If you are SO DAMNED MAD, turn off your TV....

[YJ02]

I've heard of Beacon 23 but was unable to find it to watch it.

I'll also note I put up very positive threads on Fallout and Babylon 5 in the recent past. Probably others too.

yes, and as i said, this is not about anyone here-- unless they apply to themselves that is

beacon 23- i watched on Amazon.. i think it may be a paramount show, but i get a couple of other streamers through AMZ

if you have AMZ and search it, it should pop- there are 2 seasons so far (and all so damned short any more)

SILO ,on APPLE was also very good, only 1 season so far, the 2nd should be coming in not too long

actually i have watched a lot of newer, good and some great stuff.. i would have to go through my watch history on (mainly) AMZ and APPLE to find it all though

and NERDROTIC, i may be misremembering, but is he not also an admitted addict? i believe he stated this in a interview and it was part of the reason for his arrest/ prison time. If so, doing this could be his "one kept thing" (legal and not health damaging) that many addiction counselors will tell addicts to hold onto / or find

something to keep themselves focused on- an addict will always be one, and they tend to overdo things. BUT most pick up drinking designer coffee, gardening, dedicated environmental work, buying a pet...

one well known example is RFK Jr-- admitted heroin addict / ex user. his 'kept things' are conspiracy theories and venomous snake hunting

 

[YJ02]

I will say that YJ does have a point about the social media phenomenon of rage/anger posting to get engagement. It's not exclusive to media critique either; you see it in news, sports, everywhere. Make a statement and be outraged - the more outraged the better. This is WHY those posting to call out issues need to learn to express reasons and to not engage in online primal scream therapy. The best approach to this is engage with those who provide reasons and rationale and don't engage the pure screamers.

also why EVERYTHING in our society is so polarized as well

 

[Joelist]

Thanks for the tip on where to find Beacon23. As to Silo I also liked it. Rebecca Ferguson had to carry it and she did, showing her talent as an actress.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Since before 2005. I suppose you have to understand what definition of "woke" one is referring to. The allegory and tone of Star Trek was never overtly political or agenda-driven. The episodic nature of all of those shows allowed for many different perspectives, and any political, religious, or identity struggles were dealt with using allegory. Not imbued in the characters themselves. And the allegories were sometimes VERY specific, without being "woke". We need a post here about wokeness! What does it mean to you? Can you sort of tell me how NuTrek and Star Trek are both "woke" in the same way?

When TOS started, One of Gene's main points was to include cast members who at least "represented" as many cultures as possible to represent the UFP, which for the time was pretty damn "woke" Uhura, Checkov, Sulu, No characters like this had existed in US TV before. (Hence why I said for "at the time") That in itself is "political". YES, I agree Trek highly relies on Allegory, but that does not mean that the intent is not there. I think where our opinions differ is "woke" VS "Agenda" To me, "woke" is more indicative of inclusiveness, whereas "agenda" is merely that, pushing an opinion. I feel a lot of people's problems more stem from the pushing of an opinion, rather than the more progressive ideals of being "woke", and I can appreciate that. As for it being "imbued in the characters", I can't agree for the same reasons you write. The is NOTHING wrong with a character who is XYZ etc, that is a function of writing and acting, It's the pushing of agenda's that can be distasteful.
Hope that helps!

 

[Joelist]

I'm more familiar with this classical definition of "woke":

An ideology where all discrepancies in outcome between people/groups are attributed to some type and extent of systemic oppression

Wokeness is an ideology. Just the existence of diversity is not woke; diversity that does not serve the story but is there to "check boxes" is. The racial and gender composition of the TOS cast was grounded in the story - specifically the backdrop of the Federation. In the same vein individual stories would illustrate things (using allegory almost all the time) but the thrust was you get people to think not tell them WHAT to think.

Wokeness specifically DOES tell people what to think. It wants to view everything in terms of group identity and also oppressed/oppressor. Just look at the depiction of women in Classic Trek versus Kurtzman Trek. Classic Trek had strong diverse characters but they were strong because of their individual merits. In Kurtzman Trek the tendency is the diverse character is strong because they belong to the right identity group.

