M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,035
Post scarcity is not liberal, it is not political at all. I can only think of one adjective for the person who wouldn't welcome a post scarcity civilization: evil
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
“Star Trek 4” Rumored to Feature Female Villain, New Female Hero
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,035
An utopia is a final state. That can't be improved upon by definition because it is so close to perfection, there is nothing final in star trek it just shows a better future than our present. Why do you think you cannot hold conservative values if there are no starving people, and people without housing?
That was a very good (and surprisingly nuanced, at least for this particular site) post.
Why can't the Star Trek announcement just be about a new ST movie coming out... give a brief intro and name the actors / directors / producers... nothing else? If it's a great movie, then everyone will praise it (and the women who worked on it). If not, it's just another mediocre / bad movie. But, now that it's hyped as a woman / SJW movie, it either does fantastic or everyone is going to pile on the crap. Normally I love the ST universe and try and see those movies early. Now, I will definitely just wait for reviews and decide then if it's worth seeing.
You really need to pay more attention to other places around the globe if you think conservative values in the US are the cause of all of our problems(I'll give you a clue, they aren't. That's not to say there aren't issues associated with them but you should educate yourself on the matter instead of blindly lumping everything together, because people are sick of being told that they're must be happy that racism, starvation, etc. exists).
twonunpackmule
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,700
Are you saying that deflecting statements and mass generalizations aren't a good way to get a point across?
twonunpackmule
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,700
It's amusing how the places with the highest rates of "homelessness" are generally "Progressive Cities."
Secondly, poverty has been significantly lowered with Capitalism. So much so that our "poor" are fat and have cell phones. The quality of life has gone up. Doesn't mean the problem is eradicated, but as long as personal choice exists, you'll always have a level of poverty.
So, your "personal opinions" are misguided and, honestly, incredibly myopic. You seem to be a banner waver that marches ideals without truly understanding how the problem occurred. However, someone probably said, "Conservatives," and you were like, "Yea, I guess that must be it."
That's not too say Conservatives are innocent either. Several of their dumb policies have caused a ruckus. As, they preach low spending...but, obviously, don't actually practice it.
They're all liars.
Wow a Daily Beast article with reference to a dozen trolls on twitter. That really calls out the racist of [H].......wait a sec. No it doesn't.
There is not now, nor have there ever been any racists on [H]
Also, The populations of Africa have much lower scores on IQ tests that the population of Norway or Israel. The lack of development in Africa is directly attributable to the lack of intelligence.
Way to draw all kinds of conclusions about me with no actual data. As it happens, I minored in econ in college, but don't let that slow you down!
Also interesting how to you associate capitalism with conservatism. The vast, vast majority of both parties in the US are strongly pro-capitalism.
Geforcepat
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Messages
- 1,170
Oh, brother here we go.
We're on page 5 of a SJW rant-fest, and you think we're only *now* getting going? Please.
For a site that bans conversations about politics, there are an awful lot of conversations about politics.
Lifelite
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,927
Wow this thread lol.
How about instead of making assumptions off the get go, we see how the finished product is? Star Trek Beyond was good but too fast and furious. I miss smart Star Trek.
If you don't like it? Don't go see it. Pretty damn simple. Paramount is going to react to ticket sales, and Beyond didn't perform...so time to change directors.
How about instead of making assumptions off the get go, we see how the finished product is? Star Trek Beyond was good but too fast and furious. I miss smart Star Trek.
If you don't like it? Don't go see it. Pretty damn simple. Paramount is going to react to ticket sales, and Beyond didn't perform...so time to change directors.
Homeless people congregate where the most assistance is available? Shocking!
Seriously though, you're confusing correlation and causation. Which I suspect (hope?) you understand.
Last edited:
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Since we are talking about science fiction, an imaginary world in the first place, describing the Federation as a utopian society versus a dystopian one that's often portrayed is sci-fi is appropriate. The Federation isn't a perfect society but it doesn't constantly fight over basics like we do. Like medical care. Generally in the Federation medical care is right, not a privilege, and I do think that's inherently anti-conservative by current US standards. Yes, post scarcity as a result of technology is primary reason this is the case but even so the world view of medical care in the Federation as right is anti-conservative.
Or maybe you have an issue with perception.
The Star Trek Universe is very Trumpian-conservative. The Federation is largely a series of ethno-states that band together on common principles and refuse to assist primitive cultures that have not been able to reach technological parity (warp drive). The Federation has allowed genocide of people die out because they have determined the risks are too high to allow these primitives to mix. Also they have erect barriers and uncrossable neutral zones to prevent the taking of Federation territory. There are Liberal idealists who break Federation Prime Directives, but they are punished (Star Trek into Darkness).
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,689
We'd love to go watch it and see the finished product. Assumptions? The OP was the one that gave the info, that's what the discussion is about.
