OK but they almost certainly wanted a black person on cast for that show to push a social agenda that "color is only skin deep". And the decision to show an inter-racial kiss between Uhura and Kirk was deliberate.
Does anyone really believe that color is only skin deep anymore? In theory it could have worked, but as I'm fond of saying the Soviet Union outlived the idea of racial equality. How bad does an idea have to be if it can't even outlive a totalitarian Communist State?
Every era's Star Trek pushes the "progressive" ideas of it day. And TNG is still my favorite show that I still watch all the time, but I recognize it for what it is: propaganda for a previous era, no longer relevant.
OK but they almost certainly wanted a black person on cast for that show to push a social agenda that "color is only skin deep".
I'm no Star Trek fan, and I don't know about their motivation for this casting. However, it makes more sense for there to be black characters in a show about the distant future than it does in one about medieval Europe. Presumably, blacks didn't go extinct, so they're still out there somewhere.
Does anyone really believe that color is only skin deep anymore?
Color itself is skin-deep. It's not the color creating any differences, like lactose intolerance.
Every era's Star Trek pushes the "progressive" ideas of it day. And TNG is still my favorite show that I still watch all the time, but I recognize it for what it is: propaganda for a previous era, no longer relevant.
I liked Captain Planet when I was an impressionable kid. Obviously, I now recognize it as pretty blatant environmentalist propaganda.
Color itself is skin-deep. It's not the color creating any differences, like lactose intolerance.
No, it's all the other genetics that accompany said color that influence behavior, but let's not sit here and pretend that they are decoupled from one another.
While there's been a social attempt to eradicate the concept of "biological differences by genetic upbringing" (and one could posit that this current trend of 'genetic equity' is some pseudo-intellectual way of addressing that and thus "swinging in the other direction") The reality is that anybody that actually knew what was going on could see the problem but the faith/hope was that education and work could overcome the differences (and in a lot of cases it does).
The problem is that this isn't just "race" issue by color - The irish are not the dutch are not the italians are not the greeks are not the germans, etc; But that there's this inspid retarded notion by 'the elite' that it's all white vs black.
tl;dr - Yes Star Trek was showing an ideological narrative of the future where ALL THE RACES/NATIONS had come together in peace per humanitarian norms of the day. But I don't consider that woke by any stretch of the imagination - just a future where the world could work together in peace. By TNG this had been warped into the woke notion of social justice - because that's where Roddenberry had deluded himself into. (We DoNt uSe MoNeY bEcAuSe We SuRvIvE oN tHe GaS oF oUr OwN fArTs)
Judging someone on the content of their character not the color of their skin is the 2022 Republican position, and the Democrats call it white supremacy.
The endless march to the Left has resulted in them marching straight into black supremacy and tranny supremacy.
Judging someone on the content of their character not the color of their skin is the 2022 Republican position, and the Democrats call it white supremacy.
Which reminds me of a Sowell quote:
Believing in equal rights under the law regardless of race was the radical position in the 1950s, the liberal position in the 1960s, and the conservative position from the 1970s onwards.
The endless march to the Left has resulted in them marching straight into black supremacy and tranny supremacy.
I'll abuse the fact that I encountered you to ask you what I wanted to ask for a while: what did you think of the rebellion of the 20 against McCarthy?
what did you think of the rebellion of the 20 against McCarthy?
Dumb, immature, and ignorant of how to win at politics. It just makes the Republicans look weak, disorganized, not unified, and subject to being extorted by the fringe.
A unified party that moves in lock step is a stronger party. A stronger party that wins more against the Left will, in the end, get the "far" Right more of what they want, even if they have to accept less than their wish list, because their wish list was NEVER on the table.
Let's say your faction and my faction are bargaining. I want you to pay $100. You want to pay $0. Politics means all else being equal, you'll pay $50. My "extremists" want $100. If they shut the fuck up and play ball, the number will be higher than $50. If they throw tantrums and act like children to put on a show for their constituents, it will be under $50. Therefore, my take is this:
"MAGA" type candidates who care more about putting on a show than winning, are selfish and a liability to the party who ultimately help the Democrats, not the Right. Many of them are also stupid and unqualified just as people. When I see redditors masturbating to the House shitshow, that's how you know you're definitely helping the other side.
You're never going to get $100. Your goal as a politician should be to get that number as high as possible, understanding that throwing a tantrum about not getting $100 is only going to get you less.
Dumb, immature, and ignorant of how to win at politics. It just makes the Republicans look weak, disorganized, not unified, and subject to being extorted by the fringe.
Huh, that's unexpected. I know you're a partisan, establishment GOP, but you've also dissented at times. Here, they clearly got concessions for their stance. There were folks here who said: hold out forever, but I didn't agree with that either.
Hold out long enough to force the leadership to give you some stuff that you want, and then give them you vote. It has the added benefit that next time they'll be more afraid of you - so maybe you won't even need to execute your threat then.
A unified party that moves in lock step is a stronger party.
It is not a unified party. The party does not work for your interests, or mine. It has to be forced to do what is right. Or did you think people like Eyepatch McCain or a Kevin McCarthy were voluntarily going to do what is in the people's interests?
Let's say your faction and my faction are bargaining. I want you to pay $100. You want to pay $0. Politics means all else being equal, you'll pay $50. My "extremists" want $100. If they shut the fuck up and play ball, the number will be higher than $50. If they throw tantrums and act like children to put on a show for their constituents, it will be under $50. Therefore, my take is this:
Here's a more realistic scenario:
Your leadership wants $50 for Goldman Sachs, $50 for Raytheon, and $0 for you. Yet it demands that you vote for KM as Speaker. So you say: no, I'm not gonna vote for you unless you make it worth my while. So you get $45 for Goldman Sachs, $45 for Raytheon, and $10 for you. That is still progress.
When I see redditors masturbating to the House shitshow, that's how you know you're definitely helping the other side.
Redditors are low IQ 'Current Thing' addicts. Three months from now, no one will remember the fight, but the concessions in the Rules, as well as the Church Committee, will still be there.
You're never going to get $100. Your goal as a politician should be to get that number as high as possible, understanding that throwing a tantrum about not getting $100 is only going to get you less.
Setting conditions for your support is not a 'tantrum'. It's literally the only way to get what you want.
Here, they clearly got concessions for their stance.
Yeah, weakening the Speaker, which weakens the Party, which weakens the Right. Which means the Democrats win.
Hold out long enough to force the leadership to give you some stuff that you want, and then give them you vote. It has the added benefit that next time they'll be more afraid of you - so maybe you won't even need to execute your threat then.
Tyranny of the tiny minority, which the Democrats use in propaganda to get swing voters to vote Democrat by portraying the Republicans and being exortionately controlled by the "far right" fringe of lunatics like Matt Gaetz. Nobody likes Matt Gaetz nationally. He comes off as a smug asshole. He helps the Democrats by existing. Just like MTG (though she didn't join the tantrum this time), and just like AOC for the Left. We need to benefit from AOC and learn from her lesson, not fucking copy her with our own cast of clowns.
