Picard - Remembrance

[Riedquat]

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").

Of course we need to accept both sides, you always do. That's not the same as accepting that they're both equally valid, but it's wrong to simply dismiss one side because it doesn't fit in with your personal prejudices (that's not directed at you personally BTW) and claim to have any sense of moral high ground. You reject them because you've looked at them and found them wanting, not because you are absolutely right. And anyone who takes that stance and accuses others of behaving as if they are beyond question... They're no better in terms of open-minded reasonableness, even if they happen to be aligned with a less obnoxious view.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

A lot of people take hombrage with the degree of critique employed by fans. The Leon Thomas video on Generations is a put enough example. Principles of objectivity and critical speculation are not exactly missing on the objectionists account, though I think it's safe to say that a bit of bias is employed for progressive emphasis (I don't think that that's understood as too much of a bad thing things being how they are). But the "fan consensus" tends to be observed as a bunch of headcanon that's being used as a form by which to judge a piece. The perspective tends to be that the movie that came out didn't live up to platonian form that a followup is determined to have. That becomes, in a sense, problematic.

Though I do agree that you can have a compelling case with such approach, it just comes off a bit radical to me.

[Link8909]

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.

That's very true and something to be wary of, I can't speak for anyone but myself, what I do is try to explain my own opinion as calmly and respectfully as I can, while not giving into hyperbole or disrespecting the creative teams, if I don't agree with someone else I don't try to be confrontational about it and simply listen and if I do respond to be as respectful as possible, and if people have opinions like those of the YouTube click-bait channels that are truly horrible I don't give them the time of day.

[Riedquat]

A lot of people take hombrage with the degree of critique employed by fans. The Leon Thomas video on Generations is a put enough example. Principles of objectivity and critical speculation are not exactly missing on the objectionists account, though I think it's safe to say that a bit of bias is employed for progressive emphasis (I don't think that that's understood as too much of a bad thing things being how they are). But the "fan consensus" tends to be observed as a bunch of headcanon that's being used as a form by which to judge a piece. The perspective tends to be that the movie that came out didn't live up to platonian form that a followup is determined to have. That becomes, in a sense, problematic.

Though I do agree that you can have a compelling case with such approach, it just comes off a bit radical to me.

That's a fair point, I certainly can't completely disagree with it. There's a line to be carefully trod there; if you're not making a piece for "the fans" then who are you making it for? If it's just going to annoy a lot of them surely you're better off creating a completely original work. But conversely it's also possible to go in a somewhat different direction that leaves a lot of people sceptical at first but they end up loving it. To achieve the latter I think you've got to go in to creating a work knowing that you're taking a risk and accepting as perfectly legitimate the feelings of anyone you may annoy with it. And it's doubly important if you're trying to shove a message in there; nothing worse than a message intended to preach to the converted and which seems unable to comprehend that anyone could possibly think differently.

[Riedquat]

That's very true and something to be wary of, I can't speak for anyone but myself, what I do is try to explain my own opinion as calmly and respectfully as I can, while not giving into hyperbole or disrespecting the creative teams, if I don't agree with someone else I don't try to be confrontational about it and simply listen and if I do respond to be as respectful as possible, and if people have opinions like those of the YouTube click-bait channels that are truly horrible I don't give them the time of day.

Well said. Get the right people and even disagreements aren't always that bad; there's a group of us at work who keep getting in to arguments about various things and sadly they do fairly often get heated, but no-one holds grudges and we'll be back chatting about something completely different at the next tea break.

I think the real difficulty is empathy; it's hard to empathise with an opinion you instinctively reject, but unless you're capable of doing that you don't really have any basis for rejecting it (unless it's fundamentally tied to factual inaccuracies; few opinions actually are though because facts tell you what is, not what matters). Note that empathy isn't the same as sympathy; it's possible to empathise with a position and find it repulsive, and end up liking the people who hold it even less as a result.

[tyrteg]

I don't try to be confrontational about it and simply listen and if I do respond to be as respectful as possible, and if people have opinions like those of the YouTube click-bait channels that are truly horrible I don't give them the time of day.

Everyone has a right to use their free time as they choose. But why do I feel that some of the YouTubers that you denigrate as "horrible click-bait channels" will be among my favorites? Like for example Nerdrotic whom I have immense respect for - both because of his opinions as well as for his life experience and because unlike quite a few "authors" of modern media he is a man who's lived a harsh live - often as a result of his own actions - yet he never complains or tries to shift blame to others. He never plays the victim. He never asked for his viewers respect - but like SFDebris he's gained it by his actions and demeanor. Also his videos - although definitely not timid or aiming for 100% objectivity are immensely cathartic especially when it comes to modern Trek.

[MixedDrops]

Of course we need to accept both sides, you always do. That's not the same as accepting that they're both equally valid, but it's wrong to simply dismiss one side because it doesn't fit in with your personal prejudices (that's not directed at you personally BTW) and claim to have any sense of moral high ground. You reject them because you've looked at them and found them wanting, not because you are absolutely right. And anyone who takes that stance and accuses others of behaving as if they are beyond question... They're no better in terms of open-minded reasonableness, even if they happen to be aligned with a less obnoxious view.

Let's try to clarify a few things here as I think it's possible we're talking about two different things here.

First, let me be clear that I usually don't consider this particular discussion between the binary of "show good" vs "show bad". That's not what I'm (nor most people, I believe, who discuss in such terms) are referring to when talking about toxicity in a fandom. It can often feel this way though because it's just more common for the negative side to be more likely to be assholes about it (though it can happen on the positive side of course), probably not insignificantly caused by the fact that negativity has become disproportionately popular/profitable for content creators- compare for example the amount of AVGN style angry reviewers vs people who try to dedicate themselves to positively discussing video games like Derek Alexander. There's nothing wrong with a bit of catharsis in such shows of course, though a big problem does come from people who don't understand that said negativity on these shows is exaggerated for comedic effect and not how you should actually act (to say nothing of the content creators who always say they're just playing a character when in fact that "character" has basically no meaningful distinction from how they act in-person).

