Social Just Warriors in Space....and Beyond

So your argument is that current day leftist agenda with identity-politics is made obsolete in the future, including "legalized racism" in the form of affirmative-action type policies (like the fact that Asians and whites have to score considerably higher than a black applicant all else equal for an equal chance at being accepted to medical school), which is why it gives way to a in large-part conservative utopia?


No, my argument is that the Star Trek universe is completely antithetical to conservative beliefs across science, politics and economics. Just look at the scientific areas. We are not alone in universe which is billions of years old where species evolved from lower to higher forms over the eons and that there are some species who might as well be gods. These basic scientific realities in the ST universe are in total opposition to current conservative beliefs. So if the basic science isn't anti-conservative, it's not hard to imagine the politics and economics being the same.
 
No, my argument is that the Star Trek universe is completely antithetical to conservative beliefs across science, politics and economics. Just look at the scientific areas. We are not alone in universe which is billions of years old where species evolved from lower to higher forms over the eons and that there are some species who might as well be gods. These basic scientific realities in the ST universe are in total opposition to current conservative beliefs. So if the basic science isn't anti-conservative, it's not hard to imagine the politics and economics being the same.
You haven't justified yourself at all. That's a "nuh uh" reply.

Please explain what a conservative futuristic utopia would look like.

You realize that a very conservative (far more than today) primarily white male 1960s United States led the entire world in the NASA program, with the first to put a man on the moon and explore space, right? Buzz Aldrin has actively campaigned for Republicans for ages now. Do you honestly believe that scientists, astronauts, mathematicians, and the like are all hardcore lefties? You realize that there are just as many "liberal" Democrat voting black baptists and Hispanic Catholics as there are "conservative" Republican voting white protestants, right? And we've already established that Star Trek is not consistently anti-religion anyways, particularly DS9 and Enterprise, and federation starships include a non-denominational chapel for weddings and funerals. Your argument is nonsensical and wishful thinking.
 
I think SJWs are going to be seriously afraid of the future like that since they won't have anything to complain about anymore.

There WERE good organisations with GOOD causes in the past, who did have LEGITIMATE complaints and good OBJECTIVES for change. Once all that happened they were sitting around with their thumbs up tail going "How do we stay relevant now?"

And now they are BAD organisations, with SILLY causes, who make up FALSIFIED and OVERBLOWN complaints with QUESTIONABLE OBJECTIVES just so they get attention and feel relevant.

In the end they are undermining everything they worked for that was good by making themselves look silly.
 
Guys, Star Trek isn't 'unlimited resources', it's 'post-scarcity', in the terms of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

What's left after the basics are taken care of is self actualization- and that's what people live for in most Trek series.

And that means that there are still plenty of reasons to fight wars, including for the resources that enable their technology, planets to live on, and hell, the people themselves, which are a resource.

Not if you asked Gene Roddenberry. He nearly killed off STNG during those first 3 years, after they went through writer after writer after writer along with poorly written plots. Remember the episode were Wesley was put on trial for breaking the law? It was a death sentence. Or that episode where Riker, Warf, and Data were trapped in that Casino? That's how bad the series was under Roddenberry's leadership. CBS finally gave him and his lawyer the heave ho and the show began to thrive.

yeah yeah, I know

giphy.gif
 
You haven't justified yourself at all. That's a "nuh uh" reply.

No one has to justify why they like Star Trek. Or not like it.

Please explain what a conservative futuristic utopia would look like.

At least with traditional conservative religious beliefs, ST isn't possible. Humans will never travel the stars because the world is going to hell and Jesus is coming soon.

You realize that a very conservative (far more than today) primarily white male 1960s United States led the entire world in the NASA program, with the first to put a man on the moon and explore space, right? Buzz Aldrin has actively campaigned for Republicans for ages now. Do you honestly believe that scientists, astronauts, mathematicians, and the like are all hardcore lefties? You realize that there are just as many "liberal" Democrat voting black baptists and Hispanic Catholics as there are "conservative" Republican voting white protestants, right? And we've already established that Star Trek is not consistently anti-religion anyways, particularly DS9 and Enterprise, and federation starships include a non-denominational chapel for weddings and funerals. Your argument is nonsensical and wishful thinking.

And a lot of those guys liked Star Trek. And believed in evolution and Big Bang Theory. Actually Aldrin guest started on The Big Bang Theory. I am aware of his views on climate change.

The Star Trek universe is a vision of the future and it's simply not a conservative one. I don't know why that needs any justification.
 
Last edited:
The Star Trek universe is a vision of the future and it's simply not a conservative one. I don't know why that needs any justification.