The party does not work for your interests, or mine.
Bullshit, dude. Quibbling about who steers the ship is a luxury for those in power. The Republicans and the Right ARE NOT IN POWER. The last election was a massive disappointment and a rebuke to the idea that the Right was going to have its time in the Sun thanks to liberal retards doing BLM, CRT, tranny shit, and wrecking the economy. But no, the Right had to fuck it all up thanks to Trump being a selfish idiot and idiot right wingers going along with him by nominating CLOWNS, most of whom lost, and the ones who didn't lose? Immediately humiliated the party and the Right with their little House tantrum.
It has to be forced to do what is right. Or did you think people like Eyepatch McCain or a Kevin McCarthy were voluntarily going to do what is in the people's interests?
YOU DON'T GET TO CONTROL WHEN YOU AREN'T POPULAR. Okay? It's common sense. Even a child could understand it. You don't get to run the United States with like 20 House representatives. The only thing on your mind when you are a fringe loser whose ideas have little mainstream appeal, is to change that state of affairs and gain more of a following, while working with "the sellout compromised blah blah blah right wing" to WIN against the LEFT because the LEFT is actively trying to destroy the country while the Right wingers, even those who don't reflect your values, are simply not that bad.
Your leadership wants $50 for Goldman Sachs, $50 for Raytheon, and $0 for you.
As a non-retard who has been alive for 40+ years, that has never happened. I can look at what the government has actually done, okay? So can you. The Republicans have never, ever legislated for "Raytheon and Goldman Sachs". Hell, Goldman Sachs is openly left wing now along with the rest of Wall Street. The idea that Wall Street is right wing is decades obsolete.
What is the last big thing the Republicans accomplished? The TAX CUT. And what did the tax cut do? Made the tax system simplified and MORE PROGRESSIVE, not less. Liberals lie and claim it was tax cuts for the rich. It was not. The rich paid a higher share after.
You can look at Rick Scott's 12 point plan if you want to know what the Republican "establishment" stands for. It's absolutely amazing stuff and I agree with probably 95% of it. Meanwhile everything from the Democrats is a fucking nightmare. So the only reasonable course is to do everything to make sure the Democrats lose and the Republicans win. AFTER we win, THEN we can cuck ourselves with infighting like idiots. But as the out-party, there is no excuse.
Yet it demands that you vote for KM as Speaker. So you say: no, I'm not gonna vote for you unless you make it worth my while. So you get $45 for Goldman Sachs, $45 for Raytheon, and $10 for you. That is still progress.
Bro read a news article. That isn't what happened. No "concessions" had to do with money. It was all bullshit procedural shit to weaken the speaker so these fucking clowns can act like clowns even more.
These clowns are holding hostage the RIGHT to the benefit of the LEFT. That's all this was.
I'm the most solidly right wing person here. Trust me, if these clowns were actually fighting the good fight, I'd be right there with them. They aren't. They're dropping unforced errors just to get attention like children.
Three months from now, no one will remember the fight, but the concessions in the Rules, as well as the Church Committee, will still be there.
The rules concessions are bad and I hope McCarthy knifes them in the back once the clowns simmer down. I don't want a fucking Polish Veto in the Republican caucus.
And as far as investigations, that was always going to happen. McCarthy sure as fuck is not against Republicans using their control of committees to launch investigations of liberal bullshit. He's a standard Republican, not some squishy bitch like Mitt Romney.
Setting conditions for your support is not a 'tantrum'. It's literally the only way to get what you want.
It is when you're exploiting the fact that the Republican majority is super narrow, and so cannot win votes over the Democrats if there are more than a couple dissenters. These clowns are saying "if you don't give me what I want, I'm going to sabotage our side and let the Democrats win". That's extortionate, and it's helping the enemy, literally. Fuck them, in helping the Left, they're traitors to the Right.
Yeah, weakening the Speaker, which weakens the Party, which weakens the Right. Which means the Democrats win.
The Speaker is not the party, and the party is not the right. You have to hold them accountable. Because if you don't, you become like us. Here, there are countries where 'right-wing' establishment parties have been in power for years, and everything just keeps going to (*#@. They have no principles, they have no beliefs, all they want is to get office. It's your job to make sure that you make that conditional on something that you want.
Tyranny of the tiny minority, which the Democrats use in propaganda to get swing voters to vote Democrat by portraying the Republicans and being exortionately controlled by the "far right" fringe of lunatics like Matt Gaetz
Literally none of their demands would be anything a Democrat even 15 years ago would have disagreed with.
Gaetz may be obnoxious, but he's a good guy on policy. Against PAC donations, against corruption, against Ukraine BS.
The last election was a massive disappointment and a rebuke to the idea that the Right was going to have its time in the Sun thanks to liberal retards doing BLM, CRT, tranny shit, and wrecking the economy. But no, the Right had to fuck it all up thanks to Trump being a selfish idiot and idiot right wingers going along with him by nominating CLOWNS
You're not going to blame all of it on Trump, are you? I doubt he even played a role, but that may be my bias. I think it's abortion.
YOU DON'T GET TO CONTROL WHEN YOU AREN'T POPULAR. Okay?
The regime has controlled everything for decades with 0% popularity.
while working with "the sellout compromised blah blah blah right wing" to WIN against the LEFT because the LEFT is actively trying to destroy the country while the Right wingers, even those who don't reflect your values, are simply not that bad.
I live in Europe. I know what happens when you don't hold the "right" accountable. The establishment right in my country is at least as bad as the left.
I can look at what the government has actually done, okay? So can you. The Republicans have never, ever legislated for "Raytheon and Goldman Sachs". Hell, Goldman Sachs is openly left wing now along with the rest of Wall Street. The idea that Wall Street is right wing is decades obsolete.
So maybe the GOP can stop shilling for them and hold them accountable for once.
What is the last big thing the Republicans accomplished? The TAX CUT. And what did the tax cut do? Made the tax system simplified and MORE PROGRESSIVE, not less. Liberals lie and claim it was tax cuts for the rich. It was not. The rich paid a higher share after.
Say I pay $1 in taxes, and you pay $1000 in taxes. There's a tax cut, and afterwards I pay $0, and you pay $500. You pay a higher share, but you clearly also benefited more from the tax cut.
Why give tax cuts to Goldman Sachs? Why give tax cuts to people who hate you? That is my objection. And sure, it benefited the economy, but that was then all wrecked by Covid, so completely pointless after all.
