What's up with this hypocrisy?

[Yukaphile]

Well, tbh, I can't deny that.

Then why does Chuck consistently bring up people keep saying DS9 didn't get into the "spirit" of what Trek was? I've even seen people call it a "betrayal" of what Trek was, and blame it for the action problems in modern Trek to this day.

[MixedDrops]

That was certainly a complaint you hear about it and it was pretty common while it was airing (actually still hear it today from some people). Lots and lots of people make the same claims about DIS too (which I should note includes, you know, you), so I don't understand what you're getting at here. It's far more likely that you'll find fans of DIS also liked DS9. If anything, I've met a lot of DS9 fans who don't like DIS, but it's usually not because it does things differently or whatever (I'm sure there's fans of the opposite too).

If you're wondering why Chuck doesn't comment on it in his DIS reviews...I really get the impression that Chuck's really jaded about modern politics and doesn't want to touch it with a 60 foot pole these days. Well, that and he doesn't like mentioning politics in general, and unfortunately something as simple as "diversity is good" which is a basic premise of Trek is considered a controversial political topic now.

Edit addendum:

One thing I forgot to mention- it's also harder for Chuck to comment on something that's contemporary, whereas DS9 has been finished for 20 years now. It's easier to take a look at fan reactions and discussing any of those topics years after everything's said and done. His Discovery coverage was always going to feel very different than any of his other reviews because it's the first time he's doing a show as its coming out. That I can remember anyway.

[Yukaphile]

I do know "In the Pale Moonlight" is the single most polarizing episode of Trek ever, in that either you love it or hate it. And those starry-eyed dreamers who think Gene Roddenberry was some kind of prophet on par with Jesus Christ (those who don't know the actual man or how little he contributed to the actual quality of the show, and in fact hindered it in some cases) can be pretty radical. I know. I've met many of them.

[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.

[Yukaphile]

They were introduced in Into Darkness, so bad example.

[Makeshift Python]

That doesn't refute the point I was making.

[MixedDrops]

I've said this before, but I'm not a fan purity-testing people working on the show for various reasons, both artistic and practical. Only two words should discourage that sort of thinking with Trek- Nicholas Meyer.

But even in this case that's not valid anyway, because we know lots of people who work, or have worked, on the show are either Trek staff alumni or people who have worked with Trek in some capacity. Nicholas Meyer, Kirsten Beyer, Joe Menosky, Jonathan Frakes, probably some others I'm forgetting. This doesn't excuse any mistake the show makes of course, it just means you're unlikely to win any arguments claiming that they don't know their Trek unless you're being massively dishonest, like some certain youtubers. That would require some cursory googling though, and ain't nobody got time fo' dat.

[Karha of Honor]

My point wasn't that diversity is a new thing in Trek, my point is that the current political climate contains a lot of people who have this knee-jerk reaction now anytime its brought up, even within the Trek community despite the fact it shouldn't have this problem. You should know this as well as anyone.
.

Maybe the creatives should grow up and not pretend like it's 1980 everytime they cast somebody not white.

[MixedDrops]

Even if you think they're being massively self-congratulatory, what's the bigger problem, some writers masturbating over how it's great to have diversity, or the people who are so insulted by an overall innocuous sentiment that they feel the need to spout hate speech in response?

[Karha of Honor]

Even if you think they're being massively self-congratulatory, what's the bigger problem, some writers masturbating over how it's great to have diversity, or the people who are so insulted by an overall innocuous sentiment that they feel the need to spout hate speech in response?

i do not recognize hate speech as a legit moral or legal concept.

What you define as hate speech is not a problem in the United States.