P.O.'d at P.C. : When plots get just sooooooo stupid!

[Flangepart]

Political Correctness.....in what ever form it comes in, is a real cheeser for me. The concept is most easily defined by a Star Trek; Next Gen plot point . In a ep. involving a Fed attempt at a clokeing device, Picard invokes "The Treaty of Algernon"....where in, it is written....the Fed's will NOT attempt to build or field clokeing devices. THATS when i told ST:NG to take a hike into a supernova! WHAT?! Every one else has a device that allows a fleet to sneak into, say, a capital world system, and giveing it minimal warning, take out a vital C3 node as prelude to invasion, and we (The Fed's), refuse to match it, and retain a balance of power? Stupid!....stupid,stupid,stupid,stupid! Look....i under stand the good intention of "Make peace, not war". But good intentions arn't nessarily what work! Some times you have to get tough....and unilateraly giveing up  clokeing devices is not part of the survival instinct! I'm sorry....NCC is Naval Construction Contract, and screw the Next Gen producers who say otherwise. Naval! Other wise, the Enterprise would be UN-armed! When the Borg invade, who ya' gonna call, Greenpeace? Sorry....sorry, got a bit cheesed. So....any other examples of P.C. run amuck getting your goat? Or, are B-movies blessedly free, of P.C.?

[Funk,E.]

err... and how exactly is following an out of date treaty imposed by hyperevolved aliens PC? Political Correctness does absolutely infest ST, but of all the examples that doesn't seem like one of them. Theres no "racial sensativity" or "disability concious" efforts in that situation. How about the episode where Worf has to prove he's still a klingon or the episode were laxanna troi falls for an alien sceintist from a planet with a mandatory life duration policy or the one where a "sexually devient" alien falls for Riker? There are so many episodes that deal directly with PC issues like racism and stereotyping it's sickening.

[Sakerson]

ST: TNG is pretty bad about it, as are all the later series.  Voyager had an anti-creationism show, in which dinosaurs didn't believe in evolution (although in many ways I agreed with the premise, it's still pretty PC).  Steven Spielburg irks me too.  E.G. Jurrasic Park 2: The Lost World.  Everyone with a gun dies, while the peace loving environmentalists survive.  In real life, it would be the other way around.  Ken Begg pointed this out on his site ( http://www.jabootu.com/lostworldnugget.htm ), along with about 90 other things wrong with this film.  Oh, I was wrong about one thing: The main hunter of the Lost World survives because he gives up hunting (probably because he ruined his gun when it filled up with water from sticking it straight up in the air all the time in the rain).  Yes folks, he saw the light....

[Lord_Humungous]

WOW!   Put down the 'spock ears' and slowly back away.

Your comment about Riker and sexual deviants made me remember an episode where Q showed up, snapped his fingers and created 3 hot babes that started hanging all over Riker.  After Riker does the manly(?) thing and rebuffs Q saying he doesn't need his fantasy women.  To which Q replies "Oh Riker, you're so stolid.  You weren't like that before the beard".   At least Q knew how to have a good time.   At least BEFORE the ST crew made him come to his senses, settle down and start a nice little family unit.  

Wait, you're right.  PC sucks.

[Neville]

Flangepart wrote:
>
> Political Correctness.....in what ever form it comes
> in, is a real cheeser for me. The concept is most easily
> defined by a Star Trek; Next Gen plot point . In a ep.
> involving a Fed attempt at a clokeing device, Picard invokes
> "The Treaty of Algernon"....where in, it is written....the
> Fed's will NOT attempt to build or field clokeing devices.
> THATS when i told ST:NG to take a hike into a supernova!
> WHAT?! Every one else has a device that allows a fleet to
> sneak into, say, a capital world system, and giveing it
> minimal warning, take out a vital C3 node as prelude to
> invasion, and we (The Fed's), refuse to match it, and retain
> a balance of power? Stupid!....stupid,stupid,stupid,stupid!
> Look....i under stand the good intention of "Make peace, not
> war". But good intentions arn't nessarily what work! Some
> times you have to get tough....and unilateraly giveing up
> clokeing devices is not part of the survival instinct! I'm
> sorry....NCC is Naval Construction Contract, and screw the
> Next Gen producers who say otherwise. Naval! Other wise, the
> Enterprise would be UN-armed! When the Borg invade, who ya'
> gonna call, Greenpeace? Sorry....sorry, got a bit cheesed.
> So....any other examples of P.C. run amuck getting your goat?
> Or, are B-movies blessedly free, of P.C.?

