Since Discovery, despite the Star Trek writers repeatedly beating us over the head with this, I still somehow didn’t catch onto the pattern. If there is a through-line to all the new shows, the notion that acknowledging one’s own vulnerability is a sign of individual strength, and that showing support when others are being vulnerable around you, is also a sign of individual strength.

This may not feel “woke” in the way it’s usually understood, but I really think it’s pushing a long overdue envelope, and one that is arguably more important to our times than a half-black half-white face representing the “illogical” nature of racism.

For example: when I read the angry tweets about the new series (ie; the “pussification of men”, etc.) I can’t even force myself to see them as coming from anything other than weak, scared people who are too afraid of what the world would think of them if they expressed their authentic selves. They want to scare the rest of us into being as scared as they are, because they believe it will make them feel less alone. But loneliness can only be fixed by showing vulnerability.

And that’s the root of the problems in our modern era, isn’t it? Deeply insecure people hurting others in a desperate effort to not be hurt themselves. They haven’t always portrayed this concept in a graceful way, but kudos to Star Trek for keeping up the tradition of asking its audience: “What is it you’re so afraid of?”

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It’s supposed to be a time after humanity has dealt with all of the stupid in-fighting and conservative BS. It’s supposed to be about a time when the drama doesn’t come from inside the house. When humanity is exploring the stars, not having a moment.

    Though they clearly haven’t, even if they think so. For example, if you’re not an organic humanoid, it’s very much up in the air whether you’ll be treated as a person, or as an inconvenience.

    The Measure of a Man was constrained to apply to that one instance, in Data’s case, and he had the Sutherland automatically assuming the worst of him and nearly comm itting mutiny. Both the ExoComps and the EMH suffer from people thinking they’re malfunctioning and factory resetting/lobotomising them.

    If you’re in a war with the Federation, it’s equally ambiguous whether they’ll stick to their own rules of conflict. The moment they feel threatened, they’ll do things like unleash a deadly bio-weapon/memetic-weapon against your species, start laying self-replicating mines, or just make plans to blow up your homeworld. At best, your fate is left to the whims of a handful of admirals and captains.

    Even within the Federation, Admiral Satie was not a isolated instance. She only made two mistakes, in going up against an unusually accepting crew that would bat for one of their own, and losing her composure in front of another admiral. If she hadn’t, her crusade against Romulans in Starfleet would have continued unabated.

    The fact that she could start it would suggest that those attitudes exist and are underlying within Starfleet. At least, on a significant enough level that she wasn’t treated as being unusually paranoid about a non-issue.

    • tomenzgg@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Also, – watching at the age I am now – it’s hard for me to not notice how much carceral justice is taken as a given rather than anything remotely more restorative.

      And treatment of mental disability still unfomfortably mirrors our current system than anything I’d hope for so far into the future.

      I think we can accept that the premise is we’ve made astounding strides and there are still areas of improvement; I don’t think that tarnishes the hopeful and utopian dream at the heart of Star Trek.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I think we can accept that the premise is we’ve made astounding strides and there are still areas of improvement; I don’t think that tarnishes the hopeful and utopian dream at the heart of Star Trek.

        It doesn’t, but it also shows that even in the future, they’re not free from the foibles of being a person. Achieving and maintaining something like the Federation needs active, constant work. They can’t just go bang, Federation, and be done with it for good. Constant vigilance is the price we must pay for our freedoms.

        It’s an angle that I’m honestly disappointed that hasn’t been tackled yet, since it seems perfect for a Star Trek story. Early Picard seemed to be going that way, with former Borg drones being mistreated, and the Federation outlawing reproduction for inorganic beings, but then it veered off for the Season 3 plot.

        There’s a really juicy three-way conflict between people who think that the Federation is too soft to survive, those who think it’s fine as it is, and those who think it doesn’t go far enough, and should be expanded to cover more, that could easily come into play, and show how much work it took them to get and stay there.

        • ValueSubtracted@startrek.websiteM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Early Picard seemed to be going that way,

          Discovery went there in its first season, with the Federation prepared to sell its soul to win the war until they found another (problematic) way.

          The post-Burn 32nd Century is coming at it from the other side, with SFA in particular reckoning with some of the choices that were made during the period when everything was falling apart.