What Do Conservatives Actually Like About Star Trek?
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 03. 2020
- ▶Watch more Trek, Actually videos at: • Trek, Actually
▶Listen to our Trek-themed comedy podcast, The Ensign's Log:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / the-ensigns-log-podcast
▶Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/th...
▶Patreon: / steveshives
▶PayPal: www.paypal.me/SteveShives
▶Twitter: / steve_shives
▶Facebook: / thatguysteveshives
▶Instagram: / steve.shives
Listen to the Late Seating podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / late-seating
▶Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/la... - Zábava
There's also the old conservative mindset of "all of the progressive stuff that happened before I was 25 was necessary, but any further progressive stuff is radical and stupid."
yeah the real answer is thatTOS is a boomer show and boomers always think it's society that got worse and not them
This is literally liberalism. Remember what Biden's response to the BLM protests was? Because the police acting like that is the status quo, and any change in the status quo is "dangerous and radical". This is why things keep getting wlrse even with democrats in office. It's either they only care about money, or they care about money *and* killing all black and trans people. That's the 2 party system
So true. They do this with Star Wars too. Its fine that Leia is a kickbutt female character or that Lando is a cool supporting character who is also Black but characters like Finn or Rose are too "political"🙄
Not only was all the progressive stuff NECESSARY, it wasn't actually progressive at all.
That's how they can claim a radical leftist like Lincoln as a conservative - "He was a Republican, LOL! - when he transformed our economy more radically than the Green Deal is going to.
That's how they can claim that overthrowing a colonial monarchist government and replacing it with an independent federal republic is a "conservative" act, and can attack our Capitol with "WE THE PEOPLE" tattooed on their flabby arms.
@@prudiithegaymando2600this is 100% true
Though I think there is something to be said about how those characters are just written badly… fin had real potential though and was great in the first movie
Let's be honest, the issue with Starfleet being the Space Navy isn't the hipocrisy, it's that our actual armed forces aren't empowered to oversee scientific research and conduct humanitarian aid on the scale our warfare takes place The issue isn't Starfleet being too much like the Navy, it's the Navy not being enough like Starfleet.
*hypocrisy
Stop being such a Cardassian about spelling
@@justinrivera1618 *Kardashian
@@ryhanon7 *cataract
Kinda a hot take in the last 4 years at least it's been more humanitarian aid than warfighting, and the Navy's contributions to NASA, Antarctica missions, and research vessels is fairly significant especially when you consider that it's not the priority set by Congress.
My conservative family are bewildered that I’m liberal. They ask “how did this happen?”. As the youngest of 3, watching TNG, the values the trek universe really sunk in. So I tell my family, you did it to me. You let me watch Star Trek. 😂
I think Star Trek is further left than liberal. I say it definitely is further left than liberal.
My parents planted me and my sister down to watch Sesame Street and Mr Roger's Neighborhood at least 2-3 times a week. I didn't get as deep into ST until I was older. But naturally, I loved it
Cue shocked pickachu face that we ended up wildly more progressive than they are...
Yes, Mr. Rogers, quietly addressed the community swimming pools that were closing rather than letting blacks in by having a black man come visit and join Mr. Rogers in soaking their feet together in a small kiddy pool. Or the episode where he had a handicapped kid discuss his wheelchair and why he needed it.
@@aazhieyep Sesame Street teaches children that sharing is being friendly. Once a four year old learns that (obvious) lesson, it's really hard for PragerU Kids shows to teach them that grabbing all the toys in kindergarten is ok if you trade the toys out to kids in exchange for their lunches. "That way, the other children will truly appreciate the toys, because they traded something of value for the toy". Conservative parents are too lazy to teach their young children to be selfish.
@@TadfaftyDefinitely. It considers communism to be a goal for the betterment of humanity. It treats capitalists pretty harshly.
I grew up evangelical Christian (Baptist) during the late 60s/early 70s, and Star Trek was part of my childhood experience. My father, staunchly conservative, liked it too. I can't tell you why he liked it, but for me, it was just an exciting TV show. I can tell you that as I got older, anything that might suggest "liberal" or "progressive" was looked at as, "Of course they're doing that. They're of the world", and then would feel bad because I kept watching the show. When I gave all the theist stuff up in my early 40s, I was surprised at all the liberal/progressive messaging in Star Trek. Now, the show has a whole different dimension to it that I never fully noticed before.
The difference is also somewhat due to the fact that conservatism is getting more and more radical and virolic. Even at 31 I've seen it get worse. It exists for a myriad of complicated reasons, but the end result is the same. I largely see these people afraid and getting angry at groups, people, ideas, and places they have zero actual information about besides what their media tells them, and they are afraid of changing their viewpoints so much that anyone in their social circle who might help them, they either push away by being blatantly aggressive, or dismiss to the point that they disconnect. This results in the group living in its own echo chamber.
Conservatism in the US has become entirely about identity politics and almost never about actual policy, I find. Meanwhile, leftists and even some moderates/neolibs are participating the world stage and actually engaging in the higher levels of academics.
Essentially, conservatism in the US has become a big popularity/coolness contest. There are SOME actual policies debated, but it's almost always reverted to "shoulds" and religious dogma that has no place in the secular space.
Little do they know, their own actions have caused the problems they hate so much. They cry about how kids don't go outside anymore, after they've moved to the country to avoid big government where there are no people/families; they've complained about being poor deapite their hard work after they made excuses for billionaires and lawmakers that change policy to benefit the elite at the cost of everyone else; they complain that government doesn't get enough done after it's largely defunded because they've been fed reasons to distrust institutions and science while trillions are dumped into the military; they complain that people aren't as social and active, yet built Stroads and car-centric gentrified cities.
Like, by policy, most Americans agree on things. It's how we've been put into camps, and how the rich elite convince us that it's EITHER the rich CEOs OR the government, when in reality it is both.
Isn't it fun how the evangelical colloquialism for a generic adversarial group of "not us" is "the world"?
Ex JW here. Same story. I was constantly checked and lectured about “worldly influences”. It sucked 😒
I never understood that though. The messaging is blatant and obvious.
The problem is the 24/7 "news" cycle that's always either "Breaking!!!" or must be argumentative rather than informative. Fox News infamously started that trend way back in 1996 by one billionaire:
Rupert Murdoch.
Every. Single. Hour. Of. Every. Single. Day. For the past 27 YEARS! That's 236,520 hours STRAIGHT! Of non-stop "news entertainment" coverage that virtually every single person in the United States can tune in to at any moment and watch continuously for as long as they want.
Fox News has a flashy style. Chevrons flying across the screen with very specific messaging. Slogans such as "Fair and Balanced," and "America's Most Trusted News" and "America's Most Watched News."
The "fair and balanced" part comes from the fact that each of the shows will have some "liberal" stooge come on, just to be shouted down and interrupted for 30 minutes, without being able to get a word in edgewise. Then conclude with the host "wrapping up" the interview with a "summary" that doesn't begin to describe be what actually happened during the so-called "interview." And they call this "Fair and Balanced," just because a "liberal's" face appeared on the show, and the audience can be satisfied that they "heard the other side."
It's the nasty interviews; shouting, interrupting, name-calling, that has taught the rightwing that's how to act. You can never allow a person to get a full thought in, because they're automatically "stupid," and "pussies," because they don't also shout back even louder.
My dad is a conservative, and my mom says that to this day the only time she has seen him cry is when Spock died. My dad is an engineer, and Spock and Scotty were the characters he loved the most.
It's true that his death was a big blow. Well, ok, not as big a blow as close friends and family dying, but still. Maybe young people don't realize or feel as strongly about this anymore, but the slightly older ones... well... we grew up with Jim and Spock. Most kids loved Star Trek, and our whole childhood we've been watching it, glued to our first color-TV. Having a main character, especially Spock - who embodied reason and tolerance and wisdom, and had a personal struggle between his Vulcan side and human side - always hit a snare with young people whom typically were in emotional turmoil themselves. And not only the series. I still remember, as a little kid, being completely overwhelmed when I saw the first Star Trek movie. Flabbergasted and in awe. And Spock always had a more "deep" resonance with me than even Jim.
Of course, that was his character, but he really was a fine man in r/l as well.
Your dad cried, because he not only lost an icon that day, but a strong nostalgic memory from his childhood ended as well.
I too, had not felt so sad since the time Carl Sagan died.
Oof. Your dad needs to cry more
Your post reminds me of my Dad, very conservative Marine, teared up when Kirk died in Generations. The look on Kirk's face when he says, "Oh My," did it.
Your dad may have simply related to the characters by their professions and having grown up with them, but not necessarily their world views.
Sure the Vulcan species being really just logical could also be seen as cold hearted too, but than again that's basing the entire species and not every Vulcan may subscribe to just being logical, but can express as far vulcan behaviour goes, reason, compassion.
@@brandonb1681 Same here
I've experienced the same thing to be true of the Star Wars franchise as Steve mentions at 4:45 . Ring-wingers complaining that the Empire is portrayed as white supremacists and that the new films are trying to draw an analogy to the third reich. Which left me wondering how we were talking about the same franchise... the movies where the soldiers of the Galactic Empire and literally called Stormtroopers! George Lucas wasn't exactly being subtle.
I find it disturbing to read people online clamoring for a Star Wars game in which they can play Imperials without a redemption arc. So they just want to play as nazis and kill innocent people without thinking about how they're the bad guys.
The fact that Star Wars marketing plays into this makes it even stranger. Yeah, we all love how cool the designs for the bad guys are, but can we stop glorifying evil? They also have this necessity to make Darth Vader cool and badass and whine if he's not intimidating enough, when in the original trilogy he spent two and a half movies as the lap dog of Tarkin and Palpatine. In hindsight I like how George Lucas made Anakin a whiny teen. People threw a hissy fit that Vader wasn't cool enough, but he was so right and realistic for depicting him that way.
The funny thing is when Star Wars first came out, making your villains Nazis was often still considered lazy writing and comical, as most villains in real life are not that obviously evil. But the rise of neo-Nazism into populist government has really called that into question and made it feel more relevant in retrospect.
@@michaeldeboer To be far... there is catharsis in playing the bad guys in a video game.
@@michaeldeboer honestly the imperial side could be far more interesting. Much more potential for conflict between characters that dont necessarily agree with the ideals the empire has, but they barely scraped the surface of it in EAs battlefront 2. They had finn in force awakens literally be a stormtrooper, but did absolutely nothing with it. Hell even in the og battlefront 2 they had you play as clones through the clone wars and then kill the jedi and fight as the empire. The narration on it works extremely well to at least give you an idea what the clones felt as they became the bad guys.
With the inherent “evil” nature of the empire the rebels are basically always right no matter what they do.
