I don't think it was Star Trek, really. More that masculinity was attacked, and nerd culture went very mainstream. Now, every flabby midwit considers themselves a nerd, and society accepts it.
Roddenberry himself was a pie-in-the-sky leftist, whose futurism must have, in the 60s, seemed so far-fetched as to be totally harmless. On top of that, whether due to his writing or the studio, all 3 of the leads in the Original Series embodied a different ideal masculine archetype, so the cons were counterbalanced by the pros.
It was in the 80s and 90s, with the Berman-Trek era, where things really went downhill. DS9 is the only one of those series that I enjoy, mostly because it's so well-written, but also because you've got female characters who aren't afraid to be feminine, and a couple of male leads who are actually respectable. Sisko, especially, and the father-son dynamic with his kid, was uncharacteristically based for later Trek.
Even Roddenberry Trek has a bunch of right-wing themes sprinkled throughout: hierarchy, duty, honor, order. Starfleet and the Federation unapologetically preserve and defend their culture and expect citizens coming from other cultures to conform to theirs.
They also have the Prime Directive, which I think a lot of right-wingers would love the West to adopt as regards to less developed parts of the world.
If real-world leftists were more like even what Roddenberry envisioned they'd be far more tolerable, even if I still wouldn't want to live in their world.
DS9 was the most "Berman" of the shows. Both TNG and Voyager were restricted to artificial Roddenberry-inspired rules. DS9 is where they put the blindfold around the bust of Gene and broke the rules.
Idk, I find TOS rather based, and once you realize that {Vulcans} = (((kabbalistic tribe members))), there are some hilarious moments.
Obviously this all occurs within the “post-scarcity” (i.e. “space communism”) setting of the shows, but the moral messages stand out to me (of the original series only, obviously it’s gone downhill in the reboots)
Obviously this all occurs within the “post-scarcity” (i.e. “space communism”) setting of the shows
I've heard this "post-scarcity" thing thrown out a few times now, did the shows really present a post-scarcity society? Granted, I've largely only watched TOS, but there were numerous times where there was definitely scarcity. IIRC Mudd's Women involved Mudd trapping the Enterprise in orbit of a planet by removing their fuel cells. I saw one episode of Voyager where Captain Janeway was impersonated in a trade deal in which they stiffed some miners and gave the Federation a bad name. If it was post-scarcity would it not be simple to generate the materials that they needed to fuel their ship, or to satisfy the stiffed miners? Lots of TOS revolves around war and acting as frontiersman where they are fighting over planets, trying to survive while exploring, etc. I never got the sense that they were post-scarcity.
"Post-scarcity" in that absolutely no one within the federation itself has need for food or shelter and energy is limitless enough that it's not a concern for every day citizens.
However, pretty much the entirety of all the shows take place outside of the federation, thus they are both dealing with scarcity (of fuel or other advanced resources) and interacting with other societies that still have various scarcity issues.
Voyager specifically is about a single crew so far from home they are dealing with scarcity issues for the first time. That's pretty much the whole first season.
The actual day to day life and governance within the federation is pretty vague actually. There are episodes that suggest it's a highly regimented society (Ben Sisco's dad mentions not having enough transporter credits) as well as monologues which imply it is some idyllic zero-racism, zero-poverty, zero-political disagreement society. Never any explanation further than that, just "it is, because we've grown."
Those monologues fall on deaf ears when Starfleet is a militaristic, hyper-meritocracy, the entire admiralty was compromised by an alien race in the very first season of TNG, section 31 exists, extremely questionable moral decisions made by starfleet are constantly harming average people in favor of politics (much of DS9's plot), and the only average citizens we ever see are usually in peril on some planet the bureaucracy doesn't care enough about.
It's also hyper xenophobic and racist because the federation is almost entirely run by humans and all decisions are made by the 95% human admiralty, and a human president (who only ever seems to be for show). So leftists should hate it.
