Picard - Remembrance

[tyrteg]

It's hard not to when Chabon and sadly Sir Patrick Stuart were announcing that the show is part of their aim to advocate for the politics they personally believe in. Especially with Stuart wanting to play an analogy to Brexit being bad but... in SPACE! And hey I live in Europe and yes I believe that UK is shooting itself in the foot in a very public spectacular way. But no matter my opinion I'd prefer if Star Trek was Trek first - message second. Last time anyone was pushing a message this hard it was Gene Roddenberry and I think most of us will agree that TNG got much better after his passing when he couldn't push his message of hippie future full of blond people oiling each other and Ferengi with massive dongs. He was a great visionary but pushing his massage at any cost was hurting the show not helping it.

Also kudos to Riedquat for better explaining some of my problems with "behind the scenes politics."

[FlynnTaggart]

I always though "toxic fans" were not fans that hate a work or fans that hate a work before even watching it but fans that hate other fans because those fans love (or hate) the work and the works creators, creating a toxic element in the fandom.

To take a very divisive example, the recent Paul Feig Ghostbusters reboot. Some considered anyone who spoke negatively of the movie before it was out just going by the trailer or the talent behind it as toxic and others said anyone who spoke bad about it after it was released were toxic misogynistic fans who couldn't handle girl Ghostbusters. I did not consider those toxic fans, negative maybe but not toxic. The toxic fans were the ones attacking anyone who dared show some interest in the work, making legit sexist or racist attacks against the cast, and (to be even more divisive) those that accused less then pleased fans with legit concerns or criticism as being "ists".

There are certainly some toxic fans for Picard and Discovery, ones that hate it for being "progressive" despite that not making a lick of sense because its freaking Star Trek, ones that make any threats of attacks on the cast (which thankfully other then some snide and demeaning remarks I've not heard of much), those that attack or belittle the fans that enjoy it, and I'd personally say some that try to stir drama for either fun or attention like some Youtubers (I'd definitely say they create drama and toxicity). A fan that says "I don't like it because it sucks" or some variation I don't think is toxic.

[Link8909]

It's hard not to when Chabon and sadly Sir Patrick Stuart were announcing that the show is part of their aim to advocate for the politics they personally believe in. Especially with Stuart wanting to play an analogy to Brexit being bad but... in SPACE! And hey I live in Europe and yes I believe that UK is shooting itself in the foot in a very public spectacular way. But no matter my opinion I'd prefer if Star Trek was Trek first - message second. Last time anyone was pushing a message this hard it was Gene Roddenberry and I think most of us will agree that TNG got much better after his passing when he couldn't push his message of hippie future full of blond people oiling each other and Ferengi with massive dongs. He was a great visionary but pushing his massage at any cost was hurting the show not helping it.

Also kudos to Riedquat for better explaining some of my problems with "behind the scenes politics."

I do understand where you’re coming from, story telling should come first, however I’m not appose to stories having a message out right, they just need to be incorporated well so they don’t come across as a soup-box rant, and as you said Star Trek has had its far share of very unsubtle message episodes, but some episodes do have very unsubtle messages to them and are considered classics, “Let This Be Your Last Battlefield”, “Beyond The Stars”, “Nothing Human”, the two part “Past Tense” and “A Private Little War” just to name a few of my favorites, and sometimes the message is even ahead of it’s time like with “Homefront” and “Paradise Lost”, which is also one of my favorites

Personally I don't mind Star Trek Picard dealing with current issues, and I personally think it handles its message about refugees and not giving into fear and prejudice very well, because with all the events that happened to the Federation between Picard taking command of the Enterprise-D to him resigning from Starfleet, the turbulent if not out right hostile relationship with the Romulan Star Empire that has been around in universe since before there was even a Federation, and Starfleet's own policy of none intervention in the form of General Order 1, it's very easy for me to see the Star Trek universe going the way it does in Star Trek Picard.

And of course Star Trek Picard does not frame what the Federation did as a right or moral thing, but they did not frame it as them being evil or stupid either, it's just a very complicated situation that one can see both sides of the augment, which brings me to when I do have a problem with having a message in episodes, either when that message is so one sided that the opposing argument is painted in a cartoonish villainous manner that it is just a straw-man like with “The Last Outpost”, or the episode is promoting an obviously evil act like in “Dear Doctor”, or is framing a horrific and terrible act in a humorous manner like in “Unexpected”, or just have really horrible implications to them like with “Code of Honor” especially with “Justice” shortly following it.

[CaptainCalvinCat]

I was thinking about the word "toxic" this night and what "toxic fan" might also mean.
It's not the "you don't like what we do"-part, that is making these fans "toxic", but - in the purest sense of that word, without any connotations - the "I'm telling other people, what I don't like about this show and when people say something differently I'mma laugh at them as sheepol"-part, that might be seen as toxic.

An example for that might be, what Artabax said concerning Captain Janeway.
SFDebris is listing her "innumerable crimes" - but he's doing this for fun, since this is a comedy format at its heart. So we can laugh about it, see, if there is a kernel of truth in it, think about what we might've done at her position and then go on with out life.
Artabax seems to take this wayy too seriously, downright hating Janeway, because she commits "innumerable crimes".