As regards to STAR TREK: TNG; give me a break, guy!

The UFP dosen't have any cloaking devices aboard its ships because said ships are EXPLORATORY vessels with a small defense component. The people of Starfleet are science minded explorers who don't 'sneak around' because Starfleet, except in times of war, is mostly a non-millitary fleet.

Gene Roddenberry put those rules down a long time ago, Berman, Piller, & Braga have enforced them,  and that's all there is to it. If you don't like the so-called 'PC' that you claim Star Trek is, then don't watch it at all; also, please stop talking about it on any forum.

[Flangepart]

Dear Neville.......you are wrong on this. In a hostile universe, a "Small defence Component" is usless. Heck, aginst the Borg, a LARGE defence component is useless! But, that deals with relitive technology. I'm sorry, but your response is so P.C. in it' s self. Okey, the Enterprise is the Calypso.....and that does what, when you meet a race or political entity that dosen't think like you? Your comment about not "Sneaking around" is off center.That is how the Fed's think....but does that not sound like a comment that a Romulin or Klingon would find offensive? They might conciter it both an insult, and an expression of blind arrogance. "We in the  Federation don't sneak around like you do." "Oh", replies the other," So you'll give us the first shot, just to prove your moral superiority....how convinent". I'll agree with Funk.E, i could have used a better example, but the sheer foolishness of that plot point still gets to me. Your comment about Roddenberry, Brage, et all, is immaterial . So, they can do what they, want, its their show, but i still have the right to disagree. Oh, BTW...that means i can still talk about it on any forum....just as you can. And should.  If Andrew says "Can it", fine. It's His board. But, if you don't like my opinion...don't read it.  IMHO, StarFleet is just that . A Fleet! A Naval Fleet. And its rank structure and Combat Power is there for a reason....to deal with beings incapable of peacefull co-existance.....and if you still don't get it.......REMEMBER NEW YORK!

[Flangepart]

Okey, okey,....sorry is i got mean. But, dang it, Neville, you live in Spain, is that right? if so....don't you have a Terror problim with the Basque? Can you imagin what a wake up call it is, to loose 3.000 of your own people? Not everybody in the world(Universe) wants to get along! A clokeing device is a tool, good to have around if you need it. If you need it. Just like Shields, Photon torps and Phasers. You use them when you have to, not willy nilly. I'm sorry....but i just can't buy the Roddenberry premise that Starfleet is a bunch of Calypsos wandering the universe. It just don't match reality. And if you wander too far from that....your fiction looses a firm foundation on which to build. Diden't mean it personaly.

[AndyC]

On the subject of the Borg, I think that is where the PC slant on TNG bothered me the most. Until they arrived, there were so many episodes in which the Enterprise is stuck in a situation with no peaceful solution, and having such a solution conveniently materialize in the last ten minutes. I imagine we were supposed to feel relief that they didn't have to resort to blowing anyone up. Diplomacy is just so exciting. Yeesh!

Then, along come the Borg to fill the void. Somebody went to great lengths to create a society with such radically different values and such an agressive nature that there could be no reasoning with them, and such power that the only way to defend against them is by hitting them with everything and/or infiltrating their ship in an exciting fashion. Diplomatic solutions would not work, because their reasoning was so thoroughly inhuman. Wonderful, and long overdue.

