Star Trek Social Club
r/startrek: The Next Generation
Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...
Maybe a little slash fic.
New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?
Rules
1 Be constructive
All posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.
2 Be welcoming
It is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.
3 Be truthful
All posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.
4 Be nice
If a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.
5 Spoilers
Utilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episode. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.
6 Keep on-topic
All busmittions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books, etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/Quarks.
7 Meta
Questions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.
Upcoming Episodes
| Date | Episode | Title |
|---|---|---|
| 11-28 | LD 5x07 | "Fully Dilated" |
| 12-05 | LD 5x08 | "Upper Decks" |
| 12-12 | LD 5x09 | "Fissure Quest" |
| 12-19 | LD 5x10 | "The New Next Generation" |
| 01-24 | Film | "Section 31" |
In Production
Strange New Worlds (TBA)
Section 31 (2025-01-24)
Starfleet Academy (TBA)
In Development
Untitled comedy series
Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.
view the rest of the comments
As someone who used to hang around TrekBBS back in the day, there are actually many conservative and libertarian Star Trek fans.
It always baffled me also, but I think many of them were/are TOS fans. Kirk's swashbuckling, individualistic, break-the-rules, throw-a-roundhouse-when-you-need-to style disguised Roddenberry's socialist utopia that existed in the more civilised parts of the Federation. Certainly more so than adventures of the tea-sipping, conference-chairing, "I think I'll surrender in my very first appearance" Frenchman who followed him.
@startrekexplained @Prouvaire it still amazes me when this comes up. How can anyone miss the point of something so badly?
https://media.tenor.com/r5OW1Ws_kPAAAAAC/mystery-shakespeare.gif
The Orville literally had a gay couple of aliens as main cast from day one and had an episode with one of them in fairly graphic gay orgies. It was pretty friendly from the off. The trans allegory with the kid was McFarlane making amends for the Family Guy episode with quagmires dad.
I'd rather not go near that hive of scum and villainy if I can.
As a TOS fan, I disagree with that. TOS might have had dated drapery, but it also had some flagrantly progressive elements, arguably more than many of the series that followed it. It's just that the world has moved on, and many of those progressive things are either the norm, or seen as regressive, like the Miniskirts, Uhura being part of the bridge crew, or having an American, Russian, and Japanese man serve as part of the same crew, at the height of the Cold War.
Part of it might also be that they didn't see Trek as anything more than "cool space show, with a whole bunch of scantily clad men and women", and didn't bother to look any deeper, not unlike Star Wars. It's just guns, cool ships, and shooting, with the imperialistic allegory being ignored, or gone unnoticed.
Totally agree.
Again, I think we're actually in agreement. If you look past the cool space show and can avert your eyes from William Ware Theiss' gravity-defying outfits you should be able to discern that Roddenberry's future is largely socialist, some would argue even communist. Centralised world government, no private enterprise (pun not intended), and by the time TNG aired, even no money. (Note there were references to money in TOS.) Not that I'm trying to imply conservative Trek fans aren't smart enough to figure this out. But - like the diversity and inclusion in the TOS cast - TOS's liberalism (social, not economic) isn't something that the show hit you in the face with. It's treated matter-of-factly, as backstory or backdrop. Whereas a show like DIS basically grabs you by the lapels and shouts "I'm progressive! I'm progressive!!" (Exaggerating of course, but you get the idea.)
Not much of a Star Wars fan, but I assume this is David Brin's critique?
It absolutely hit you in the face with it, just in a different way.
Miniskirts, an icon of feminist freedom of the time, were blatantly worn, Uhura was always in shot, and Sulu and Chekhov were front and centre of the camera when on the bridge.
Consider the famous Uhura/Kirk kiss scene. That was less of a hit in the face, and more bulldozed with it at light speed, which threatened to get the show pulled in more conservative parts of America (ironically, the same state/s would threaten the same of Arthur, the children's TV show, over Mr Ratburn's gay wedding so many decades later).