OP is right though, Star Trek has always been liberal and progressive for it's time. Compared to today though, even the most progressive ideology of TNG era trek would be a breath of fresh air.
We also never see anyone who's incompetent by the standards of their time: someone who through some physical or mental deficiency is incapable of doing anything productive with their life. Everyone is either high-ranking military/government official or their close relatives, or someone of comparable rank in the civilian world. And we are left judging their society based purely on observations of how they live and how they say the less capable live.
But how does someone who (eg.) works on one of the Federation mining colonies actually live? How comfortable is their life? For that matter, how does someone come to find their way on a Federation mining colony? Is it all prisoners? Do people chose that life? Is there some amount of coercion or social pressure placed upon certain individuals do do that work? Does society grant them some particular reward for doing it?
"We are perfect society. No criminals, no political opposition, no racism, no more religions. Everyone have everting dey need. Much better than you backward countries. All good citizens have power on Tuesdays. We only have good citizens."
Post-scarcity and not using money was conceived of by Roddenberry for The Next Generation. In TOS they were using money quite frequently. (but you can retcon this to mean Starfleet credits or money just to trade with outside species) The replicators weren't as advanced in TOS times.
In DS9 they also sort of retconned it by saying that post-scarcity applies to Earth specifically. Other planets had their own resource issues.
Leftist or woke? TNG-era Trek had some ideas that could be maybe considered woke, but it's mostly incompatible. It is explicitly pro-truth, anti-censorship, against judging individuals by their race, but accepted that racial/cultural stereotypes apply in general, and takes a dim view of politically motivated violence. Name any excess of the left at the moment, you could probably find something in the TNG-era shows that criticize it. Somebody already pointed out the 13:50 episode. Leftist, no doubt, that was clearly the intention, but not woke.
Nerdy 23-year old Canadian guy fights through a league of seven exes (all with some kind of power) to obtain the love of a girl he's fawning over.
The girl everybody wants for some reason is pretty emotionless/grungy with different colored neon hair depending on the scene. Canadian guy cheats on the 17-year old he's dating. A token gay character (For the movie, there's a lot more in the books).
I actually didn't mind it when it came out, but it's a pretty cringey movie in retrospect.
Eh putting aside the people who glommed o to the fashion, just about any nicholas sparks movie is way worse. At least Scott pilgrim was more self aware about what terrible people the two leads were.
We're not really trying to compare levels of awfulness here and Scott Pilgrim definitely had more influence on where we are today (Sparks also had influence but it's less felt today).
I think Nicholas Spark's books actually did more damage overall than his movies.
Its worth noting at least, that he doesn't go out to fight for his M'lady.
He just keeps getting jumped, and is increasingly pissy about that fact as the movie goes along. In fact he only fights 5&6 as part of his band duties, and 7 out of personal disrespect.
And the one biggest thing I think the movie did right is showing how much of an insecure baby Scott was and that he needed to respect himself to actually win. The "power of love" fails him (literally, the sword breaks), but the literal "self respect" sword wins him the fight.
The movie is filled with stupid garbage, and is ruined heavily by how boring, generic and unattractive the main girl is (to the point you wonder why anyone would care about her this much, especially to fight for her like this), but it has some moments of clarity as well.
The comic is a bit better at emphasizing the fact that Scott and Ramona are pretty terrible people. The redemption at the end is that they realize that they both need to improve themselves, and that they can so so together. Gideon's issue is that he refuses to do so.
The message is still there in the movie, but it gets a little muddled, because the movie was made before the comic series was finished.
Not sure Ubi was woke in 2010. Maybe, but it didn't really show in the game. Was mostly just a fun beat'em up with a lot of vidya references throughout.
The girl is also how you imagine any self-important, danger hair bitch, albeit in the movie the actress is pretty, but all the other things, the clothes, the styling, the hair just scream SJW type.
