What's up with this hypocrisy?

[MixedDrops]

If you don't believe hate speech exists or is a problem, then you shouldn't have a problem with some writers jerking themselves off about diversity being nice either, yet apparently you do.

By the way, let's take a sample of the supposed ridiculous shit the Discovery staff said in interviews, shall we?

I couldn't stop thinking about how many black people were inspired by seeing Nichelle Nichols on the bridge of a ship. I couldn't stop thinking about how many Asian people were inspired by seeing George Takei and feeling that gave them hope for their place in the future. I wanted to be part of that representation for a new era.

It was interesting to send [Mae Jemison] outlines and start talking about the character and get her perspective on what it’s like for a woman in the sciences now when we still have a lot of issues with women and race, and how that’s going to be 250 years in the future when the world gets its shit together and equality is a thing that’s more accepted.

“Absolutely we’re having a gay character,” Fuller said. He noted that as a gay man working on Voyager, he had a file full of hate mail when there was a rumor a character on his show was going to be gay. So he was determined if he ever did his own Star Trek show, he would have a gay character. “We’ve come a long way since then. I feel like actually gay rights have come a lot further in that time than race issues and women’s issues.”

Wow, what a bunch of snotty self-absorbed SJW assholes, clearly they should never answer questions about diversity so they won't have to offend people who don't like diversity.

[Nealithi]

The problem here is that Trek was openly diverse long before STD, especially TNG and DS9. Their words strike me as if they think it wasn't. Look at fucking Sisko, a black lead! So don't give me that bullshit. The only area that might have needed fixing was more trans representation (like casually changing sex just for the joy of it or curiosity, or to experience intimacy from "the other side") and gay couples - and look at how they managed to botch the one gay ship they had in the show. I know enough about STD to know that. In that respect, it still loses out to The Culture in terms of LGBT rights.

Let me see if I can explain as how I see the difference. As Chuck pointed out Sisko was written as the commander. Skin color came up much later. Uhura and Sulu were astounding for the time because no one pointed out skin color. They were just crew. There was no grandstanding, it just was. And it had effects in their time.
On the other hand I am told 'Michael' is so different because skin and gender and by god has a masculine name. Gasp! So they seemed to play up on being diverse in a setting that shouldn't care. And while you hear that (And I cannot corroborate) executives are dumping on existing fans as not needing them, or any who do not get the message are uneducated, etc. It seems like they are setting themselves up for an Emperor's new clothes scenario. "This is diverse and empowering. And any who cannot see it are mysognoistic fools." (I am pretty sure I misspelled that. But a PS4 does not have a dictionary. Sorry.)
Any way. Telling us something is great as a series is not how Trek does it. They can be preachy. Hamfistedly preachy at times. But do not tell you to like it.

[Makeshift Python]

The problem here is that Trek was openly diverse long before STD, especially TNG and DS9. Their words strike me as if they think it wasn't. Look at fucking Sisko, a black lead! So don't give me that bullshit. The only area that might have needed fixing was more trans representation (like casually changing sex just for the joy of it or curiosity, or to experience intimacy from "the other side") and gay couples - and look at how they managed to botch the one gay ship they had in the show. I know enough about STD to know that. In that respect, it still loses out to The Culture in terms of LGBT rights.

Let me see if I can explain as how I see the difference. As Chuck pointed out Sisko was written as the commander. Skin color came up much later. Uhura and Sulu were astounding for the time because no one pointed out skin color. They were just crew. There was no grandstanding, it just was. And it had effects in their time.
On the other hand I am told 'Michael' is so different because skin and gender and by god has a masculine name. Gasp! So they seemed to play up on being diverse in a setting that shouldn't care. And while you hear that (And I cannot corroborate) executives are dumping on existing fans as not needing them, or any who do not get the message are uneducated, etc. It seems like they are setting themselves up for an Emperor's new clothes scenario. "This is diverse and empowering. And any who cannot see it are mysognoistic fools." (I am pretty sure I misspelled that. But a PS4 does not have a dictionary. Sorry.)
Any way. Telling us something is great as a series is not how Trek does it. They can be preachy. Hamfistedly preachy at times. But do not tell you to like it.

Trek makers since TOS have always shown pride in promoting diversity in their work because it’s actually been inspiring for many audiences. It actually means something to them. The makers of DIS aren’t the first to do this. If all you read out of that expression of pride is “if you don’t like it then you’re a mysoginist and bigot”, then that’s very bizarre.

[Admiral X]

Funny thing is that you made a claim that the writers of DIS probably never saw anything outside TOS or TNG, and yet Section 31 was reintroduced, which was a DS9 concept, now delving into how that organization functioned in the 23rd century. ENT has had a few call backs, which is only natural as DIS is a sequel to it. I doubt anything from VOY will ever be revisited given the nature of that show.