Im pretty sure there’s even a comic or book thats about the dude who pressed the button to destroy the first planet with the death star, then later on he helped the rebels because of what he did.
@@michaeldeboerI thought 7 and 8 really nailed the type of person who would be in the position Kylo Ren is in.
That said, I played the MMO Star Wars and you can play on either side. It's a morality choice system which allows you to be pretty bad on either side except for some key moments, and you can also be half decent and work for the Empire too.
The best part is, when you team up with friends the dialog choices are democratically selected and randomized for tie breaker, so your good character can end up doing some pretty messed up stuff if they associate with too many messed up people.
I liked the Imperial Agent role play the best.
It can be cathartic to pretend to be a bad person in a safe environment where everyone knows you aren't serious about it sometimes. Other times, it can be a bit upsetting as some of the things you are asked to participate in go so against your nature.
That said, we don't want to make Nazis sympathetic, but we don't want to display them as not being people. People with friends, feelings, and highly selective compassion.
If everyone thinks you have to be an absolute monster all the time to everyone to be a Nation, that's how you get miss the signs of growing fascism. We confuse "is good to me" with "is a good person".
I identified for decades as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. As a kid in the 70's I loved watching TOS in syndication, loved the morality plays and all, agreeing with them even.
In the late 80's, I missed the first three seasons of TNG because I was serving overseas in the military. Yeah, the indoctrination from my parents had had a pretty good effect. Still loved Star Trek though. Now that I think about it, so did my dad. His views and his teaching to me included social responsibility and a rigid view of how bad racism is.
Then as a middle-aged man I realized that fiscal conservative policy is absurd. Trickle-down CANNOT work, as that his not the direction money flows...
And suddenly I was liberal.
Weird.😆
“Trickle down” was never really meant to work. The wealth amassed by the working class (blue and white collar both) in the 1950s and 1960s resulted in newfound power and most significantly EDUCATION of the working classes which by the end of the 1960s resulted in their increasingly radical calls for social justice reforms. This scared the crap out of the wealthy establishment and the idea of “trickle down” supply side economics as a way of bleeding off the wealth (and thus power) of the working class was born. Combined with the new anti union and new voiced “small government” ideology this served to undo ALL of the economic progress made by the working class in the two decades after WWII by 2000 or so. Reagan’s economic advisors were ideologues who sought to undermine the power of the working class and place it back “where it belonged” … the top 1 or 2%. So … in summary … “trickle down” was never meant to work to help every one. It did exactly what it was meant to do. Enrich the top 2 % of society at the expense of the lower 90%. This was not an accident.
In fact … a RAND corporation study back in 2020 I think it was showed that the top 1% of USA wealth owners increased their wealth by $50 trillion (2020) dollars between 1978 and 2018 at the expense of the lower 90% of US wealth owners who have remained stagnant in that time period. This is directly a result of “trickle down” economic policies and corporate and banking regulations enacted during that time that benefit only the wealthiest Americans.
THAT HUMANE TRANSFORMATION . . . was the point and purpose of Star Trek.
I have such a similar story to yours - "fiscally conservative/socially liberal". It's amazing what a difference it makes when a person figures out that conservative fiscal policies are nothing more than complete bullshit designed to do one thing, and one thing only - protect the rich donor class ensuring the further enrichment of conservative politicians. Now, don't get me wrong. There are plenty of "liberal" politicians motivated by the exact same thing (hello Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema!), but this is far more a problem of the right than the left.
Otoh, I was a dedicated liberal Democrat until President Clinton decided to establish his Ministry of Truth (reference the book "1984"), and claim, "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." If the liberals were going that Stalinist Left, I wasn't going with them.
More recently the Leftist's control of American society can be seen in the flaming idiocy of the "Russian Collusion" hoax and the refusal of any liberal to think it through.
And how is that working out for you so far?
my dad is very conservative (and i am not) and he was the one that introduced me to star trek. when i asked him recently (before watching this video) why he liked star trek in the face of it being massivly socially progressive. he said "The federation is unrealistic, but something humans should aspire to. but what i need, is not the Federation, i need to survive in what i have around me now."
Yes. Conservatives are a bunch of fraidy-cat assholes
ya dad seems more Liberal than Conservative.
that sounds liberal but not progressive
That sounds like the kind of conservative who hasn't actually paid attention to the movements of modern conservative politics.
Star Trek is not progresive. Think about how they talk about other races. It's always "Klingons are like this" or "Those dammed Cardassians, they're always being sneaky". Aaand the other races all look the same, and only humans are diverse.
What i really dont get is that in Discovery, Michael Burnham's race and gender are not questioned within the show. No one questjons Gergiou. No one questions the gay relationship. They simply exist. And Conservatives see that as preachy and an attack on their values but they dont see that in these classic episodes about unjust discrimination.....its so perplexing.
Probably because in the older episodes the main character and centers were usually white, male, straight, etc. They think it's okay to have people who aren't like them as side characters and allegories, but not centered as the heroes.
@@rainbow_doglover8301 I actually disagree with this for the most part. I am sure there are plenty of people it stands true for, but I suspect for the majority its how and why these characters are introduced both in and out of the show.
Some time back I had a back and forth with someone about The Orville, in which they lauded the third season for being really good and not turning the season political to which they compared it to recent marvel movies. Which I thought was odd, because Orville season 3 had multiple episodes focused on gender identity and an episode about political propaganda where at least one of the sides was similar to trump and the maga movement.
But it got me thinking, what is the Orville doing different than Disney or Star Trek, that the same people who hate those things in there don't mind it in the Orville which is often much more in your face with it.
Personally what I think is how they include them. When the Orville focuses on the stuff like gender identity, court of public opinion, or whatever other political thing they are focused on. They make it the core of their story for those episodes. They give a purpose for putting it there and its an integral part of the story.
Looking at something like Thor: Love and Thunder for instance, which was about the same time I was having this conversation. We have a conversation in which Valkyrie teases being bi and Korg says his species are all the same sex and shows him having a child with another rock man. Its just a few brief moments in the movie, the movie isn't heavily focused on them, it's not telling you its morally right even. These are just things that are there for a moment. Yet people seem far more upset. One thing I have heard my conservative friends and strangers mention often is the "political checkbox". Any sort of semi political thing thrown into a movie that goes against their views is just a mark in the political checkbox. Which in a sense, I don't think they are wrong. I think studios are going ok lets include a scene or character that will gain viewers from a specific demographic. These characters traits or the scenes they participate in have 0 bearing on the actual story.
Newer Star Trek shows have been guilty of that to a lesser degree. But like Disney those aspects expand outside of the shows to news and social media in varying forms. Articles like this one from ET "Sonequa Martin-Green Reflects on Her 'Star Trek' Legacy as First Black Female Captain (Exclusive)" put the attention on her race and gender and makes the show a political statement when in reality it really isn't much of one. It also doesn't help when headlines like that also ignore we have had black captains, female captains, and black female captains for decades leading up to discovery even if in supporting roles.
If we talk about the "older episodes" beyond TOS, they were more focused on the ensemble as a whole and you got a lot of time focusing on characters of different races and genders. We didn't really get any characters properly focused on differing sexuality until Discovery minus the episode with Jadzia's former partner in DS9 and the lizard thing in Voyager (joking about that one). But its enough so variety I don't think its fair to throw out the usually straight white males, because you are discrediting many other main ensemble characters when doing that.
TLDR; A lot of shows and media about said shows are adding and focusing on political topics that have no relevance to the story or character development. Both modern and historical examples of other shows doing the same or very similar topics have been much more universally accepted when those topics are a central aspect of the story or a characters development.
@@rainbow_doglover83012 en 6
Conservatives always talk about life being an attack on their values.
If the rest of us could tell they had any values at all, we might take them seriously. But, Conservatives also claim to be for the military but will tear down anything set up to care for veterans. They claim to care about the rule of law but protest if any Conservatives are ever held to account for breaking the law. They claim to care about family values but take rights away from women and tear down anything set up to help families.
I think it is pretty simple. Few people question interracial relationships and many of the things featured in the TOS today. Society has moved and those things are just part of life not an active part of society progressing today. So when there is the first interracial kiss it created waves at the time but no one is bothered by it today. Replace that with things homosexuality or trans sexuality and those are active fighting grounds. While people were fighting the rights of interracial couples to marry back during the TOS era that isn’t a fight today while conservatives are trying to ban books, pass don’t say gay laws, etc. so it is just a very different posture. What was once revolutionary becomes part of life over time and that makes it much less transgressive.
I support any opportunity to take a cheap shot at “Code of Honor”.
And I would hope never to miss such an opportunity!
It's not a cheap shot. They earned it.
What was Gene even thinking allowing it!
I’m curious to know how many other times in Trek have they tried to depict other human cultures that aren’t intrinsically Western or American?
@@averyroscoe91 the only other times I can think of is the original l series episode where Kirk lost his memory and when all 'dances with wolves' and some of the voyager episodes that focused on Chakotay's heritage.
I used to be a conservative. Granted, this was at a time when people could consider themselves socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and still call themselves Republicans. However, I'll admit, I wasn't the most socially progressive person growing up. Reflecting back, I think your analysis of how I felt about Trek at the time is pretty spot on. That said, I think some of the seeds Star Trek planted in my mind are why I'm not conservative anymore. They just took a while to geminate. (That and the post 9/11 world kinda pushed things along too.)
Exactly. This is me to a tee.
fiscal conservatism doesnt exist anymore. its now just become an expression without any basis in reality.
Ah, "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" aka "I want there to be things, I just don't want to pay for any of them."
I was one of those people who in the 70's and 80's considered myself to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but I didn't often resonate with Republicans. In fact, I did not vote for Reagan for his second term. By the 90's I found myself becoming more liberal, and now that I am older I am almost completely progressive. But I've always appreciated the value of Star Trek's liberal messaging.
I consider myself fiscally conservative but socially liberal. I have ideas about how to reform social welfare but in a compassionate way for those in genuine need as my siblings and I grew up partially on welfare but all of us eventually became home owners. I like to have respectful conversations with those I disagree with but find it increasingly different with people who are in the MAGA cult as they embrace the hateful narratives and brash ego worship of Donald Trump, who's admiration of dictators and admitted want to be one is probably the biggest threat to democracy America and the world has ever faced.
The point about how the stories usually involve other cultures being bigoted or unjust is interesting. The thing I love about DS9 is they had a lot of episodes that turned the critical lens back to our culture like In The Pale Moonlight, Far Beyond the Stars and Past Tense.
Exactly. It shows that the Federation isn't that utopia and humans aren't perfect after all. We just got better over time. And the further away from the paradise someone is, the more desperate people become.
