Star Trek: All of Em

[Powerboy]

Yes, I agree. But I also think we have to tolerate them, even if their views are repugnant. Then again, I strongly believe that there has been a cadre of strong racists in this nation for well over 150 years, trying to do that same thing, and they have failed over and over. I see no reason to fear them now.



Well it is noticeable that the original Star Trek had lots of sex, period. Scantily clad women mostly, but also a fair share of shirtless men. And the men and women all happened to be in good shape. Whether that was Roddenberry's idea of a utopian society where everyone was healthy, or just the studio picking actors the studio thought would look good in tight clothes, I don't know. As to the producer's choice, wasn't Star Trek owned and produced by a woman? I thought it was Lucille Ball.

Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, Senior. She controlled Desilu studios and made the decision to give the show a second pilot which was rare but not unheard of, as Roddenberry claimed.

[DrNewGod]

I think the most ridiculous sexual encounter Riker had was the one where he was in that hospital while in disguise on a first contact Mission. And the nurse played by Bebe Neuwirth would help him but only if she could have sex with him first.

They could have written it as she wanted to help because she did not want to see her government kill an alien or torture one. But they had to go the route that gave Riker an excuse to knock space boots with a female.

Seemed too much like a Fetish dream by a nerd boy then a writer on a major show.

Hm. I guess I always took it as almost a parody of the Kirk/Riker stereotype, and maybe a bit of friendly dig at how extreme people who want to believe in aliens can be.

[ChrisIII]

Funny thing is, although of course Frakes did have have a decent gig directing after TNG ended, a lot of the work he did immediately after was hosting paranormal documentaries or stuff of that nature, many involving aliens.

Of course same thing happened with Nimoy.

[ChrisIII]

Lower Decks season 4 confirmed, along with SNW musical episode coming up.

https://gizmodo.com/sdcc-2023-star-t...ler-1850665468

[Deathstroke]

Lower Decks season 4 confirmed, along with SNW musical episode coming up.

https://gizmodo.com/sdcc-2023-star-t...ler-1850665468

Here's the trailer from Youtube.

[Frontier]

Here's the trailer from Youtube.

Does the heart good to see the Cerritos crew again .

Looks like something is finally going to happen between Tendi and Rutherfood.

[Jokerz79]

I was born in 1976. So your anecdote works for me as well. The difference is I can look back on how I acted then and admit it was definitely coming from a place of homophobia. I may not have thought of it that way but that's exactly what it was and it was completely wrong. When you know better, you do better. But that doesn't negate the fact that previously you were in the wrong. I'm not being naive. I'm being honest and looking at things as they actually are. Not giving them a pass.

The world was more excepting of Homophobia at the time and that's my point. I unknowingly engaged in it because I didn't realize I was doing anything wrong at the time. If you asked me at 19 if I was homophobic, I would have said "No". Why? Because I believed it, I believed as now homosexuals deserve same rights and treatment as heterosexuals. But I also used homophobic language. Would have I called a gay man the F word then? No, but I'd call my straight friends it all the time and they'd call me it. It was over time I realized how doing so made homophobia more acceptable in society, so I changed. Now in hundred years should I be judge by what I said then or the person I became?

In the TOS episode the Savage Curtain the avatar of Abe Lincoln refers to Uhura in a term that was politically incorrect for the 1960's yet alone the 23rd century. Uhura took no offense because she knew he meant no malice he used a term while accepted in his time was unacceptable even a 100 years later. It shows how someone who was liberal in their time isn't as liberal by the standards of future generations it doesn't make them bad.

The real Lincoln while an abolitionist was also a segregationist in his early career believing whites and blacks were too different to live together but his view on this changed over time, he grew as he came into contact with African Americans during the war years. In his life he saved Union and helped end slavery and paid for both with said life. Yet there are white men today who haven't done anything more for civil rights than put a BLM symbol on their twitter bio and will look down upon Lincoln for being "racist".

I think a lot of judging the people of the past is so people today can feel superior.

