What Do Conservatives Actually Like About Star Trek? 

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

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".

*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.

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.

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.

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.

@@brandonb1681 Same here

Sounds like your father was more machine than human. Most conservatives are barely human beings. They need mental wards TBH

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.

“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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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". ;-)

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.

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?

It's truly the "final frontier".

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.

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…

@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$#!+.

And Kirk's prejudice against Klingons is quite specifically presented as a bad thing! It's not subtle.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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'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

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

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.

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.)

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.

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 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!

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.

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.

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.

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 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 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YahVhEZ55FI.html xD

Judging from the many ex-conservative commentators on this video, it seems like Roddenberry was onto something there!

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...

Well Grey is considered darker than white. 7 definitely looks lighter when she is no longer Borg

I never thought of realpolitik as a conservative principle. Just a fact. When the chips are down, self interest is a survival mechanism.

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...

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

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?

:) Kind of makes sense though- Star Fleet ships are basically a big aircraft/battleship wrapped around a big bank of cannons and torpedo tubes, with a nice comfy lead in technology and/or command-tactics so you never need to really worry about losing from Jan 1951 to present.

And illegal alien

@@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

Good point. The Final Frontier looks very like The New Frontier.

Kennedy was a Liberal

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.

I feel bad for you man. That guy clearly missed the point. Science Fiction is never about the future. It's about the present and the problems of the present shown through the lens of a future society.

I almost got an aneurysm from reading the conservative’s responses. Kudos to you, friend, for trying though.

How do we go from one state of affairs (second class citizens) to the other state of affairs (Federation)? If this conservative really wants the equality seen in Star Trek, they need to join our side....

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.

*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.

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".

Some southern states outright banned certain episodes.

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.

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?

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.

As a fellow ranter, i salute him, and you.

@Stu047 Great comment.

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.

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

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.

I agree but I think it was not a colonizing force - Starfleet was an idealized empire, yes, but one where joining was voluntary, like the EU or the US (putting aside America's horrendous treatment of indigenous peoples). But that very sanitized idea of empire is precisely what would appeal to conservatives who saw America as a benevolent empire, especially at the time of TOS. It should be mentioned also that not just conservatives saw it that way. Think about how many liberals in the Democratic Party supported the Vietnam War - lots, especially in the early going. Benevolent empire is an alluring idea to many..

@@gyozakeynsianism Nice comment.

Let's also not forget the obvious: that Roddenberry's message of a post-scarcity socialist utopia was and is being told to make lots and lots of money. I'm looking at you, Paramount.

Conservatives all across the fan spectrum feel slighted because they want to own, and ultimately supersede in importance, the very franchises they pretend to understand. Beware the "fan" who seeks obsequiousness from others in the name of a beloved hobby.

Very well put.