Star Trek: Discovery (2017)

How are you watching Star Trek: Discovery?

  • Signed up for CBS All Access before watching the premiere

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Signed up for CBS All Access after watching the premiere

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Not signing up, but will watch if it's available for free

    Votes: 82 57.3%
  • On Netflix (Non-US viewer)

    Votes: 35 24.5%

  • Total voters
    143
I don't even remember what was being talked about for the last however many pages. I really don't care if there are gay people on Discovery, it doesn't change how I feel about the show, which even the I like the show as science fiction I absolutely hate it as Star Trek.
 
Dude you made up a term that literally did not appear in that hooks text at all. And now you're demonstrating how little you actually retained by writing her name as Bell Hooks.

So you think 4% of the 6 or 7 main cast members should be LGBT? How does that work?

You "made up" the claim feminism is only for females and cited Hooks, when Hooks teaches the exact opposite. I would think that's a bigger error than not all-lower casing her pen name. Especially since it readily demonstrated that you never read her work and only cited it out of ignorance. Then you sent me an attack PM calling me a "snowflake", which is the kind of behavior that Hooks ascribes to "The patriarchy" as she puts it.

Anyways, you're the one who "thinks" the show would be more diverse were it more "demographically accurate". So you can explain how that works. An easy start would be answering the questions in post #1932 instead of demurring with semantic arguments.
 
You "made up" the claim feminism is only for females and cited Hooks, when Hooks teaches the exact opposite. I would think that's a bigger error than not all-lower casing her pen name. Especially since it readily demonstrated that you never read her work and only cited it out of ignorance. Then you sent me an attack PM calling me a "snowflake", which is the kind of behavior that Hooks ascribes to "The patriarchy" as she puts it.

Anyways, you're the one who "thinks" the show would be more diverse were it more "demographically accurate". So you can explain how that works. An easy start would be answering the questions in post #1932 instead of demurring with semantic arguments.

Your recollection of that exchange is as faulty as your recollection of hook's pen name.

I offered a link from Women At Warp which discussed feminist analysis of ST. You replied with something to the effect of "a feminist site offering to teach a method of feminist analysis...no bias there." I responded to you by saying "yes, feminists get to define feminism." This does not =/= "feminism is only for females." And as I said at the time, that would be totally nonsensical considering that I'm a male advocating for feminism. hooks was invoked when you claimed that the Women at Warp link did not offer a definition for feminism, despite the link to hook's work being embedded in the article.

You then went on to explain your opinion that the background incidences of LGBT characters in ST are functionally the same to LGBT folks as Seven of Nine's consciously added sex-appeal. To this I replied that you were "man-splaining" gay male gaze. You got upset, saying that you would not continue a discussion without the use of "neutral language," because "man-splaining" was "sexist." I challenged you to cite where in hooks' text she defines the supposed "core concept of self" which you allege I misunderstand. She does not actually use that phrase anywhere in the text. Demanding "neutral language" from "man-splaining" is pretty, pretty, pretty hilarious in the context of any number of non-neutral comments made about "SJWs" in this thread and others.

I'm the one that thinks that the main cast of Star Trek has always been deliberately chosen to display certain archetypes and not by demography. As I said, it was not random that Chekhov was Russian. They didn't just pick a random European. Discovery's inclusion of Stamets and Culbert is very much in the Trek tradition of envisioning a future free of the kinds of social conflicts of the present.

As far as your question in post 1932, that's a strawman argument. "Show" =/= "main cast." Especially since we implicitly understand that the main cast are part of a larger crew and therefore not meant to be the sole representatives of what the ST universe looks like, but also because the context of the previous discussion was not limited to the main cast.

