- cross-posted to:
- startrek@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- startrek@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27135964
You must log in or register to comment.
They’ve never explained how property works, because even if stuff is free not everyone can get a French vineyard.
copy/pasted from .ml:
at first, i thought you crossposed this to the star trek instance and i was going to warn you that they’re reactionary and delight in banning leftists. lol
the oniony layers of reactionaryism when it comes to star trek has been sadly fascinating to me: i lol’ed with conservative trekkies were lambasted by liberals for calling trek too woke because its newest iterations embraced lgbt and poc characters/stories and then i was just as stunned as those conservatives when those same liberals likewise ostracized leftists trekkies despite celebrating the leftist basis of star trek, like in the “fully automated gay space communism” meme.
i wish i could understood how you can celebrate a popular leftist series; but reject leftists.
I don’t reject Discovery because it embraces LGBT or POC characters. I reject it because it’s written like shit, especally the parts about LGBTQ characters.
An example of a show around the same time that handled LGBT issues much better than Discovery: Umbrella Academy.
each iteration of the series had problematic parts…
Discovery only had problematic parts.
Discovery has some of my favorite characters of any series. The broader stories might be weak, but Doug Jones as Saru was amazing.
Saru, Stamets, and Reno were the only parts I liked.
Discovery has some pretty good, a few extremely annoying and a whole lot of very boring characters who’s name I wouldn’t even remember if you told me.
The worst thing about it though, is that it’s pessimistic, dark and over dramatic.
Cognitive dissonance, that society is ideal but I don’t like anyone that would being about that society I just want to snap my fingers and end up in post scarcity utopia.
well they didn’t do it through political reformation, they did it through fantasy tech. Socialism is quite easy when you have replicators that can make pretty much anything you could ever desire on the spot.
Fantasy tech that canonically is tightly controlled by various races with better tech and a capitalist system.
Canonically they can say whatever they want to make the federation/humans paragons.
My point is, if we had essentially an infinite supply of food and other goods, wouldn’t you feel more comfortable supporting people who would “bring about” that society? Wouldn’t you feel a moral imperative to support such a society? Fantasy tech makes it easy (although perhaps not inevitable).
It’s quite the opposite but sure.
I would, capitalists would not and do not which is why capitalism persists today let alone some future.
It’s quite the opposite but sure.
how would it be the opposite?
I would
that’s all i’m trying to say really. The common reservations people have with socialism are pretty much nullified with tech like replicators.
capitalists would not and do not which is why capitalism persists today let alone some future.
what capitalists want doesn’t matter if enough of the proletariat are in favor of socialism. In a world with replicators that would be the vast majority of people, even ones who were hesitant such as yourself.
Because they’re are multiple storylines about unmitigated capitalism being evil with the plot hinging around replicator technology and the fact the galaxy is not post scarcity. The federation is and several species and organizations are but as a whole the galaxy isn’t. Humans specifically are almost never painted in the best light especially when it comes to capitalism and pre starfleet society.
That’s your opinion and one that is largely hinged on humanity being at it’s core altruistic which btw starfleet does not agree with you on.
Yes it does, the people with the money have the most power, this hasn’t changed and canonically the same is true in universe again they’re major multi series story arks.
even ones who were hesitant such as yourself.
There’s that assumption again, pointing out what is is does not imply support thereof but sure, strawman it up if you feel that necessary.