You can look at Rick Scott's 12 point plan if you want to know what the Republican "establishment" stands for. It's absolutely amazing stuff and I agree with probably 95% of it. Meanwhile everything from the Democrats is a fucking nightmare. So the only reasonable course is to do everything to make sure the Democrats lose and the Republicans win. AFTER we win, THEN we can cuck ourselves with infighting like idiots. But as the out-party, there is no excuse.
Didn't Rick Scott single-handedly wreck GOP chances by coming up with batty proposals? But I don't see his batty plans here. It's alright, I guess.
Bro read a news article. That isn't what happened. No "concessions" had to do with money. It was all bullshit procedural shit to weaken the speaker so these fucking clowns can act like clowns even more.
If they won concessions, they are not losers. And I didn't say that the concessions did have to do with money. I just followed your analogy in how your work politics. The Speaker should not be a dictator or a tyrant, the folks who are actually elected should have some power, not just the corrupt interests. If he fails to follow through on his promises, they should vacate the chair.
I'm the most solidly right wing person here. Trust me, if these clowns were actually fighting the good fight, I'd be right there with them. They aren't. They're dropping unforced errors just to get attention like children.
Yeah, I don't know. I think you view the GOP establishment far more positively than is warranted.
The rules concessions are bad and I hope McCarthy knifes them in the back once the clowns simmer down. I don't want a fucking Polish Veto in the Republican caucus.
I'm impressed that you know of the Polish veto.
And as far as investigations, that was always going to happen. McCarthy sure as fuck is not against Republicans using their control of committees to launch investigations of liberal bullshit. He's a standard Republican, not some squishy bitch like Mitt Romney.
It's one thing to grandstand against "liberal bullshit". It's quite another thing to investigate power centers like the FBI, CIA, etc. Hell, I'm not convinced there will be a proper investigation even now, because people like Eyepatch McCain voted for the rules.
I'm OK with McCarthy, mostly because he is malleable. But I don't see him as being much better than Boehner left to his own deviuces.
It is when you're exploiting the fact that the Republican majority is super narrow, and so cannot win votes over the Democrats if there are more than a couple dissenters. These clowns are saying "if you don't give me what I want, I'm going to sabotage our side and let the Democrats win". That's extortionate, and it's helping the enemy, literally. Fuck them, in helping the Left, they're traitors to the Right.
Yes. They're traitors to the Lobbyists and heroes to the Right.
The Speaker is not the party, and the party is not the right.
The party represents the Right in the US government. It's success is the Right's succeeds. The Speaker represents the Right in the House. His effectiveness makes the Right stronger.
I'm sorry I can't keep going with you when you won't accept basic, common-sense premises about reality. Your whole "the parties are controlled by the illuminati and don't represent you at all" schtick gets old and it's obviously not true. I'm living in the real world and trying to help the Right over the Left because the Left ideology is fundamentally stupid and evil. I get it. You hate democracy. Groan. Not having democracy gets you shitshows like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.
The party represents the Right in the US government
Then the right is screwed.
I'm sorry I can't keep going with you when you won't accept basic, common-sense premises about reality.
And common sense being that Republicans are good and Democrats are bad?
Your whole "the parties are controlled by the illuminati and don't represent you at all" schtick gets old and it's obviously not true.
Obviously, the parties don't represent you. What did you think? That your petty vote makes more of a difference than all the million-dollar contributions and lobbying? That you are going to reward them with sinecure positions after their career? No.
No one mentioned the Illuminati, so that's quite a ridiculous strawman.
You hate democracy.
There is no democracy for me to hate. In your country or mine. The people do not rule.
That's because they had to slowly boil the frog and get the US population used to "diversity" in ways that still at least in some ways appealed to them. If they focused on it too much then it would draw too much attention, especially from parents.
And I'm as sad about that fact as anyone. No one my age is happy about having these views on race relations, having grown up being taught the exact opposite.
But we are where we are today, and the question remains: now what?
From a Christian standpoint I can only do my best to show love to everyone. I personally think the idea of judging by character is good since I personally don’t want to make a negative judgement about someone solely based on race.
As for the now what question all we can do is push back where we can. The anti white racism/hatred is obvious and anyone who says it doesn’t exist doesn’t want to see it. Vote with your wallet with entertainment. I don’t always do that well but more and more I tend to watch or read stuff from 2014 or prior. Vote at the local level. One thing I’m happy to see is school boards being voted out. People pushing CRT or talking about how great diversity is need to be voted out. I love asking people to explain to me how diversity in and of itself is so good and they can never give a straight answer. I could go on but I’ve typed enough.
I see the reality but I choose not to let it change me and I try to fight back where I can
The 60s had many of the same issues we have today, but the propaganda was less aggressive. Racist was a power word then too, as demonstrated by Buckley berating people to his right, such as Enoch Powell, for racism. Race War In High School is a taboo—and now very expensive—book about busing at Franklin K Lane High School in NYC, where ghetto kids were setting teachers on fire and no one wanted to do anything about it for fear of being called racist. Now that the original civil rights paradigm has successfully dismantled any oppositional power structures, it has progressed to overt suppression of whites. It's an example of Deleuzian territorial being leveraged for Jouvenelian high-low vs middle power consolidation using a racial framework.
Propaganda had to be less aggressive due to where society was at the time. That's how salami tactics work.
Around the same time Ulhura was kissing Kirk, my grandfather was telling my mother he would disown her for dating/marrying a black (definitely not the word he used but the word she used when telling the story). And my grandfather was just a normal guy for his time; a WWII vet who probably would have been in the 90% who would have preferred to lose the War than end segregation.
The 90% sounds dubious. But now they call people far more non-racist than your grandfather "Nazis" and compare themselves to the folks who landed at Normandy for attacking them.
If they actually met WWII veteran, they wouldn't like them much. But most are safely dead, so... up they go as a mascot.
The question is not why Enoch Powell was accused of racism.
The question is why policies contrary to what he stated were pushed through, even though the vast majority of people agreed with him, in a supposed 'democracy'.
That’s a good TZ episode. Also remember when Lincoln called Uhura a “charming negress” and he apologized and she asked why she should be offended over a word. I’m very confused with how you find young blacks today who never experienced the things that they can’t shut up about but the media says we need to listen to them. But it seems young people across races have this tendency to see glory in being oppressed or thinking they are. Thankfully not all young ppl do.
The men who made these shows, co-developed "colorblindness" with MLK. It was the right thing to do: the human thing to do. Unfortunately only young whites were subsequently raised that way, and blacks themselves en masse re-ushered-in mandatory color-awareness culture (and even enforced segregation), with BLM.
Racism was, is, and evidently always will be, leftist. EDIT: it's too useful a tool to divide voting blocks, so's to play them against each other...
Colorblindness can't work without extremely strong social stigma against using accusations of racism as a cudgel. And the victim classes are never going to give that up.
You're assuming that colorblindness can work only if there is constant virtue-signaling about 'racism'.