Do note that when I initially made the comment about a "demographically accurate show" showing more diversity, the first thing I referenced was the global population of Asians. Firefly very smartly incorporated a lot of Chinese influence into their future world. Although we did get Michelle Yeoh for the premiere she's also named "Phillipa Georgiou" which might be interpreted as a not so subtle way to erase her Asian identity. Does that mean 60% of the "main cast" should be Asian? No. Why would it? The main cast is not a sample size large enough the breadth of human diversity (or human and alien diversity in the case of Trek) and we shouldn't expect the main cast to be the prefect demographic example because there's only a handful of them.

Cephus is the one who brought up demography in the first place, so you might want to ask him what the relevance of bringing up the LGBT population is.
 
Just wondering when the mods are going to show up and put an end to the political discussion, considering it is against the rules and all...
 
I never knew the RPF was such a a wretched hive of scum (femenists) and villainy (SJW's):D

Anyways, did anybody else think it was weird that the Klingons did not know what a universal translator was? I'm not really up to speed on the lore before TNG so correct me if that's how it's always been.
 
I never knew the RPF was such a a wretched hive of scum (femenists) and villainy (SJW's):D

Anyways, did anybody else think it was weird that the Klingons did not know what a universal translator was? I'm not really up to speed on the lore before TNG so correct me if that's how it's always been.

They had them in TOS.
 
jlee562 Just like every other time, you demure when asked pointed questions involving your own statements. Okay, conversation ended. And don't send me an angry rant PM again, okay?

Also, you seem to be mistaking the population of the continent of Asia (60% of world pop) with Asiatic people. That's completely ignorant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
These last two episodes (Season 1:episodes 8 and 9), have been much better than what has come before. They have finally gotten into some real character development and personal exchange and you almost begin to have some sympathy for some of the characters. I like the developing relationship between Burnham and Tyler, and the Engineer Staments and the Doctor. But it's really not much considering we're 9 episodes in. They have actually had a timing and pacing that is somewhat Trek-like; where pieces of information have made some sense and are telling an actual story.... and THANKFULLY, I heard a few lines of Klingon translated instead of having to read it. So, I've liked the last two episodes and actually want to find out in January, (when it begins again), what is going to happen with everyone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@jlee562 Just like every other time, you demure when asked pointed questions involving your own statements. Okay, conversation ended. And don't send me an angry rant PM again, okay?

Also, you seem to be mistaking the population of the continent of Asia (60% of world pop) with Asiatic people. That's completely ignorant.

Add "demure" to the list of words you don't understand.

Considering you never answered questions about how you quantified LGBT representation as "adequate," you have no leg to stand on in the "you didn't answer my question game."

I made a statement about a cohort. You proposed that a statistic derived from a different sample population somehow "refuted" the number I posted. The fact that you believe your statistic to even be a valid rebuttal is evidence enough that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I was ignoring you. You're the one one who began responding to me again, and you're the who brought up the arguments you already lost.
 
I'm surprised the Tardigrade scandal basically passed through quickly. Personally, I thought it showed just how much the STD showrunners are a bunch of hack/frauds.

I can't argue with that.

I know some people are hoping they stay lost in whatever dimension they are in and that is how this new tech will be lost and not show up in the Prime universe. The only problem with that is unless they are turning this into a Voyager type show where they will never get home that will never happen. If they are going to make the show an anthology series where it changes completely every year, like some people have said Brian Fuller wanted, then it just might work.
 
So, did most of you subscribe to CBS All Access just to get this show? What else is on there? I can't justify another streaming service just for one show.
 
I look at it this way. It about its about $1.50 per episode. I like it so far. It is different but I think that is a good thing sometimes. I can always cancel when the show is not on. But episode of all the previous series are on there as well. DVDs or Blurays of those would add up quickly. I have also been watching the original Odd couple episodes, best comedy ever.
 
I look at it this way. It about its about $1.50 per episode. I like it so far. It is different but I think that is a good thing sometimes. I can always cancel when the show is not on. But episode of all the previous series are on there as well. DVDs or Blurays of those would add up quickly. I have also been watching the original Odd couple episodes, best comedy ever.
So, anyone see last nights episode?

Sent from my BLU LIFE MARK using Tapatalk
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top