An opinionated discussion of all things SFDebris
https://sfdebris.net/forum/
Some did, else how do you think more progressive morals became common place? They didn't come out of nothing. At any given time you want to pick when horrible shit happened there were people who recognized the horrible for what it was and tried to do something about it.Makeshift Python wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:26 pm Like I said, men at the time didn’t know better. Saying women can’t be captains is likely because men thought women were “too emotional” to be able to have the right composure and decisiveness in making command decisions (which is why so few women were in power). I don’t think we ever see a woman in command until TAS and that’s just because all the men were immobilized.
I’m not disputing that. There were obviously people that knew better, it’s just that sexist attitudes were far more prevalent in the old days. Even today women still need to fight preconceived notions of women that are still passed on.TrueMetis wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:02 pmSome did, else how do you think more progressive morals became common place? They didn't come out of nothing. At any given time you want to pick when horrible shit happened there were people who recognized the horrible for what it was and tried to do something about it.Makeshift Python wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:26 pm Like I said, men at the time didn’t know better. Saying women can’t be captains is likely because men thought women were “too emotional” to be able to have the right composure and decisiveness in making command decisions (which is why so few women were in power). I don’t think we ever see a woman in command until TAS and that’s just because all the men were immobilized.
Though even if that were true and every man in 60's thought that way, who cares? Since when is "many people had a bad idea" a defence of a bad idea? A bad idea is a bad idea, shitty morals are shitty morals, and "subjective morality" is just a shitty excuse that is, quite rightly, not applied anywhere else.
Were my neighbour to beat his wife because she burnt dinner and he considered that morally acceptable no one sane would say "well those are just his morals you can't judge him by our morals standards" but make it the same thing but 60 years ago and saying "well those are just the morals of the time you can't judge them by our morals standards" is suddenly acceptable? Nah fuck that.
This is related to the episode in question, how?Yukaphile wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:26 pm We're not disputing that either. If you wanna know what I think is the greater brainwashing, it's what happens in a police state when they control nearly 100% of the news, so your senses can be fooled, and you act on faulty information. That's regardless of gender, yet I've seen people act as if in a police state patriarchy that somehow women are still "perpetrators of crimes against humanity," and for the life of me, I cannot understand how, given in these nations, gender roles are much more ingrained into the population, and women are the more helpless, and can be tricked into supporting something against their best interests, yet to hear people talk, you'd think they're equivalent to murderers and sexual abusers. It's madness how anyone can think that way.
Well as the episode lays out the so called “evil” Kirk is fearful because he’s lacking the “good” side of Kirk that has the intellect to keep that fear in check. In a lot of ways it subverts the idea of a “good” and “evil” side of people by explaining that they’re all just complimentary components that make up the person whole. “Good” Kirk in the end helps temper the “Evil” Kirk into seeing that they both ultimately need each other in order to survive.