That's because some people just don't get the idea that the "other culture" depicted is an aspect of our own. Then, in frustration, you put away the rapier and get out the mallet.
Or even something like Its Only A Paper Moon that shines a lense on how dismissive people are of veterans, trauma and traumatic injuries. That ppl are expected to just ‘move on’. But tbf most of Star Trek DS9 was shining a lense on humans, I mean the way Quark explains humans to Nog in the Siege, how they can be so nice when well-fed and comfortable but utterly cruel and barbaric in dire situations. The episode about the Admiral trying to launch a coup is straight out of the sort of 60s-70s political thrillers (Manchurian Candidate, Seven Days in May), and something that in the West we dismiss as something that only happens in the third world, when most Western countries have gotten pretty damn close to it in recent times.
@@GuineaPigEveryday The problem is that's a lie. The cruel and barbaric people in our society are typically that way because they're well fed and comfortable and terrified that those who are actually facing dire circumstances will come take their fare share of food and comfort, leaving them with less, if they don't keep them down. Being comfortable and well-fed doesn't make humans nice, it makes humans invent ideological and religious excuses to be cruel and barbaric. And this is still true even in Star Trek, where the Federation - which is certainly well fed and comfortable - has the prohibition against helping anyone who isn't as its Prime Directive.
It's the rich and poverful, not the homeless, who tend to demonstrate the worst in humanity, and that's so endemic to human society that you'll end up accidentally demonstrating that even when you intentionally try to write a utopia like Star Trek.
Two of those three episodes are criticizing human culture as it existed hundreds of years before the Federation. Every Trek series acknowledges the barbarism of humanity's past. Past Tense I view as a very classic style Trek episode in that sense. The comedic episode where Quark, Rom, and Nog turn out to be the Roswell aliens was the same sort of thing and like in all those types of episodes there are always a few humans that are more noble and aid the main characters.
Pale Moonlight is a bit more like what you're trying to say, but the Section 31 stuff is even moreso. Yet Trek was never devoid of that sort of critique. It was TNG after all that set up the morally difficult Cardassian situation that much of DS9 is based around in the first place with episodes like The Wounded. And TNG would criticize Federation culture through the failure of the prime directive to deal with various situations and through the bigotry/racism we could see still existed in the way Data was treated.
Some people want to pretend that DS9 was all gray and that all Trek before it had no such nuance. Neither is true. Yes, Quark often criticized human hypocrisy and selfishness. But so did Admiral Jarok all the way back in TNG when he said that the Federation credo was exploitation. I like DS9 despite some issues I have with it but its biggest fans sometimes like to pat themselves on the back too much for appreciating its complexity as if many of the issues it explores weren't considered before.
What makes DS9 different from Trek before or after is not its willingness to be morally gray, but really the Bajoran religion and Sisko messiah stuff (inspired by Babylon 5, I think) as well as the Dominion War stuff (which doesn't become a thing until the last two seasons). But for the most part, other than being on a space station, it's still Trek and Sisko and co. still mostly behave as Starfleet officers should (except in For the Uniform, which I think is an underrated "dark" Sisko moment, as it's really Garak who allowed for Pale Moonlight to unfold as it did). Even Quark always reigns things in before going too far (like when he sells weapons for a brief period).
The one "good" character who couldn't have worked on another Trek show was Garak. The most unique character on the show for sure and every episode with him is better for it.
How do you miss the political message of "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"? That message is LITERALLY spelled out in black and white.
Opinions No One Cares About ha! 🤣😂🤣😂
How do people look at Trump and see an 'intelligent, well-spoken, morally unimpeachable leader'? Sometimes people see whatever they want to see no matter how glaring and vast the evidence to the contrary.
It's the episode I always bring up when people say Star Trek has never been about social justice. It has no subtlety AT ALL and just hits you over the head with its message.
I used that episode in an essay I wrote about diversity and other social issues in Trek (also included a few Dax episodes regarding LGBT representation, as well as The Measure of a Man regarding what and who we consider to be people and deserving of rights)
Honestly it's probably easier to externalize that message, as in commentary on those other parts of the world where they hate eachother for NO REASON as opposed to here where we hate eachother for very good and sensible reasons.
"Often, what we take away looks an awful lot like what we brought with us." I ADORE this statement. Should I site you as the author of this quote?
Sure! It's not remotely a new idea, but so far as I know that particular phrasing is mine.
@@SteveShives "What's in there?" .. "Only what you bring with you..."
Luke and Yoda on Degobah (sp)...
@@smk6469 "Your ragetweets... you will not need them."
The more common phrasing I hear of this is, "where you stand depends on where you sit"
As long as you spell it "cite". ;-)
Nichelle Nichols once said to Gene "i know what youre doing." "Oh?" " Yes. ::conspiratory tone:: You're putting on morality plays and setting them in the 23rd century so noone will notice." He then laughed and said "Shhhh, they haven't figured it out yet!"
When Steve said how easy it would be to get inside Cruz's head, I legit thought he was gonna say "because there's so much empty space in there."
It's truly the "final frontier".
Focusing strictly on the “individual liberty” aspect of Picard’s speech really misses the larger point, specifically “WHO was the threat to individual liberty and what methods did they use to threaten it?”
But to be fair, a lot of people on the left *do* care deeply about individual liberty. So much, for instance, that some of us oppose the corporations that control our livelihood.
It also ignores the plain fact that Picard was speaking out AGAINST hate speech. The whole thing centered around inflaming racial tensions for some purpose or another.
Picard actively shut down someone who was trying to criminalize being a certain race.
Note how the people who yell the loudest about personal liberty also tend to be the ones who hate the idea that people should have freedom to love who they want to, be in a body they're comfortable in, or express themselves in a way they aren't comfortable with.
@@1steelcobra The same way the people who shout about protecting Christianity seem to despise the values of Jesus (kindness, tolerance, pacifism, humility). Of course there is a great irony that these values are the basis of the Left's ideals, when they largely reject religion.
I mean, which hunt is not really a left right issue: does the french Revolution ring a bell?
Having grown up in a very conservative and insular small town in south Texas, I loved Star Trek since I was a kid. There never seemed to be any disconnect between my experience and the values espoused by Trek. I was encouraged my entire life to have empathy, value science and study, act with dignity, present myself diplomatically, and aspire to greatness. I never saw the politics of my home and most of my family clearly until I left my home and broadened my understanding. Increasingly, as I've met more people with experiences different from my own, I've come to hold much more progressive views. (Heck, I'm pulling for Bernie Sanders this year.) By extension this has brought me into conflict repeatedly with my family. I've discussed with them, when discussion was possible which isn't always, how the values I was raised to hold are incompatible with the present politics they support. Through these discussions I've often referenced the aspirational nature of Star Trek, and Picard in particular as a personal role model, and how it is our responsibility to raise ourselves to that future. Still, I fully understand how people who have only experienced life in that little, backwards place can miss the message Trek is sending. In the middle of conservative, small town America there are people who genuinely don't know that things aren't working. Everything from your family to your education to the community at large will tell you the Fox News line and you've no real counter evidence unless you go hunting for it. Knowledge, experience, and interaction in a diverse community is what builds a conservative into a contributing member of a society. Sadly there's a hidde incentive for the self-interested to push conservative agendas and keep such communities ignorant. That's why we, all of us, must go vote in November to oust the criminals holding office now. That's the only path forward if we're to aspire towards the Federation.
Sorry for the ramble, this is a matter very close to my heart.
Preach! I'm curious. Where do you place yourself on the political scale, now that you've had a broader experience in life?
You've got it dude. Some people... are too busy trying to pigeonhole everybody to show how smart and perfect they are and how dumb and defective those "other people" are.
South Texan here too! I have the exact same story, it was almost creepy how dead on our experiences are, I'm even voting for Bernie too. What you said about growing up here, that "you genuinely don't know things aren't working" is exactly right. It's a little bubble of an echo chamber, but there's millions of them. Anyway I'm glad I'm not alone.
It is very hard to do what you have done. Congratulations.
Thanks for sharing that perspective!
"Star Trek" was "preachy" from DAY ONE. You're absolutely right, Steve.
Just for most of it's runtime it wasn't as on the nose and required viewers to read between the lines.
@@HappyBeezerStudios 12:30
@@HappyBeezerStudios No, that's not true. But you might need to be older or have a better appreciation of history to see it. The gay chief engineer on Discovery is very much the equivalent of the Black communications officer and the Japanese helm officer on TOS. Today's conservatives will tell you the former is preachy while not recognizing that it is exactly the same amount of preachy as the latter two.
@@HappyBeezerStudios It was both on the nose and *not* between the lines. You have to be mentally challenged or very young and inexperienced to not understand that. And I don't mean that as a bad thing, I mean it as a clear positive agenda.
@@rmdodsonbills How many times did they stop and call attention to the fact that Uhura was black or that Sulu was Japanese?
I think the reason a lot of people didn't see the politics in the show is that they, like me, were children watching the original series. I was still a pre-teen when TNG came out. To them it was entertainment that changed into "preaching" and "political" due to the immaturity of their understanding from being young, then growing up without looking back at the older shows.
This was basically my thoughts as well. There has to be a whole slew of people who were Star Trek fans before they were conservative. Which would also explain why they like "the older shows." The ones they watched back before they understood the politics of it all.
My thoughts exactly.
Star Trek also has a lot of elements in it that would appeal to "rugged individualists," and believers in Great Man History, which are both pretty strong in the conservative mind. Star Trek protagonists tend to be super-intelligent super-competent figures who can change the fates of entire worlds. In fact this is almost explicitly why Starfleet Captains are so important and valuable, it is a job that LITERALLY only a tiny handful of people are good enough to do and those people carry the burden of humanity's fate on their shoulders. It's borderline Nietzschen.
I've also found that a LOT of conservatives are into the Maquis. Bold, patriotic freedom fighters surviving by their wits, who's homes are threatened because of a fake peace brokered at their expense for the benefit of a distant intelligencia and societal elite, breaking away from an oppressive and controlling society so they're free to strike back at the evil Foreign Power by any means necessary, their leader unafraid to shout from the rooftops that those SJW hippies in Starfleet are no better than the Borg and with plans to secede entirely and create his own nation built on REAL freedom.
So marquis conservatives are those kind of conservatives
People may believe the "great man" theory of history is a fallacy, but as we have been reminded recently, a single individual can do a lot of good or a tremendous harm as soon as they attract a critical mass of followers. (On the bad side, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Trump, etc. On the good side, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc.)
