Nazis Have the Dumbest Star Trek Opinions | Jessie Gender (youtu.be)

submitted 2 weeks ago by hopesdead@startrek.website to c/startrek@startrek.website

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 40 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] Kirk@startrek.website 58 points 2 weeks ago

Whenever I hear that a MAGA member is also a Star Trek fan:

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 2 weeks ago

Even weirder are the maga people who watch The Boys

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 5 points 1 week ago

i think they only watch specific parts of shows, to look for anything they think is out of the conservative parameters: men white, chrstian, in power/leader of groups, women always subservient, this goes for any Minorities". they dont actual watch it for its content, they are looking for specific things that outrage them.

[-] cuchi@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago

Not suprised MAGA fans maybe thinks The Boys is "based" and "redpilled" in the case of Homelander.

[-] hopesdead@startrek.website 11 points 2 weeks ago

Especially the glasses bit. It was the plot point of multiple movies.

[+] Abundance114@lemmy.world -8 points 2 weeks ago

Even if we filter out the United States, Academy is sitting at a sub 5/10 rating world wide.

If you call the MAGA crtisicms what you want, but after the fact there are plenty of legit ones remaining.

[-] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Are you seriously suggesting that IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes weren’t review bombed globally?

Any rating that has a distribution of 38% 1/10s has no credibility whatsoever, zilch.

And the alleged non US ratings aren’t vettable.

[-] Abundance114@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago

You think MAGA is inteligent enough.to review bomb foreigner reviewers?

[-] HetareKing@piefed.social 10 points 2 weeks ago

MAGA is an American thing, but there are plenty of people sharing their dumb opinions outside of the US.

Also, MAGA nutters aren't actually less intelligent than anyone else, just cowardly and resentful. They don't want to think about what's causing the problems in the world, because then they might have to reconsider parts of their worldview and that's scary. So they want someone to just swoop in and fix the problems without fundamentally changing anything, or failing that, gives them the feeling they have permission from society to lash out against anything they consider "abnormal" and is therefore a potential cause of the problems. And so they'll resent anyone who criticises them for that or tries to undermine that feeling of societal permission they want or already have.

But not wanting to think about certain things is not the same as being unable to, and any intellectual capacity not spent on actually thinking about real problems and how to solve them can then be spent on how to create the impression that their opinion is dominant and therefore they're not doing anything wrong.

Anyway, the point is that while there are definitely legitimate criticisms to be had about the newer Star Trek shows, your metric isn't very useful for demonstrating that. To begin with, why hide behind numbers at all? It just makes it look like you're trying convince people that your criticisms carry more weight because the world agrees with you.

[-] Abundance114@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

why hide behind numbers at all?

Oh, okay let's keep spending millions per episode so a few thousand people can enjoy the show. That's absolutely how show business works.

Numbers are critical and a key indicator of mainstream success.

As I've stated multiple times already low viewer count combined with high review bombs indicates a disconnect between what's being produced and what the audience wants.

[-] HetareKing@piefed.social 5 points 2 weeks ago

...? We're not the producers of the shows, how is that any of our concern? They've got plenty of bean counters at Paramount, if a show isn't hitting their financial goals, they'll either cancel or retool it. All we can do is watch the shows that get made and express and discuss our opinions about it, there's no point in the fans engaging in bean-counting themselves.

[-] Abundance114@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago

Well I find it concerning because I really would love a new Star Trek that's on the level of TNG, or Voyager, or DS9.

Ultimately does it effect me? Nope, but it's disappointing when producers feel that such a departure is a good thing or even necessary to stay relevant with the times; when in reality those changes make the entire show irrelevant.

[-] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 5 points 1 week ago

I am confident that their are overseas bot accounts intervening to magnify cultural and political conflicts in entertainment spaces.

[-] Abundance114@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

But there aren't any equal amount of overseas bots pushing the other direction?

[-] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 3 points 1 week ago

Not on this subject.

[-] usernamefactory@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

No one here is complaining about legitimate criticisms.

(But also an aggregated numeric value is not a criticism at all, it’s a reductive metric that means very little and I don’t understand why people ascribe so much value to these things).