Because unlike progressives who have a fluid vision of how the world should work, conservatives have a very fixed vision involving the lie known as 'the free market.' If a world can exist without everyone working (suffering) to survive, it's not a world they want to live in. Because, "Waahh, that's not fair! Why does that person get to not work and I have to work?" Funnily enough it's the same attack they give when people complain about income inequality. "yeah, well life's not fair."

As has been mentioned, Star Trek is about a post-scarcity world (it's fictional guys, don't shit your pants). The reason conservatives can't wrap their heads around it is because scarcity is a business model in their minds. Something about controlling the means of production.

edit:

It's also amusing to me that Ducman69 also uses his own personal unending greed as an argument for why post-scarcity doesn't work. "But then I'd want a Ferrari! And a boat!" etc. etc. Yeah, well they address that in the clip someone else posted above and the notion is that people literally grew past that level of stupidity. I guess they got tired of being sold shit and being told it would make them happy. Buying things does two things, makes people want more (effectively making them less happy) and it makes those with the means to produce fucking mad rich. I could see an entire civilization getting tired of that kind of give, take, take, take, take, take cycle. Maybe something catastrophic happened to their society? Like some dumb fuck billionaire who was basically the antithesis of the 'work hard, be talented, get rich' capitalist lie got control of the government or something. I dunno, I'm just shooting in the wind.
 
Last edited:
No one has to justify why they like Star Trek. Or not like it.
I'm not asking you to, and that has never been asked of you. We both like Star Trek, but when you make ridiculous comments like you have, you need to justify them.
At least with traditional conservative religious beliefs, ST isn't possible. Humans will never travel the stars because the world is going to hell and Jesus is coming soon.
You're again ignoring the fact that most people that worked at NASA at the peak of our space program were not Atheists, and that "liberal vs conservative" is not divided evenly as "Atheists vs Christians". I'm certainly not a liberal, and I'm an Atheist. Buzz Aldrin is certainly a conservative that has campaigned for the Republican party, and you realize that he is NOT an Atheist, right? Buzz Aldrin is a Presbyterian, and the first person to hold a religious ceremony on the moon, taking communion. Clearly religious belief does not preclude our NASA engineers from working on space exploration, and there are a lot of Democrat voting religious liberals. Its also pointed out to you, which you haven't refuted, that Star Trek is not universally anti-religion, and is arguably quite pro-religion with respect to the Bajorans. Star Trek also clearly still has religion in the future, as Archer said he went down to the temple on Earth, and they have non-denominational chapels on federation star ships.
The Star Trek universe is a vision of the future and it's simply not a conservative one. I don't know why that needs any justification.
I know you don't. You like to say pretty nonsensical things and don't understand why anyone would ask you to justify it with some kind of, you know, well thought out logic.
 
Last edited:
I'm not asking you to, and that has never been asked of you. We both like Star Trek, but when you make ridiculous comments like you have, you need to justify them.

You're again ignoring the fact that most people that worked at NASA at the peak of our space program were not Atheists, and that "liberal vs conservative" is not divided evenly as "Atheists vs Christians". I'm certainly not a liberal, and I'm an Atheist. Buzz Aldrin is certainly a conservative that has campaigned for the Republican party, and you realize that he is NOT an Atheist, right? Buzz Aldrin is a Presbyterian, and the first person to hold a religious ceremony on the moon, taking communion. Clearly religious belief does not preclude our NASA engineers from working on space exploration, and there are a lot of Democrat voting religious liberals. Its also pointed out to you, which you haven't refuted, that Star Trek is not universally anti-religion, and is arguably quite pro-religion with respect to the Bajorans. Star Trek also clearly still has religion in the future, as Archer said he went down to the temple on Earth, and they have non-denominational chapels on federation star ships.

I know you don't. You like to say pretty nonsensical things and don't understand why anyone would ask you to justify it with some kind of, you know, well thought out logic.

You're mixing up 'being religious,' (which many people are) with being a fundamentalist, like many conservatives in power in today's congress. I challenge you to justify how believing in Creationism and Rapture is something that would motivate you to support space exploration. The 'religious' people you're talking about that worked at NASA, etc. weren't young earth zealots. We are talking about the social movement of conservatism today, particularly the aspects related to fundamentalist Christianity and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. You can't just keep coming back and saying 'well once there was a christian who.' This is about larger trends. The fact is, the modern conservative movement is anti-science and a lot of that has to do with fundamentalist religious beliefs.
 