Give a nice plot analysis or a trailer, and we'd talk about that, too.
Boy, fandom must be odd where you are. "Don't fucking talk about the movie until you see the finished product! No assumptions!".
I jest, but that's part of the fun of talking about franchises you love. Some of us can talk Star Wars lore over a 30 second teaser trailer and come up with ideas of what the plot might be, or what might happen. We're most likely wrong, but it's still some real cool stuff to talk about! 
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,035
So conservative values = denying medical care to the less fortunate? I stand by my statement: evil.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
The Prime Directive is about as anti-Trumpian as it gets because Starfleet typically resists playing god. The Federation could use its technology to enslave and steal from lesser civilizations, remember "Mirror Mirror".
Entirely possible...I'm far, far from infallible.
Lifelite
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,927
Everything I like is better than everything you like.We'd love to go watch it and see the finished product. Assumptions? The OP was the one that gave the info, that's what the discussion is about.
Give a nice plot analysis or a trailer, and we'd talk about that, too.
Boy, fandom must be odd where you are. "Don't fucking talk about the movie until you see the finished product! No assumptions!".
View attachment 89462
I was more referring to people's SJW worries...it's just silly that adding a female main character and director has got everyone's panties in a wad. Beyond was meh, they need a new director, the fact that she's female and it's triggering a ton of people is pretty sexist. Now if she was a outspoken feminist...maybe then you should worry.
I guess they forgot the last time a female main character was added we got this lovely scene:
That's how I see it, too...but of course TOS is wildly inconsistent when it comes to the Prime Directive. Kirk has never been one to shy away from remaking society in accordance with his preference....
Lifelite
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,927
Not even to mention the whole of the Federation would probably be called a welfare state by today's standards, seeing there's no economy, and living, medical, transportation expenses are all free.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
All I am saying is that generally in the Federation, medical care is seen as a right, not a privilege. That's just a different consensus view of the issue than we currently have in the US.
There's a simple reason why companies and whatnot have to make idiotic posts announcing things such as female directors or female heroes or female villains. It's because it's not a big deal anymore. Most people don't care whether the lead hero or villain is female. They don't care if the director is female. It's not new or controversial anymore unless they specifically say something about it such as being the "first female director of something" or the "first female villain".
I don't care sex or skin color a director has. I only care if the director makes a good movie or not. I also don't care about the sex or skin color or whatever of a character as long as it makes sense in the story. It doesn't matter to me nor does it matter to most people. Thus, the reason we have these stupid announcements. These announcements are nothing more than virtue signalling in an attempt to drum up controversy and free press. It also pisses me off simply because in too many cases it looks as if the only reason a female director was picked was because she was female. Or that a new character is added because the character is *insert controversial bullshit here*. All too often this leads to the destruction of a story because the impetus is to force some sort of message and the "message" turns into the content instead of the plot and story.
Was Uhura in TOS a message? Sure. But the message wasn't the plot. Being a black woman on a TV show wasn't the plot of TOS. The character of Uhura was there because she earned her posting to the ship due to her abilities. The characters didn't care she was black or a woman. She was a valuable member of the crew because she was good at her job and no one saw her as anything else.
The example of Uhura is not what we get now. We don't get characters who are there because of what they can do. We get characters who are there only because of what makes them "different" and the writing tends to focus mostly on the "difference". Before we even get to that point we get announcements and posts before release focused on specific differences and how those differences are what will make the movie or show so great. This is the exact opposite of what Star Trek TOS did and that's what many people are complaining about.
I don't care sex or skin color a director has. I only care if the director makes a good movie or not. I also don't care about the sex or skin color or whatever of a character as long as it makes sense in the story. It doesn't matter to me nor does it matter to most people. Thus, the reason we have these stupid announcements. These announcements are nothing more than virtue signalling in an attempt to drum up controversy and free press. It also pisses me off simply because in too many cases it looks as if the only reason a female director was picked was because she was female. Or that a new character is added because the character is *insert controversial bullshit here*. All too often this leads to the destruction of a story because the impetus is to force some sort of message and the "message" turns into the content instead of the plot and story.
Was Uhura in TOS a message? Sure. But the message wasn't the plot. Being a black woman on a TV show wasn't the plot of TOS. The character of Uhura was there because she earned her posting to the ship due to her abilities. The characters didn't care she was black or a woman. She was a valuable member of the crew because she was good at her job and no one saw her as anything else.
The example of Uhura is not what we get now. We don't get characters who are there because of what they can do. We get characters who are there only because of what makes them "different" and the writing tends to focus mostly on the "difference". Before we even get to that point we get announcements and posts before release focused on specific differences and how those differences are what will make the movie or show so great. This is the exact opposite of what Star Trek TOS did and that's what many people are complaining about.
I don't believe that most people, whatever their political bent, enjoy or support racism, starvation, etc.