As long the common reaction to "THAT GUY IS A RACIST" is a witch-hunt rather than "eh, weird, but what can you do?" you're not in the right place.
Imagine hearing about someone who really hates people with green eyes. You wouldn't try to get him fired. You'd just think it's weird and move on. That's how it should be.
that would be nice but the last 60 years have proven that doesn't work
The fact that it is not what happened does not mean that it "doesn't work". Far be it from me to pretend to know what can happen or what will happen, but I don't think you know either.
liberalism has no defense against it
Maybe the failure is liberalism's and not that of the idea that people should be treated as people regardless of race, which originates not with liberalism but with Christianity, and possibly before.
No kidding. The most racist people I know are not white. In fact, the only racist people I've known are not white. And while folks here post racist stuff to be edgy, they do it like it's perfectly normal and with zero self-awareness.
Objectively factual. Not only can we note the statistics, it stands to reason since the very nature of Civic Nationalism and Liberal Idealism emerges from Europe.
I was honestly more taken aback by the "In our century, we've learned not to fear words" bit. Meanwhile, in our currently reality: "WORDS ARE VIOLENCE, YOU NAZI!!"
That's kind of the problem. Star Trek is supposed to speak on a future a Liberal Utopia. But the Left were never Liberal. They were just using it as a skin suit for further attacks and subversions.
Although, I was watching a video recently from a review of Star Trek: Picard that made an interesting observation about the nature of both Star Wars and Star Trek in current culture and what has become of them.
The TLDR being that Star Wars exist within the "Constrained"/"Tragic" view of Human Nature, while Star Trek exist within the "Unconstrained"/"Anointed" view of Human Nature. Both started out with fairly hopeful messages, as both views of human nature usually do.
As Star Wars was subverted though, many of its fans, in keeping with a tragic view, began to adapt so that they would not allow their enjoyment to be ruined, and Star Wars has even seen individuals in key positions attempting to subvert the Subverters, which while perhaps not the intention does map toward the idea of decentralized local control the Constrained say will serve people the best.
Star Trek on the other hand has followed the all too typical route of the Anointed, where when they attempt to bring forth their utopia, and they find the ignorant Plebeians refuse to listen to their betters, they begin to lose the hopefulness in favor of bitterness, misanthropy, and nihilism as they seek to purge all those who will constrain their vision, until there is literally nothing left and they are retconning their own work to make it just as hateful and bitter as they are now, destroying everything they ever worked for. Because, you mindless ape, dont deserve utopia if you are going to resist my will!
Perhaps reading a bit too much into the nature of what is happening, I just thought it was interesting.
I haven't seen Picard, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
The issue with Star Trek that I noticed is that it's entire social and philosophical system only works in a military framework. Note that there's no Star Trek series about just living in the Star Trek universe. It only takes place aboard naval vessels.
To be honest, this is because Star Trek is founded under, not a Boomer truth regime, but a Greatest Generation truth regime. The military are the vanguard of liberal philosophy, the height of meritocracy, the collectivist defenders of individualism, they are absolutely compliant to law & civilian political order, and they maintain a morally strict social order.
These things are not inherently true of any military, but they are the perceived truth of the generation of Americans who decided that they had to go to war to save the world from collectivism, and preserve the individual rights of everyone on Earth. Meaning that (even though they weren't in real life) they wanted to be that perfect vangaurd of Liberal thought. Star Trek is that aspiration.
Now this means that Starfleet is of the "anointed" class, but are inherently constrained. Yes, they are moral prefects, but they are moral prefects operating in a fallen world attempting to re-moralize it through inspiration. Even more than that, they know that they themselves are not perfect and must desperately seek to live up to that anointment.
Take this example: one of the most famous Wesley-Picard interactions of all time: "A Lie of Omission". Think about what made Picard so furious: a lie of omission, and one to a legal inquiry, to investigate the death of one of Wesley's fellows. Here's the big quote in particular:
The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth! Whether it's scientific truth, historical truth, or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based. If you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened; you don't deserve to wear that uniform.
Not the Federation. No, hell no, civilians can lie all the fucking time. Wesley betrayed that Uniform. Starfleet's uniform. The anointed, not elected, pinnacle of morality and vanguard of the Federation's Liberal philosophy. And because it's liberal, they are still voluntary. You can choose to leave Starfleet. You can refuse to be part of the Federation. You don't have to listen. They are a vanguard and not conquerors. What Start Trek has since become is likely what has happened to many on the Left: they are tired of being a vanguard and now want to be rulers.
I also havent seen any of the new Star Trek (Discovery or Picard) directly, just the reviews and video essays on them.
Definitely not disagreeing on anything you said in yours since it is also true. I will say this though about what I have seen of new Trek:
What Start Trek has since become is likely what has happened to many on the Left: they are tired of being a vanguard and now want to be rulers.
Not only does it seem like they have made that change, they have become bitter nihilistic rulers on top of it all. Since it is the one that is fresh in my mind, Patrick Stewart deliberately helped to make the Federation as depicted in Picard into a xenophobic, totalitarians hellscape that oppresses and brutalizes the Romulans despite the fact that they are "refugees" since they lost their planet. And Stewart has made it abundantly clear he did this because he is still salty over Trump and Brexit being things that happened.
But he went further and decided to make Picard himself into a frail old man who can no longer diplomacy his way out of situations because "You are past your prime old man!" and "Why should we listen to a washed up has-been of a Starfleet commander?" and is frequently disrespected by the newer Starfleet officers.
And this is before we get into the fact that New Trek is generally full of much more fighting and killing than Old Trek, as well as frequent depictions of gore, brutal torture, and other displays of violence that would have never flown in Old Trek outside except for the occasional instance to make a point.
EDIT: And oh yeah. The typical Starfleet crew now acts less like professional military and scientific personal and more like emotionally stunted teenagers who backtalk their commanding officers in just about every interaction. I am sure says nothing about the quality of the writers.
because "You are past your prime old man!" and "Why should we listen to a washed up has-been of a Starfleet commander?" and is frequently disrespected by the newer Starfleet officers.
You're wrong about that, and you should actually talk to people who lived in the 60's as an adult, rather than watching clips from Left-wing media and Hollywood from the time period.
Racism in the 1960's was fairly normal, for every group. Not just inter-race racism, but what could be described as intra-race racism. There are plenty of Eastern European communities around where I live, and one thing they've noticed is that Slavic ethnic hatred, and Orthodox religious hatred basically fell off a cliff after the 90's. Poland and Ukraine have never been as popular in American history as they are today.
Most people were more like the nice side of Archie Bunker. What I would call "non-threateningly bigoted". Every once in a while you get some off-handed comment about jews and blacks, but most of the time they didn't know any jews or blacks, and "being a credit to your race" was actually a compliment that people would accept.