You're mixing up 'being religious,' (which many people are) with being a fundamentalist, like many conservatives in power in today's congress. I challenge you to justify how believing in Creationism and Rapture is something that would motivate you to support space exploration.
I challenge you to justify your claim that conservatives are a monolith of Creationists, which is nonsensical.
The fact is, the modern conservative movement is anti-science and a lot of that has to do with fundamentalist religious beliefs.
Ohhhhh, well, I can't argue with that logic, because you prefaced it by saying its a fact, so you don't have to, you know, support that nonsense. The "modern conservative movement" differs from traditional conservatism primarily in that its MORE SECULAR. Look at Trump's base, its far less religious (attracting Atheists such as myself) and pulled far greater from the other side than any other conservative candidate, and as was pointed out, and you don't challenge, there are plenty of fundamentalist religious Democrat voting liberals, and in fact liberals are even actively promoting and defending Islamists as part of their political platform.
 
I know you don't. You like to say pretty nonsensical things and don't understand why anyone would ask you to justify it with some kind of, you know, well thought out logic.

Warp drive is nonsensical. Transporters are nonsensical. But they are part of an iconic vision of a hopeful future which has inspired the imagination of millions for over 50 years now. This thread references the VR game based on that vision which has turned out to be a hit VR title, I have it and I think it's amazing. Indeed Star Trek envisioned such technology in the TNG series and put the term holodeck in the pop culture lexicon.

There's a basic greatness to Star Trek that frees the imagination. Humans have been fighting over resources and politics since our species began. The beauty of Star Trek is that it envisions a time where at least it's a lot better than today.
 
Warp drive is nonsensical. Transporters are nonsensical.
We've been over this. Just because there are fantasy aspects to the series, doesn't mean you can make illogical silly arguments about bigoted perception of real world conservatives, and not be called on it to support your assertions.

Conservatives and liberals like different aspects of the Star Trek lore, so again, no one has a problem with warp drive, but I would like to hear your explanation as to what a conservative utopia would look like, and how it would differ from the Star Trek portrayal. Or you could just drop it, and by default admit that you are unable support your nonsense.
 
We've been over this. Just because there are fantasy aspects to the series, doesn't mean you can make illogical silly arguments about bigoted perception of real world conservatives, and not be called on it to support your assertions.

How does one support their position on their view of a vision of a society that doesn't even exist? Now that nonsensical.

Conservatives and liberals like different aspects of the Star Trek lore, so again, no one has a problem with warp drive, but I would like to hear your explanation as to what a conservative utopia would look like, and how it would differ from the Star Trek portrayal. Or you could just drop it, and by default admit that you are unable support your nonsense.

Conservatives have plenty of problems with the science of Star Trek. Zephram Cochrane's discovery of warp drive transformed human existence and directly led to the society you're calling bigoted toward conservatives. The discovery of warp drive led to post-scarcity, multi-culturalism and interplanetary alliances and government leading to the founding of the United Federation of Planets.

Anyone can think what they want about Star Trek. But the ideas behind it are anti-conservative. Numerous references in it depict current society in less than ideal terms.

"This is a primitive and paranoid culture." - Admiral James T. Kirk.
 
How does one support their position on their view of a vision of a society that doesn't even exist?
How do you support things you said? LMAO. I don't know, because I certainly couldn't support the things you've said.
Conservatives have plenty of problems with the science of Star Trek.
You're not a conservative, right? Support your claim about what specific "science" aspects of Star Trek that liberals like and conservatives hate with some sources. Certainly, if you're a liberal, your liberal opinion alone is not sufficient evidence.
Zephram Cochrane's discovery of warp drive transformed human existence and directly led to the society you're calling bigoted toward conservatives.
No one ever said that, stop making things up. I said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, that Star Trek is in many ways a Conservative Utopia, and unlike you, I supported it and explained why: https://hardforum.com/threads/socia...ace-and-beyond.1935992/page-2#post-1043040807
The discovery of warp drive led to post-scarcity, multi-culturalism and interplanetary alliances and government leading to the founding of the United Federation of Planets.
Why do you think Conservatives would be opposed to having a "post-scarcity" utopia, where economic output was off the charts for most goods? In what way is Earth "multi-cultural" in Star Trek, when its clearly a homogeneous culture with all the ships looking about the same, all the people looking about the same and speaking the same, and Starfleet certainly uniform in culture as well. Likewise, there is only one primary culture displayed on Vulcan, and the same for Kronos. Each are monolithic cultures that tolerate each other, but primarily are segregated. There's no large population of humans on Vulcan, Kronos, etc mixing up cultures, and as was pointed out, humans are expected to abide by the cultural norms of the alien planets they visit, and visa versa. Separated monolithic cultures is the definition of the opposite of multi-culturalism. Please also explain how Conservatives don't believe in alliances with other governments.
But the ideas behind it are anti-conservative. Numerous references in it depict current society in less than ideal terms.
Don't you understand that just repeating yourself like an untrained parakeet that hasn't learned new words is not supporting your argument. Support your argument that "the ideas" are anti-conservative. I've already detailed how many of the ideas represent Conservative ideals: https://hardforum.com/threads/socia...ace-and-beyond.1935992/page-2#post-1043040807
"This is a primitive and paranoid culture." - Admiral James T. Kirk.
The present is neither uniformly conservative or liberal. Criticism of the present, is not criticism of conservatives exclusively. The liberal Democrats for example are on a McCarthyst witch hunt on a paranoid delusion that Russians rigged the US election, rather than just admitting that corruption was exposed in their party by wikileaks. Pretty primitive and paranoid, but certainly not "conservative".
 