 

[Shadow Mann]

Well to be perfectly accurate, the original term "woke" originated in the black American culture and meant that one was aware of systemic oppression and also understood the historical and geographic scope of it. It was a passive state. No action was involved as it was purely awareness and observation. In a nutshell, it meant "eyes open". Now, it has been co-opted (like all the other previous terms) and now means feminism, LGBTQABCDE rights, racial and gender disparity, political alignments and a myriad of other socially incendiary concepts. All in an internet-connected world with social media, the possibility of "cancel culture", and targeted harassment that can go "viral" in a matter of minutes. That is just not something anyone could do in the 1960s and much of the 1990s. There was a term for the ORIGINAL meaning of "woke", and that was "you dig? or "diggin it". That was co-opted too.

Having said that, original Star Trek was NOT "woke" per se. It was progressive. Progressive does not equal Woke.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Ya feelin' me playa

 

[Gatefan1976]

I'm more familiar with this classical definition of "woke":

An ideology where all discrepancies in outcome between people/groups are attributed to some type and extent of systemic oppression

Wokeness is an ideology. Just the existence of diversity is not woke; diversity that does not serve the story but is there to "check boxes" is. The racial and gender composition of the TOS cast was grounded in the story - specifically the backdrop of the Federation. In the same vein individual stories would illustrate things (using allegory almost all the time) but the thrust was you get people to think not tell them WHAT to think.

Wokeness specifically DOES tell people what to think. It wants to view everything in terms of group identity and also oppressed/oppressor. Just look at the depiction of women in Classic Trek versus Kurtzman Trek. Classic Trek had strong diverse characters but they were strong because of their individual merits. In Kurtzman Trek the tendency is the diverse character is strong because they belong to the right identity group.

The problem is with that Joe my friend, words evolve and change meaning even by geographical location. Take for example the word "fanny" for Americans it means your arse, "wearing a fanny pack" For Oz, it's the other side of females.....
As a pretty bastardized language, English can be very imprecise sometimes

 

[YJ02]

The problem is with that Joe my friend, words evolve and change meaning even by geographical location. Take for example the word "fanny" for Americans it means your arse, "wearing a fanny pack" For Oz, it's the other side of females.....
As a pretty bastardized language, English can be very imprecise sometimes

English has come a long way from Anglisch and in doing so has become quite phucked (including that transition from ph to f)

knowing this and that the "internet will last 'forever'" will Eng speakers reading this site in 400 yrs be able to understand our words? Or will some ingenious engineer design some method of updating our words to their 'modern english'? hmm?

 

[Gatefan1976]

Well to be perfectly accurate, the original term "woke" originated in the black American culture and meant that one was aware of systemic oppression and also understood the historical and geographic scope of it. It was a passive state. No action was involved as it was purely awareness and observation. In a nutshell, it meant "eyes open". Now, it has been co-opted (like all the other previous terms) and now means feminism, LGBTQABCDE rights, racial and gender disparity, political alignments and a myriad of other socially incendiary concepts. All in an internet-connected world with social media, the possibility of "cancel culture", and targeted harassment that can go "viral" in a matter of minutes. That is just not something anyone could do in the 1960s and much of the 1990s. There was a term for the ORIGINAL meaning of "woke", and that was "you dig? or "diggin it". That was co-opted too.

Having said that, original Star Trek was NOT "woke" per se. It was progressive. Progressive does not equal Woke.

As you said, Not the original intent of the word, but in many circles, mostly politics, woke DOES equal progressive. Consider US politics, the center-left is considered "woke" by the far-right, yet the center-left is merely progressive.
You dig, Sucka!!
Going further with the notion of things being region orientated If I write Arse it comes up as a spelling error as the US uses the spelling Ass.
Simple fact of the matter, people play fast and loose with spelling and intent.

 

[Joelist]

Well to be perfectly accurate, the original term "woke" originated in the black American culture and meant that one was aware of systemic oppression and also understood the historical and geographic scope of it. It was a passive state. No action was involved as it was purely awareness and observation. In a nutshell, it meant "eyes open". Now, it has been co-opted (like all the other previous terms) and now means feminism, LGBTQABCDE rights, racial and gender disparity, political alignments and a myriad of other socially incendiary concepts. All in an internet-connected world with social media, the possibility of "cancel culture", and targeted harassment that can go "viral" in a matter of minutes. That is just not something anyone could do in the 1960s and much of the 1990s. There was a term for the ORIGINAL meaning of "woke", and that was "you dig? or "diggin it". That was co-opted too.

Having said that, original Star Trek was NOT "woke" per se. It was progressive. Progressive does not equal Woke.

