear, absolutely disgusting.

4

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

dofus wrote:

This last episode was absolutely horrific as well, so now we glorify murder? In Star Trek on top of that, the show that was supposed to portray a BETTER more civilized future of higher morals than today? Even worse, committed on duty in an organization built on order and discipline? Just because some clown think somebody else "deserves it"?

For me, they didn't glorify it, it was a questionable attempt at showing what wars can do to people. That far in the future, I expect them to better handle PTSD. 2x8 was not a great episode.

dofus wrote:

The scariest part of all the liberal bullshit politics is not the "diversity" and sex-stuff it promotes, it is the repulsive values and morals it is trying to establish. That we no longer shall have law and order or proper behaviour, and that violence, murder, blood vengeance and stuff like that is ok if you considers yourself morally superior to others, or a "victim."

Wikipedia says:

A gallows was erected west of the Capitol, and some rioters chanted "Hang Mike Pence" after he rejected false claims by Trump and others that the vice president could overturn the election results.

And let me add this (emphasis added):

Hours after President Donald J. Trump announced a “wild” rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, his supporters began discussing building a gallows in front of the Capitol.

“Could be built very quickly with the right plan and the right people bringing pre-cut materials to the site!” a user wrote on a pro-Trump online forum. “Anybody got a blueprint for a standing gallows like that? Who’s with me?!”

Days later, a second user posted a diagram describing the cuts of lumber and rope that would be needed to erect a gallows and fashion a noose. A lengthy planning discussion ensued. A third posted a manual on how to tie a hangman’s knot.

“We will be building a gallows right in front of the Capitol, so the traitors know the stakes,” another user wrote.
[...]
Far-right figures have continued to embrace that message. The Arizona State Senate censured one of its legislators, Wendy Rogers, in part for calling at a white nationalist rally this year to “build more gallows” to “make an example” of her political enemies.

Pete Simi, an associate professor at Chapman University who has studied extremist groups and violence for more than 20 years, said that the gallows erected in front of the Capitol could have been a reference for extremists steeped in racist writings to the 1978 novel of a violent revolution in the United States that leads to the extermination of nonwhite people in a day of mass hangings.

In far-right circles, Mr. Simi said, “mass violence directed toward your enemies is called for routinely. This is not something confined to the outer fringes.”

Whether the gallows erected on Jan. 6 was specifically in homage to the novel was unclear, he said. But it “signified the kind of violence that the novel depicts.”

Mr. Trump, who often uses violent language, is said to have embraced the imagery that day. During the Jan. 6 committee’s first hearing last week, Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the vice chairwoman, cited witness testimony that quoted Mr. Trump identifying with members of the crowd as they chanted, “Hang Mike Pence!”

“Maybe our supporters have the right idea,” Mr. Trump was quoted as saying. Mr. Pence, he added, “deserves it.”

That the far-right loves (at least the idea of) violence is also the impression that I got over the years.

5

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

dofus wrote:

The scariest part of all the liberal bullshit politics is not the "diversity" and sex-stuff it promotes, it is the repulsive values and morals it is trying to establish. That we no longer shall have law and order or proper behaviour, and that violence, murder, blood vengeance and stuff like that is ok if you considers yourself morally superior to others, or a "victim."

This is also relevant information:

Conservatives Bombarded With Facebook Misinformation Far More Than Liberals In 2020 Election, Study Suggests

[...]
One of the study's papers, which used aggregated data for 208 million U.S. Facebook users, found that most misinformation on Facebook existed within conservative echo chambers, which did not have an equivalent on the liberal side of the platform. The paper found that news outlets on the right post a higher fraction of news stories rated false by Meta's third-party fact-checking program, meaning conservative audiences are more exposed to unreliable news.
[...]

I'm not sure what the conclusions are. Are conservatives easier to fool by misinformation? (That's my personal insight, based on the admittedly small number of Trump fans I know.) Or does the conservative political establishment feel that they need to rely on misinformation to be able to win, thus creating or at least helping to create those conservative echo chambers?