The large minority were racialists who were more like that bigoted side of Archie Bunker, which wasn't even that bad: They don't like Klansmen, they fucking hate Nazis, they don't want their daughters or sons to marry outside of their race, but also don't have a problem working with other races or ethnic groups, but also think that different groups just can't be in parts of society, or do things in certain society. They wouldn't ever resort to ethnic violence or intimidation, but they also had racialist ideas about society.
What you don't realize is that the Progressives of the turn of the century were hard-core racialists, and had only pulled back from that post-World War 2. The 1960's was when the Progressives were talking to themselves, convincing themselves that the racist shit they'd been doing for the previous century and a half was actually "uncooth" and "not modern".
What the Progressives have now done is returned to their old habits, because the Black National Socialists among them never really changed since W.E.B. DuBouis coined the term "Black Folk" in reference to the German Volkish Movement. Socialists have always known that they can use Progressive Nationalism to wear Nationalism as a skin-suit to push Leftism in a society, just as they did from 1850-1940 in Europe. They still did Progressive Nationalism elsewhere after WW2, and it also caused major wars in those places too.
But, again, Progressives have never represented the majority of any society, just some (or many) of the elites and institutions.
Americans are significantly less racist now than they were in the 1960's. Progressives are just more racist than they've ever been since the 1920's.
I don't agree with your assessment that all races only hate one race, just that the hatred against one race is now institutionally protected, and more importantly: that doesn't make anything less or more racist.
and all the institutions of messaging (propaganda producers) all targeting one single race and dehumanizing them is more akin to nazi germany.
Other institutions were promoting race hatred. The Jim Crow South was it's own institution. It just wasn't one of the institutions that survived to annoy Americans to this day.
The Trotskyites successfully infiltrated the governments of the US and UK, where in other countries they were brutally slaughtered by Stalinist and Maoist types.
It's the Old Left v. New Left distinction. Lennin never could stand Fabianism, and Trotsky probably would have have gone on a similar killing spree if it hadn't have threatened his funding from the West.
The gay commmies of that era had to be more subtle because their kind didnt have as much institutional power. Making the characters black was a deliberate choice, not calling attention to that was also a choice. Now ask yourself why those choices were made?
OK but they almost certainly wanted a black person on cast for that show to push a social agenda that "color is only skin deep". And the decision to show an inter-racial kiss between Uhura and Kirk was deliberate.
Does anyone really believe that color is only skin deep anymore? In theory it could have worked, but as I'm fond of saying the Soviet Union outlived the idea of racial equality. How bad does an idea have to be if it can't even outlive a totalitarian Communist State?
Every era's Star Trek pushes the "progressive" ideas of it day. And TNG is still my favorite show that I still watch all the time, but I recognize it for what it is: propaganda for a previous era, no longer relevant.
I'm no Star Trek fan, and I don't know about their motivation for this casting. However, it makes more sense for there to be black characters in a show about the distant future than it does in one about medieval Europe. Presumably, blacks didn't go extinct, so they're still out there somewhere.
Color itself is skin-deep. It's not the color creating any differences, like lactose intolerance.
I liked Captain Planet when I was an impressionable kid. Obviously, I now recognize it as pretty blatant environmentalist propaganda.
No, it's all the other genetics that accompany said color that influence behavior, but let's not sit here and pretend that they are decoupled from one another.
Genetics may vary between all the groups within a color though.
While there's been a social attempt to eradicate the concept of "biological differences by genetic upbringing" (and one could posit that this current trend of 'genetic equity' is some pseudo-intellectual way of addressing that and thus "swinging in the other direction") The reality is that anybody that actually knew what was going on could see the problem but the faith/hope was that education and work could overcome the differences (and in a lot of cases it does).
The problem is that this isn't just "race" issue by color - The irish are not the dutch are not the italians are not the greeks are not the germans, etc; But that there's this inspid retarded notion by 'the elite' that it's all white vs black.
tl;dr - Yes Star Trek was showing an ideological narrative of the future where ALL THE RACES/NATIONS had come together in peace per humanitarian norms of the day. But I don't consider that woke by any stretch of the imagination - just a future where the world could work together in peace. By TNG this had been warped into the woke notion of social justice - because that's where Roddenberry had deluded himself into. (We DoNt uSe MoNeY bEcAuSe We SuRvIvE oN tHe GaS oF oUr OwN fArTs)
Judging someone on the content of their character not the color of their skin is the 2022 Republican position, and the Democrats call it white supremacy.
The endless march to the Left has resulted in them marching straight into black supremacy and tranny supremacy.
Which reminds me of a Sowell quote:
Believing in equal rights under the law regardless of race was the radical position in the 1950s, the liberal position in the 1960s, and the conservative position from the 1970s onwards.
I'll abuse the fact that I encountered you to ask you what I wanted to ask for a while: what did you think of the rebellion of the 20 against McCarthy?
Dumb, immature, and ignorant of how to win at politics. It just makes the Republicans look weak, disorganized, not unified, and subject to being extorted by the fringe.
A unified party that moves in lock step is a stronger party. A stronger party that wins more against the Left will, in the end, get the "far" Right more of what they want, even if they have to accept less than their wish list, because their wish list was NEVER on the table.
Let's say your faction and my faction are bargaining. I want you to pay $100. You want to pay $0. Politics means all else being equal, you'll pay $50. My "extremists" want $100. If they shut the fuck up and play ball, the number will be higher than $50. If they throw tantrums and act like children to put on a show for their constituents, it will be under $50. Therefore, my take is this:
"MAGA" type candidates who care more about putting on a show than winning, are selfish and a liability to the party who ultimately help the Democrats, not the Right. Many of them are also stupid and unqualified just as people. When I see redditors masturbating to the House shitshow, that's how you know you're definitely helping the other side.
You're never going to get $100. Your goal as a politician should be to get that number as high as possible, understanding that throwing a tantrum about not getting $100 is only going to get you less.
Huh, that's unexpected. I know you're a partisan, establishment GOP, but you've also dissented at times. Here, they clearly got concessions for their stance. There were folks here who said: hold out forever, but I didn't agree with that either.
Hold out long enough to force the leadership to give you some stuff that you want, and then give them you vote. It has the added benefit that next time they'll be more afraid of you - so maybe you won't even need to execute your threat then.
It is not a unified party. The party does not work for your interests, or mine. It has to be forced to do what is right. Or did you think people like Eyepatch McCain or a Kevin McCarthy were voluntarily going to do what is in the people's interests?
Here's a more realistic scenario:
Your leadership wants $50 for Goldman Sachs, $50 for Raytheon, and $0 for you. Yet it demands that you vote for KM as Speaker. So you say: no, I'm not gonna vote for you unless you make it worth my while. So you get $45 for Goldman Sachs, $45 for Raytheon, and $10 for you. That is still progress.
Redditors are low IQ 'Current Thing' addicts. Three months from now, no one will remember the fight, but the concessions in the Rules, as well as the Church Committee, will still be there.