I doubt they got it from DS9, because the organization in STD bears no resemblance to it. It was never given a formal name ("Section 31" refers to the part of the charter that authorizes it and was only used by Bashir and the others in lieu of having an official name) It was made clear that the organization operated under the radar - they never had special badges or uniforms. Sloan wore a uniform when he was first introduced because he was posing as a Starfleet officer to Bashir as part of a holodeck simulation. So it's clear the STD writers didn't watch DS9, as what they have done with it suggests that at best they read a cliff-notes description of it.

[Makeshift Python]

Funny thing is that you made a claim that the writers of DIS probably never saw anything outside TOS or TNG, and yet Section 31 was reintroduced, which was a DS9 concept, now delving into how that organization functioned in the 23rd century. ENT has had a few call backs, which is only natural as DIS is a sequel to it. I doubt anything from VOY will ever be revisited given the nature of that show.

I doubt they got it from DS9, because the organization in STD bears no resemblance to it. It was never given a formal name ("Section 31" refers to the part of the charter that authorizes it and was only used by Bashir and the others in lieu of having an official name) It was made clear that the organization operated under the radar - they never had special badges or uniforms. Sloan wore a uniform when he was first introduced because he was posing as a Starfleet officer to Bashir as part of a holodeck simulation. So it's clear the STD writers didn't watch DS9, as what they have done with it suggests that at best they read a cliff-notes description of it.

Sloan actually says that their official name is Section 31, it's not something Bashir merely attached to them. They're also shown to be wearing their own variety of uniform which is black leather garb, something we see in ENT and now DIS. Kurtzman actually pointed out that in this era Section 31 functioned more openly in this era before going under the radar by the 24th century, and that we may see why that happened.

[Admiral X]

Just like all their other claims. Oh, and it's been a while since I watched, but I seem to remember Sloan ribbing Bashir over that name, as in, telling him that isn't really the name of the organization but rather one he's assigned to them.

[Makeshift Python]

Probably misremembering. Sloan literally says "our official designation is Section 31".

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Funny thing is that you made a claim that the writers of DIS probably never saw anything outside TOS or TNG, and yet Section 31 was reintroduced, which was a DS9 concept, now delving into how that organization functioned in the 23rd century. ENT has had a few call backs, which is only natural as DIS is a sequel to it. I doubt anything from VOY will ever be revisited given the nature of that show.

Maybe the Omega directive.

[Makeshift Python]

Possibly! They do have a VOYAGER novelist in their writing staff.

[MixedDrops]

On the other hand I am told 'Michael' is so different because skin and gender and by god has a masculine name. Gasp! So they seemed to play up on being diverse in a setting that shouldn't care. And while you hear that (And I cannot corroborate) executives are dumping on existing fans as not needing them, or any who do not get the message are uneducated, etc. It seems like they are setting themselves up for an Emperor's new clothes scenario. "This is diverse and empowering. And any who cannot see it are mysognoistic fools." (I am pretty sure I misspelled that. But a PS4 does not have a dictionary. Sorry.)
Any way. Telling us something is great as a series is not how Trek does it. They can be preachy. Hamfistedly preachy at times. But do not tell you to like it.

This is once again why you don't talk about shows you don't watch, and if you do, you spend maybe 5 minutes looking this sort of thing up instead of repeating bullshit peddled by people who are always making shit up to make a show they don't like look bad, or people who deliberately keep themselves in the dark to complain about things that aren't there (or they aren't keeping themselves in the dark, and they're just straight up being liars). I apologize if I sound a bit exasperated, but this sort of thing comes up almost every single thread (not even just for Trek) and I don't understand why nobody ever googles anything to confirm these sorts of accusations. It takes less than 5 minutes, and you're already at a computer.

The fact that Michael is black or a woman has never come up once in the show, ever. Neither has the fact she has a masculine name (which is just a thing Bryan Fuller likes doing rather than some kind of statement). They talk about these things outside the show sure, but of course, Behr, Brooks and others on the DS9 staff talked about Sisko being black or other things about the show plenty if you look for it (for example, they proudly talked about how the woman-woman kiss Dax had earned them hate mail).

And I've yet to see any quotes from any of the Discovery staff about how they don't like fans or whatever. You can't corroborate it, because it likely doesn't exist. If it does, it's almost certainly a quote taken wildly out of context (for example, there's one where one of the staff says viewers back in the 90s might have gotten confused when DS9 and Voyager were running simultaenously, and people took that to mean he didn't know anything about DS9...somehow)

The only difference is nowadays people will find reasons to get angry about these things (more often anyway), and when they can't find quotes they can mine, they'll make them up, and people like you will take their complaints at face value rather than dismissing them as being jackasses like they deserve.

I mean, I already posted several quotes from Bryan Fuller, so perhaps read them? Granted he isn't one of the people working on the show anymore, but do any of those sound like they'd come out the mouth of someone who also says the sorts of things you're saying they do?