6

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

lighton wrote:

Blablabla

Remember that what is counted as "fake news circulated among the rightwing" is e.g. Hunter Biden's laptop.

7

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

I'm inclined to agree that this episode went quite a bit overboard. Maybe they meant for the message to be something along the lines of "war/PTSD can make even the otherwise most laid-back people do horrific things" or whatever. Even for that it was extreme, though not entirely unprecedented (Duras, Gowron, ...).


Kanga wrote:

Hear Hear, absolutely disgusting.

I honestly can't figure out whether there is any coherency in your philosophy.

Kanga wrote:

[...] I'm not driven by a principle of minimizing harm and neither should you be.

Given, that statement was about kids not being allowed to break their arm. Fair enough. But the scene we are talking about is still about one war criminal who is successfully escaping the consequences for his actions (ordering indiscriminate mass murder) getting killed while actively harassing one of the people he left traumatized. On the other hand, you glorify people like Genghis Khan and Hernán Cortés who are directly responsible for uncountable avoidable deaths. Is it worse when it's personal instead of just out of a complete disregard for human life in reaching your goals? The ends justifying the means? Or do you simply like warlords and dislike seeing them killed or something like that?


Again, no one was portrayed as heroic in this episode. No real catharsis for anyone. Only more trauma. That was most likely intentional.

8

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

some_one wrote:

I honestly can't figure out whether there is any coherency in your philosophy.

I'm for order, hierarchy, honor, glory, duty, family and community. I believe these should be promoted or achieved in the most natural way possibly accordingly to human nature. Order is the value that I base my statement on here.

Lets take a case scenario; we have a very simple case of how to deal with crime in El Salvador right now, we can also look at history, this isn't the first time that "gangs" have been a problem and every time it required something similar to what El Salvador is doing right now but somehow we're just pouring more money(and lives) into the Chicago grinder. It is _disgusting_ that we as a society allow that grinder to continue.

It's the same values that allows for Chicago that is now being put into Star Trek as "enlightened" resulting in the Federation accepting a perceived mass murderer to represent the Federation when it's the exact opposite of "Enlightened", it's ideological propaganda and we can see it resulting in absolute hellholes and it's _disgusting_ to see it in Star Trek.

You then go on to drag out Ghengis Khan and Cortez, yes I believe you should seek honor and glory as a man, it will make you happier and women will spread their legs for you, something you should experience without paying.

Was there anything else?

9

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

I'm sure "I'm for order, hierarchy, honor, glory, duty, family and community" on a shirt would sell at a Trump (or NRA) event, but how about some facts:

- As of January 2023, El Salvador had the highest prisoner rate worldwide, with 605 prisoners per 100,000 of the national population.
- According to the latest available data at the World Prison Brief on May 7, 2023, the United States has the sixth highest incarceration rate in the world, at 531 people per 100,000.
- The Netherlands has Europe's third-lowest incarceration rate, at 54.4 per 100,000 inhabitants

So, clearly, both El Salvador and the US screwed things up, no matter the amount of honor and glory...

10

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

Those are not Republican, NRA or Trump points, you've got a brainworm if you think I support anything within the political arena.

El Salvador has gone from 64 homicides per 100k capita to 7.8 homicides per 100k capita over the last 12 years. Chicago is currently at ~28 homicides per 100k capita. We could fix those murders but nono "it's equally bad to imprison people". Absolutely disgusting that you even think like that.

11

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

Kanga wrote:

I'm for order, hierarchy, honor, glory, duty, family and community. I believe these should be promoted or achieved in the most natural way possibly accordingly to human nature. Order is the value that I base my statement on here.

While I won't disagree with any but hierarchy outright, these are all words that can have vastly
different meaning depending on who you ask about them.


Kanga wrote:

You then go on to drag out Ghengis Khan and Cortez

Actually, even more so now. Both of these are very much primarily known for disrupting order wherever they went, nor are they in any way known for their honor. That is what has me confused. I specifically left out Alexander and Napoleon, who you had also previously listed.