The present is neither uniformly conservative or liberal. Criticism of the present, is not criticism of conservatives exclusively. The liberal Democrats for example are on a McCarthyst witch hunt on a paranoid delusion that Russians rigged the US election, rather than just admitting that corruption was exposed in their party by wikileaks. Pretty primitive and paranoid, but certainly not "conservative".

You keep trying to define a vision of 300 years from now in current day politics. Star Trek is inherently counter status quo and anti-conservative as a result of time the time it was created. That doesn't mean that it is pro-liberal but being anti-conservative it does lean that way. I just grew up watching the show and loved it and was far more interested in the tech, especially the computers, and never really worried about the politics.

As far as a conservative utopia. You're arguing over people eating for free. So much for a conservative utopia. And Star Trek is just full of things like this that again, just don't suit conservative ideals.
 
You keep trying to define a vision of 300 years from now in current day politics.
Nope, I'm just asking you to support your statements about current day politics.
As far as a conservative utopia. You're arguing over people eating for free. So much for a conservative utopia. And Star Trek is just full of things like this that again, just don't suit conservative ideals.
Conservatives/Libertarians don't like the idea of stealing from person A's labor to give to person B who isn't investing his own labor, as that rewards sloth/failure and punishes hard work/success. Star Trek is post-scarcity, meaning food has no value, because its essentially free and requires no labor. No one minds giving free stuff away without working for it, that's not redistribution of wealth, and everyone in the Federation is working hard and contributing to society. No moochers, which is a conservative utopia. Try again.
 
Last edited:
Nope, I'm just asking you to support your statements about current day politics.

I'm just saying that Star Trek has from the very beginning been anti-conservative. Science over religion. Multi-cultural over monolithic. Mutual cooperation and sharing of resources between Federation members.

Conservatives/Libertarians don't like the idea of stealing from person A's labor to give to person B who isn't investing his own labor, as that rewards sloth/failure and punishes hard work/success. Star Trek is post-scarcity, meaning food has no value, because its essentially free and requires no labor. No one minds giving free stuff away without working for it, that's not redistribution of wealth, and everyone in the Federation is working hard and contributing to society. No moochers, which is a conservative utopia. Try again.

There are any number of economic injustices that we debate, limitless accumulation of top line wealth, forced scarcity, price gouging of essential medicines, etc. Whatever ones views of these things are, the bottom line is that Star Trek tries to envision a future where we're not constantly fighting over every damned penny. And indeed makes a lot of scathing portrayals of such with the Ferengi and their hyper-cynical Rules of Acquisition.

Star Trek just isn't a conservative view, if that makes you not like it so be it. I just find all of this commentary over a satire of review of a VR game based on a fictional universe 300 years in the future fascinating. A testimony to the greatness of Star Trek.
 
I'm just saying that Star Trek has from the very beginning been anti-conservative. Science over religion. Multi-cultural over monolithic. Mutual cooperation and sharing of resources between Federation members.
I know, you just repeat yourself, even when I point out that not all liberals are Atheists, not all conservatives are religious, Star Trek is a monolithic culture and the polar opposite of multi-cultural, and the federation doesn't share resources that aren't "free" (post-scarcity) and have no currency. The humans have and maintain their own fleet, the Vulcans their own, the Andorians their own, etc. Its like all these facts that counter your repetitive argument don't even sink in, like a really fat guy flexing in the mirror and admiring himself that can't see what he doesn't want to see.
There are any number of economic injustices that we debate, limitless accumulation of top line wealth, forced scarcity, price gouging of essential medicines, etc.
Yup, and who bitches all the time about these problems? I'm one of them. Do you think I'm extremely liberal?

You have very bigoted views of what you think conservatives are. Just out of curiosity, how big do you imagine my horns are, and how many babies would you imagine I consume annually?

So again, please explain how a conservative utopia Star Trek would look. Its not that hard, I told you what I think a purely liberal utopia Star Trek would be. Star Trek is neither purely liberal or conservative, which is why it has mainstream appeal, dating all the way back to the 60s.
 
I know, you just repeat yourself, even when I point out that not all liberals are Atheists, not all conservatives are religious, Star Trek is a monolithic culture and the polar opposite of multi-cultural, and the federation doesn't share resources that aren't "free" (post-scarcity) and have no currency.