Setting conditions for your support is not a 'tantrum'. It's literally the only way to get what you want.
Yeah, weakening the Speaker, which weakens the Party, which weakens the Right. Which means the Democrats win.
Tyranny of the tiny minority, which the Democrats use in propaganda to get swing voters to vote Democrat by portraying the Republicans and being exortionately controlled by the "far right" fringe of lunatics like Matt Gaetz. Nobody likes Matt Gaetz nationally. He comes off as a smug asshole. He helps the Democrats by existing. Just like MTG (though she didn't join the tantrum this time), and just like AOC for the Left. We need to benefit from AOC and learn from her lesson, not fucking copy her with our own cast of clowns.
Bullshit, dude. Quibbling about who steers the ship is a luxury for those in power. The Republicans and the Right ARE NOT IN POWER. The last election was a massive disappointment and a rebuke to the idea that the Right was going to have its time in the Sun thanks to liberal retards doing BLM, CRT, tranny shit, and wrecking the economy. But no, the Right had to fuck it all up thanks to Trump being a selfish idiot and idiot right wingers going along with him by nominating CLOWNS, most of whom lost, and the ones who didn't lose? Immediately humiliated the party and the Right with their little House tantrum.
YOU DON'T GET TO CONTROL WHEN YOU AREN'T POPULAR. Okay? It's common sense. Even a child could understand it. You don't get to run the United States with like 20 House representatives. The only thing on your mind when you are a fringe loser whose ideas have little mainstream appeal, is to change that state of affairs and gain more of a following, while working with "the sellout compromised blah blah blah right wing" to WIN against the LEFT because the LEFT is actively trying to destroy the country while the Right wingers, even those who don't reflect your values, are simply not that bad.
As a non-retard who has been alive for 40+ years, that has never happened. I can look at what the government has actually done, okay? So can you. The Republicans have never, ever legislated for "Raytheon and Goldman Sachs". Hell, Goldman Sachs is openly left wing now along with the rest of Wall Street. The idea that Wall Street is right wing is decades obsolete.
What is the last big thing the Republicans accomplished? The TAX CUT. And what did the tax cut do? Made the tax system simplified and MORE PROGRESSIVE, not less. Liberals lie and claim it was tax cuts for the rich. It was not. The rich paid a higher share after.
You can look at Rick Scott's 12 point plan if you want to know what the Republican "establishment" stands for. It's absolutely amazing stuff and I agree with probably 95% of it. Meanwhile everything from the Democrats is a fucking nightmare. So the only reasonable course is to do everything to make sure the Democrats lose and the Republicans win. AFTER we win, THEN we can cuck ourselves with infighting like idiots. But as the out-party, there is no excuse.
Bro read a news article. That isn't what happened. No "concessions" had to do with money. It was all bullshit procedural shit to weaken the speaker so these fucking clowns can act like clowns even more.
These clowns are holding hostage the RIGHT to the benefit of the LEFT. That's all this was.
I'm the most solidly right wing person here. Trust me, if these clowns were actually fighting the good fight, I'd be right there with them. They aren't. They're dropping unforced errors just to get attention like children.
The rules concessions are bad and I hope McCarthy knifes them in the back once the clowns simmer down. I don't want a fucking Polish Veto in the Republican caucus.
And as far as investigations, that was always going to happen. McCarthy sure as fuck is not against Republicans using their control of committees to launch investigations of liberal bullshit. He's a standard Republican, not some squishy bitch like Mitt Romney.
It is when you're exploiting the fact that the Republican majority is super narrow, and so cannot win votes over the Democrats if there are more than a couple dissenters. These clowns are saying "if you don't give me what I want, I'm going to sabotage our side and let the Democrats win". That's extortionate, and it's helping the enemy, literally. Fuck them, in helping the Left, they're traitors to the Right.
The Speaker is not the party, and the party is not the right. You have to hold them accountable. Because if you don't, you become like us. Here, there are countries where 'right-wing' establishment parties have been in power for years, and everything just keeps going to (*#@. They have no principles, they have no beliefs, all they want is to get office. It's your job to make sure that you make that conditional on something that you want.
Literally none of their demands would be anything a Democrat even 15 years ago would have disagreed with.
Gaetz may be obnoxious, but he's a good guy on policy. Against PAC donations, against corruption, against Ukraine BS.
You're not going to blame all of it on Trump, are you? I doubt he even played a role, but that may be my bias. I think it's abortion.
The regime has controlled everything for decades with 0% popularity.
I live in Europe. I know what happens when you don't hold the "right" accountable. The establishment right in my country is at least as bad as the left.
So maybe the GOP can stop shilling for them and hold them accountable for once.
Say I pay $1 in taxes, and you pay $1000 in taxes. There's a tax cut, and afterwards I pay $0, and you pay $500. You pay a higher share, but you clearly also benefited more from the tax cut.
Why give tax cuts to Goldman Sachs? Why give tax cuts to people who hate you? That is my objection. And sure, it benefited the economy, but that was then all wrecked by Covid, so completely pointless after all.
Didn't Rick Scott single-handedly wreck GOP chances by coming up with batty proposals? But I don't see his batty plans here. It's alright, I guess.
If they won concessions, they are not losers. And I didn't say that the concessions did have to do with money. I just followed your analogy in how your work politics. The Speaker should not be a dictator or a tyrant, the folks who are actually elected should have some power, not just the corrupt interests. If he fails to follow through on his promises, they should vacate the chair.
Yeah, I don't know. I think you view the GOP establishment far more positively than is warranted.
I'm impressed that you know of the Polish veto.
It's one thing to grandstand against "liberal bullshit". It's quite another thing to investigate power centers like the FBI, CIA, etc. Hell, I'm not convinced there will be a proper investigation even now, because people like Eyepatch McCain voted for the rules.
I'm OK with McCarthy, mostly because he is malleable. But I don't see him as being much better than Boehner left to his own deviuces.
Yes. They're traitors to the Lobbyists and heroes to the Right.
The party represents the Right in the US government. It's success is the Right's succeeds. The Speaker represents the Right in the House. His effectiveness makes the Right stronger.
I'm sorry I can't keep going with you when you won't accept basic, common-sense premises about reality. Your whole "the parties are controlled by the illuminati and don't represent you at all" schtick gets old and it's obviously not true. I'm living in the real world and trying to help the Right over the Left because the Left ideology is fundamentally stupid and evil. I get it. You hate democracy. Groan. Not having democracy gets you shitshows like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.
Then the right is screwed.
And common sense being that Republicans are good and Democrats are bad?
Obviously, the parties don't represent you. What did you think? That your petty vote makes more of a difference than all the million-dollar contributions and lobbying? That you are going to reward them with sinecure positions after their career? No.
No one mentioned the Illuminati, so that's quite a ridiculous strawman.