Kanga wrote:

you've got a brainworm if you think I support anything within the political arena.

That's good, but lighton is right. If you print those words on a shirt, without further context, they will
sell well in those circles. That's in no small part because, as I said, everyone kinda projects their own meaning on them so they are good as a rallying cry to use when in truth you actually have nothing in common.

The last people who tried to build something on those words anyways and got the power to actually do so were the actual Nazis. They meant well at first, but we all know where that ended. I'm not really trying to draw comparsions to anyone, just saying that we should keep their example in mind.


Kanga wrote:

We could fix those murders but nono "it's equally bad to imprison people".

Nobody says that, at least not in that context. Not sure what you are referring to, but the thing that is actually being said here might be that you can't just lock people away at random and hope that fixes anything. You have to consider what you actually do with them afterward. Otherwise all you've set up is a place where people with no future and poor impulse control can easily network.


Kanga wrote:

It's the same values that allows for Chicago that is now being put into Star Trek as "enlightened" resulting in the Federation accepting a perceived mass murderer to represent the Federation when it's the exact opposite of "Enlightened", it's ideological propaganda and we can see it resulting in absolute hellholes and it's _disgusting_ to see it in Star Trek.

Pretty sure that the Federation officials who made the decision to trust that guy were meant to be seen as moronic. He says he regrets his past actions, but every time he does so with a smile. It's made very clear from the start that he is full of shit. The message here is "don't start trusting a monster just because it starts singing your tune". That tune, interestingly, being mostly order and honor here.

12

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

some_one wrote:

Correct. That is exactly what I was asking for, though I more generally called it "coherency" there. Categorical consistency is the easiest way to make sure our ideology describes an actual, objective-ish worldview instead of just being a flimsy justification for why we like to act on our every whim. There are other ways to accomplish that, I'm just not sure I see any here, yet.

This implies that I am a universalist because you as a liberal are.. I'm not, I'm a particularist like everyone else prior to modernity. To simplify it; I don't believe that the same solution can be applied to every problem, answers to problems are contingent on history, tradition, biology and much more!

Think Locke when he says that his Two Treatises are for the Anglo(can't remember the exact word maybe Englishman?) and not for the Moslem. He recognizes that there is a difference that makes liberalism unable to be applied to any random people so in that way he was smarter and more knowledgeable then the Neocons who 300 years later would try to make Iraq into Idaho v2.

some_one wrote:

That is incorrect. Hierarchy was one of the defining characteristics of their ideology, especially in practice. There is a reason the last Kaiser spent years expecting them to reinstate him. But instead they did do away with the hereditary aspect of hierarchy somewhat. It's just that they instead expanded it to the entire population, which is where the racism came in. "Community" got a similar treatment.

No, this is confused.

Wikipedia wrote:

Education and training programs for the Hitler Youth were designed to undermine the values of traditional structures of German society. Their training also aimed to remove social and intellectual distinctions between classes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth#Doctrine

The former Germany Emperor might have hoped but it was clearly not going to happen when they are indoctrinating everyone in the idea that the aristocracy should be abolished completely.

If you remove "hierarchy" in your society, you're not pro hierarchy. Like.. there must be some kind of cognitive dissonance going on for you here, you must realize this. It's obviously not a pro hierarchy to make a classless society and trying to move that into some kind of racial hierarchy doesn't actually make the ideology or society hierarchical. National Socialists, like.. mate.. the equality part of socialism was still the goal, just achieving it for the race rather then internationally like the Marxists.

some_one wrote:

In a way, that is true, but again also part of why I brought it up.

No.. not in a way, it just is true. The idea that I could sell t-shirts at a rightwing faire is dumb as fuck just flat out.

some_one wrote:

It'd require a whole bunch of extra steps which I doubt even a simple majority of people would ever be okay with. Sometimes it's simply better to leave the past in the past.