You could not be any more flagrant with the rules of the time, and if Roddenberry had had his way, he might have broken a few and put an LGBT character in, since that was part of his plan for TOS.
I'm not familiar with him, so probably more coincidental than not. But you do see some Star Wars complaining that the new show is "woke" and shoehorns things in, whilst treating the conquering Empire of the first few movies as nothing deeper than that.
Arrgh! I just wrote a detailed response to your post, acknowledging that you're completely right about how TOS's liberalism hit you in the face in a different way, explaining where I was coming from, and ending with how I actually doubt Roddenberry would have put a queer character in the show based on his nixing of "Blood and Fire", David Gerrold's early first season TNG script. But kbin ate it. *sigh*
From what we've heard, about the only thing Roddenberry liked about the idea for Captain's Holiday was that in addition to the heterosexual couples in the background , he could have gay couples. The writer thought it would get the episode dropped, and in Chaos on the Bridge, Berman was very direct about having to stop that in its tracks.
If it was Roddenberry and not his power tripping lawyer or Paramount who killed Blood and Fire, I expect he was being petty about how Gerrold went from adoring him to arguments and mutual disrespect during the calamity that was TNG season 1.
I know there's a perception that Leonard Maizlish was the power behind the throne, but even if he was meddling with the production and causing general mayhem, he was still there at Roddenberry's behest, especially in the first season.
You may have a point about Roddenberry spiking Gerrold's story for personal reasons. Star Trek was never the sole creation of Gene Roddenberry. Justman, Solow, Coon, Fontana and others arguably added as much to the franchise as Roddenberry as he himself did (though I don't dispute his was the most pivotal contribution). But one gets the sense he wasn't willing to be as collaborative during TNG as he had been during TOS.
It's a shame Gerrold left under such bad circumstances. There's a lof of his DNA in TNG. Some of the ideas - like the Captain not leaving the ship to go on landing parties (err, sorry, away missions) - came straight out of his book The World of Star Trek.
Roddenberry was showrunner at the time, so surely it would have come down to him to make the call. I suppose it's possible that Paramount may have put pressure on him, but this is the same Roddenberry who did NOT nix the interracial kiss even though he was told it would cause NBC affiliates in the south to drop the show. I suspect he just may not have felt as strongly about LGBTQ rights as he did about other things. Which I'm kind of equanimous about. Not everyone has to feel equally passionately about every cause.
I can definitely see how a genuine libertarian could be a Trek fan.
The politics of Star Trek is all about individual dignity and fulfillment in a post-scarcity society. A lot of people try to call it socialist (as Pelia mockingly did in the most recent SNW episode) but the circumstances mean it's not any form of socialism anyone's encountered in real life on Earth, such as in the 20th century. After unfathomable levels of technological advancement eradicates the problem of scarcity, there's neither the need for a big state nor a market to allocate scarce resources - what we know as socialism and capitalism wouldn't be meaningful concepts. What we see instead is people doing what they do (joining Starfleet, undertaking research, conducting journalism, opening restaurants) out of a sense of personal fulfillment, and with neither a state nor a society nor a need to pay the bills particularly forcing them to do anything. They're free to live their lives as they see fit - infinite diversity in infinite combinations. I can see how a libertarian could look at that and call it their personal utopia.
I struggle much more with how a conservative could embrace Star Trek. So much of conservative politics is about the primacy of the norms of the collective over the rights and dignity of the individual - whether that's in moderate forms (e.g. wanting to manage the pace of social progress so as not to offend the sensibilities of the majority, wanting immigrants to integrate into host societies) or more aggressive forms (outright hostility to immigrants, denying the rights of women and minorities, denying the existence of LGBTQ people).
I guess what I'm saying is that once you remove economics from the problem of politics (as Star Trek has hand waved away via technology) then what's left of libertarianism looks a lot like Star Trek, whereas what's left of conservativism looks very different.