1236
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
1236 points (99.0% liked)
Star Trek Social Club
14587 readers
10 users here now
r/startrek: The Next Generation
Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...
Maybe a little slash fic.
Rules
1 Be constructive
All posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.
2 Be welcoming
It is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.
3 Be truthful
All posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.
4 Be nice
If a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.
5 Spoilers
Utilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episode. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.
6 Keep on-topic
All submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books, etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/Quarks.
7 Meta
Questions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.
Upcoming Episodes
| Date | Episode | Title |
|---|---|---|
| 02-19 | SFA 1x07 | "Ko’Zeine" |
| 02-26 | SFA 1x08 | "The Life of the Stars" |
| 03-05 | SFA 1x09 | "300th Night" |
| 03-12 | SFA 1x10 | "Rubincon" |
| TBA | SNW 4x01 | TBA |
Upcoming Trek
Strange New Worlds (TBA)
Starfleet Academy (TBA)
In Development
Untitled comedy series
Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mostly agree, but with shows like Starfleet Academy, the writing is bad in part because of the forced inclusive themes. You're broadly correct: these could be handled with tact for a better show. I still think these themes are handled best when they give the audience room to consider nuanced and complex ideas. Don't shoot me, but instead of a classic New Generation episode I'm going cite an episode of The Orville - "About a Girl". Bortus and Klyden have a baby, who is born female. They try to argue that she should be allowed to remain female, but ultimately the court rules that she undergo the Moclan gender reassignment procedure.
This touches on contemporary issues but also doesn't present the situation as "this side is 100% right, and this side is literally Hitler." The audience is actually left wondering, where does this sit in the contemporary debate? If a child is born one sex, should they be given the right to remain as that sex? Or should a court be allowed to step in and reassign sex? The episode also brilliantly explores the difficult dynamic between Bortus and Klyden, and doesn't portray one as a cartoon villain and the other as a male Mary Sue.
This is where New Trek fails horrible. Zero nuance. Everything is presented in the first 10 seconds as "this is good, this is bad. Accept the message we are feeding you are you are a bad person." That's not Star Trek. Most importantly, that's not interesting. It's not good storytelling. It might appeal to people who really like circlejerking about that particular issue, but that's a minority of people.
That's a lot of words to not provide a single example from a show of what makes "forced inclusion" different than "inclusion"
EDIT: Before anyone bothers clicking through the replies, he never actually explains himself or why he's parroting a common right wing buzz-phrase to discourage the presence of minorities in media.
Someone asked that question two hours ago and I replied with two examples. It's underneath my comment. I'm not sure which application you're using to browse Lemmy but you should be able to see it.
I saw that but I didn't see anything about what makes inclusion "forced" in one series but not in another.
I thought I did a reasonable job of explaining the narrative distinction in my comment. Maybe you could be specific about which part you don't understand, or which part with which you might disagree?
yeah sure so im curious to know what "forced inclusion" means and how we're supposed to tell it apart from regular inclusion.
Which part of my explanation did you not understand or disagree with?
Your explanation didn't explain what "forced inclusion" means and what makes it different from regular inclusion. Maybe you could give an example of each from Star Trek?
I think it did. If you disagree please tell me how. I provided two examples.
Your two examples didn’t explain what “forced inclusion” means and what makes it different from regular inclusion.
"Nuh uh" isn't an argument. If you won't read the comment then I won't be able to give you a meaningful reply.
Your examples provided made no mention of "forced inclusion" or what makes it different from regular inclusion.
I clearly explained the distinction despite not using the term "forced inclusion," which I didn't raise. You did. I can't reply qualitatively unless you explain which part confuses you.
...this you?
What does “forced inclusion” mean? What makes it different from regular inclusion?
Yes, in response to this comment.
I didn't raise the topic. I replied to it. I presume you can see that comment? Are you using an application which truncates the discussion? If you disagree with something, feel free to tell me what :)
You introduced the term “forced inclusion”. What does that term mean? What makes it different from regular inclusion?
I can't speak for the other poster, but the way I see is is that "forced inclusion" is where the script directs viewer attention to it in a protracted, unnatural manner that is not pertinent to the plot. For instance, the script may be as blunt as a character saying "Wow, I can't believe you made it this far despite being a [marginalized out-group]," or it could be a little more subtle by offering a stereotyped representation of [marginalized out-group] without any kind of deeper exploration. i.e. Tokenism
Star Trek, for the most part, dove into social subjects deeper, more meaningful way than other media at the time. Like other users have pointed out, TOS confronted racism and gender roles head on by placing a black female character on the bridge. By never drawing attention to those traits, the show issued such a strong rebuke against racism and male chauvinism that no more needed to be said. In my view, that is inclusion that is not forced upon the viewer; it is implied, but unless the viewer is explicitly looking for it, they'd never notice.
Ok makes sense but did SFA do that? If so, when?