Which is why I'm not political, you can't advance a complex point in today's society, you can only pay off your voting blocks in a patron-client system which is being done to the max degree atm, hugescale corruption.

some_one wrote:
Kanga wrote:

the Trumpists largely just want to grill freely and say edgy things.

We can agree on that. The problem only comes in when it's groups like the Klan and worse that are the ones giving them a reason to do that, effectively weaponizing those with preexisting mental illness who start taking the edginess seriously.

You wanna see mental illness? Go to any left liberal/progressive influencer and listen to them whine about depression, bipolar personality disorder etc. That's your influencer class that is just sick to the core and you have to be completely crazy to keep up with the nonsense that is going on today. If you want to see real sick fuckos, go look at perp shots of antifa people, most dysgenic people you will ever see.

some_one wrote:

...No, it's not a good fit for SNW.

Yeah, it's disgusting. I'm happy that we're getting closer to eachother.

some_one wrote:

Would you put yourself under the broader term of a "feudalist"? It depends a bit on how much you value said hereditary aspect. Feudalism has historically always been one of the most long-lived systems, though one of the least conductive to things I consider interesting or worthwhile happening in the world. In terms of Star Trek, it'd be the Klingon ideology as described by Worf, rather than always lived in practice.

Let me turn it around and say:

A. "If you're elected for 4 years, you've got 4 years to grab as much loot as you can"
B. "If you're the local lord, your children will inherit what you leave behind"

This is a logical argument and if you applied this to anything else like lets do it with a candy store even without inheritance:

A. "You have 10 kids during the day service the desk in a candy store"
B. "You have 1 kid during the day service the desk in a candy store"

We know that there will be more candy left in the store with option B, it's so obvious.

So to answer your question; some form of hereditary leadership is preferable yes, we can discuss the form, we can discuss the methods, we can discuss limitations, we can discuss anything you like but at the end of the day, we know that with democracy we are getting literal looters and we've known this since Athens.

13

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

Kanga, why do you think humanity has moved on from your world view so long ago and not gone back to it?

14

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

toidol wrote:

Kanga, why do you think humanity has moved on from your world view so long ago and not gone back to it?

"Humanity" haven't moved on from anything, this is absolutely ideology speaking here, you're just out so deep that you can't even see the shore.

A better understanding of history would go along these lines: in the aftermath of the German unification, the existing order, or regime if you prefer, of monarchies was drained, the aristocrat class too was spend due to wars and labor movements alongside many from the aristocratic class in the form of what we would usually call communists took to the streets all the way up to the 1920s, the labor movements realized that they couldn't win through normal democratic means so they embarked on a "long march through institutions" and with FDR they basically took over the US.

In the aftermath of WWII the US installed its vassals across the West, it created multiple "international organizations" like the UN that has at its core very socialistic demands of its members like e.g. Article One states in the very first sentence: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" which prevent nobility from even being a thing. If you don't play ball with these articles, you'll be deemed to be "breaking the international order" and the US state department will attempt to Gaddafi/Castro/Hussein/Assad/etc you.

If we go back to your question in light of this; it was "Why do you think Humanity haven't gone back to monarchies?"

Well lets try and answer that now: Isn't that what is happening? Isn't Xi, Putin, Modi, Orban and others basically becoming "Monarchs"? Isn't that the accusation basically leveled at the people who opposed the establishment but got beat e.g. Trump, Bolsonaro, Salvini etc? Isn't the memes portraying e.g. Trump as the W40k Emperor? or Putin riding on a bear? "Humanity" as you say.. are longing for what they instinctively know is good, they haven't progressed at all as you imply.

TLDR; One international regime replaced another international regime post WWII and they attempt to destroy anything reminiscent of the old regime.

15 (edited by some_one 2023-07-29 23:11:05)

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

Kanga wrote:

This implies that I am a universalist because you as a liberal are.. I'm not, I'm a particularist like everyone else prior to modernity. To simplify it; I don't believe that the same solution can be applied to every problem, answers to problems are contingent on history, tradition, biology and much more!