There is no democracy for me to hate. In your country or mine. The people do not rule.
That's because they had to slowly boil the frog and get the US population used to "diversity" in ways that still at least in some ways appealed to them. If they focused on it too much then it would draw too much attention, especially from parents.
I suggest watching these interviews covered by American Krogan in 1962 about Australia's immigration policy. The Hart Cellar act took place in 1965 in America.
The people who wrote Star Trek were jewish, the guys behind Twilight Zone were jews, Senators Hart and Cellar were both jewish
As demographics change, compared to ANC-style black leftism we may look upon jewish leftism from the 60s-90s with fondness.
the ones that set up the demographic shift in the first place?
OK but they don't so now what?
Some do. Unfortunately they are in the minority
And I'm as sad about that fact as anyone. No one my age is happy about having these views on race relations, having grown up being taught the exact opposite.
But we are where we are today, and the question remains: now what?
From a Christian standpoint I can only do my best to show love to everyone. I personally think the idea of judging by character is good since I personally don’t want to make a negative judgement about someone solely based on race.
As for the now what question all we can do is push back where we can. The anti white racism/hatred is obvious and anyone who says it doesn’t exist doesn’t want to see it. Vote with your wallet with entertainment. I don’t always do that well but more and more I tend to watch or read stuff from 2014 or prior. Vote at the local level. One thing I’m happy to see is school boards being voted out. People pushing CRT or talking about how great diversity is need to be voted out. I love asking people to explain to me how diversity in and of itself is so good and they can never give a straight answer. I could go on but I’ve typed enough.
I see the reality but I choose not to let it change me and I try to fight back where I can
The worst part about all this is you and people like you will probably suffer the most from what will eventually happen.
Best case scenario in the future to solve this problem is people do some sort of mafia-style vouching for each other with their lives sort of thing.
That would certainly be interesting. Or maybe ancap style small communities
Is it not the decline of religion and nationalism that has these other identities more salient?
Great video.
The 60s had many of the same issues we have today, but the propaganda was less aggressive. Racist was a power word then too, as demonstrated by Buckley berating people to his right, such as Enoch Powell, for racism. Race War In High School is a taboo—and now very expensive—book about busing at Franklin K Lane High School in NYC, where ghetto kids were setting teachers on fire and no one wanted to do anything about it for fear of being called racist. Now that the original civil rights paradigm has successfully dismantled any oppositional power structures, it has progressed to overt suppression of whites. It's an example of Deleuzian territorial being leveraged for Jouvenelian high-low vs middle power consolidation using a racial framework.
Propaganda had to be less aggressive due to where society was at the time. That's how salami tactics work.
Around the same time Ulhura was kissing Kirk, my grandfather was telling my mother he would disown her for dating/marrying a black (definitely not the word he used but the word she used when telling the story). And my grandfather was just a normal guy for his time; a WWII vet who probably would have been in the 90% who would have preferred to lose the War than end segregation.
The 90% sounds dubious. But now they call people far more non-racist than your grandfather "Nazis" and compare themselves to the folks who landed at Normandy for attacking them.
If they actually met WWII veteran, they wouldn't like them much. But most are safely dead, so... up they go as a mascot.
The propaganda of the time wasn't necessarily less aggressive, just less obvious because the propagandists were far more competent.
The question is not why Enoch Powell was accused of racism.
The question is why policies contrary to what he stated were pushed through, even though the vast majority of people agreed with him, in a supposed 'democracy'.
To ask the question is to answer it.
That’s a good TZ episode. Also remember when Lincoln called Uhura a “charming negress” and he apologized and she asked why she should be offended over a word. I’m very confused with how you find young blacks today who never experienced the things that they can’t shut up about but the media says we need to listen to them. But it seems young people across races have this tendency to see glory in being oppressed or thinking they are. Thankfully not all young ppl do.
The men who made these shows, co-developed "colorblindness" with MLK. It was the right thing to do: the human thing to do. Unfortunately only young whites were subsequently raised that way, and blacks themselves en masse re-ushered-in mandatory color-awareness culture (and even enforced segregation), with BLM.
Racism was, is, and evidently always will be, leftist. EDIT: it's too useful a tool to divide voting blocks, so's to play them against each other...
Colorblindness can't work without extremely strong social stigma against using accusations of racism as a cudgel. And the victim classes are never going to give that up.
You're assuming that colorblindness can work only if there is constant virtue-signaling about 'racism'.
As long the common reaction to "THAT GUY IS A RACIST" is a witch-hunt rather than "eh, weird, but what can you do?" you're not in the right place.
Imagine hearing about someone who really hates people with green eyes. You wouldn't try to get him fired. You'd just think it's weird and move on. That's how it should be.
That's exactly how it should be, if we weren't under the thumb of a progressive anti-racist cult.
that would be nice but the last 60 years have proven that doesn't work
either the gay commies have to be "oppressed" or they will grab institutional power and use it against their opponents
liberalism has no defense against it
The fact that it is not what happened does not mean that it "doesn't work". Far be it from me to pretend to know what can happen or what will happen, but I don't think you know either.
Maybe the failure is liberalism's and not that of the idea that people should be treated as people regardless of race, which originates not with liberalism but with Christianity, and possibly before.
CRT killed the MLK star... 🎵
White people have always been the LEAST racist race.
No kidding. The most racist people I know are not white. In fact, the only racist people I've known are not white. And while folks here post racist stuff to be edgy, they do it like it's perfectly normal and with zero self-awareness.
Objectively factual. Not only can we note the statistics, it stands to reason since the very nature of Civic Nationalism and Liberal Idealism emerges from Europe.
Honestly, they actually made Lincoln far less racist than he actually was. Lincoln certainly wouldn't have apologized.
She was indeed a charming negress.
I was honestly more taken aback by the "In our century, we've learned not to fear words" bit. Meanwhile, in our currently reality: "WORDS ARE VIOLENCE, YOU NAZI!!"
That's kind of the problem. Star Trek is supposed to speak on a future a Liberal Utopia. But the Left were never Liberal. They were just using it as a skin suit for further attacks and subversions.
Although, I was watching a video recently from a review of Star Trek: Picard that made an interesting observation about the nature of both Star Wars and Star Trek in current culture and what has become of them.
The TLDR being that Star Wars exist within the "Constrained"/"Tragic" view of Human Nature, while Star Trek exist within the "Unconstrained"/"Anointed" view of Human Nature. Both started out with fairly hopeful messages, as both views of human nature usually do.
As Star Wars was subverted though, many of its fans, in keeping with a tragic view, began to adapt so that they would not allow their enjoyment to be ruined, and Star Wars has even seen individuals in key positions attempting to subvert the Subverters, which while perhaps not the intention does map toward the idea of decentralized local control the Constrained say will serve people the best.