Then came Hugh, in an attempt to put a human face on the Borg. Suddenly, they can be infected with individuality by one member who got a brief taste of it. Whole societies of lifelong individuals couldn't do this when they were assimilated, but it suddenly works when the Enterprise crew want to avoid a more aggressive solution. The Borg have rights, after all. The next time we see the Borg, they're objects of pity. What crap.

Thankfully, the Borg managed to retain most of their original nature in the movies and on Voyager, but they were never quite the same. The addition of the Borg queen was a mistake, although she was introduced for dramatic reasons, not PC.

[AkiraTubo]

The worst, I mean worst, PC in Star Trek was on DS9.  It was an episode about a woman from a low-gravity environment.  The gravity is so low, in fact, that her people literally float around.

Never minding that  her body couldn't even function in earth-like gravity, she rides around in a wheel chair.  Get it?  She's a metaphor for the disabled.  GET IT?  GET IT?  (I'm trying to be as subtle as the episode was.  Unfortunately, to do that, I'd have to beat you about the face with a 2x4 with "Metaphor for disabled" written on it.)

Ok, look, why not just have an actual, disabled person (human, Bajoran, Vulcan, whatever) instead of this bad metaphor.  It's bad on several levels.  First, she really IS disabled; she'd frickin' DIE if exposed to gravity about 10X what she was born into.  Second, why is she in a wheelchair?  You think they'd have something better than that in the 24th century.  Oh, wait, later they come up with an exo-frame for her.  So why the wheelchair in the first place?  I guess they were afraid we wouldn't GET IT if we didn't see that.

Later, she uses her inherent ability to move around in low-gravity to defeat a mean, ugly alien kidnapper. (Start Trek has always taught us that ugly=evil.)  Ok, look, he's still be stronger than her in low gravity and they're in a confined space.  Even if she is used to moving about in low-grav, he'd still have the advantage.

But, at least it taught us that disabled doesn't mean helpless.

But WAIT!  What does this woman do, now that she's realized she has no limits?  She goes back home because she just can't hack it in this world of big, bad, high gravity.  So, the actual message of this episode was that disabled people should just sit at home and not do anything, even (especially) after they prove that the only limits they have are imposed upon them by others.

F@#$ you, Star Trek!

[Andrew]

This was already touched on, but my stand on things is that we are here to discuss movies or entertainment.  Sometimes we will like them, sometimes we will not.  That is a good thing.  Flangepart didn't just say, "'Star Trek' sucks because of PC." he gave some examples.  Honestly, you can little hope for a better opening to a good discussion than that.

If you want to check out an episode that had an interesting "PC" slant on warfare, see "A Taste Of Armageddon" (1967).

Andrew

[Funk, E.]

Hey Flang, Glad to see you back off on ripping Neville a new one. I did that once to a b-movie reviewer and felt really bad about it when he called me on it. You were more mature than I was.

Neville obviously really likes ST and the ethics that it tries to expouse and to be honest so do I, but lets face it between the PCisms and the "convenient Duex ex Machina" solutions to difficult situations does that ethical standard an injustice by implying it wouldn't hold up when faced with real delimas. It's unfortunate. The original Star Trek at least bit the bullet from time to time STTNG pretty much backs off everytime except on issues have already been addressed or resolved Like Data's rights etc.

I think Nev is a little nieve to thing that STARFLEET is a s**tload of peaceful exploration vessles. If that were the case they would have virtually no armorment at all. When was the last time you saw a weapon on Jacques Cousteaus vessles?
We've established that the Federation has been in and has fought wars before and that the Enterprise is a flagship.

The whole cloaking device forbayance as stated before was externally imposed and if the forces that imposed them in the first place were to "insist" then it makes sense that Jean Luc might have vested interest in preventing StarFleet from engaging in metaphasic research, but that's a lot of ifs.

Anyways, it's a fun debate as long as everyone breaks clean and doesn't hit below the belt.

PS. Sart Trek is basically a weekly Sci Fi b-movie just like Xena's a weekly Fantasy b-movie so I think we should be able to banter about it.