Every problem and every solution is unique. The notion is, though, that we still exist in the same universe, are made from the same materials and have roughly the same biological instincts. It matters more where you grew up than it does where you were born.

You are absolutely right about bringing up our current European (incl. North American) culture having trouble seeing some notions beyond that as non-universal. It's the underlying problem behind Imperialism (Europe's feudalists, back then), is still done today, and was already a thing the old Romans did. "Cultivating the savages".

If you think, though, that trying to continue to find universal common ground is just a waste of time, then that is not wisdom. It is just laziness. If a theory deliberately does not consider outside factors you are actually aware of, then that theory is inherently less useful in the long term than a theory that does. Those outside factors will come into play, eventually. A lot of people even before modernity were universalists. They just lived in a much smaller universe.


Kanga wrote:

The former Germany Emperor might have hoped but it was clearly not going to happen when they are indoctrinating everyone in the idea that the aristocracy should be abolished completely.

Yes. I said they did mostly do away with the old hereditary aspect and they were always going to. They replaced it with racism, which is the same thing on a much larger (and much less reasonable) scale. A lot of their elite were still just the old aristocrats, though, and there was absolutely no discussion about anyone official's authority.


Kanga wrote:

You wanna see mental illness? Go to any left liberal/progressive influencer and listen to them whine about depression, bipolar personality disorder etc. That's your influencer class that is just sick to the core and you have to be completely crazy to keep up with the nonsense that is going on today. If you want to see real sick fuckos, go look at perp shots of antifa people, most dysgenic people you will ever see.

The key word here, which you ignored, was "weaponized". Never acknowledged, but happily used.


Kanga wrote:

Well lets try and answer that now: Isn't that what is happening? Isn't Xi, Putin, Modi, Orban and others basically becoming "Monarchs"? Isn't that the accusation basically leveled at the people who opposed the establishment but got beat e.g. Trump, Bolsonaro, Salvini etc? Isn't the memes portraying e.g. Trump as the W40k Emperor? or Putin riding on a bear? "Humanity" as you say.. are longing for what they instinctively know is good, they haven't progressed at all as you imply.

The fact that somebody is trying to become says nothing about whether a majority of people is willing to let them, nor about whether it will have the desired result in practice if they do. And no, it also does not say the opposite. It simply says nothing.

Feudalism has not always been around. It is not "the natural state of things". Humanity started out with family tribes up to maybe in the low hundred people in size and with rapidly shifting rulership styles. Often seniority. Feudalistic structures became viable at all only after we not only started the whole "owning land" (agriculture) thing but also reached a certain population density. That means less than roughly 10,000 years ago.

Right now our population density has recently exploded. The majority of people who have ever lived, to my knowledge, are still alive today. The internet, a communication infrastructure which can theoretically be accessed by any human to varying degrees is also unprecedented and a continuation of many recent efforts. It is not unreasonable to assume that we might be reaching a new phase of our species, post-feudalism, with new norms. How exactly it will turn out, we will see. Our current understanding of democracy might or might as well not be part of it. But to just assume it will just be the old ways again is equally shortsighted.

The factors that led up to the current situation did not come out of nowhere, and it is not reasonable to assume they will simply vanish without a trace, even once the players change.


Kanga wrote:

No.. not in a way, it just is true. The idea that I could sell t-shirts at a rightwing faire is dumb as fuck just flat out.

It's because you left out the additional motivation of "sense of belonging". It's a significant motivator there, and shirts tend to crop up wherever that's the case. Look at the red hats. The actual message doesn't matter much. The feeling behind it does.

16

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

This conversation is too complex for a forum. Half of the points made are being misrepresented again and again.

17

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

Kanga wrote:

This conversation is too complex for a forum. Half of the points made are being misrepresented again and again.

Well that kinda plays into one part of what my actual ideology is about. No perfection, only refinement, again and again. It's fitting to do that in a place that is about Star Trek, because that is also one of the core principles it usually represents.