Yes that was the original meaning. Left wing activists and Social Justice Warriors then co opted the term and changed into something pretty different (although THEY think it's great). Like SM says it now means radical intersectionalism, identity politics and LGBTQ preferential treatment. Let's remember "lack of wokeness" has been used as a pretext to get people tossed out of their jobs, driven offline and other harassment. So unfortunately "woke" does not equal "progressive" over here.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Define "social justice warrior" then look at history.

 

[Joelist]

Again you have to look at what the term means now. SJWs whatever they used to mean now are activists (predominantly online) who actively harass and try to censor any speech or expression not agreeing with them. The whole cancel culture and rage mob phenomena started with these activists. And the solution to them is still today what it always has been - never apologize to them and do not engage with them in an emotional manner.

 

[Shadow Mann]

Again you have to look at what the term means now. SJWs whatever they used to mean now are activists (predominantly online) who actively harass and try to censor any speech or expression not agreeing with them. The whole cancel culture and rage mob phenomena started with these activists. And the solution to them is still today what it always has been - never apologize to them and do not engage with them in an emotional manner.

This exactly. There really are not many valid comparisons with terms used in the past, since so many have been co-opted or redefined arbitrarily by activists. The term "climate change" for instance. Long-established definitions have been literally changed for the first time in hundreds of years, all within the past 10 years (at least in the US and Canada).

 

[Gatefan1976]

Again you have to look at what the term means now. SJWs whatever they used to mean now are activists (predominantly online) who actively harass and try to censor any speech or expression not agreeing with them. The whole cancel culture and rage mob phenomena started with these activists. And the solution to them is still today what it always has been - never apologize to them and do not engage with them in an emotional manner.

You got the the point, but also missed it entirely.
MLK was an activist who would now be considered an SJW TODAY
The whole female equality movement was activist, but would now be considered SJW's
Simple point is, you are NOT talking about SJW's, what you are talking about is people who just what to whine that thier POV is considered to be "under threat" so instead of talking they whine. (NRA, the Church, "Woke" overactive lefties)
Considering the LGBTQ soup equal to everyone else is NOT asking for "more than equality", but when individuals in that soup do, well that's just dueling levels of bigotry.
Harassment and censorship are a whole 'nother ball of string, that's just being a dick that comes from a place of fear. All this "white pride" and "black pride" comes from the same place of dickishness. "I'm not being heard" and there is a certain level of truth to both of those positions, it's how the individual deals with that.
I don't need to look up "what it means now" I brought that concept into the conversation, evolving language, regional language, I did that.

 

[Joelist]

Neither MLK nor the female equality movement fit today's use of SJW. Both of these were pretty nonviolent, employed persuasion not fear and were aspirational in nature. Neither of them formed rage mobs or tried to deprive people of their livelihoods for disagreeing with them. I laid it out for a reason - the way people right now define SJW (on both sides) fits what I put down. SJWism has become a moniker for trying to silence people who disagree with you. It's sad because the term used to have more positive aspects.

 

[Shadow Mann]

Neither MLK nor the female equality movement fit today's use of SJW. Both of these were pretty nonviolent, employed persuasion not fear and were aspirational in nature. Neither of them formed rage mobs or tried to deprive people of their livelihoods for disagreeing with them. I laid it out for a reason - the way people right now define SJW (on both sides) fits what I put down. SJWism has become a moniker for trying to silence people who disagree with you. It's sad because the term used to have more positive aspects.

SO MANY terms and concepts have been twisted, re-interpreted or outright changed. MLK was a civil rights activist. That was his charge, not anything else except his faith which guided his activism and was an integral part of it. A "social justice warrior" fights for a vague, ill-defined set of issues which include many other issues and agendas. Such people rarely are able to define exactly what it is they are protesting, because there is a plethora of things they could respond with. It's almost appropriate to call them "generic activists" IMO.

 

[Gatefan1976]

SO MANY terms and concepts have been twisted, re-interpreted or outright changed. MLK was a civil rights activist. That was his charge, not anything else except his faith which guided his activism and was an integral part of it. A "social justice warrior" fights for a vague, ill-defined set of issues which include many other issues and agendas. Such people rarely are able to define exactly what it is they are protesting, because there is a plethora of things they could respond with. It's almost appropriate to call them "generic activists" IMO.

This is why "fighting for an agenda" is a far more appropriate term. MLK fought for social justice, his concept was equality and basic human rights. He did not fight to dominate but equalize.

 

[Gatefan1976]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDvFeo9H5uc