Its interesting how alot of recent star trek goes against the great man theory now? Like look at lower decks. The captain makes it worse half the time
@@i-love-space390 you may want to add Churchill to that first bunch. He gets a pass for warning everyone of Germany's rearmament, but y'all seem to forget he engineered the genocide in Bangladesh
@@cameronbuttigieg9060 Churchill was definitely a Conservative, and not in some mostly fantasized idea of “how Conservatives were in the Good Old Days…
Most wasted potential? Ensign Ro - her interactions with Riker were so strong that it almost made Riker an interesting character in his own right.
She was supposed to take the role played by Major Kira in DS9 but the actress didn't want to continue with Star Trek
@@joshweeden88 That's unfortunate. She would have been stunning in the role. It would have made a beautiful redemption arc.
Hey, I liked Riker. At least his aesthetics, the beard + hair looked cool and very nice. The character was mostly wasted, regretfully.
I also like that when Thomas reappears, you can differentiate Thomas and Will by the length of the beard trim. That's such an amazing detail!
@@joshweeden88 IIRC she did not want to commit to a TV show Full time she prefered to do recurring or guest roles at the time she was supposed to be in ST:VOV as well
@@goransekulic3671 The trope is called "growing the beard" and is quite literally named after Riker growing his with the 3rd season of TNG. And he was basically limited to be the action boy and romancer, like what Kirk did before. Really wish there was more with him, his father, and his transporter brother.
Here are my fifty cents on the matter:
Many people I know encounter Trek in their childhood. And then they may grow a liking towards Trek. But people grow up and there are more factors in play in forming the person, while growing up. They grow up into a conservative and weren't born as such. There love for Star Trek at that stage may stem from nostalgia and as an adult they adjust their view of Star Trek into their worldview.
Most people I have met who are fans of Star Trek are opptomists weather they are Consetvatives, moderates or liberals. I think the original Trek, Next Generation, DS9, and S.T. Voyagers' views of a hopeful future apeal to all opptomists regardless of their politics.
An interesting angle, the nostalgia bit. Could very well be true.
@@emerycandy326 I agree, Emery, but many progressives would argue that "optimistic conservative" is an oxymoron.
I wouldn't say turning into a conservative can be considered "growing up". More like "becoming brainwashed by obvious lies by a capitalist class that wants to exploit you".
That sounds logical.
Honestly as a Conservative I can say TOS featured a poorly disguised Cold War metaphor with the USA…. I mean Federation being the hero and the Klingons (USSR) and Romulans (PRC) being the villains. Plus let’s face it, Stafleet is the military (let’s be real: Everyone knows this) and uses Warships that aren’t called as such for marketing reasons. You can’t scare off a new race by showing up in a warship.
Also Star Trek did error in mocking religion and capitalism during TNG, but in DS9 we got a positive portrayal of religion with Israel/Jews………… I mean Bajorans and the Ferengi who made good points about the Federations flaws. It’s not hard to figure out Kira is a Jewish resistance fighter who joined the IDF……….. I mean Bajoran military. And fighting Nazi Germany……. I mean the Dominion was necessary and heroic. The Dominion War was WW 2 in space with the Federation as America winning.
On the economic front the Federation uses money (granted the writers haven’t elaborated much on the Federations economy) and it would be necessary as there are things that can’t be replicated (coveted real Estate in Paris or Tokyo, getting admitted to a prestigious University, real food as everyone complains about replicator food being at best of bland quality). With replicators you can give everyone (literally) free food, clothing and shelter, so the economy would shift to haves vs. have -a-lots (to be fair if replicators were real there would be no reason not to give everyone literally free stuff). If you want more than the free basics you have to work to get it. Also it makes sense that Starfleet personnel who risk there lives should get paid more than those who opt to live a safe life on Earth so income inequality would exist (seriously how do you think Kirk got his luxurious apartment in San Francisco complete with an antique collection in the Wrath of Khan?).
None of this negates Star Trek’s general left wing bias, but it highlights what Conservatives would like about Star Trek.
it's never in error to mock religion, especially in an age of FTL travel.
there are no gods
Money doesnt exist in Picard's time among humans
I was dumbfounded at the gripes about the new shows being too political. Trek is usually heavy handed, and DS9 has only slightly less political themes than The West Wing
My personal gripes with modern Trek aren't the political messages but the writing quality and the complete betrayal of the Star Trek ideals.
West Wing's political themes dictate that no meaningful change is possible, but also if you just talk smart enough to your opposition, they'll crumble. It's not a very good show for learning ideology from.
Remember when TNG stopped an episode so Tasha could deliver a "Say no to drugs!" message to Wesley? But Trek didn't used to be political, lol.
I heard one guy (AngryJoe) complain about the number of female characters on the show. Now, he enver complained about the large number of MALE characters on Next Gen.... Not calling him sexist, I'm calling him a hypocritical moron.
There’s an episode where Rom founds a union and _literally quotes from ‘Das Kaptial’._ It doesn’t get any more blatant than that.
What counts as "conservative" in Germany would becalled "radical left" in the US.
But that's because the Christian Democrats who helped build Germany's welfare state did it for conservative reasons - namely, promoting the nuclear family. This is what self-described "democratic socialists" don't get about Europe. The biggest difference between Europe and the English-speaking countries, which have weaker welfare states on average, is that the conservative parties in English-speaking countries are more conservative on economics. The conservatives in Europe in the 20th century were more open to government intervention supporting the family - families that were members of the ethnic/racial/national in-group, at least.
Your not wrong I feel. But Germany does have its share of dogshit political parties. Not just the new AFD ether. The CDU I would call a conservative party, but in its own way of "Just Status Quo" under Merkel. And the super awful FDP... However try explaining Die Linke to an Republican American, its like explaining what the sun is to a house pet. They just stare at you politely until your done, and you realize you just wasted your time.
@@gyozakeynsianism I think the real issue is that conservative parties have been infiltrated by libertarians (especially in the US). A lot of conservatives don't realise that they are holding contradictory values because of this.
That is because the Overton window in Europe is way further to the left than in America. The current establishment Democratic party would be right wing and the Rebuplicans would be "far right" in Europe. So America is further down the line in the Overton window shift. It is so far to the left that the conservatives in Europe are Democratic socialists while the left are International socialists. This is why the "conservatives" in Europe would be too left leaning for American conservatives.
@@ThreadBomb Libertarians and evangelicals. People who think god trumps everything, or money does, and neither capable of comprehending that you don't get "progress" of any kind when 1% of the population own everything, and everyone else has "freedom" - as defined by, "What we allow/teach your kids, to think, believe, and value." Single most disturbing thing I have seen in the past year, as a case in point, is an add for a local "charter school", which is "tuition free", aka, is stealing public school funding, which includes, "Character education". Because, when conservatives, and I am damn sure, given where I live, this is conservatives, staple two, seemingly reasonable, words together like this (i.e., "family values"), its **never** about equality, diversity, or social justice, but about what they think Jesus wants (even if they never mention the bible), and what weird ass fundilibertarientalism they think is "the right way to think about the world." But, I could be wrong, mind.. I just wouldn't bet on it.
Good story telling is good story telling, and is universally appreciated regardless of political persuasion (IMHO). As a retired military guy, I appreciate the structure and environment of Starfleet, especially the idea of different backgrounds serving together on a single vessel or space station in common cause.
Roddenberry made it very clear in his writings that he wanted to tell stories that could not make it past network censors without disguising the lessons in plain sight Come to think of it, a lot of human drama is pretty much the same, except for the genre in which it is wrapped up in. Topics like bigotry, war, environmental concerns, etc. could be addressed in Star Trek because it was the aliens that had the issues, not the telegenic stars of the show. It was obvious then, and even more so today.
I self-identify as a Constitutional conservative with libertarian leanings. I don't feel threatened at all by genre television like Star Trek. I genuinely love the concepts of manned space exploration, as well as the exploration of the human condition (with manned space adventures being the backdrop). Consenting adults should be allowed to do as they wish in their bedrooms. Everyone should be equally protected under the law (without exception, and no favoritism). And so on. That said, I also believe in living within one's means, obeying the law, don't start conflicts without exhausting reasonable diplomatic options, etc.
We don't have to be political soulmates to enjoy Star Trek, but it helps the fandom to be respectful of each other, and more importantly, to practice civility whenever possible. It truly gets easier with practice. I generally like the content on this channel, and don't have a freakout when some on my side of the aisle are called bad names. Let's celebrate the commonalities, and enjoy the franchise we mutually love.
Oh, your one of those libertarians that I could probably mistake for a liberal if not for a couple of points.......no seriously, this happens about half the time with liberation leaning people I hear about/meet. Its a really weird phenomenon.
Well said!
Libertarian means nothing, it’s a philosophy of justice not of politics- anything can be spun as a root source of liberty and probably has been by someone.
Rod Serling's Twilight Zone series existed for similar reasons, he couldn't tell the stories he wanted to tell for social commentary because of censorship at the time but he could by presenting them through science-fiction which wasn't so heavily monitored in that fashion.
I think that puts you largely in agreement with most people that are called liberal or progressive. I think libertarian philosophies are a bit if a red herring for many people these days though. They sound good on the surface, with an emphasis on freedom and personal responsibility. But when you consider the implications of living in a state as close to anarchy as possible, you start to worry about things like the abuse of the weak by the strong, economic collapse caused by the loss of government services (keeping companies from putting dangerous substances in food for example), and a weakly organized nation and society that cannot defend itself from foreign powers and plots. (Historically, and sadly, more organized societies have have been able to prey on less organized societies.)
Just recently discovered your channel and I’ve been binge-watching your trek content. Awesome stuff! And my god, yours and Jason’s podcast Ensign’s Log is indeed hilarious and brilliant. Thanks for doing all you do Steve and keep up the great work.
I'm surprised they don't use another part of First Contact.
When talking about the Phoenix there's the part where Cochrane talks about how he hates flying and takes the train and how the Phoenix was being developed purely for money. Desepite that first flight leading toward a sort of post-scarcity society where the pursuit of capital is far FAR from most people's minds that Cochrane's greed is what lead to this in the first place. In other words arguing that capitalism is what lead to the Federation becoming a thing.
@kurisu7885. Great observation.
@kurisu7885 I once read someone suggest that the First Contract Cochrane not being the hero history portrayed as being based on Roddenberry. He was no saint, he just got lucky and had to fill the visionary role.
I am late to the party;) this, tbh, very much confused me- both in world building as for cochrane ' s character. The time he and foremost lily gather and build the phoenix is post nuclear war. There is neither capitalism nor gouvernment in existence. For whom and what is he actually building it? My personal take is, he wanted to make money prewar with it but got no or low funding, war occured and they kept building it not out of interest in money anymore - at least not in the first place- but to have sth to give them purpose. That would be kind of the prototype of trek's vision of the new human being who strives for constant improvement and fulfillment. At least the ending when he stares at the vulcans plus the epic score alludes his development and shift or change of perspective after he had realized the present and chance he made humanity. No, not the mirror Universe one. However, it might all be far fetched. Weak Story writing in 1st contact...but good action.