It's always nice to have a discussion with someone you fundamentally disagree with. We all spend way too much time talking to people who already share our opinion. All but impossible to refine an opinion like that. Just gotta make sure to remember that the goal is ultimately not to change any mind other than your own.

18

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

You represent your worldview as if it's the scientific method but the scientific method starts by reading the material on a topic first, you don't just jump into experiments so if we expand that to e.g. violence like El Salvador/Chicago, we can see throughout history what was needed to deal with gangs, we can look at the successful attempts and the unsuccessful attempts yet.. you insist on trying a new experiment instead of copying what we already know works and by doing so, the world becomes a series of experiment where we all suffer while you fail with your experiments instead of just fixing the damn problem.

Now if you were serious about applying the scientific method, you would pick.. lets say 10 cities in the US that suffers heavily from gang violence and then you would apply my method in 5 of those cities and your own method in the other 5 and we can see the results afterwards.

I can already give you the result of this test for my cities because it has been done many times before and I will land on a ~80% approval rate but of course.. you and the very people in power that shares your views aren't really serious about applying the scientific method here so instead.. every city gets to suffer because you can't actually afford to show them what works, so our cities will continue to degrade, there will be no actual fix.

19

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

Kanga wrote:

yet.. you insist on trying a new experiment instead of copying what we already know works

Well. Now it's my turn to be confused. I cannot remember myself making any statement about how to deal with crime, aside from a very general reminder that we need to have a plan what to do with people once they are in prison. Not sure why you keep bringing that up.

20

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

Can we return this thread to Star Trek? I’m kinda done with these ramblings oo how the world would be a better place if we just installed brutal dictators who oppress the polulace by incarceration and violence and how that is the best and natural way for us to exist.

21 (edited by some_one 2023-07-29 02:54:30)

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

dofus wrote:

Sure, they might do that but it is currently not the far-right or conservatives that makes movies and tv-shows or controls the mass media and political narratives. When right-wingers and conservatives becomes a similar relevant problem, we can talk about them. At this moment, they are not.

If you only watch fiction, that might be true. It does not extend to the concept of "news" and it does have observable effects there. That is what lighton is talking about. All of it is kinda far off topic here though, especially in a thread about Star Trek, which has always been like this.


dofus wrote:

Point is, if something like that happens in an organization like this, the doctor should obviously be taken off duty and there should be an investigation and whatever even if it was in self-defense. From every old Star Trek show i have seen they generally did not even touch crime as a concept any longer, implying it barely happens at all, i doubt they still have laws that says you can kill anybody in self-defense. Especially not in Star Fleet, as an officer on duty, on a star ship.

Well, they did investigate it, no? There was simply no evidence against him. Nobody knew he was the one who had (and thus brought) the knife and Chapel confirms his story. Also, they literally had a serial killer on Voyager. Oh, and another one on DS9, just for good measure.

22

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

some_one wrote:

<Brings up Cortez and Khan again>

Read what I actually wrote, I didn't mention Cortez(or Khan for that matter) because of order but for honor and glory, two different values. Both of them did however bring order in their own way, say e.g. Cortez stopped human sacrifices where he went so he subjectively did impose order on the world around him so order is not a point against Cortez.

You're demanding a Kantian categorical imperative where there is none.

some_one wrote:

That's good, but lighton is right. If you print those words on a shirt, without further context, they will sell well in those circles.

No it won't sell particular well among the Trump base. They would ask me why honor, glory and hierarchy is on it so you would be closer to those words then they would since you only disagree with one, the Trumpists largely just want to grill freely and say edgy things.

No, they aren't the words of Nazis either, race is key to Nazis and there is no race in my values, Nazis didn't care about hierarchy either, all Germans were to be equal after the war and classes was to be abolished, they didn't care about community either, you might recall how the Austrian painter wanted to rebuild Berlin etc, the focus was to make the capital of the race glorious not empower local communities.