The Federation is indeed multi-cultural. The teachings of Surak which are the basis of Vulcan civilization are very unique culturally in the Federation, indeed in the known galaxy. Common cultural beliefs are not the same as a monolith culture. And yes the Federation does share resources, all Federation members are required by the Federation Charter to come to the aid and defense of another member post haste. Without expectation of compensation. Indeed that's part of the story behind the Star Trek Bridge Crew. Set in the JJ Abrams timeline after the destruction of Vulcan, the missions in the game are about finding a new Vulkan home world. But Vulcans as citizens of the Federation could relocate to any planet they wanted to in Federation space. Open boarders to say the least.

The humans have and maintain their own fleet, the Vulcans their own, the Andorians their own, etc. Its like all these facts that counter your repetitive argument don't even sink in, like a really fat guy flexing in the mirror and admiring himself that can't see what he doesn't want to see.

Yeah, they were all warp capable before the founding of the Federation. And the Federation doesn't generally dictate what local planets do as long as they abide by the Charter.

Yup, and who bitches all the time about these problems? I'm one of them. Do you think I'm extremely liberal?
You have very bigoted views of what you think conservatives are. Just out of curiosity, how big do you imagine my horns are, and how many babies would you imagine I consume annually?

So again, please explain how a conservative utopia Star Trek would look. Its not that hard, I told you what I think a purely liberal utopia Star Trek would be. Star Trek is neither purely liberal or conservative, which is why it has mainstream appeal, dating all the way back to the 60s.

People who criticize Federation society depicted in Star Trek tend to hold conservative values because Star Trek simply portrays ideas that are not conservative across a large range of beliefs. It's been that way for 50 years.
 
The Federation is indeed multi-cultural. The teachings of Surak which are the basis of Vulcan civilization are very unique culturally in the Federation, indeed in the known galaxy.
Yup, that's Vulcan culture, which Vulcans adhere to, on Vulcan. Andorians do Andorian stuff. Klingons do Klingon stuff. They are separate monolithic cultures, and there's no multi-cultural mix among them. Multi-culturalism is like London bridge, when Muslims share their culture with the native British, all mixed together in one city living together.
Common cultural beliefs are not the same as a monolith culture.
Wrong, when humans all share the same culture, and Vulcans all share their own culture, and Klingons all share their own separate culture, that's monolithic cultures by definition. Heck, in all of Vulcan there's just "Vulcan martial arts". Their entire society only ever developed one fighting style, per Star Trek. You can't get more monolithic than that. To be multi-cultural, you would have a mix of all cultures into one "soup bowl" as it were, and there's precisely ZERO of that.
And yes the Federation does share resources, all Federation members are required by the Federation Charter to come to the aid and defense of another member post haste.
Nope, that's a mutual defense treaty, like UN. That's not socialism between states.
Set in the JJ Abrams timeline after the destruction of Vulcan, the missions in the game are about finding a new Vulkan home world. But Vulcans as citizens of the Federation could relocate to any planet they wanted to in Federation space. Open boarders to say the least.
But that's not what we see. We see that Earth is full of humans, Kronos is full of Klingons, etc. Each has their own place, and with rare exception they do not mix. Worf was the only Klingon in starfleet and Riker was the first human to serve on a Klingon vessel (and only temporarily at that) as crew, for example. Vulcans would be expected to find a new uninhabited world, and not take over parts of Earth.

I asked you a simple question, what do you think a conservative utopia Star Trek would look like? You don't like direct questions do you?

BTW, since you said I've never watched Star Trek and probably don't like the show, this is the plushie on my desk at work. ;)
http://i.imgur.com/hbJYO3X.jpg
 

  • mul·ti·cul·tur·al - of, relating to, or constituting several cultural or ethnic groups within a society: That's the Federation.

  • As for a conservative utopia, I have no idea. Everything in Star Trek is anti-conservative so it wouldn't be like that.
 

  • mul·ti·cul·tur·al - of, relating to, or constituting several cultural or ethnic groups within a society: That's the Federation.

  • As for a conservative utopia, I have no idea. Everything in Star Trek is anti-conservative so it wouldn't be like that.

