Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[Yukaphile]

Do we really need Section 31? They betray our allies, put people through mind games, and other stuff regardless of the genocide. That's also ignoring their more recent portrayals.

Her "flip-flopping," such as it is, often seems insane and puts more value on herself rather than decency and common sense. She will proudly let whole species die and insist how it was "for the natural good" but will violate the Prime Directive to save those close to her, and then rationalize it by insisting she's never broken it, when she clearly does. If she can rescind the Prime Directive in "The Omega Directive," then why not to save lives? Instead she breaks it to stop two yahoos running a con game, but again, lets whole species die out. I think the biggest problem is she is shown to be wrong many times, but rather than have her reflect on this, given her ovaries and the fear of making her look weak, the show bends over backwards to justify her rather than explore the potential for human fallibility. That's just poor storytelling.

Look at it this way. She would have murdered that prisoner in "Equinox" and also locked Tom up for 30 days for simple defiance, but she does not apply the same to Suder. That's bat-shit insane, to the point you have to wonder if Janeway is bipolar. The show does not care about continuity. At all.

The series also retconned Species 8472. With that said, it's not the only time she's been inconsistent on the positions of alliances.

[Yukaphile]

That said, I do disagree with Chuck on his conclusion in "Time And Again." I don't think it was a Prime Directive related issue so much as "you can't change the past no matter what!" She was that dogmatic, more than Picard, and not justified either, but you need to put the proper context tot hings. And yeah, it may seem like hair splitting, but Chuck himself has admitted to doing such split himself, so I see no reason not to do the same and nitpick his conclusions. I think it was about the Temporal Prime Directive and not the Prime Directive itself. I do think if time travel wasn't involved, they would warn them. Probably.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

Do we really need Section 31? They betray our allies, put people through mind games, and other stuff regardless of the genocide. That's also ignoring their more recent portrayals.

Her "flip-flopping," such as it is, often seems insane and puts more value on herself rather than decency and common sense. She will proudly let whole species die and insist how it was "for the natural good" but will violate the Prime Directive to save those close to her, and then rationalize it by insisting she's never broken it, when she clearly does. If she can rescind the Prime Directive in "The Omega Directive," then why not to save lives? Instead she breaks it to stop two yahoos running a con game, but again, lets whole species die out. I think the biggest problem is she is shown to be wrong many times, but rather than have her reflect on this, given her ovaries and the fear of making her look weak, the show bends over backwards to justify her rather than explore the potential for human fallibility. That's just poor storytelling.

Look at it this way. She would have murdered that prisoner in "Equinox" and also locked Tom up for 30 days for simple defiance, but she does not apply the same to Suder. That's bat-shit insane, to the point you have to wonder if Janeway is bipolar. The show does not care about continuity. At all.

The series also retconned Species 8472. With that said, it's not the only time she's been inconsistent on the positions of alliances.

Section 31 wasn't trying to create Space SkyNet in Discovery.

and again, I ignore the stuff about Janeway wanting to let species die out.

and their retconning of Species 8472 undermines their own earlier story, so, it should be considered non cannon as well.

[Yukaphile]

Who the hell was trying to create Skynet in space?

Well, then you're just suffering from selective bias, because even Picard wasn't that dogmatic. He considered bending his ideals in "A Matter of Time," and he didn't regret helping out the people they rescued in "Homeward." Picard often strays the line between devotion to principles balanced out by doing the right thing. There is no such line with Janeway.

[Yukaphile]

It's also ironic given you've talked about how you can't understand evil people, and willing to let whole species with the justification "it's nature" and insist that extinction is natural and you shouldn't fight it is twisted as hell.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

It's also ironic given you've talked about how you can't understand evil people, and willing to let whole species with the justification "it's nature" and insist that extinction is natural and you shouldn't fight it is twisted as hell.

again, I am not because in my headcanon, Janeway never did those things.

[Yukaphile]

She did. Live with them. It's one of the many ways Voyager was a huge disappointment. Hell, it's only a minor exaggeration from some of the things Picard has said and done over the years.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

She did. Live with them. It's one of the many ways Voyager was a huge disappointment. Hell, it's only a minor exaggeration from some of the things Picard has said and done over the years.

again, headcanon, if I want to ignore certain events, I can. this isn't why I ignore those events but it does have the side effect of absolving Janeway of genocide by innaction.

[Yukaphile]

That's not headcanon, that's ignoring reality.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

That's not headcanon, that's ignoring reality.

yes it is, TV Tropes calls it Fanon Discontinuity.