I'm a Ghibeling if you absolutely want to classify me, a renaissance man, I have more in common ideologically with Shakespeare or the Medicis than I do with you. You are closer to both the Nazis and Trump just by fact that you're all modernists and I'm not.

some_one wrote:

...but the thing that is actually being said here might be that you can't just lock people away at random and hope that fixes anything...

It fixes the murder rate to lock up people "randomly"(nice twist to reality there) but you don't care about order or rampant murder so in your view it doesn't fix the problem because in your eyes it's not about people being murdered rampantly. I have far more respect for human life then you do despite not following the "harm principle" and that's why i will refer to your liberal view as absolutely disgusting and it's justified.

some_one wrote:

<Federation on employing mass murderers>

Clearly the federation have no clue what they are doing and now you have two federation officers semi-lying about what happened with honor going out the window, honorable men would stand up and take responsibility for their actions but there is no honor in federation now like in previous iterations of the show. It's thrown out the window for liberal/progressive ideology where everything becomes a grey mess and they can't recognize obvious truths about the world around us such as e.g. "murder bad".

23 (edited by TheFizza 2023-07-29 14:57:28)

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

sedman wrote:

Episode 8 has left me cold -

I get that there was a war, and I'm sure the Klingons were brutal, but humanity has proven time and again how despicable it can be.
Despite its lofty ideals, I'm sure Section 31 trumped any war crime the Klingons could be accused of considering their whole ethos revolves around honor.

But somehow I missed episode 7 so, I'm hoping it will lift my spirits after being exposed top what I would rate as the worst episode of STSNW so far.

edit: feeling much better now

Yeah, they should totally have changed the order of those, Ep 8 then Ep 7 because it was pretty dark... IMO wink

But more so than that, I felt it wasn't really very Star Trek... now I know a lot of folks have said that kind of thing from time-to-time with just about every Trek series, more so for these 2016-Present revivals. And I'm not trying to say that my view of Trek is the only correct perspective.

This is the second time they did an M'Benga story [who was a favorite side character of mine form TOS era] where I was rather disturbed by this choice (The Elysian Kingdom).

Still, for me, Trek has always been about social satire and it's strong focus on inclusivity and finding peace through discovering common ground has been it's heart. And this story felt as if it should have been on DS9 where it was about Kira except they stop her form killing in the end ...or if she did it would be framed as more of a negative.

I won't say this makes the show bad overall nor I will stop watching, but it was disappointing. I did stop watching Discovery for those reasons [even if I do love the characters of Michael & Saru] but there's been more good with SNW than has been bad... so ahead of ENTERPRISE, at least.

https://next-episode.net/sig/sig.php?alias=default&amp;kk=fe18e3ede310c4d0ddb3af64211e19ec

24

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

Kanga wrote:

I have far more respect for human life then you do despite not following the "harm principle" and that's why i will refer to your liberal view as absolutely disgusting and it's justified.

You may be going off a false dichotomy here between doing nothing and whatever it is you are suggesting. I, specifically, do not have a particular view on this at all. See what works and do that, without letting bias creep in.


Kanga wrote:

Read what I actually wrote, I didn't mention Cortez(or Khan for that matter) because of order but for honor and glory, two different values. Both of them did however bring order in their own way, say e.g. Cortez stopped human sacrifices where he went so he subjectively did impose order on the world around him so order is not a point against Cortez.

I keep bringing it up because, whether you realize it or not, it is one of the most distinctive features of your worldview and a good starting point to ask about it from. Briefly looking at the history of Mexico over the next few centuries, I would disagree with the assessment of "order", but that's now besides the point because:

Kanga wrote:

You're demanding a Kantian categorical imperative where there is none.

Correct. That is exactly what I was asking for, though I more generally called it "coherency" there. Categorical consistency is the easiest way to make sure our ideology describes an actual, objective-ish worldview instead of just being a flimsy justification for why we like to act on our every whim. There are other ways to accomplish that, I'm just not sure I see any here, yet.