You lightly touched on how it's easier to go "they need to change" than "we need to change," but that, plus the military and pushing our own values on other cultures seems to be a running theme through the show, as well as modern American history. Foreign intervention is perhaps the longest running theme of the series, isn't it?
The Foreign Intervention angle is kind of hilarious when you consider the Prime Directive since that entire thing seems made specifically to cut down on those elements but writers have been inconsistent about how it's enforced so you kind of end up with episodes where they let races die because "muh prime directive!" but then you have episodes in the ToS where Kirk is like "Yeah the prime directive is great in theory but I'm not going to sit on my hands when I can help people!".
I think the series has the same blind spot mainstream american liberals have: imperialism, militarism and the financial power of the military industrial complex.
Also class divisions. The same way conservatives look at trek and interpret inconvenient parts to their advantage, moderate viewers can overlook the parts of Trek where Nog quotes Marx and disregard the critique embodied by fenrengi society in general as "other people's problems", and take from trek a general vibe of "see, there is no racial discrimination, and thus poverty is not an issue".
@@maximeteppe7627 The class divisions really got me when I binged TNG recently, especially the episode where they thaw out some cryogenically frozen 21st century people.
While Picard is talking about how society no longer focuses on money as a way of getting ahead of others, he conveniently ignores his status as actual authority figure over a heavily populated ship, and the fact that his own family owns vineyards in France. He sends the message "we're all equal now, none of this inequality that you uncivilized 21st century people had" while encapsulating a man of high power and privilege.
Greed and envy will always be traits within humanity, but the series makes the claim that it's not. If material value or power have no more meaning, then explain why we often see poker games between ranked officers, and show us more intermingling with people without rank. Stop making the bridge an exclusive club.
Starfleet seems to operate less on merit and more on networking as well. It's not what you know, it's who you know. While this isn't a system used exclusively by conservatives, it is one that progressives should be cognizant of, as biases within the system definitely form distinct classes and castes, and if the people in it have bigoted beliefs (conscious or not) it can lead to exclusion of people who are well deserving of power, yet don't get any, due to reasons beyond their control (race, gender identity, sexual orientation, family ties, disabilities, abnormalities, etc.)
Which reminds me of another issue. Ro Laren joins the crew and is immediately stripped of personal expression. Take off your earrings, put on this uniform and conform. To what level does this happen? Tattoos, piercings, unnatural hair colors, body modifications, and religious garb are rarities throughout the series. Are we still associating this kind of expression with criminals/degeneracy in 300 years? As much societal progress has been made in the last 20 years on this front, surely we can hope that future generations won't hold these same biases.
@@richardwithanarr
Your last point is especially a good one in Voyager where Chakotay was made first officer and he had a facial tattoo, granted there it could be argued that he was the one with the most experience and they couldn't exactly be picky at the time.
@@Necromancer1230 or "now my ship is in danger; the Prime Directive goes out the window." It was spoken of much more consistently in TNG.
The political conversations (literally, conversations) are one of my favourite parts about Star Trek.
some of the best episodes of TNG has zero phaser fire. the conversations the characters have are the best part in my opinion but objectively it could be argued are the point of star trek
@@tk5800thesecond Like when Picard convinces the Klingons to lend him a ship with words.
Here's a thought I had: One of the biggest changes to Star Trek's society is the replicator. Once scarcity becomes a thing of the past because anything can be replicated, society evolves beyond the need for currency. Once that has been accomplished, Star Trek promotes a society where each individual succeeds or fails based on their own merits and own perseverance, not on any external "identity" factors. Daystrom didn't fail because he was black. He failed because the M-5 killed people. Geordi didn't succeed because he was black. He succeeded because he put hard work and dedication into his job, and he was smart.
Doesn't that sort of thinking sound familiar?
When I read the title of Steve's video, I thought my reply was going to be about the economics of the replicator, which has the ramifications that you point out. I thought I would have to say, "But none of this could happen because . . . . physics". But Steve's video really focused more on the social issues than I had expected, and that was how I replied. But you do an excellent job of connecting the two. Good comment.
Agree that conservative affinity for a future completely decoupled from capitalism deserves way more unpacking.
racism and other things stem from power structures like money/religion. the need to turn profits and prosper lay on top why people opress others, and come up with justifications to do so. need to survive -> need power -> need money -> need cheap labour for most profits -> oppress -> need justifications for opression -> use religion.
overall for replicators to work you need to set a foundation of progression. if replicators were made roght now they would most likely be premium items to be owned buy rich, sure over the years the costs would go down, but replicators are not gonna magic away social injustices by merely being there. in the new picard show riker (sry dont know how to spell his name) stated that replicators dont give the same taste/feel of real meat, and proceeded to eat an animal in a world with no scarcity.
Unfortunately replicators will be sold with an extremely regressive subscription model.
Unfortunately I find that people prefer to paint conservatives (or liberals for that matter) with a very narrow brush - helps them get their point across easier when you just point at the opposing group and say “ they’re the boogeymen”.
Once you start dealing in the grey areas, it gets a lot harder to use propaganda like this.
I lose trust very quickly when people, like this bloke, want to try to convince me that a subgroup of people all think as one, have the same values, etc. if only it were that simple.
To paraphrase, only the Sith deal in absolutes.
"I don't like the new 'preachy' star trek. Now let me go watch a compilation of my favourite Picard speeches!"
“It’s not that ‘Star Trek’ is intentionally racist...” (Still from “Code of Honor”)...usually.” Brilliant!
I find that whenever I discuss Star Trek with conservatives I have to remind them that Star Fleet is not a military organization, and the Enterprise is not a warship. They also love to point out how prejudiced Kirk was against Klingons, how Picard hated the Borg, and O'Brien hated Cardasians like they're trying to justify racism in general. Of course they don't mention how any of these characters worked to overcome their prejudices like responsable adults.
@Andrew Gallagher: You write, "I find that whenever I discuss Star Trek with conservatives I have to remind them that Star Fleet is not a military organization," But did you watch the video? Steve says that your idea is Bull$#!+.
That pregnant pause before, "I'm saying it means you think like an..." is wonderful.
You certainly nailed my two guesses:
1) A Heinleinian romanticization of the virtue of a meritocratic military hierarchy.
2) Comfortable, nearly monolithic, depictions of the "other" through stereotypical alien species. (which I still find to be Star Trek's greatest 'sin').
I find the stereotypical aliens open more of a question about why humans are so uniquely different from each other.
I agree with all of that. Good observation
agaoin DS9 gets brownie points for developing those species and monolithing humans.
And yet more reasons why I like Deep Space 9.
@@HappyBeezerStudios Teeny tiny bit late, but I would say we often only see stereotypical aliens because of the relatively small amount of time spent with alien races compared to humans in the show. Even in the more authoritarian societies like the Romulans or Cardassians, we see a lot of individuals who tow the company line so to speak and are almost vaudeville in their villainy. While we also then get others like those in the Romulan-Vulcan unification movement or characters like Garak who loved his species and culture, but also recognized it had significant and inherent flaws too.
Of course a lot of the times there was a morality lesson in Star Trek it was based around some sort of 1 off species such as the Cheronites in TOS and the J'naii in TNG which often are shown to be more steretypical. But again I think thats because we only get a very small isolated view of their society and typically only a confined handful of people whom are being written in such a way as to provide that morality story.
I enjoy Star Trek for it's utopian vision of the future. It's not perfect but seems like a decent timeline. Regardless of political alignment.
Safe to say we live in probably one of the dumbest timelines.
It's a result of those political alignments though
One persons utopia is another persons dystopia so creating a utopian society is impossible.
Section 31
I posted an earlier version of this comment, then accidentally deleted it while trying to edit it:
It occurs to me that the first adults I ever knew to be Star Trek fans were the *very* politically right-wing, Mormon parents of a family down the street. I recall being at their house one day and "A Taste of Armageddon" came on, and the husband said "ah yes, good old Emeniar VII." He'd clearly seen the episode many times, as I would in subsequent years. It was that thing where it seems like whenever you happen to be watching the show, the same episode is coincidentally on.
And in fact that episode is really complicated, politically. For those unfamiliar with it: It's about a pair of warring societies that have agreed to turn their war into a simulation game, played entirely on computers; people who are designated casualties have to report to disintegration chambers where they are bloodlessly killed. People die; culture and infrastructure are left standing. They think it's a least-worst option until Kirk and pals come along and throw the Prime Directive right into the disintegration chamber.
It's always been one of my favorite "messed-up society of the week" episodes, probably because I was a Cold War kid freaked out about nuclear war, and it's sort of a satire on bloodless, Herman Kahn-style war strategizing where you toss around millions of lives as poker chips in a game-theoretic exercise. But the conclusion is that our heroes decide to force the society to do war the old-fashioned, barbaric, bloody and destructive way, as opposed to their clean antiseptic (but still deadly) way, so that they'll have no choice but to work to end it ("we can admit that we're killers, but we're... not going... to kill! Today! That's all it takes, knowing that we won't kill today!")
Is that liberal or conservative? Well... it's anti-war, but in a backhanded way that critiques what had actually become somewhat a liberal way of war by the 1960s. And there's that other strain in the episode in which the Federation ambassador is presented as a blundering asshole (albeit the one who gets them into the trouble that leads to solving the problem), and everyone seems to hate diplomats as a class ("the best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank"). It's the Enterprise crew's old-fashioned, barbaric martial virtues that paradoxically create the opening for peace. So it's a bit of both, and I can see that conservatives would actually find a lot to like in it.
I love the politics and messaging even when I don't necessarily agree with what the show might be trying to say (which is rare). What I love about it is that it is usually presented in a way that just creates the question, the complicated situation, but the morality is somewhat ambiguous. It's awesome to be able to watch it with my kids, pause the show in the midst of the conundrum and ask, "What do you think they should do?" or "What do you think about that opinion?" To me, the thoughtfulness and thought provocation is its most important quality.
My problem with the newer Trek is not the continuation of this political messaging, it's the more violent, more explicit content that makes it hard for me to watch it with my children. Growing up with TNG was important to my thought process, but I can't imagine letting my 9 year old watch something like Discovery (especially the first season) or Picard. That's why I absolutely adore Strange New Worlds, which went back to a more lighter approach that isn't so explicit.
This is actually a legitimately respectable perspective and I commend it.