I do believe that what is presently passing for conservatism in the U.S. is nothing of the sort, and is actively contributing to those problems (albeit often inadvertently).
I think it would be very difficult to argue that the current administration (and by extension, the majority of the Republican party) has any credibility on the "fiscal conservatism" front (nor do the Democrats, though at least in their case it isn't a central plank of their platform).
atreidesgoldenpath
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2008
- Messages
- 525
Much like what he did to destroy my interest in Star Wars, JJ killed Star Trek for me years ago with his atrocious “reboot” movie.
As such, I don’t care much about this, female villain or not.
As such, I don’t care much about this, female villain or not.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Gene Roddenberry made a conscious effort to not have an all white male or even human crew on his ship of the future. That was a straight up SJW move. There's no way around that.
Last edited:
Agreed, though I find it helps to think of the reboot as "Space Journey" instead of "Star Trek." Then it's a perfectly enjoyable (if ultimately shallow) pop-corn flick.
So explain how it happens elsewhere, when conservative views in other countries aren't the same as in the US. Yeah, that's what I thought. Again, you're trying to apply a bullshit broad label to a series of problems and claiming that it's inadvertent does nothing to actually resolve the problem or even acknowledge actual causes. What it does do is start assigning blame to ideas that may not have anything to do with the actual cause of the problem and when you start associating those labels with people you might as well just take whoever it is you're discussing the matter with and flip them the bird.
So, he made multiple announcements about how he cast the first empowered black woman bridge officer ever? He then tailored the plot of the shows to constantly point out the character was black and female? He also pointed out how awesome and progressive he was because he did this?
You obviously don't understand what virtue signalling or SJWism is.
If A causes B, it does not follow that A is the only cause of B. Which, to be fair, one might learn in a *gasp* liberal studies class...
As it happens, I have plenty of reasons why I believe conservative economic policy contributes to poverty, but to have a useful discussion -- which, to be clear, I seriously doubt is your sincere desire -- it is first necessary to define what "conservative" means.
Until the mid 90s or so, I was firmly in (what was) the fiscally moderate camp. In many cases I agreed with self-described "compassionate conservatives." Nowadays, however, because I cling to the crazy notion that no one should go bankrupt over medical bills, or that, no, CEOs really don't need to make 100x what their workers do, I'm routinely called a socialist. So what, pray tell, do you consider a fiscal conservative?
Now if you're talking social, rather than fiscal conservatism...as far as I'm concerned, social conservatives can blow their rampant hypocrisy out their you-know-whats.
Last edited:
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Gene Roddenberry was a very liberally opinionated soul. https://www.azquotes.com/author/12514-Gene_Roddenberry
Yeah he had an agenda. A humanist that rejected religion and embraced diversity. Star Trek is the embodiment of those beliefs.
Wait...one minute I'm an SJW of the worst sort, and the next I don't understand what it is? This is all very confusing.
It's quite simple really, have a discussion without talking shit and it can remain a discussion. The moment you start blaming a group of people for all of the problems of the world, you're no longer discussing anything.
Back to this thread, no one is blaming SJWs for all of the problems of the world. We are blaming them for frequently poorly written TV shows and movies that repeatedly result in low earnings.
BTW, it's also cute that you're willing to snark about your liberal studies crap regarding A and B. Fact is that's something anyone should be learning in STEM and has nothing to do with liberal studies. Maybe you should remove your head from where the sun doesn't shine and stop assigning everything negative to one group, and everything positive to another, since you've done it multiple times in just a few responses to this thread. Reminds me of a guy I know in real life, constantly says that the news media as a whole sucks these days, first news organization out of his mouth every time is Fox, I point out that they're all guilty of sensationalist bullshit for 24/7 ratings and "oh yeah, I guess they all do it". Fast forward a month, and first example is Fox every time. The difference between you and him, is that he's willing to have an actual conversation rather than start automatically assigning labels in a piss poor attempt at virtue signaling when his bias gets brought up.
Archaea
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 11,826
Can you use the same Asian actress from the Last Jedi please?
/s
/s
Sure, if she's given a well written character that isn't particularly obnoxious or otherwise shoe-horned into the plot.
When I took logic in college, it was part of the school of philosophy...aka "liberal studies."
P.S.: Your willingness to dismiss basic logic as "crap" in the name of expediency is quite telling.
Last edited:
"explicitly" LOL, seems we need to get you a dictionary as well. You didn't learn that A causing B doesn't mean A is the only cause of B until college? Sucks to be you I guess. Like I said, belongs in STEM, it's a part of the basic understanding of the scientific method without needing to be explicitly stated, and should have been taught well before college. But yeah, go ahead and keep on blaming US conservative values(which I somehow doubt you could even really define without calling someone a nazi) for all the worlds problems in a thread about a movie set in a fictional universe.