this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
16 points (94.4% liked)

Star Trek Social Club

10775 readers
41 users here now

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...

Maybe a little slash fic.

New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?

Rules

1 Be constructiveAll posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.

2 Be welcomingIt is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.

3 Be truthfulAll posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.

4 Be niceIf 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 SpoilersUtilize 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-topicAll busmittions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books, etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/Quarks.

7 MetaQuestions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.

Upcoming Episodes

Date Episode Title
11-28 LD 5x07 "Fully Dilated"
12-05 LD 5x08 "Upper Decks"
12-12 LD 5x09 "Fissure Quest"
12-19 LD 5x10 "The New Next Generation"
01-24 Film "Section 31"

Episode Discussion Archive

In Production

Strange New Worlds (TBA)

Starfleet Academy (TBA)

In Development

Untitled theatrical film

Untitled comedy series

Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.

Allied Discord Server

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
16
The Stars of Star Trek: Section 31 Know Why You're Nervous About the Movie (gizmodo.com)
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

“The people in the Federation exist in a bubble of safety and happiness, but there are outsiders to that sphere of the Federation—surrounded by the Dominion, the Founders, the Klingons [of this era], the [Romulan secret police] Tal Shiar, that don’t have the same moral relativity that we do. They would see [the Federation] destroyed to fit their moral relativism,” Kazinsky argued. “People need to understand why people don’t like the idea [of Section 31], but it hasn’t changed the idea.”

This kind of logic implies that stooping down to barbarism is OK as long as you are hypocritical about it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I agree, that logic has been used to justify atrocities throughout history, including right now. It's exactly what Israel says about Palestine, China about the Uyghurs, Trump about Mexican immigrants. And it's completely antithetical to Star Trek's values.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

To be honest, that's always been the core argument.

I don't know where the line is - obviously, the morphogenic virus in DS9 was beyond the pale, but is it wise to expect hostile neighbours to be won over by sunshine and rainbows?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

I feel like the big issue is the difference in how it's portrayed. In DS9 and even enterprise section 31 are the bad guys. They are portrayed as a shadowy organization that thinks it's doing the right thing but when confronted gets in the way. In DS9 they even lose. Section 31 arent an example of the end justifying the means being a necessary evil, they are something from within for the idealistic federation to overcome and defeat.

As a concept section 31 doesnt make a whole lot of sense lore wise because the federation is a paramilitary organization. Sure they are scientists, explorers, and philosophers at heart, but they are also very much a military Navy. We also see that starfleet does have a non section 31 intelligence complete with spies that go deep undercover get the trust of their enemies and sell them out. The federation knows the galaxy is a hostile place which is why they explore in heavily armed warships with a crew that follows a strict chain of command.

I think part of the wish fulfillment and idealism of the federation lies in the implication that they are also very powerful and able and willing to defend themselves with great force. Even the cruise ship Enterprise D was able to take on multiple enemy warships at once and win.

The major difference between section 31 and standard federation operating procedures seems to be their appetite for genocide and civilians.

It is a thing that has made me nervous about this new project since it was announced. Section 31 appearing as a bump in the road for our idealistic federation members to deal with works and allows them to stay the badguy. Them as the protagonists of a show or movie puts us in a situation where we get told stories where the ends justifies the means. And they either do this by making the federation seem naive and incompetent(which they arent they have a prime directive where they sterilize all life on a planet) or it has them justifying some heinous crap.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

There's a very clear line between having a military and intelligence services and having a MKULTRA-era-CIA-in-space.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

What is the line?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Go on...

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I’m disappointed that they clearly don’t. The same tired justifications which amount to the ideals of Star Trek are a luxury made possible by hard men doing bad things in the dark.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah. Reading the article, Section 31 seems great if you just want to just shit on everything else in the franchise. Nope, not for me.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

@toast

I mean, in DS9, section 31 were clearly villains, right?

Not heroes in the shadow. This is what they told themselves in order to justify their shit.