I feel the same. I don't have kids, but I agree with your reasoning. TOS was a fun thing to watch on weekends when you'd find it airing during the day, or on holidays where one of the local channels would have a Star Trek marathon, and it was something I could share with my dad, who used to run home from college classes to catch it in the evenings when it originally aired. But TNG was a show we always watched as a family, and in addition to being entertaining, it was fundamental toward building an understanding in my mind of what a progressive socialist future could look like. For a kid growing up in a conservative Evangelical Republican family, that was a crucial step toward leaving conservatism behind and recognizing several truths about the world. And even now, Star Trek's older series along with Strange New Worlds remind me to work toward a better future with hope in my heart rather than fear and depression. (Heck, for that matter, Lower Decks has a lot of that, too, despite its satirical jabs; at its heart it's very much a Trek show)
Whatever their merits may be-and I may give them another chance in the future-Discovery and Picard simply haven't appealed to me. I feel like I already had all of the shows about corrupt institutions and broken dreams that I may have needed.
One thing that I have to disagree with, the Jem'Hadar are only kinda-maybe "dark skined" and the Cardassians are as white as paint-base! They are 110% "the other," maybe even in racial terms to some degree, but in these cases not "darkey" others.
Both are closer to grey than any other color.
I always associated the Cardassians as Space-Nazis and only now realized the perhaps their white paint-base is quite fitting! Thanks.
@@DraconisInvictus
They are indeed Space Nazis.
Though some are good people.
It was also amusing, if you look at the still frame of TOS at 8:22 where Spock and Kirk are looking upon Nazi's in the Patterns of Force episode...
I mean, Kirk probably thinks "that was what we WERE like" and assumes "we are good now"
whereas Spock is probably more like "yeah you were bad then, you are currently only more mildly defective..."
I wish they had used those lines. 😂
That attitude is also explicit in our favourite "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" - Chekov and Sulu are telling Lokai that prejudice on Earth is a topic for history class, and we see Spock, outside, silently *sad*. (I don't know how Nimoy conveys it - but he shows both a "stoical" Spock and a saddened/dismayed one here.)
Aw... saddened as he may be, Spock has the same fascination with humans that Data has. These characters do so much for my human narcissism that I'm supposed to be working toward outgrowing czcams.com/video/YahVhEZ55FI/video.html xD
“Often what we take away looks an awful lot like what we brought with us” 19:28
Chills. Very well put and dramatically placed ❤ Love your stuff
10:40 I think... you have a misreading of conservationism, in as much as... I think that much of it in the world today (2020) and really for the past fifty to sixty years... has become of one degree or another anti-liberalism. And in America today many other Republican/conservative platforms have really become about being almost exclusively anti-liberalism.
I'm a social democrat, as in the Social Democracy and Social Market movement, so I think that solidarity is important... the solidarity movement includes with those across the political and ideological spectrum. And this video is really rubbing me the wrong way in that regards.
Conservatives/Republicans are I think better exemplified by the term 'classical liberalism' which focuses on civil liberty, rule of law, practical/naturalistic view of the world, support for open markets/trade, support for liberal private property, favoring economic liberalism, and leaning to the idea that economic/social problems can be better addressed by non-government actors and only in extraordinary/threatening circumstances addressed by the government...
I do have progressive CIVIL libertarian leanings so I proactively progressively and aggressive support human rights... human dignity... human liberty... and as even ACLU lawyers will tell you Democratic and Republican administrations fly in the face of these things... (Sure, the Trump administration is blatantly corrupt, criminal, incompetent, and vice-ridden...) But you got to understand that...
President Bush expanded Medicare... President Nixon signed the bill that made the EPA... Ronald Reagan likely would be considered too liberal for the now modern anti-liberal Trump-Republican party...
I think one of the problems with the video is... a lack of good and broad perspective... and sense of political ideological solidarity.
But I am a social democrat... solidarity is a major platform... and very important...
But I feel like that is one of the major themes of Star Trek... solidarity. Toleration. Cooperation. Understanding. Openness. Liberty...
This post says a lot of the things I was feeling. I get who the video is trying to call out, but conservative is a needlessly polarizing title in this video. I get that national politics in the USA is currently terrible to put it mildly. I struggle with how this administration challenges my relationships with some moderate and right of center friends I have. Am I in an echo chamber, am I not fighting hard enough for the progressive ideals I espouse?
As someone who grew up liberal and was exposed to more conservative positions I learned not everyone who disagreed with me was a terrible person. Most of the time it meant they had a different idea of how to get to a better place. Being exposed to new ideas and world outlooks, even ones I disagreed with I feel served me well. It encouraged me to remain skeptical of my own positions and to be more open to ideas, regardless of where they came from.
I’ve actually seen some interesting observations from the actual conservative who have dared to post in a hostile environment. Someone pointed out that Star Trek has gotten more mature and less ‘family friendly’. I love Discovery, but I don’t know if with the nudity and occasional swearing if I would show it to my 8 year old self. That wasn’t something I had actually thought about. It views like that which made me actually interested in a conservative reading of Star Trek and what else it might get me to consider. I doubt Shive will see this post or care about it, but I would be interest in other readings of Star Trek then the liberal one. I suppose that would require me to become a patron hu?
As a fan from '72 old enough to have attended Gene Roddenberry's college lectures (and thus in a pretty good position to know what Trek's creator wanted his audience to take away from the show), I have to say that I found this to be just terrific -- heartfelt, funny, and above all, well-reasoned. You just got yourself a new subscriber, bro.
"Often what we take away looks a lot like what we brought with us" - Steve Shives 11th March 2020
I am SO stealing that quote.
@@frankendragon5442 And if anyone objects, you can say "I didn't steal it, I brought it with me!"
Yes I loved that.
That is an honestly beautiful quote!
Is like loving Superman for being a white middle american farm boy, but forgetting he's an alien refugee.
This is one of my favorite videos of yours. Thank you.
Still scratching my head about how cardassians have "darker skin." Or the vorta, or the borg.
Yeah, that’s true. I think he meant more how the bad guys are always the “other”.
grey skin is darker than white skin. its the other as was stated.
Right we can tell most of the bad guys are played by white actors. Even with make up they're still white.
Pale skin and assimilation seem to go together better...
Which Star Trek character actually has the most wasted potential? Tasha Yar.
I would watch the hell out of an alternate universe series that showed us who she becomes. I want to see her return to Turkana and reunite with her sister. I want to see her and Data develop a real relationship; Data helping her to heal from her youth and she helping Data to better understand human emotions. This woman was fierce and vibrant and powerful, arguably the most ... "intense" character in TNG. She was passionate and loyal and a true warrior in *every* honorable and good sense of the word. And she was deeply compassionate and a champion of justice and equality. She started out having more character than many of the other characters ever developed. We catch a glimpse of her growth, a more mature, more tempered Tasha, in Yesterday's Enterprise, but goodness it's not enough.
Oh and God she would have made one HELL of a captain.
The closest we got was with "Yesterday's Enterprise", she returns for the episode and travels with the ship back to the past. And later on we see her daughter, also played by Denise Crosby, who also makes appearances in Star Trek Online.
One thing left out is how consistently "pro-life" Star Trek is in pretty much every episode featuring a problematic pregnancy.
I think it’s because most of the “problematic” pregnancies seen in Star Trek are the result of alien interference and terminating them may prove antagonistic to new life
Most of the characters who got pregnant by aliens chose to continue to carry it to term. Choosing not to have an abortion is still pro-choice. I'm sure if any crew member on the Enterprise who discovered they were pregnant went to sickbay and told Dr. McCoy/Crusher/Phlox "I don't want to carry this anymore. I want my pregnancy terminated," they would respect their patient's wishes.
Janice Lacy true
Conservatives are not really pro-life over all. If it was so then they wouldn’t be children in cages and or anti-mask movement in this country.
@@michaelherrera9455 or forced hysterectomies at ICE facilities...
I’ve puzzled over this question for decades. Thanks for the food for thought. Great clip!
There are "All in the Family" fans who take Archie's side :(
My Dad, may he RIP.
"All in the Family" features a few times in the *TV Tropes* section "Asshole/strawman has a point".
However most of the time, Bunker does **not** have a valid point
This majority of these replies miss the what the show was really about and the reason why Archie was the star.
@@liquidmark5081 And another 9/10 of the remaining times, both Mike and Archie were put in their places.
Shoot, most of the time Archie did a self-own on his own professed beliefs. And there were many eps where Mike/Meathead was in the wrong, TOO liberal, and only by arguing with Archie did the two of them find middle ground. THAT... is why we should engage in civil debate, because the truth is usually somewhere between the "left" and "right" viewpoints of it.
I find the last line self-evident, and yet profound. "Often what we take away [from a show] looks an awful lot like what we brought with us." Thanks, Steve.
Thank you for this video. Great work!
All good science fiction is primarily political.
“It [the Constitution] is where most of them [conservatives] discovered the joys of self-servingly and selectively interpreting texts.”
I think the Constitution is a close second to the Bible here.
I feel as if neither of them are actually read by the individual, as both have someone else selectively interpreting parts for them....
@Pardeep Parmar I like bringing up the 3rd A with 2A gun nuts. They get a pass only if they mention it was a response to the Quartering Act.
To hold up sections of a text as righteous validation, without regard for the document as a whole, let alone the historical context of the document.
the Constitution is a close second to the Bible
Its always seemed very clear that they regard both texts he same way. The sort of hollow reverence. The appeal to it as an authority, the feeling of righteousness that provides, the disinterest in actually reading it...
I'm surprised its not a more common criticism.
I don't know how or why it took CZcams so long to suggest your channel to me but I'm glad it finally did. Everything is so in depth, I love it.
First, before watching this video I noticed my brother in law watching a documentary about a homosexual and I was a little confused. Why would he watch a video about a homosexual when he has absolutely no interest in learning the truth about homosexuality? Your video helped me see that maybe the documentary put some distance between him and the homosexual, that whatever the documentary said meant nothing about my brother in law or how he needs to change. There are great conflicts within my family and one of the conflict is between my conservative brother in law and my gay nephew. My conservative brother in law proclaims how much he loves my gay nephew and just can't understand why my gay nephew is so angry with him. My conservative brother in law is clueless about why his right to think my gay nephew is mentally ill could possibly hurt my gay nephews feelings. My conservative brother in law blames my gay nephew for having feelings.
Second, here is how color blind can be racist. I once talked with some artists about what was the best color to use to paint a picture of a Nilotes (black) person and was called racist for even mentioning that the Nilotes exist. Acknowledging that black people exist isn't color blind enough for these people. Makes me wonder if I talk about Nichel Nichols would they accuse me of not being color blind for acknowledging that Nichel Nichols exists.
