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?”

  • 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.