I legit know a girl who even admits she used to have the same hair because of the character. She is also conveniently a borderline personality disorder gigabitch. She was part of my old friendship group when I lived in Sweden. She pretended I was a home wrecking cunt when I stopped being dragged around by her and then all the others followed.
I could write a book on why she is a bad person that makes the world a worse place.
Lots of people saw Canadian guy & girl, and instead of saying "Wow, these are awful people trying to be less awful" they instead said "Wow, these people are so inspirational and rebellious, I should be just like them!"
It didn't help that the book & movie never really gave them lasting consequences for their horrible behavior (Canadian guy gets a deus ex machina in the movie).
personally, I feel like any who takes inspiration on fictional character should be locked into insane asylum...wonder why ppl cant take entertainment as entertainment without seeing some hidden messages and rolemodels in em:D (terrible writing is terrible though, judge entertainment as entertainment)
I actually hope that you are joking bro, and if you aren't, you should really go watch it some time even though you will fucking detest it.
There is even a song by some no-names called "Scott Pilgrim vs the world ruined an entire generation of women" while the song isn't too great, the lyrics are fantastic and very apt.
I actually hope that you are joking bro, and if you aren't, you should really go watch it some time even though you will fucking detest it.
I've never seen it either. I don't understand this obsession people have with other people consuming every popular movie or book even if they know it's not their thing.
Same thing applies to food and alcohol too. "What, you don't like X?" "Yeah, no thanks." "You just haven't had the right X yet." "I've had lots of X, never liked them." "Dude, try this X you'll love it."
Well I don't think anyone should try it because I think they will love it, I think they should try it because it's a low cost/investment experience really. In this situation TheImp is a woman hating giga sperg, and this movie, in some people's opinions, created or at least pushed along, women being ruined entirely. So it's kind of like seeing something in retrospect that set things in motion almost as a study but really just a casual observation for fun.
Also quick edit - I totally agree with you on food/alcohol/pop culture stuff, just mostly was poking fun at him more than anything.
The only reason that Communism works in Star Trek is because they live in a post scarcity universe. It's easy for people to have whatever they want for free when they have a machine that creates whatever you want.
I feel like Star Trek is just a small symptom. Modern society is simply not fit for manliness. Comfort is everywhere and devours ambition. True achievements are hard to come by or feel random and unearned. Everything seems new and changed, even though it's only superficial. The more you fit yourself to ancient and basic ideals of manliness, they better off you often are. I think I speak for most average / normal people when I say that exercising, building muscles and being careful of your diet on purpose - all suck. It's much easier to live healthily when you have to do manual labor and ensure your own food supply and that is still a meaningful and (comparatively) luxurious and good life. When a healthy, muscly body and good diet are just side-outcomes of your job and you still earn enough to live better than your parents - that's almost a dream for many men today. You are more alone and isolated than ever. You don't have a nation, you don't have a religion, you don't have an ideology, you don't have a family, you don't have a wife and you don't have children. What is there to believe in and put faith in (and not just religious faith, but who or what gives any man the hope that tomorrow will be better)? There is nothing you can throw yourself behind. The only thing you can do is live in a complex, global web of gears which try evermore to make you fail. The question isn't "Why is the world so crazy" the question is, "How can you not be insane?" It's just a systemic problem. Ronald Reagan made the joke that the Soviet Union collapsed because of the spread of the car. When you have a tool that allows you so much freedom - to just sit down and drive however far you want to go - that's something you just can't stop. And just like the car definitely played a part in making Russians want more freedom and hope, so does everything I said before about society and how it works systematically influence us. Of course that will be expressed in media as well. So don't blame Star Trek - blame EVERYTHING :) The only things we have are our mental health and whatever you worked for and can keep from the rest of us. The rest will probably get screwed down the line.
Not Star Trek:TOS. Kirk was banging green chicks every other week and when he wasn't it was Spock's turn.
Watch the scene in Space Seed again (especially in light of recent events) where Kirk and McCoy are lauding their romanticism for Khan.