Kanga wrote:

No, they aren't the words of Nazis either, race is key to Nazis and there is no race in my values, Nazis didn't care about hierarchy either, all Germans were to be equal after the war and classes was to be abolished, they didn't care about community either, you might recall how the Austrian painter wanted to rebuild Berlin etc, the focus was to make the capital of the race glorious not empower local communities.

That is incorrect. Hierarchy was one of the defining characteristics of their ideology, especially in practice. There is a reason the last Kaiser spent years expecting them to reinstate him. But instead they did do away with the hereditary aspect of hierarchy somewhat. It's just that they instead expanded it to the entire population, which is where the racism came in. "Community" got a similar treatment.


Kanga wrote:

You are closer to both the Nazis and Trump just by fact that you're all modernists and I'm not.

In a way, that is true, but again also part of why I brought it up. Those words are, again, just words that mean different things to different people. If you try to apply them to a, yes, "modern" world as-is, that is what you end up with. It'd require a whole bunch of extra steps which I doubt even a simple majority of people would ever be okay with. Sometimes it's simply better to leave the past in the past.


Kanga wrote:

the Trumpists largely just want to grill freely and say edgy things.

We can agree on that. The problem only comes in when it's groups like the Klan and worse that are the ones giving them a reason to do that, effectively weaponizing those with preexisting mental illness who start taking the edginess seriously.


Kanga wrote:

Clearly the federation have no clue what they are doing and now you have two federation officers semi-lying about what happened with honor going out the window, honorable men would stand up and take responsibility for their actions but there is no honor in federation now like in previous iterations of the show.

It's dishonorable, yes. There isn't even supposed to be any doubt about it. It's not supposed to be good. Once again: the message is a very clear "if you push people beyond their limit, they will stop caring about things like honor". As for "previous iterations of the show"... have you watched DS9? Like TheFizza said, this episode would have fit in there just fine. No, it's not a good fit for SNW.


Kanga wrote:

I'm a Ghibeling if you absolutely want to classify me, a renaissance man, I have more in common ideologically with Shakespeare or the Medicis than I do with you. You are closer to both the Nazis and Trump just by fact that you're all modernists and I'm not.

Would you put yourself under the broader term of a "feudalist"? It depends a bit on how much you value said hereditary aspect. Feudalism has historically always been one of the most long-lived systems, though one of the least conductive to things I consider interesting or worthwhile happening in the world. In terms of Star Trek, it'd be the Klingon ideology as described by Worf, rather than always lived in practice.

25 (edited by dofus 2023-07-29 02:05:20)

Re: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - 2x8 discussion thread

lighton wrote:

For me, they didn't glorify it, it was a questionable attempt at showing what wars can do to people. That far in the future, I expect them to better handle PTSD. 2x8 was not a great episode.

Maybe a poor choice of words, justify it would maybe be better? Every conversation was of the sort "but he is a bad guy though"...implying that then it is kinda ok to break laws and rules.

Point is, if something like that happens in an organization like this, the doctor should obviously be taken off duty and there should be an investigation and whatever even if it was in self-defense. From every old Star Trek show i have seen they generally did not even touch crime as a concept any longer, implying it barely happens at all, i doubt they still have laws that says you can kill anybody in self-defense. Especially not in Star Fleet, as an officer on duty, on a star ship.

Then we have the other modern liberal thing, that they now expects klingons to act like humans and have human morals. They do not. In old Star Trek everybody basically agrees that klingons are just insane weird people. Now they judge klingons by human standards. Klingons are murderous and violent and have a culture ad values very far from modern humans and i do not see why klingons would consider any of that wrong, just because humans do.

lighton wrote:

That the far-right loves (at least the idea of) violence is also the impression that I got over the years.

Sure, they might do that but it is currently not the far-right or conservatives that makes movies and tv-shows or controls the mass media and political narratives. When right-wingers and conservatives becomes a similar relevant problem, we can talk about them. At this moment, they are not.