Now very vocal fans, yelling at other fans, that a show is bad (or good) - that might be considered toxic, because it poisons the discourse.

[Riedquat]

Why does it though? Isn't it just as valid an opinion as any other?

[CaptainCalvinCat]

Why does it though? Isn't it just as valid an opinion as any other?

That depends.
Sure, most opinions are valid - the problem starts to occur, when you don't think the other persons opinion is as valid as your own.
If I were to say "Hey, I liked the 2016 Ghostbusters movie and the latest Charlies Angel - Flick was damn enjoyable" (which is true - I liked 2016 Ghostbusters and enjoyed Charlies Angels 2019) at least one dingback would be saying "But they're just SJW-Works in order to something-something cultural marxism"
Or said dingback might say: "So, you haven't watched the original, just the inferior copy of the SJWs."
Or something like that.
So - basically: If you want, that I take your opinion as valid, don't invalidate mine in the first place.

[Link8909]

Why does it though? Isn't it just as valid an opinion as any other?

That depends.
Sure, most opinions are valid - the problem starts to occur, when you don't think the other persons opinion is as valid as your own.
If I were to say "Hey, I liked the 2016 Ghostbusters movie and the latest Charlies Angel - Flick was damn enjoyable" (which is true - I liked 2016 Ghostbusters and enjoyed Charlies Angels 2019) at least one dingback would be saying "But they're just SJW-Works in order to something-something cultural marxism"
Or said dingback might say: "So, you haven't watched the original, just the inferior copy of the SJWs."
Or something like that.
So - basically: If you want, that I take your opinion as valid, don't invalidate mine in the first place.

Indeed, I've posted here that I really like Star Trek Picard, and I've given some of those reasons here as well, however I would never belittle other people for not agreeing with me, and in fact I'm more than ready to listen to any counter argument, and despite me liking Star Trek Picard there are issues in it that are valid.

As you said, a toxic fan not only thinks their opinion is the correct one, but if others don't agree with them then they treat those people as idiots, and even if they may bring up valid points their attitude is undesirable, you can be right, but wrong at the top of your voice.

[Riedquat]

Why does it though? Isn't it just as valid an opinion as any other?

That depends.
Sure, most opinions are valid - the problem starts to occur, when you don't think the other persons opinion is as valid as your own.
If I were to say "Hey, I liked the 2016 Ghostbusters movie and the latest Charlies Angel - Flick was damn enjoyable" (which is true - I liked 2016 Ghostbusters and enjoyed Charlies Angels 2019) at least one dingback would be saying "But they're just SJW-Works in order to something-something cultural marxism"
Or said dingback might say: "So, you haven't watched the original, just the inferior copy of the SJWs."
Or something like that.
So - basically: If you want, that I take your opinion as valid, don't invalidate mine in the first place.

You're doing exactly that though - saying other peoples' opinions aren't valid. "But they're just SJW-Works" - well, yes, by your own admittence you have to accept that they hold that opinion and that without cast iron evidence to the contrary they may be right (and if they are whether or not it matters - entirely opinion).

[Riedquat]

As you said, a toxic fan not only thinks their opinion is the correct one, but if others don't agree with them then they treat those people as idiots, and even if they may bring up valid points their attitude is undesirable, you can be right, but wrong at the top of your voice.

Unfortunately that's precisely what a lot of people who go around labelling the annoyed as "toxic" are doing. I'm not saying that the people they're criticising are any better, but there's a great deal of hypocricy going on, which often happens whenever anyone takes a rather dogmatic attitude of what are valid opinions. It boils down to different people having different values, throw in a bunch of arseholes on both sides, and very little empathy, and that's what you get.

[MixedDrops]

I don't buy into the idea that we need to accept this "both sides"-ism stuff (specifically the idea of "it's too SJW" vs "it's not progressive enough") when we're talking about Star Trek of all things. In DS9 you literally had a character quoting the Communist Manifesto in one episode but the same people who will praise that show will criticize the newest show of being "too political" (Read: "this time brings up a topic that I disagree with the show on").

FTR I actually think PIC did a terrible job of being an allegorical about Brexit or whatever (because it barely talked about it at all, it was mostly backstory), but if the fact it was brought up at all is the issue someone is raising, then yeah, I'm not going to take them particularly seriously when we're talking about fuckin' Star Trek.

Incidentally, I feel the same way about Discovery. You had a bunch of dishonest jackholes saying it was too political when in fact the opposite was the problem with the show, if anything. Discovery had basically dick all to say about Trump or whatever beyond very surface-level allusions like having Lorca say "make x great again".

THAT's what a toxic fan is - at least to me.

It may be the meaning to YOU, but Chabon does not consider such nuance the interview defines precisely 2 kinds of fans: obedient versus toxic.

Quote where Chabon does this or don't be surprised when people dismiss you as arguing in bad faith.