This all changed with TNG where Roddenberry (not unlike Lucas) started believing his own press about being a visionary and decided the future would be socialist and woke, up to and including where the federation happily zaps "native" brains to "protect" themselves or moves whole civilizations to different planets as "caretakers". Frightening stuff. Part of this though also has to do with cultural changes over time too - Star Trek VI deals directly with woke ideology (while burying the most interesting part of the story where klingons and humans work together to make sure that klingons and humans remain divided). Star Trek IV is still a laughable premise.
This wasn't JUST star trek though - in the 70s there was a concerted effort, not unlike today, to instill leftist thought into the children, especially through PBS. See "Free to be You and Me" which was shown to my school class several times. Scholastic literature would go to great pains to show mixed race interactions. The Electric Company, created in 1971, was totally "woke" for its day with "full representation" - which at that time meant white, black and hispanic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS4zHta30tc&t=206s
TL;DR - this has been a coordinated effort spanning decades to control the populace
I don't think it was Star Trek, really. More that masculinity was attacked, and nerd culture went very mainstream. Now, every flabby midwit considers themselves a nerd, and society accepts it.
and thats why tech businesses are looking Nerds, with capital N, real Nerds ...instead of these posers
Roddenberry himself was a pie-in-the-sky leftist, whose futurism must have, in the 60s, seemed so far-fetched as to be totally harmless. On top of that, whether due to his writing or the studio, all 3 of the leads in the Original Series embodied a different ideal masculine archetype, so the cons were counterbalanced by the pros.
It was in the 80s and 90s, with the Berman-Trek era, where things really went downhill. DS9 is the only one of those series that I enjoy, mostly because it's so well-written, but also because you've got female characters who aren't afraid to be feminine, and a couple of male leads who are actually respectable. Sisko, especially, and the father-son dynamic with his kid, was uncharacteristically based for later Trek.
Even Roddenberry Trek has a bunch of right-wing themes sprinkled throughout: hierarchy, duty, honor, order. Starfleet and the Federation unapologetically preserve and defend their culture and expect citizens coming from other cultures to conform to theirs.
They also have the Prime Directive, which I think a lot of right-wingers would love the West to adopt as regards to less developed parts of the world.
If real-world leftists were more like even what Roddenberry envisioned they'd be far more tolerable, even if I still wouldn't want to live in their world.
DS9 was the most "Berman" of the shows. Both TNG and Voyager were restricted to artificial Roddenberry-inspired rules. DS9 is where they put the blindfold around the bust of Gene and broke the rules.
I don't know what happened with Enterprise.
Enterprise taught me to actually enjoy Voyager a bit. At least from about season 3 on.
Idk, I find TOS rather based, and once you realize that {Vulcans} = (((kabbalistic tribe members))), there are some hilarious moments.
Obviously this all occurs within the “post-scarcity” (i.e. “space communism”) setting of the shows, but the moral messages stand out to me (of the original series only, obviously it’s gone downhill in the reboots)
I've heard this "post-scarcity" thing thrown out a few times now, did the shows really present a post-scarcity society? Granted, I've largely only watched TOS, but there were numerous times where there was definitely scarcity. IIRC Mudd's Women involved Mudd trapping the Enterprise in orbit of a planet by removing their fuel cells. I saw one episode of Voyager where Captain Janeway was impersonated in a trade deal in which they stiffed some miners and gave the Federation a bad name. If it was post-scarcity would it not be simple to generate the materials that they needed to fuel their ship, or to satisfy the stiffed miners? Lots of TOS revolves around war and acting as frontiersman where they are fighting over planets, trying to survive while exploring, etc. I never got the sense that they were post-scarcity.