If you want a conservative utopia, head to Mississippi.
 
mul·ti·cul·tur·al - of, relating to, or constituting several cultural or ethnic groups within a society: That's the Federation.
Nope. The federation is not one society. Some of the federation members barely tolerate one another, and they live completely separate from each other and have their own separate fleets. Andoria and Earth are far less one society than the United States and Japan are.
As for a conservative utopia, I have no idea. Everything in Star Trek is anti-conservative so it wouldn't be like that.
This isn't a hard question. You claim to know everything about what conservatives want. What would be a conservative utopia in the future. If there's a language issue, in other words, what would an ideal conservative future vision look like in your opinion? For example, Hitler's utopia would be a grand militaristic socialist benevolent dictatorship state, no religion, strong family unit with no out-of-wedlock sex or "deviant" sex, with great monuments, Roman style architecture, large investment in technology, lots of Hugo Boss fashion with attention to cleanliness and order, and full of primarily tall, blond, and strong healthy people with eugenics programs to change what the human race looks like to an idealized version. So what would a conservative Star Trek utopia look like?
damicatz said:
If you want a conservative utopia, head to Mississippi.
So a conservative future utopia would be a state with one of the largest black populations in the country, and with half the population on welfare, paid for by the other half? So you estimate that conservatives love the welfare state and minorities? Interesting opinion.
 
Last edited:
I challenge you to justify your claim that conservatives are a monolith of Creationists, which is nonsensical.

Ohhhhh, well, I can't argue with that logic, because you prefaced it by saying its a fact, so you don't have to, you know, support that nonsense. The "modern conservative movement" differs from traditional conservatism primarily in that its MORE SECULAR. Look at Trump's base, its far less religious (attracting Atheists such as myself) and pulled far greater from the other side than any other conservative candidate, and as was pointed out, and you don't challenge, there are plenty of fundamentalist religious Democrat voting liberals, and in fact liberals are even actively promoting and defending Islamists as part of their political platform.

Well, the VPOTUS is a Creationist, so you can argue all you want about not being a monolith but the runner up to be POTUS right now is an uninformed dipshit and the reason that's the case is because Republicans love to court that voting block and traditionally have done so gleefully.

Defending so-called Islamists has nothing to do with religiosity or fundamentalism, so I think you missed your mark with that one. Also, of course there are 'plenty' (whatever that means) of 'fundamentalist' religious people voting Democrat. I mean, there could be 100, 1000, 10,000, whatever. We've got to look at the statistics and they clearly indicate that fundamentalist religious people in the USA (along with uneducated people) vote Republican, period.
Have a look:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

As for a conservative utopia, go to a library under the dystopian section and you'll find some material.
 
Nope. The federation is not one society. Some of the federation members barely tolerate one another, and they live completely separate from each other and have their own separate fleets. Andoria and Earth are far less one society than the United States and Japan are.

Yes, the Federation is a single society but no it's not a single government. Citizens of the Federation identify with being citizens of the Federation even as they identify with their own home worlds.

This isn't a hard question. You claim to know everything about what conservatives want.

Nope. All I said here was that Star Trek is anti-conservative because it's generally conservatives who have complained about it for 50 years. I don't know what you want but it obviously isn't Star Trek.

So a conservative future utopia would be a state with one of the largest black populations in the country, and with half the population on welfare, paid for by the other half? So you estimate that conservatives love the welfare state and minorities? Interesting opinion.

People who enjoy Star Trek are generally trying to escape all of this bullshit. If I wanted to deal with this crap all I need to do read all of the depressing crap in GenMay or social media.
 
Well, the VPOTUS is a Creationist
OK, so that's a really weird way of admitting that you are wrong in lumping all conservatives together into this make-believe hyper-religious monolith, particularly since the conservative you are arguing with is an atheist. Your Pew Research shows that just as many religious are voting Democrat as are Republican (WOOPS), and which group in the chart have you decided are "fundamentalist religious people"? Do you believe that strict Hispanic Catholics that donate considerable sums of their time and money to the church and surround themselves with religious paraphernalia around the house and claim that they see Jesus in everything from their breakfast cereal to toast are "fundamentalist"? What about black baptists that become highly animated spazzing out when the holy ghost enters their body are "fundamentalist"? Clearly the Democrats cater strongly towards these demos, as Hillary's really blatant pandering was evidence of.

This all again is moot though, since neither you nor heatlesssun will admit that Star Trek still has religion in the future, with chapels on star ships and at least one religion promoted as having basis in fact and is completely justified worship because their Gods are real.
Defending so-called Islamists has nothing to do with religiosity or fundamentalism, so I think you missed your mark with that one.
Courting fundamentalists has nothing to do with fundamentalism. Got it. Wew, lad.
As for a conservative utopia, go to a library under the dystopian section and you'll find some material.
I don't think you understand what "utopia" means. I asked you, what do you think a conservative utopia in the future would look like? What is a conservatives future where they would be super happy? First we heard that conservatives version of heaven is to have lots of black people and people on welfare around them with high crime rates, and now we hear from liberals that conservatives version of heaven would be Terminator or something.