I'm not against holding historical figures accountable take something like confederate monuments and statutes in public venues, they should be removed. They honor traitors who fought for a government that key goal was to preserve and expand slavery. Also, many of those statues were put up to celebrate that past in an attempt to keep the status quo which was segregation and Jim Crow at the time. These relics of a past era were never put in place in good faith as claimed they hid behind "heritage" to maintain white supremacy. But again, I believe when evaluating some one's life from the past we should look at the whole picture when they lived the morality of the time and their own conduct and growth in their lifetime. Because we all make mistakes, we all grow, and we will all be judge in the future I just hope the people then are kinder than some today.

[Powerboy]

The world was more excepting of Homophobia at the time and that's my point. I unknowingly engaged in it because I didn't realize I was doing anything wrong at the time. If you asked me at 19 if I was homophobic, I would have said "No". Why? Because I believed it, I believed as now homosexuals deserve same rights and treatment as heterosexuals. But I also used homophobic language. Would have I called a gay man the F word then? No, but I'd call my straight friends it all the time and they'd call me it. It was over time I realized how doing so made homophobia more acceptable in society, so I changed. Now in hundred years should I be judge by what I said then or the person I became?

In the TOS episode the Savage Curtain the avatar of Abe Lincoln refers to Uhura in a term that was politically incorrect for the 1960's yet along the 23rd century. Uhura took no offense because she knew he meant none he used a term while accepted in his time was unacceptable even a 100 years later. It shows how someone who was liberal in their time isn't as liberal by the standards of future generations it doesn't make them bad.

The real Lincoln while an abolitionist was also a segregationist in his early career believing whites and blacks were too different to live together but his view on this changed over time, he grew as he came into contact with African Americans during the war years. In his life he saved Union and helped end slavery and paid for both with said life. Yet there are white men today who haven't done anything more for civil rights than put a BLM symbol on their twitter bio and will look down upon Lincoln for being "racist".

I think a lot of judging the people of the past is so people today can feel superior.

I'm not against holding historical figures accountable take something like confederate monuments and statutes in public venues, they should be removed. They honor traitors who fought for a government that key goal was to preserve and expand slavery. Also, many of those statues were put up to celebrate that past in an attempt to keep the status quo which was segregation and Jim Crow at the time. These relics of a past era were never put in place in good faith as claimed they hid behind "heritage" to maintain white supremacy. But again, I believe when evaluating some one's life from the past we should look at the whole picture when they lived the morality of the time and their own conduct and growth in their lifetime. Because we all make mistakes, we all grow, and we will all be judge in the future I just hope the people then are kinder than some today.

Very true. This comes up with Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain. Would he be a racist were he walking around in the world of today? Absolutely. Yet, his attitudes were probably some of the most enlightened and reasonable in his time and they became more enlightened throughout his life.

But I'm definitely for condemning historical people who were just trying to maintain a society that worked in their favor and knew they were harming an entire race of people.

There's a story about how Abigail Adams encouraged her husband to consider including women in "All men are created equal" and he thought she was joking. The reaction of John Adams was not malice but just that he genuinely, in his time and place, could not imagine women as being intellectually equal to men. That's more a "crime" of lack of information.

"I think a lot of judging the people of the past is so people today can feel superior."

True. But striving for the moral high ground and/ or attention is a lot of social media, period.

[Malvolio]

Yeah, I really have a hard time understanding how someone can feel proud of being less racist that someone who lived 150 years ago. Are they also proud of knowing more about the solar system than most people did 150 years ago, too?

[Pinsir]

We can never be less racist than people from the Middle Ages though, because racism didn't exist back then.

[Jokerz79]

We can never be less racist than people from the Middle Ages though, because racism didn't exist back then.

Look up the origins of the word barbarian.

[Powerboy]

Look up the origins of the word barbarian.

Looked it up and see it originated in ancient Greece and referred to any person who had a language, accent or society that was not the Greek society of the day: a barbarian.

[Powerboy]

We can never be less racist than people from the Middle Ages though, because racism didn't exist back then.

When it really was "back then", you are 100% correct. It didn't exist because it's a social concept in our minds as a society and nobody had that social concept back then.

Now, we trace the history of racism and say that it did exist back then- from our point of view in a society where the social concept of racism does exist.

I think people just want this to be simplistic. Dang those people back then for not having 21st century social ideals. Racists, the lot of them.

[80sbaby]

I'm mean yeah, they were racists.

[Powerboy]

Post deleted.