I’m no economist, nor am I the biggest Trek fan, so I’ll just link you to two viewpoints on the topic:
https://old.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/comments/52i48r/in_star_trek_humanity_is_not_postscarcity_it_is/
Trek is not post-“scarcity”, it is actually a depiction of a human civilization post-“greed”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics
A book written on the subject which sides with the idea of a post-scarcity society
"Post-scarcity" in that absolutely no one within the federation itself has need for food or shelter and energy is limitless enough that it's not a concern for every day citizens.
However, pretty much the entirety of all the shows take place outside of the federation, thus they are both dealing with scarcity (of fuel or other advanced resources) and interacting with other societies that still have various scarcity issues.
Voyager specifically is about a single crew so far from home they are dealing with scarcity issues for the first time. That's pretty much the whole first season.
The actual day to day life and governance within the federation is pretty vague actually. There are episodes that suggest it's a highly regimented society (Ben Sisco's dad mentions not having enough transporter credits) as well as monologues which imply it is some idyllic zero-racism, zero-poverty, zero-political disagreement society. Never any explanation further than that, just "it is, because we've grown."
Those monologues fall on deaf ears when Starfleet is a militaristic, hyper-meritocracy, the entire admiralty was compromised by an alien race in the very first season of TNG, section 31 exists, extremely questionable moral decisions made by starfleet are constantly harming average people in favor of politics (much of DS9's plot), and the only average citizens we ever see are usually in peril on some planet the bureaucracy doesn't care enough about.
It's also hyper xenophobic and racist because the federation is almost entirely run by humans and all decisions are made by the 95% human admiralty, and a human president (who only ever seems to be for show). So leftists should hate it.
OP is right though, Star Trek has always been liberal and progressive for it's time. Compared to today though, even the most progressive ideology of TNG era trek would be a breath of fresh air.
We also never see anyone who's incompetent by the standards of their time: someone who through some physical or mental deficiency is incapable of doing anything productive with their life. Everyone is either high-ranking military/government official or their close relatives, or someone of comparable rank in the civilian world. And we are left judging their society based purely on observations of how they live and how they say the less capable live.
But how does someone who (eg.) works on one of the Federation mining colonies actually live? How comfortable is their life? For that matter, how does someone come to find their way on a Federation mining colony? Is it all prisoners? Do people chose that life? Is there some amount of coercion or social pressure placed upon certain individuals do do that work? Does society grant them some particular reward for doing it?
Like judging China based only on it's airports and the life of one of it's naval captains.
Or North Korea based on what the government-approved tour guide shows and tells you, yes.
"We are perfect society. No criminals, no political opposition, no racism, no more religions. Everyone have everting dey need. Much better than you backward countries. All good citizens have power on Tuesdays. We only have good citizens."
Yup sounds about right.
Post-scarcity and not using money was conceived of by Roddenberry for The Next Generation. In TOS they were using money quite frequently. (but you can retcon this to mean Starfleet credits or money just to trade with outside species) The replicators weren't as advanced in TOS times.
In DS9 they also sort of retconned it by saying that post-scarcity applies to Earth specifically. Other planets had their own resource issues.
they're post-scarcity for things that can be replicated.
I dunno this seems pretty based to me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eS2PwEZ9Ys
Spoiler alert, in the episode they really id just commit more crimes
"Boom. Boom-boom-boom. Boom-boom. BOOM! Have a nice day."
Leftist or woke? TNG-era Trek had some ideas that could be maybe considered woke, but it's mostly incompatible. It is explicitly pro-truth, anti-censorship, against judging individuals by their race, but accepted that racial/cultural stereotypes apply in general, and takes a dim view of politically motivated violence. Name any excess of the left at the moment, you could probably find something in the TNG-era shows that criticize it. Somebody already pointed out the 13:50 episode. Leftist, no doubt, that was clearly the intention, but not woke.
What's Scott Pilgrim?
I hate nearly all Hollywood crap, so that's not really a high bar.
Can someone just explain?
Nerdy 23-year old Canadian guy fights through a league of seven exes (all with some kind of power) to obtain the love of a girl he's fawning over.