I'm glad you guys are being honest now, as that really says a lot. You're not unreasonable paranoid alarmists straw-manning any non-liberals as the embodiment of evil, conservatives really are just satan incarnate and want to destroy the world... lol! :)
heatlesssun said:
All I said here was that Star Trek is anti-conservative because it's generally conservatives who have complained about it for 50 years. I don't know what you want but it obviously isn't Star Trek.
What source do you have for conservatives, about 50% of the country, complaining about Star Trek for 50 years? Star Trek was a smash hit in the 1960s and 70s, a time when you insist almost all white people, who were a huge majority, were racist. History calls bullshit on you.

You're still claiming I hate Star Trek when I just showed you I have a Star Trek plushie literally sitting on my desk at work? I understand you're too entrenched to admit you're wrong, but shouldn't you at least abandon fronts where you already completely lost and try new angles?

As I said, Star Trek is as much a mix of conservative utopia as it is a liberal one, and I merely don't care for some of the liberal nonsense thrown in regarding the economy and communism. But that's a tiny part of the show, and I overlook it just as you are apparently oblivious to the conservative aspects of the franchise.
 
Last edited:
What source do you have for conservatives, about 50% of the country, complaining about Star Trek for 50 years?

I'm not saying all do but the kinds of criticisms you level are almost exclusively from conservatives.

Star Trek was a smash hit in the 1960s and 70s, a time when you insist almost all white people, who were a huge majority, were racist. History calls bullshit on you.

Smash hit is probably overstating it. The TV ratings of TOS were never really where execs wanted them to be plus the time slots were never that great. Star Trek was just a fresh take on things. A ship of peace and exploration traveling the stars with no particular destination, just a journey. The animated TV show flopped. The Motion Picture did ok but was very expensive for its time. The Wrath of Khan was much cheaper but actually didn't get the box office draw. But I think that was the movie that sort of got Star Trek more mainstream.


Cool! I never said you hated ST. Again, your criticisms are typical complaints that conservative folks have made of the show.

As I said, Star Trek is as much a mix of conservative utopia as it is a liberal one, and I merely don't care for some of the liberal nonsense thrown in regarding the economy and communism. But that's a tiny part of the show, and I overlook it just as you are apparently oblivious to the conservative aspects of the franchise.

If you say so. I never have thought about it that way. Star Trek tends to look at our time as essentially the dark ages, funduscopic examinations, dialysis, warmongering, exploitive capitalism, etc. It's inherently anti-conservative because it rejects the present day for a different and better tomorrow. That's just what it is.
 
I'm not saying all do but the kinds of criticisms you level are almost exclusively from conservatives.
Which criticism specifically, and what percentage of the franchise do you believe is focused on that particular aspect?
If you say so. I never have thought about it that way. Star Trek tends to look at our time as essentially the dark ages, funduscopic examinations, dialysis, warmongering, exploitive capitalism, etc. It's inherently anti-conservative because it rejects the present day for a different and better tomorrow. That's just what it is.
We've gone over this, so lets try this circle again for a loop.

The present is NOT a conservative dictatorship devoid of leftism. You just watched eight years of Obama in power, was he particularly conservative in your estimation? Is Western Europe very conservative? Criticism of the present is criticism of a world that is filled with conservative and liberal culture, and the greatest warmongers of recent times have been socialist dictatorships, in the form of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and most recently perhaps we can add Venezuela to the list of socialist dictatorships: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/opinion/venezuelas-descent-into-dictatorship.html

Clearly, extreme leftism also can become insanely violent, oppressive, and genocidal, and we see the radicalized leftists growing in numbers and boldness in universities today, with antifa just busted with dozens arrested that were throwing bricks off of rooftops, armed with crowbars and all sorts of weapons to destroy free-speech.
 
The present is NOT a conservative dictatorship devoid of leftism. You just watched eight years of Obama in power, was he particularly conservative in your estimation?

Earth had just fought it's deadliest conflict a decade before warp drive. Call it whatever you want, this society simply wasn't working in the eyes of those in the Star Trek universe around 300 years from now. I'd consider the early 1700's primitive and barbaric. Not everyone and everything thing but not a time I'd want to live in for a whole host of reasons.
 
Earth had just fought it's deadliest conflict a decade before warp drive.
Which is criticism that we (everyone, as a whole) are too violent, and as I pointed out, the most extreme cases of militaristic violence are from socialist/communist dictatorships (considered extreme-left spectrum), so that isn't a criticism of the right. And in the cold war you had a right-leaning USA government engaged in a cold war with a left-leaning USSR government, both arming to the teeth, and made many fear for all out nuclear war. So criticism of that is not criticism of conservatives/right, but of the state of the world... but Star Trek OBVIOUSLY isn't totally pacifist either, as there's war all the time, and in fact they mock pacifists.