Back when I was a kid and other conservative kids and I used to watch the next generation, the thing that appealed to us all was the professionalism and discipline of Starfleet because of its appeal to our quasi-fascist upbringing. What our parents didn't understand was that Gene Roddenberry also sprinkled in actual Progressive morality to go with Starfleet's occasional militarism.😂😂😂
Jokes on them, I'm a leftist now!
Thank God Rick Berman didn't change me back.
So weird story, my parents are conservatives that are Star Trek fans and raised me on Star Trek...and that and the fact that I went and got a degree in Religion with a Missions Minor are what I credit with how I became a liberal.
@@MostlyPennyCat my degree is in religion with a missions Minor. It's a degree in Christian Biblical studies/theology and comperative religions.
@@BiblicalBisexual I've never heard of "missions minor". Are you Mormon or some other denomination that puts importance on missionary work?
Isn't it crazy that religious institutions are responsible for educating what was created to be a secular society?
I was raised on Star Trek and also a Jehovah's Witness and somehow because of a lack of "spirituality" in the Star Trek then it was deemed safe viewing... little did the congregation or my parents realize that Star Trek was undermining all of their brainwashing. I literally thank Star Trek for helping me to think for myself and use critical thinking...things Jehovah's Witnesses don't want you to do. Proud atheist and Star Trek fan.
me too! i totally agree! my parents were both trekkies and my mom was so super into jw lol
I think that TOS' Kennedy-esque Cold War triumphalism has a lot to do with it
Good point.
The Final Frontier looks very like The New Frontier.
Kennedy was a Liberal
This is the video I needed. Thanks!
I was raised in a super conservative and religious household/community. I'm grateful my dad liked Star Trek because I credit the TNG crew with helping raise me to be a good human, and their voices in my head (especially Picard, Deanna and Beverly) helped to slowly but surely flip to a full on humanist.
Oh my Steve. I always thought this WAS a conservative channel. Now I'm just shocked! No flabbergasted! How dare you, sir?!
*Removes white glove and slaps Steve with glove*
To be fair he does keep getting messages from conservatives that seem to act that way.
@@samuelazzaro Just because we disagree and lean different ways on certain political issues doesn't mean we can't come together and agree on things, like the love of an inspirational t.v show.
@@Barrobroadcastmaster Sorry, man, because we have different views on a flat tax we can't enjoy the same space shows.
I remember when the DS9 Past Tense two parter came on (the Gabriel Bell episode). At the time, the Republicans had just taken back the house and senate, and in our conservative household, the episode was interpreted as a rebuke of Newt Gingrich’s “contract for America”. People aren’t blind to the message of Trek, they just don’t like being told they’re in wrong
One of my professors in college called it the "Contract ON America."
I remember watching that episode with my mother when it first aired, and she called the Sanctuary Districts "Gingrichvilles".
Why is it always left or right? Aristotle knew, that you have to shoot for the middle, if you wanna hit the target.
My parents which looking back is quite weird, though they raised a very liberal (socialist) gay trans man, which still blows my mother’s mind. I remember saying to mother, “I hope we can have a world a little like Star Trek one day.” Her answer “that’s fiction.” And it made me want to bang my head against the wall.
As a conservative, I love the hopeful message of Trek.
Why are you a conservative?
None of you people replying understand what conservative means.
Then what’s so hard about being hopeful in regards to the real world, looking forward to changes that benefits people who struggle, peace around the globe, scientific advancements, improving infrastructure, and so on?
I think some people want to think they’re conservatives when they aren’t, which leads them to acting conservative, and ultimately opening themselves up to extreme conservative view points when it’s not who they are.
“Separate but equal” is a huge factor behind it. Everyone deserves a homeland tied to their race & an identity they can resonate with. Star Trek gives that sense while maintaining a diverse and interesting cast when differences are put aside
I find the word "conservative" to be off. It means that you like things the way they are or as they were, and don't wanna evolve. Why did they choose that word? It literary means, I want slavery, I want inequality and I want racism, sexism and whatnot. It's so weird a word to choose for a political stance. Like, wth?
The Drumhead is a reference to the red scare. But its not its message of the episode, its the context. Its message is eternal vigilance and a warning against those who try to violate freedom and liberty in the name of justice and righteousness. One of the best quotes from Picard was something like "Those who twirl there mustaches are easy to spot. But those who cloak themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged." One of the clips on youtube refers to Admiral Satte as a SJW in the title. The Drumhead is not a reference to SJWs though. But its easy to see why they see it that way. SJWs have already have Drumhead trails today. I don't see why you hand waved the most popular "conservative" view on the Drumhead trail when it was on point. As a person with autism I fear that some people on the left are hurting me for violating social rules I don't understand. They make life more difficult for me and it comes across as bullying. I have been bullied by people for not being aware enough. This does happen to me and my people as we have a social disorder. I would fear conservatives, but I just don't. We've seen a lot of their dirty tricks and behaviors. Its taught in school. Its still observable today with trump saying autism ruins good children. Anyone can be Admiral Satte, right or left. If you cant see that through out the episode, you missed the point entirely. Anyways I thank you for reading my response. Forgive me if I hurt your feelings. I love your show.
"the pulverizing gravity well of moral apathy and selfishness that sits where their heart should be" 🤣
Great vid !
I disagree with one thing you said:
I do think,that the creaters of star trek did try to apeal to conservatives. Those minds are the ones, that need to be changed. And I think Roddenberry was optimistic, that some of them can be.
Judging from the many ex-conservative commentators on this video, it seems like Roddenberry was onto something there!
Y'know, thank you for this! The thing is, I've seen a fair number of youtube reviewers shitting on "Picard" for being "Anti-Nationalist", acting as if it and Discovery have "tainted Star Trek" with their obvious political leanings. The feeling I get is that these conservatively-minded people used to LOVE Star Trek, but can't anymore because it's become too "woke" and "SJW-esque". And my (mental) response is always the same: How in the hell were they enjoying a show about an anti-capitalist, ultra-globalist (seriously, what's bigger than "globalism", given that society is literally hundreds of planets?), equal-rights society in the first place? "Star Trek" pushes things too far "now a days"? What about the first televised interracial kiss?!
But yeah, I think this vid gave me some answers on that, so, thanks!
Yeah, as others have said, they probably encountered ST when younger, and weren’t old enough to absorb the message.
If anything, Star Trek has become a lot LESS political and is only catering to the lowest common denominator instead of caring about what's actually possible in terms of social and economic progress.
@@jacobwest4771 Well, wanting to have Star Trek stuff doesn't mean you support capitalism. It just means you want Star Trek stuff. Where is the inconsistency?
@@lynth Wanting stuff is definitionally supporting capitalism. Capitalism isn't defined by banking systems and shady, corrupt deals between industry and politicians, it is at its core an acknowledgment that everyone prospers the most equally, equitably and greatly when left alone to trade freely. The only government intervention true capitalism tolerates is anti-trust, which is when a company becomes as powerful as the government in whatever sector it occupies.
@@jeffb255 Does it? Does it really? Does reality support your argument?
Thank you, I very much enjoy how you worded many things, and made it comprehensible.
You hit the nail on the head! Keep safe, Steve
Isn’t the fact that Starfleet does all those things other than just the military actually extra troubling? Like apparently in the Federation the military has taken over all of science and society? Serving is Starfleet is presented as the pinnacle of what a Federation citizen can do with their life. Kirk’s son in Wrath of Khan basically complains about exactly this as someone trying to be a scientist without military influence.
Excellent points. The highly stylized and simplified authority that makes for good TV would make for really scary government. It also lends itself to the socialist interpretation of the Federation. But what the socialists don't get is that it's a bad thing, not a good thing, to have everything under the control of a central authority. It's bad for efficiency and bad for democracy and liberty.
@@gyozakeynsianism Depends on that central authority. If its basis is that of a democracy, then the authority is at the whim of its citizenry. Aren't Federation Presidents elected?
@@commandercaptain4664 I don't think Federation Presidents are elected. The only time we see a President he whined about how he never wanted the job but the Council basically bullied him into it.
On the one hand, that might just be a natural evolution of refusing to fund anything that isn't military: everything that gets funded gets rolled into the military, to the point that the military isn't really just military anymore. On the other hand, if the (perceived) value of military power decreases to the point where other things get similar levels of funding, for interstellar logistics it still makes sense to combine investments with overlapping capabilities, like putting all of your funded efforts into a single fleet of starships rather than having multiple partly-redundant fleets, so military capability gets distributed across the fleet just like every other funded systemwide activity. I think the abundance of civilian activity in starfleet facilities is more consistent with the latter, but even the former isn't necessarily troubling if it's less that the military has forcibly taken control and more that efforts were reorganized to go where the money was. I'd have to rewatch Wrath of Kahn to see whether David's complaints sound more like military control or fit any bureaucracy big enough to allocate an entire planet for a science experiment.
In TOS Starfleet was more military than anything else in an age of sail way. While their first duty was to defend the nation they had to be just as effective as diplomats, cartographers, and scientists.
In TNG they’re very much science and diplomacy first, combat last. The statement about dismantling star fleet, except the science ships, in the movies seems to have happened. By that point I think we also see a lot of non-Starfleet science projects but Starfleet either helping or just checking in.
I was wondering as to when you were going to refer to TOS episodes regarding social justice, racism, & war when referring to conservatives. You are my hero, sir! You have said what I have wanted to for many years.
Great episode.
I had a guy I met at a con and I really liked him. We got along great. Following the con though after finding out I was not a die-hard Republican (far from it actually) every conversation was an attack from him about how Obama was the antichrist and the fact that I voted for him was blasphemous. I was attacked every time we spoke. Every. Single. Time.
Flash forward to Lower Decks being out and he got back in touch with me again. No surprise, he started in on me again. When he would do this, I would just bring up star trek without him being able to get a rise out of me. Asking if he had seen a recent episode or what he thought about Picard or discovery frustrated him. It didn't surprise me when I didn't give in to him and just asked about trek, that he stopped talking to me. It was a shame too, since we initially got along and his wife is a real sweetheart. But I guess that even when a common love of a great genre comes about, you can't always keep a friend who is so adamant and willing to fight you for no reason. It's sad that we all can't get along, but it's better off being pushed aside than constantly having to defend yourself with every conversation while you’re continually attacked.
Thankfully, we never talked about trump. I'm sure it might have ended in much worse conversations.
Although I agree with pretty much everything you have said, I don't feel that the 'Cardassians/Darker Skin' thing is quite true. Maybe its just my eyes, but they have always seemed to be a bit pale in complexion to me.
As a Black Trek fan, I've always been amused at the 'real' reason that Next Generation Klingons were mostly portrayed by Black Actors: It was just more cost effective to match the 'bumpy forehead' to the skin of a black actor, than putting tons of makeup on a white actors face/hands (that is prone to wipe off) to match it (or at least, that's always been my 'head canon' for the reason).