The girl everybody wants for some reason is pretty emotionless/grungy with different colored neon hair depending on the scene. Canadian guy cheats on the 17-year old he's dating. A token gay character (For the movie, there's a lot more in the books).
I actually didn't mind it when it came out, but it's a pretty cringey movie in retrospect.
Eh putting aside the people who glommed o to the fashion, just about any nicholas sparks movie is way worse. At least Scott pilgrim was more self aware about what terrible people the two leads were.
We're not really trying to compare levels of awfulness here and Scott Pilgrim definitely had more influence on where we are today (Sparks also had influence but it's less felt today).
I think Nicholas Spark's books actually did more damage overall than his movies.
Its worth noting at least, that he doesn't go out to fight for his M'lady.
He just keeps getting jumped, and is increasingly pissy about that fact as the movie goes along. In fact he only fights 5&6 as part of his band duties, and 7 out of personal disrespect.
And the one biggest thing I think the movie did right is showing how much of an insecure baby Scott was and that he needed to respect himself to actually win. The "power of love" fails him (literally, the sword breaks), but the literal "self respect" sword wins him the fight.
The movie is filled with stupid garbage, and is ruined heavily by how boring, generic and unattractive the main girl is (to the point you wonder why anyone would care about her this much, especially to fight for her like this), but it has some moments of clarity as well.
The comic is a bit better at emphasizing the fact that Scott and Ramona are pretty terrible people. The redemption at the end is that they realize that they both need to improve themselves, and that they can so so together. Gideon's issue is that he refuses to do so.
The message is still there in the movie, but it gets a little muddled, because the movie was made before the comic series was finished.
At least the Beat ‘em Up was pretty good.
Yep, too bad the people who made it are wokies, so I can't buy it. :(
Not sure Ubi was woke in 2010. Maybe, but it didn't really show in the game. Was mostly just a fun beat'em up with a lot of vidya references throughout.
That sounds like a typical romantic cringefest.
Not sure why anyone would think it had an impact on society.
The girl is also how you imagine any self-important, danger hair bitch, albeit in the movie the actress is pretty, but all the other things, the clothes, the styling, the hair just scream SJW type.
I legit know a girl who even admits she used to have the same hair because of the character. She is also conveniently a borderline personality disorder gigabitch. She was part of my old friendship group when I lived in Sweden. She pretended I was a home wrecking cunt when I stopped being dragged around by her and then all the others followed.
I could write a book on why she is a bad person that makes the world a worse place.
Once I am rich, all ya shitlords are welcome to not do coke with hookers, but have cookies and pet my dog on my ridiculous yacht.
Lots of people saw Canadian guy & girl, and instead of saying "Wow, these are awful people trying to be less awful" they instead said "Wow, these people are so inspirational and rebellious, I should be just like them!"
It didn't help that the book & movie never really gave them lasting consequences for their horrible behavior (Canadian guy gets a deus ex machina in the movie).
personally, I feel like any who takes inspiration on fictional character should be locked into insane asylum...wonder why ppl cant take entertainment as entertainment without seeing some hidden messages and rolemodels in em:D (terrible writing is terrible though, judge entertainment as entertainment)
MANY of Western Civ's hero's are fictional like Hercules and almost everyone in the Odyssey and Trojan war.
You gotta watch it! We NEED your 10 paragraph essay of rage on it.
I actually hope that you are joking bro, and if you aren't, you should really go watch it some time even though you will fucking detest it.
There is even a song by some no-names called "Scott Pilgrim vs the world ruined an entire generation of women" while the song isn't too great, the lyrics are fantastic and very apt.
I've never seen it either. I don't understand this obsession people have with other people consuming every popular movie or book even if they know it's not their thing.
Same thing applies to food and alcohol too. "What, you don't like X?" "Yeah, no thanks." "You just haven't had the right X yet." "I've had lots of X, never liked them." "Dude, try this X you'll love it."
