Sfdebris.net

Linkara wrote:We're finally getting comics that follow-up. Three issues are out now, though they're being released kind of slowly.

That's awesome. Thanks, I'll check those out.

MixedDrops wrote: This sums up my feelings on how people are criticizing DIS and several modern shows on this particular aspect very well. We hear so often now, "I don't want politics shoved down my throat", when in fact when you look at the show itself the aspects they're talking about are just kinda there. The implication in such cases is that the simple existence of minorities is political to people who make this compliant. So many times I've found myself in conversations with people who start with a statement to that effect and it only takes playing 20 questions a little bit to figure out it's really just that they don't like seeing a minority on screen.

Yeah, that's it, anyone who doesn't like a show because it's preaching at them is just a bigot.

Let me ask you this - how do you feel when some conservative Christian type preaches at you about something?

Admiral X wrote:

MixedDrops wrote: This sums up my feelings on how people are criticizing DIS and several modern shows on this particular aspect very well. We hear so often now, "I don't want politics shoved down my throat", when in fact when you look at the show itself the aspects they're talking about are just kinda there. The implication in such cases is that the simple existence of minorities is political to people who make this compliant. So many times I've found myself in conversations with people who start with a statement to that effect and it only takes playing 20 questions a little bit to figure out it's really just that they don't like seeing a minority on screen.

Yeah, that's it, anyone who doesn't like a show because it's preaching at them is just a bigot.

Let me ask you this - how do you feel when some conservative Christian type preaches at you about something?

They were speaking to a particular criticism, not to all criticism of Discovery entirely.

Why don't we take a moment to recognize that we're really all speaking to the same premise, just in different forms: that lumping groups of people together as a way to dismiss them is intellectually lazy and needlessly divisive. This goes for:
-some people who criticize this are bigots, thus everyone who criticizes it is a bigot
-some people call every critic a bigot, thus everyone who shares their value is a mindless name-caller
-some people push their values on others, thus everyone who holds their values are pushy
and so on.

The point of the remark that kicked this all off is that two unpleasant groups exist: those who hate something for hateful reasons, and those who presume hatred as the only reason for not liking something. Both groups are real, both groups are small, both groups are in the wrong.

Always remember that the only ones who benefit from us fighting each other are those in power. Divided people are easy to control. Discussion of our differences is healthy, letting hate overshadow our common traits isn't.

The biggest problem with an autistic character in Star Trek is that autism seems like something that Federation's medicine would have cured by now.

I haven’t liked the writing on Discovery. I’ve found it to be kind of a bad way to do a prequel, you mark my words the spore drive is going to have some stupid BSG fly the fleet into the sun level of badly written ending

But on the whole I think Discovery has done well with “identity politics”. Burnham is a character with depth outside of her race and sex. Stamets is a character outside of being gay.

These characters have attributes beyond their identity that drive the story.

That’s how it should be.

Take Janeway whose identity didn’t show so much in her character as it was reflected in how she was written; as different writers moved her character to polar extremes trying to have their Janeway win out. It made her a bad character.

So far Discovery is avoiding that.

JL_Stinger wrote:The biggest problem with an autistic character in Star Trek is that autism seems like something that Federation's medicine would have cured by now.

No that's something the Federation out of Blake's 7 would do.

Autism is horrible developmental disability. Just because it doesn't have outward effects on appearance doesn't change that. The Federation would be morally obligated to cure it. Also: Saru is a cow.

TGLS wrote:Autism is horrible developmental disability. Just because it doesn't have outward effects on appearance doesn't change that. The Federation would be morally obligated to cure it. Also: Saru is a cow.

In one of the Star Trek: Titan books, I think Troi of all people brings up that Vulcans would be considered in the standards of most other races in the Galaxy to have some form of autism.

Just to test the idea being quoted - if by the standards of nearly all other Federation species, the Vulcans were considered autistic, would the Federation be morally obligated to "cure" them? If so, what form would it take? And, would it really be "curing" at all, or something more sinister in reality?

JL_Stinger wrote:The biggest problem with an autistic character in Star Trek is that autism seems like something that Federation's medicine would have cured by now.

I'm going to get some flack for this but, "Like blindness?"

Functional autism is being just considered neuro-atypical which is to say, they have personality issues that aren't by any stretch of the means a disadvantage save socially. To which quite a few autistic people do not consider a disadvantage or disability. In that case, the Federation may not touch them.

As for Tilly, she's certainly not disadvantaged by any stretch of the imagination other than being simultaneously shy and a motormouth.