Indeed. Cardassians have white and sometimes light gray skin. And I don't mean white as in "white people", I mean white as in a sheet of paper!
@@blenderpanzi lol I knew the colour on my tv(s) was off. The Cardassians always reminded me of a hypothetical facial reconstruction of dinosaur evolution I watched on a documentary when I was in hs. They look to me as I imagine alligators would if they had followed a similar evolutionary path to our primate ancestors. Sort of green Alligatoridae Sapiens, if you will ;D
LOL In the original series, that makeup looked more like someone just went out and bought shoe polish.
@@Revan2908 Given their limited budget, that very well may have happened. Especially in Let That Be Your Last Battle Field.
I always figured the large amount of black actors for Klingons was that statistical larger size, plus deeper voices.
I have seen the comments from those who cite The Drumhead, Satie and her inquisition - as being the ultimate SJW of that time... those who use intense, quick, harsh, suspicious attacks to cancel the slightest threat without consideration and guilt tripping. They think of the Drumhead as a cautionary tale of becoming too far left, and equate to modern day times... I found that fascinating.
I found that fucking disgusting, Spock. Satie was clearly a right-wing racist and nationalist modeled after Joseph McCarthy. God, I can't stand the idea that the Drumhead was a warning about SJWs. It is so outrageously, utterly wrong.
You earned a like & subscription from me, sir! Good work!
There's not much here that's wrong, but I don't see why you put "small government" in the conservative camp. There's a lot of centrists and liberals who also view smaller government as a good thing, since large, centralized governments can clearly be a form of oppression (see: fascist/communist/imperialist states)
Probably the best example of the militarism fandom in action is seen in some of the tabletop games. There tends to be a really strong core of conservative fandom present in fandom for the Star Fleet Battles and Starship Tactical Combat Simulator wargames, for instance, because of those presenting the sci-fi space war stuff pretty directly. The latter in particular has a pretty major fansite operated by Brad R. Torgersen of Sad Puppies fame.
And in the case of Star Fleet Battles, though I'm a fan of it myself, it does pretty undeniably present Star Trek more as military science fiction. Admittedly largely for the purposes of justifying the space combat gameplay.
The mention of a conservative reading of "The Drumhead" reminds me of a CZcams video I saw recommended a few times where they referred to Satie as a "triggered SJW". The idea kind of broke my brain a bit.
I tried to tell them it was about McCarthyism. Jeez..
@@Ragitsu I saw that too. I think the people who wrote that video believe SJW = shorthand for people I don't like. I'm no leftie, but Picard is probably the very definition of SJW.
Nicely done sir!
Love this! Thank you.
Just finished Watching. Good Conclusions. You make very many good points. I would hope that continuing to watch Star Trek would open one's mind to the possibility that their view point may be flawed. Or if nothing else, that they pass on their love of Star Trek to their Children, and that those children take the message of Star Trek to heart, and help reshape the culture in America.
Yeah I used to think like you, but then I spent some time in the comments section of some of the more recent vids on disco and picard, there is no way many of those people are gonna change there minds. So many hard right conservatives seem to have made it there misinformation to attack the newest iterations of trek that I honestly can't see how the gap could ever be bridged.
Cardassians have darker skin? Aren't they pale grey, and usually with blue eyes?
darker skin then white people. Grey is darker than white.
@@truethat15 yeah but most "white" people aren't actually white but more of a pinkish color and much less pale than the often very light grey of the cardassians
This is a superb analysis. I don't suppose that after two years there is any point in commenting substantively now. But you have triggered a reconfiguration of the video I've been working on for a couple of days.
Excellent work.
I grew up pretty conservative, and a lover of Star Trek. My love for Star Trek has shaped my views and caused a change in my political leanings. So, keep on watching, conservatives! (Even watch Steve, despite what he says... you might learn something.) :)
Thank you for reminding me. I actually grew up conservative too, but Star Trek is part of the reason WHY I am no longer conservative. I came of age during the early 2000s and when I learned our government had been torturing, all I could hear was "there are four lights." It shattered my world view considerably and once those cracks were present, I started seeing other things that previously I'd been able to ignore. By 2004 I'd left the conservative party.
@@Venslor in all fairness , the torture never went away , no matter who was in power, and the 4 lights episode is a mockery of Socialist utopias like China and USSR /and most african countries that went down the socialist track , the episode was literally 1984 George Orwell book , that was mocking socialist ideologies
@@pgrmoja george orwell, was a socialist himself, 1984 was anti authoratarian in general, with no real idealogical counterpart.
@@flyingfoamtv2169 True.
Section 31
As a Star Trek Fan, (politics aside), my favorite aspect is the rich lore and intense worldbuilding. Any opportunity to explore a world other than our own is valuable. That's what keeps me coming back. That's why I have difficulty with *some* new Trek; it contradicts previously established lore.
previously established lore got contradicted all the time in the same series.
Yes but contradicting the lore is what 90s trek always does.
@@this.is.a.username In the early days of Trek (TOS and early TNG) a little contradiction was bound to happen, as the nature of the ST Universe was being crafted weekly. But sometimes more recent series have written episodes including, for example, species that were not known until later on, something that really was inexcusable. The longer the universe has existed, the less such contradictions should happen, but they seem to be happening more.
Star Trek debuted in 1966. Views held by progressives in 1966 might look conservative now. For example, a web search finds that Joe Biden voted against bills that would have integrated schools in 1973 and 1974. I think TOS "The Return of the Archons" would be appreciated be conservatives, especially Kirk's speech at the end... Freedom is never free. It has to earned.
As a Conservative. I enjoy Star Trek enormously. It brings some of the flaws of my philosophy into light, but then it does the same for the more highminded Federation ideals.
For example, in The Armageddon Game in TOS, the fanatical pacifism of the Federation is criticized and armed readiness shown to be more practical. The power of practical power shown to be an integral tool in diplomacy and peace. If the Federation did not have the potential for General Order 24, peace would not be achieved, even if no one actually wanted to use it. This is an example of the Conservative principle of realpolitik in action.
Speaking of realpolitik. I've basically just described most of Deep Space 9 as the idealistic Federation struggled against the realities of interstellar politics and diplomacy. While their ideals are respected for the most part even by their enemies, the Federation is required to show its teeth several times to accomplish its ideals. That appeals to the Consevative American, who believes that rights are not inalienable and freedom is not free.
Also as a moderate Conservative I love the criticism of the worst of religious, racial and authoritarian theories of the right getting their time under the glare of the best disinfectant. We conservatives need to disown the racist, tyrannical and misogynistic elements of our own side of the discussion if we want our role in the world order to be a healthy one, and Star Trek allows dialogues that allow us to separate those ideas from the realpolitik, appeal to history, and preservation of tradition that are Conservativsm's more healthy voices.
I have to add that the addition of Bajor to the mix in DS9 in particular was a necessary deconstricution of the positive and negative roles of religion in politics. The Opakas and the Wynns of the religions universe on Earth need to be seen and distinguished for what they are and not be allowed to be grouped into one thing by the lazy or the fanatic. Nuance is required to distinguish what should be preserved and what should be swept away, and a totalist approach in either direcction serves no one well.
I never thought of realpolitik as a conservative principle. Just a fact. When the chips are down, self interest is a survival mechanism.
Great vid. Great discussion.
Of course “Conservative” here in the UK has a slightly different twinge to it. The political stances are still virtually the same.
I think there’s another reason: Star Trek is old. It’s always been there, it’s nostalgia.
‘It’s THAT show that was out when my grandparents were alive’ thinking about TOS and perhaps a lesser extent TNG were from the era that “it was ok to say stuff about race” mentality.
Of course that’s BS BUT the fact remains that it comes from a time that conservatives always harken as “the good old days”.
From DS9 onward I saw the “political agenda” speeches coming in, the adult fans who told me as a kid in the 90s that it “wasn’t Star Trek”. And because DISCO/PICARD are here now.
The 90s are now the same “good old” thing; the goal posts have changed, DS9 “the war Trek” is the old stuff from a time when “ we could say anything about gender” mentality.
Soon it’ll be...
Enterprise was from the good old days era ‘where we were fighting terrorism’ and “you could say anything about religious hatred”.
Conservatives in 20 years will look back now at how twee DISCO and PICARD were but now there’s new “Trek X” from the era when “we could say anything about X” mentality.... and so on.
Now liberals and progressives are also susceptible to nostalgia but instead of just being THAT show from THAT time. It’s MY show from MY personal experience. Every fan I’ve met always speak of a character, story or interaction as speaking directly to them NOT to a time period.
Perhaps it’s a part of human nature; some look at the world and see just events, others look at the world as people, others see concepts.
I think it's more or less there's people that simply haven't had enough exercise thinking conceptually or taking a meta-look at the world at all. I mean, you can claim to ride a bike just because you saw someone else ride one while you yourself have never actually put your ass on a bike seat, gripped the handles or put your feet on the peddle. One can imitate or talk about these things like themes and such, but if youtube is any indicator, there's a lot of people that barely understand what a theme or concept is, what a metanarrative is, or even the difference between parody or satire is. I pissed someone off once by correcting their use of parody because what they were describing was satire...then they made a big deal about me 'getting hung up on the words' and I'm just thinking, 'Well, proper definitions and knowing what words mean is how we effectively communicate, so what is going on here?' Either way, what I'm getting at is the actual 'riding the bike', the looking at a piece of art and looking at what it's intent is, what it means personally, looking at the society around it that influenced it's creation, etc...most people don't and probably don't care to do this. Feet up on the coffee table, light beer in one hand and remote in the other, brain's switched off, shooty shooty space show drool sleep is normal operating mode.
I mean ... conservatives in the UK are arseholes too though.
When everything being criticised is safely in the past, there's no danger that they might be talking to/about you, personally.
MurrayTheMac you got me there 😂 there’s no denying that 🖖
Seal0626 another great point by the very nature of being older than a current living conservative it creates a distance, a cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Some of the stuff you bring up about the lense being outside the Federation is why I love a lot of the characters in Voyager. Like Chkotay and how he brings up and points out what, ya know, happened to us here in the states and what seems to keep happening when gringos think they know what's best.
Wow. I wrote about this exact topic yesterday on Twitter. And i got this in my recommended list.
"They're half-white and half-black..." Yep -- and they hail from the planet Charon, in "the uncharted, southern part of the galaxy."
In that line, Kirk slightly emphasizes the word "southern." (I always wondered how he knew where Charon was, if its area of the galaxy was uncharted. But leave that quibble aside.) Yes, this very clearly is a sermon against racism.