Star Trek on the other hand has followed the all too typical route of the Anointed, where when they attempt to bring forth their utopia, and they find the ignorant Plebeians refuse to listen to their betters, they begin to lose the hopefulness in favor of bitterness, misanthropy, and nihilism as they seek to purge all those who will constrain their vision, until there is literally nothing left and they are retconning their own work to make it just as hateful and bitter as they are now, destroying everything they ever worked for. Because, you mindless ape, dont deserve utopia if you are going to resist my will!
Perhaps reading a bit too much into the nature of what is happening, I just thought it was interesting.
I haven't seen Picard, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.
The issue with Star Trek that I noticed is that it's entire social and philosophical system only works in a military framework. Note that there's no Star Trek series about just living in the Star Trek universe. It only takes place aboard naval vessels.
To be honest, this is because Star Trek is founded under, not a Boomer truth regime, but a Greatest Generation truth regime. The military are the vanguard of liberal philosophy, the height of meritocracy, the collectivist defenders of individualism, they are absolutely compliant to law & civilian political order, and they maintain a morally strict social order.
These things are not inherently true of any military, but they are the perceived truth of the generation of Americans who decided that they had to go to war to save the world from collectivism, and preserve the individual rights of everyone on Earth. Meaning that (even though they weren't in real life) they wanted to be that perfect vangaurd of Liberal thought. Star Trek is that aspiration.
Now this means that Starfleet is of the "anointed" class, but are inherently constrained. Yes, they are moral prefects, but they are moral prefects operating in a fallen world attempting to re-moralize it through inspiration. Even more than that, they know that they themselves are not perfect and must desperately seek to live up to that anointment.
Take this example: one of the most famous Wesley-Picard interactions of all time: "A Lie of Omission". Think about what made Picard so furious: a lie of omission, and one to a legal inquiry, to investigate the death of one of Wesley's fellows. Here's the big quote in particular:
Not the Federation. No, hell no, civilians can lie all the fucking time. Wesley betrayed that Uniform. Starfleet's uniform. The anointed, not elected, pinnacle of morality and vanguard of the Federation's Liberal philosophy. And because it's liberal, they are still voluntary. You can choose to leave Starfleet. You can refuse to be part of the Federation. You don't have to listen. They are a vanguard and not conquerors. What Start Trek has since become is likely what has happened to many on the Left: they are tired of being a vanguard and now want to be rulers.
I also havent seen any of the new Star Trek (Discovery or Picard) directly, just the reviews and video essays on them.
Definitely not disagreeing on anything you said in yours since it is also true. I will say this though about what I have seen of new Trek:
Not only does it seem like they have made that change, they have become bitter nihilistic rulers on top of it all. Since it is the one that is fresh in my mind, Patrick Stewart deliberately helped to make the Federation as depicted in Picard into a xenophobic, totalitarians hellscape that oppresses and brutalizes the Romulans despite the fact that they are "refugees" since they lost their planet. And Stewart has made it abundantly clear he did this because he is still salty over Trump and Brexit being things that happened.
But he went further and decided to make Picard himself into a frail old man who can no longer diplomacy his way out of situations because "You are past your prime old man!" and "Why should we listen to a washed up has-been of a Starfleet commander?" and is frequently disrespected by the newer Starfleet officers.
And this is before we get into the fact that New Trek is generally full of much more fighting and killing than Old Trek, as well as frequent depictions of gore, brutal torture, and other displays of violence that would have never flown in Old Trek outside except for the occasional instance to make a point.
EDIT: And oh yeah. The typical Starfleet crew now acts less like professional military and scientific personal and more like emotionally stunted teenagers who backtalk their commanding officers in just about every interaction. I am sure says nothing about the quality of the writers.
The problem is, this is how the Left always treats old people that aren't politicians. The central feature of Progressivism in how it treats old people is exactly that: former Progressives who didn't change with the times and are now Conservatives. Those former-progressives are now enemies of the current regime, and their accomplishments deserve to be discredited by the moral failings they never knew they had.
So, like always, Stewart is talking to himself as a Leftist, rather than others.
You're wrong about that, and you should actually talk to people who lived in the 60's as an adult, rather than watching clips from Left-wing media and Hollywood from the time period.
Racism in the 1960's was fairly normal, for every group. Not just inter-race racism, but what could be described as intra-race racism. There are plenty of Eastern European communities around where I live, and one thing they've noticed is that Slavic ethnic hatred, and Orthodox religious hatred basically fell off a cliff after the 90's. Poland and Ukraine have never been as popular in American history as they are today.
Most people were more like the nice side of Archie Bunker. What I would call "non-threateningly bigoted". Every once in a while you get some off-handed comment about jews and blacks, but most of the time they didn't know any jews or blacks, and "being a credit to your race" was actually a compliment that people would accept.
The large minority were racialists who were more like that bigoted side of Archie Bunker, which wasn't even that bad: They don't like Klansmen, they fucking hate Nazis, they don't want their daughters or sons to marry outside of their race, but also don't have a problem working with other races or ethnic groups, but also think that different groups just can't be in parts of society, or do things in certain society. They wouldn't ever resort to ethnic violence or intimidation, but they also had racialist ideas about society.
What you don't realize is that the Progressives of the turn of the century were hard-core racialists, and had only pulled back from that post-World War 2. The 1960's was when the Progressives were talking to themselves, convincing themselves that the racist shit they'd been doing for the previous century and a half was actually "uncooth" and "not modern".
What the Progressives have now done is returned to their old habits, because the Black National Socialists among them never really changed since W.E.B. DuBouis coined the term "Black Folk" in reference to the German Volkish Movement. Socialists have always known that they can use Progressive Nationalism to wear Nationalism as a skin-suit to push Leftism in a society, just as they did from 1850-1940 in Europe. They still did Progressive Nationalism elsewhere after WW2, and it also caused major wars in those places too.
But, again, Progressives have never represented the majority of any society, just some (or many) of the elites and institutions.
Americans are significantly less racist now than they were in the 1960's. Progressives are just more racist than they've ever been since the 1920's.
I don't agree with your assessment that all races only hate one race, just that the hatred against one race is now institutionally protected, and more importantly: that doesn't make anything less or more racist.
Other institutions were promoting race hatred. The Jim Crow South was it's own institution. It just wasn't one of the institutions that survived to annoy Americans to this day.
The Trotskyites successfully infiltrated the governments of the US and UK, where in other countries they were brutally slaughtered by Stalinist and Maoist types.
Infiltrated, subverted, and seized.
It's the Old Left v. New Left distinction. Lennin never could stand Fabianism, and Trotsky probably would have have gone on a similar killing spree if it hadn't have threatened his funding from the West.
The gay commmies of that era had to be more subtle because their kind didnt have as much institutional power. Making the characters black was a deliberate choice, not calling attention to that was also a choice. Now ask yourself why those choices were made?