Now in regards to "this show too SJW" type complaints, I feel there's two major groups to address here- the dishonest, honest-to-god racists/sexists who are just trying to rile people up, and people who say this because it's a popular refrain in modern times even when it makes no sense. I'd like to think we in agreement the former should not be paid any attention by creators of Trek and just generally deserve ridicule.

The latter, however, is probably the more common one we see on Trek enthusiant boards. My point is less that people against them have the moral high ground, but rather that their philosophy is completely internally inconsistent- that is, as Chabon and multiple other people have pointed out, you can't accuse modern Trek of being "too SJW", whatever that means, unless you completely didn't pay attention to the obvious left-wing political messages spread in every iteration of every past Trek series. (Again, if your stance is "I know it's left wing, but it's bad anyway cuz the show sucks", that's not really the issue here)Thus these sorts of complaints are not really worth engaging with in any substantial manner because you can't rationally discuss topics with people if they didn't arrive at those conclusions in a rational matter. Just look at how Artabax is acting in this thread for example...he constantly puts words into Chabon's mouth and when asked to provide proof, he simply ignores such requests and doubles down on his beliefs, showing he was never interested in any sort of discussion. The only "accepting" that needs to be going on here is accepting that that's what he believes, even if there's 0 proof for it.

There's an oft-paraphrased saying..."Don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out."

[Link8909]

I don't try to be confrontational about it and simply listen and if I do respond to be as respectful as possible, and if people have opinions like those of the YouTube click-bait channels that are truly horrible I don't give them the time of day.

Everyone has a right to use their free time as they choose. But why do I feel that some of the YouTubers that you denigrate as "horrible click-bait channels" will be among my favorites? Like for example Nerdrotic whom I have immense respect for - both because of his opinions as well as for his life experience and because unlike quite a few "authors" of modern media he is a man who's lived a harsh live - often as a result of his own actions - yet he never complains or tries to shift blame to others. He never plays the victim. He never asked for his viewers respect - but like SFDebris he's gained it by his actions and demeanor. Also his videos - although definitely not timid or aiming for 100% objectivity are immensely cathartic especially when it comes to modern Trek.

I admit I can't really speak on his content as all I've seen is the thumbnail's of his videos and I just wasn't interested, I more referring to channels that spread misinformation, make up rumors, harass the casts and crews and use these demining buzz words and think there's an agenda or conspiracy, this is also applicable to other forums or other social media outlets like Twitter, and as I said I simply don't watch or follow them.

[CaptainCalvinCat]

I don't try to be confrontational about it and simply listen and if I do respond to be as respectful as possible, and if people have opinions like those of the YouTube click-bait channels that are truly horrible I don't give them the time of day.

Everyone has a right to use their free time as they choose. But why do I feel that some of the YouTubers that you denigrate as "horrible click-bait channels" will be among my favorites? Like for example Nerdrotic whom I have immense respect for - both because of his opinions as well as for his life experience and because unlike quite a few "authors" of modern media he is a man who's lived a harsh live - often as a result of his own actions - yet he never complains or tries to shift blame to others. He never plays the victim. He never asked for his viewers respect - but like SFDebris he's gained it by his actions and demeanor. Also his videos - although definitely not timid or aiming for 100% objectivity are immensely cathartic especially when it comes to modern Trek.

I admit I can't really speak on his content as all I've seen is the thumbnail's of his videos and I just wasn't interested, I more referring to channels that spread misinformation, make up rumors, harass the casts and crews and use these demining buzz words and think there's an agenda or conspiracy, this is also applicable to other forums or other social media outlets like Twitter, and as I said I simply don't watch or follow them.

I concur.
Just have a look as his "Doctor Who is baaad" videos or his "STD is bad" videos - honestly, I don't care, if he has lived a harsh live, if his content is too clickbaity, his content is too clickbaity.

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).

As I said: That depends.
Sure, Larry Flint allegedly said "Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one.", but if you word your opinion in a very vitriol-laden way and it is clearly visible, that you don't do that for comedic effect, then you should not be surprised, if the answer is written accordingly.

If one would say "Clearly, you have no idea what good movies are, since you liked the 2016 SJW-Busters and Charlies SJW-Angels from 2019" you should not be surprised, if one answers "Ah, hurt, little, toxic fanboy."

[Darth Wedgius]

Nobody has to accept that "too SJW" people and "not progressive enough" people are equivalent. Everybody has an opinion.

DS9 had humans supporting their economic system of having moved beyond money (leaving aside those times humans used money in Trek), but it also had Nog supporting Ferengi use of money, and then explaining it to O'Brien. The great river isn't that far from the invisible hand. And Jake still needed Nog's money. Both cultures had their points.

DS9 did that right, IMO. War is incredibly horrible, but sometimes it's not the worst alternative. There are laws meant to protect a lot of people, but sometimes they penalize people who did nothing really dangerous. People can do terrible things with the best of intentions. The Maquis were not right, exactly, but they weren't exactly wrong, either.

According to StarTrek.com:

On Star Trek: Picard our beloved admiral is forced to reckon with his privilege as a Starfleet officer from a planetary superpower.

Privilege? Really? Up to this point, rank in Starfleet was something earned. It came with authority and responsibility in a way Peter Parker would have approved of.

Now Brexit may (or may not be) an unwise choice, but Stewart seems to think Brexit is morally wrong. That an ever-closer union is a moral requirement, as far as I can tell. He also said he considered perhaps a ban on men running for office for 20 years.