Conservatives like safety, law and order, prosperity, individual liberties, strong family units, more dignified and discreet sexuality, believe in clean living, and also like futuristic stuff like space ships and exploring the unknown. Star Trek offers this, in that humans are all getting along, there are no gangs on Earth, law and order is highly enforced and respected, individuals still have respected rights over the collective, the civilization is prosperous, people in Star Trek are getting married before having children and families stay together, there's no booty twerking on the bridge or prostitutes popping out of Picard's room after hours, all illicit drugs are outlawed (and more acceptable ones like alcohol are a rare indulgence with no alcoholic addicts stumbling about), and so it too is very much what conservatives picture as an ideal future... for the most part. Ultra-leftists would also probably complain there are too many white males in much of the franchise, there aren't enough openly gay couples, the sexuality is too repressed, there's not enough pregnant teenagers getting abortions, or racy affairs, and the cultures are too monolithic and Earth and the bridge should be full of a ton of alien races all mixing it up.

Heck, on to the earlier point, liberal pacifists were probably pissed off by the portrayal of the Organians as pussies that absolutely disgust Kirk, and even Spock pretty much calls them total losers that are stagnant and won't ever amount to anything, as they try to convince them to pick up arms and fight the Klingons.
 
Which criticism specifically, and what percentage of the franchise do you believe is focused on that particular aspect?

We've gone over this, so lets try this circle again for a loop.

The present is NOT a conservative dictatorship devoid of leftism. You just watched eight years of Obama in power, was he particularly conservative in your estimation? Is Western Europe very conservative? Criticism of the present is criticism of a world that is filled with conservative and liberal culture, and the greatest warmongers of recent times have been socialist dictatorships, in the form of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and most recently perhaps we can add Venezuela to the list of socialist dictatorships: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/opinion/venezuelas-descent-into-dictatorship.html

Clearly, extreme leftism also can become insanely violent, oppressive, and genocidal, and we see the radicalized leftists growing in numbers and boldness in universities today, with antifa just busted with dozens arrested that were throwing bricks off of rooftops, armed with crowbars and all sorts of weapons to destroy free-speech.

By most standards, Obama WAS a conservative. By Western European standards, he was certainly a conservative. Only in the US does someone who was, at best, center-left, get branded as a radical leftist.
 
Didn't the great Jim Kirk have a son out of wedlock who was raised by his single mother and Kirk wasn't in the picture. There was family drama over the relationships but who cared about the propriety? There were numerous references to intimate relationships outside of marriage even in TOS. Kirk certainly got his share and even Spock hit it a couple of times, though once was because of mind controlling spores and the other effects from a time machine, though he was about two seconds from hittin' it on Ardana of free will. I can't really think of anything in Star Trek were a 23rd or 24th Century human typically would feel any obligation to observe your sexual or family protocols.
 
Holy shit conservative vs. liberal.

Guys, those two 'positions' define one axis on what is at minimum a three-dimensional representation of politics.

Further, no person/government/movement/whatever is fully one or the other; at best, you can identify a 'lean' to particular topics.

Even further, the only reason to label Republicans (modern day, as practiced) as 'conservatives' is because they slot slightly to the right of Democrats on many issues- who are also conservative- and in doing so otherize those with beliefs different (if only slightly) than yours with a strawman, because you're too lazy to actually argue.

(replace Democrats/Republicans and left/right above as needed)


The reality is that we cannot look at Star Trek- and by this we typically mean the Federation, which Earth is a member of, and separately, Starfleet, which is a uniformed service- through our 'conservative' or 'liberal' lenses.

The Federation consists of many societies of varying homogeneity. Vulkan is an example of a society that stayed fairly homogenous, while Earth is modeled after more liberal western societies such as the US, the commonwealths, and Europe.

Further, note that conservatism is generally keeping the government out of things, through a general (and quite rational and evidence-supported) distrust of government power. That the Federation isn't even a military organization that doesn't include military 'services' by default is one example of conservatism in Star Trek. Another is that the Federation doesn't directly administer member societies/worlds, but does enforce broad individual rights as part of their charter, an example of federalism. And how about individual responsibility? While basic needs are met far better and far more universally by Federation societies/worlds than they are in the richest countries today, people are not 'controlled', and as such individual liberty is protected- also a conservative value.


So I'd argue that Star Trek presents a diverse universe, perhaps as a reflection of the diversity of people and societies on earth, and that the Federation represents a mix of both conservative and liberal ideals. Bottom line, trying to apply our politics to this fictional universe directly is really dumb. We can certainly learn, as we can from most science fiction, and we can certainly be inspired, but context is key when making comparisons.
 
I guess this is the thing about social justice. No matter what the cause is, there's always going to be those that say "Stop complaining". It's a good thing for me that some people didn't go along with that and kept complaining anyway.
Har har, it's all perspective. You're the "Stop complaining" guy when it comes to Microsoft and their business practices.
 
Back
Top