Well I don't think anyone should try it because I think they will love it, I think they should try it because it's a low cost/investment experience really. In this situation TheImp is a woman hating giga sperg, and this movie, in some people's opinions, created or at least pushed along, women being ruined entirely. So it's kind of like seeing something in retrospect that set things in motion almost as a study but really just a casual observation for fun.
Also quick edit - I totally agree with you on food/alcohol/pop culture stuff, just mostly was poking fun at him more than anything.
I've heard of the movie but never actually watched it. I'll give it a listen
If it's pop culture, not completely unavoidable and hasn't been part of a political controversy or Epic collaboration, I haven't heard of it.
I never really engaged with pop culture, even before I became political I still didn't really engage with it much.
Politics just made me engage with it even less, with the exception of calling out the enemy.
No idea what a Scott Pilgrim might be. John Wayne called George Scott pilgrim? Lol
The only reason that Communism works in Star Trek is because they live in a post scarcity universe. It's easy for people to have whatever they want for free when they have a machine that creates whatever you want.
I feel like Star Trek is just a small symptom. Modern society is simply not fit for manliness. Comfort is everywhere and devours ambition. True achievements are hard to come by or feel random and unearned. Everything seems new and changed, even though it's only superficial. The more you fit yourself to ancient and basic ideals of manliness, they better off you often are. I think I speak for most average / normal people when I say that exercising, building muscles and being careful of your diet on purpose - all suck. It's much easier to live healthily when you have to do manual labor and ensure your own food supply and that is still a meaningful and (comparatively) luxurious and good life. When a healthy, muscly body and good diet are just side-outcomes of your job and you still earn enough to live better than your parents - that's almost a dream for many men today. You are more alone and isolated than ever. You don't have a nation, you don't have a religion, you don't have an ideology, you don't have a family, you don't have a wife and you don't have children. What is there to believe in and put faith in (and not just religious faith, but who or what gives any man the hope that tomorrow will be better)? There is nothing you can throw yourself behind. The only thing you can do is live in a complex, global web of gears which try evermore to make you fail. The question isn't "Why is the world so crazy" the question is, "How can you not be insane?" It's just a systemic problem. Ronald Reagan made the joke that the Soviet Union collapsed because of the spread of the car. When you have a tool that allows you so much freedom - to just sit down and drive however far you want to go - that's something you just can't stop. And just like the car definitely played a part in making Russians want more freedom and hope, so does everything I said before about society and how it works systematically influence us. Of course that will be expressed in media as well. So don't blame Star Trek - blame EVERYTHING :) The only things we have are our mental health and whatever you worked for and can keep from the rest of us. The rest will probably get screwed down the line.
Not Star Trek:TOS. Kirk was banging green chicks every other week and when he wasn't it was Spock's turn.
Watch the scene in Space Seed again (especially in light of recent events) where Kirk and McCoy are lauding their romanticism for Khan.
This all changed with TNG where Roddenberry (not unlike Lucas) started believing his own press about being a visionary and decided the future would be socialist and woke, up to and including where the federation happily zaps "native" brains to "protect" themselves or moves whole civilizations to different planets as "caretakers". Frightening stuff. Part of this though also has to do with cultural changes over time too - Star Trek VI deals directly with woke ideology (while burying the most interesting part of the story where klingons and humans work together to make sure that klingons and humans remain divided). Star Trek IV is still a laughable premise.
This wasn't JUST star trek though - in the 70s there was a concerted effort, not unlike today, to instill leftist thought into the children, especially through PBS. See "Free to be You and Me" which was shown to my school class several times. Scholastic literature would go to great pains to show mixed race interactions. The Electric Company, created in 1971, was totally "woke" for its day with "full representation" - which at that time meant white, black and hispanic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS4zHta30tc&t=206s
TL;DR - this has been a coordinated effort spanning decades to control the populace