@ThirdMoonOfPluto

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 days ago (3 children)

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Section 31 is supposed to be. Sloan wasn't a good guy. 31 actively tried to commit genocide.

The idea behind them is that arguments of ends justifying the means and "getting dirty" to preserve higher ideals is morally, philosophically, and practically bankrupt. The Federation didn't need 31 to win the war, and in fact, their methods would have made it much worse. Section 31 as a plot device exists to show us that there will always be those looking to use higher ideals to support terrible actions, and we must be constantly vigilant against them.

It truly pains me how that message has been twisted, and people think Section 31 are not only good guys but also cool.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Federation didn’t need 31 to win the war

Do we know that for certain? The cure to the virus was actually pretty fundamental to the Female Changeling ordering the Jem'Hadar to stand down. She refused to surrender until Odo linked with her and cured her.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

i think that the existence of the disease is more of a maguffin than the point that the solution was achieved without section 31… the “problem” could have been any number of unrelated things (eg some spacial anomaly threatening the founders for some reason, etc) and the fact that it’s s31 is more an interesting plot device to create other narratives around, rather than degrading the ultimate point

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

What, then, is the message in the episode where Sisko "would do it all again" concerning assassinating a political rival and faking evidence to bring the Romulans into the war against the Dominion? It's an example where I can still see the show trying to say "sometimes good people must do bad things for the good of all" that doesn't even concern Section 31.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

It certainly shows that the federation doesnt need a weird shadowy organization to skirt the rules and make morally ambiguous decisions.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

episodes shouldn’t be assumed to be exploring the same moral or philosophical points… it’s very difficult to explore complex logical arguments through innuendo whilst also maintaining a consistent grounding for all of them

and also, the decision is left up to the viewer: by presenting situations that both (perhaps) cross, and do not cross the line it allows us to form our own opinions, rather than the shows writers convince us of their idea of what’s right and wrong

people are fallible: the shows writers, and the characters. in some of that inconsistency, we can form our own ideas of what we believe

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

@astronaut_sloth

This is actually, how I understood it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Sorry if I wasn't clear; I didn't mean to make it sound like an attack or a lecture. Section 31 is just one of my pet peeves in Trek for a while. We are in agreement! 😊

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Villains or heroes isn't the issue. It's the argument that we need a group that doesn't play by the rules that apply to the rest of society that I find problematic.

Shouldn't we strive for a world in which the rules really do apply to all? Can't we hope to conceive of a set of laws standards by which we should all be judged? Isn't the world of Star Trek meant in some way to be aspirational, rather than just a reflection of what we have now?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We live in a world that has ~~walls~~ federation worlds, and those federation worlds have to be guarded.

Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Barclay?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Barclay?

Yes?

Lieutenant Barklay and the huge, powerful, and successful paramilitary organization who employs him are exactly who is supposed to guard Federation worlds. Which is what they do.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They were definitely villains in the series...but I don't think DS9 ever made a strong case that they weren't necessary (nor do I think they were trying to).

Right up until the end, the morphogenic virus was critical to the end of the war.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

@ValueSubtracted

I wanted to watch the series again, anyway. It's been a time.

As I remember it, they left it rather ambiguous, which is the actual point.

If moral choices were easy, we wouldn't have to think about them too much.

Yes, the virus ended the war, but at what price?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

I completely agree.

I've often thought that there must have been plenty of Section 31 operations that didn't rise to the level of, you know, genocide, and that those operations were likely more ambiguous.

I'm hoping that whatever they're up to in this movie is more in that vein - almost certainly illegal, but probably more ethically murky?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Villains who's engineered virus forced the Dominion to the negotiating table... just saying.

"Good and evil isn't as black and white as TNG portrayed it" is kinda DS9's whole deal.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

~~inb4 someone on lemmy says a single piece of media they haven't even seen is responsible for "shitting all over the entire franchise"~~

EDIT: nvm