[Neville]

Just like a Yank to use patriotism to justify and win an argument-especially since his nation's patriotism  and millitary philosophy is what was one of the causal effects behind 9/11 in the first place!

Starfleet and the STAR TREK idology are all about peaceful exploration and DEFENSE, NOT attack. Starfleet DOES NOT go around imposing its millitary will on any other race, except when that race harms Starfleet or Federation citizens, and Starfleet DOES NOT sink to the enemy's level by using the enemy's devices of deception onboard Starfleet ships. To use such devices would mean that they are just as unprincipled as that enemy, and that any peaceful concepts that they have to convey is false.


That's what makes the United Federation Of Planets /Starfleet something better than the present day United States; that it does not use the law of force as a primary justification for action, nor does it do underhanded things while claming high ideals (certain events[epsiodes] on DS9 excepted). The character diffrences that Roddenberry, Berman, Piller & Braga came up with were put there to MAKE THE CHARACTERS DIFFRENT, and also to make the world of the future diffrent from the s**tty present-especially with warmongering idiots like you in the ruling legislatures of this planet.

If you don't get Roddenberry's 'one world/exploration/peaceful conflict resolution except when attacked' idea (BTW, several NGO's have come up with this idea world wide and are trying to use it to teach kids-look it up on the 'Net and elsewhere), then maybe you shouldn't be watching STAR TREK in the first place, and should stick to whatever purely warlike show/movie/PC game that you obviously love so much, and derive much enjoyment from.

As well, try to learn how to spell: your letter looks like that of a retarded redneck member of the KKK and the John Birch Society.

Also remenber-imperial bulls**t from powerful nations causes weaker ones to respond in kind-REMEMBER THE ROMAN EMPIRE!!!

[Andrew]

Neville, your response was meant to degrade Flangepart, but it is offensive on a basic human level.  

Any more idiocy in this thread and I will just delete the post.  If you want to make a reasonable argument - go ahead, that is exactly what should happen.

Making light (and it is making light of their deaths) of a few thousand innocents being murdered because you like or dislike Star Trek is reprehensible.

Andrew

[Flangepart]

Dear Neville. You have gotten it wrong agine. I never said that Starfleet was Offensive. Starfleet does not impose it's will on others, except in the "Mirror" universe. I never said, or implyed, that it did! And, agine, "Sinking to the enemys level" is an egotistical expression, not a logical one. I grew up watching the original series. So you have no cause to say i "Don't get it."Your second paragraph is Political Correctness in form and substance. Idology run amuck. I never said Starfleet was, or should be, agressive....except when it had to! You call me a warmongering idiot. You don't know me, but jump to the conclusion that i am ....because i'm an American. That, sir, is self serving P.C. arrogance. You said i should "Stick to what ever purely warlike Show/movie/PC game you obviously love so much." Realy? And, how would you know? You jump to conclusions that puff up  your self image as a better man. In truth, you are unwilling to read what i actualy said, and throw me into a box labled "American". Funny, that, since Roddenberry was a yank too......no. no, this is a fall into the realm of politics....and i hate going there. Oh, and the "Retarded Redneck " comment, regards my spelling....how loveing and kind of you! Oh, i'm not the perfect speller.....but you should address my ideas, not my imperfect excicution thereof. You sir, are not adverse to hate....you just hate "The right people". Oh, BTW....If we were Imperial....you'd not have the freedom to say such thing. You are a jelous European, who forgets....we learned about Imperial Excess from the "Old country". Remember the Spanish empire....and others. Your only an imperfect human like me, and everyone else. Don't be too proud. I know from expericnce....it will come back to bite you.

[Funk, E.]

Wow! They were right... never discuss politics or religion at the dinner table. Hey Nev... a word of advise... it's probaly not a good idea to put down the American military on a site run by a U.S. Marine... and calling someone a fascist because they don't like PC is, well, fascist.