[-] Kirk@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago

For the life of me, I'll never understand the mind of a viewer who gives a shit about aggregated rating scores like that.

[-] Abundance114@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago

But also an aggregated numeric value is not a criticism at all

How's that? If 10 of your coworkers rated your job performance as 5/10; would you think that's not a critical indicator of a failing performance?

How about viewer count, shall we go look that up?

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

It could be a terrible indicator of your actual performance, if five of your coworkers rated you a ten honestly, but the other five rated you a zero because they hated the Black Lives Matter sign in your cubicle.

[-] usernamefactory@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

How’s that? If 10 of your coworkers rated your job performance as 5/10; would you think that’s not a critical indicator of a failing performance?

No. I’ve never been evaluated in such a fashion, and I’d resent it if I were. I think my boss should have the competence to judge my work on its own merits. I judge the shows I watch the same way.

I’m confused as to your purpose here. You seem to be arguing that the show is bad because it’s unpopular. Is that how you form all your opinions? Popular vote, no need to think for yourself?

[-] Abundance114@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

You seem to be arguing that the show is bad because it’s unpopular.

The premis of the thread seems to be that the show is getting review bombed because of MAGA. I pointed out that filtering out the United States still gives abysmally low scores.

If you look at viewer count (low) and review bombs (high), it seems to indicate that the producers are wildly out of touch with what the majority of the Star Trek audience is about.

[-] usernamefactory@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

The premis of the thread seems to be that the show is getting review bombed because of MAGA.

What? No. The video OP posted was talking about specific nonsense positions put forward by specific nonsense people. I don't believe it mentioned view counts or review aggregators. You're the one who brought those up.

You seem very concerned with how popular this show is. To the point where, when I asked you if popularity is all you base your opinions on, all you could do is loop around to trying to convince me that that this show is unpopular. I guess that's my answer.

[-] Abundance114@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

The video OP posted was talking about specific nonsense positions put forward by specific nonsense people.

Which might not be stated but I feel is a defensive response to the negative reviews.

Is this video about MAGA response?

Are the negative reviews most likely from MAGA style viewers?

Yes? Then the two are absolutely connected.

You seem very concerned with how popular this show is.

I've answered this multiple times. Low viewship and high review bombs clearly indicate a disconnect between production and what's expected by the audience. Sure they can produce whatever they want, but if Ford Motors starts producing coffee, then don't be surprised when their customer base says "WTF, we don't want this, we never asked for this".

[-] usernamefactory@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

You're saying that any rejoinder offered to any criticism that might have been levied to by a right winger is de facto an accusation of review bombing and an assertion of the show's popularity in spite of such?

Stretch Armstrong could not stretch this far. Michael Jordan at the end of Space Jam has nothing on you. You are one stretchy, stretchy individual.

And you're still trying to argue with me about how popular the show is! Amazing.

[-] Abundance114@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

You're saying that any rejoinder offered to any criticism that might have been levied to by a right winger is de facto an accusation of review bombing and an assertion of the show's popularity in spite of such?

No. I'm not saying that.

[-] buerviper@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

The alt right is a global movement.

The 1's are just there to review bomb, and a lot of the 10's probably to increase the rating. If you look at the other ratings, the bell curve looks to peak somewhere between 7 and 8.

It is polarizing. An average rating does not represent this.

[-] Sertou@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Eh, TNG had a rough start too, but became awesome. Note that it took two plus seasons to become consistently good.

Academy has lots of rough spots, especially in the writing, but it is not irredeemable. It just needs time to find its tone and audience.

[-] Abundance114@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

It just needs time to find its tone and audience.

I agree with what you said but I'm kind of confused about this... Like the audience is there, its been there for 30 years. Why would you want to find a new one.

[-] Sertou@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Not every show appeals to every Trek fan.

Just as Enterprise didn't appeal to me, so Academy won't to others. But if the show goes on long enough it may attract those trekkers who find appeal in a semi-angsty drama among a college age cast in a progressive academic setting.

[-] Kirk@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago

ok👍

[-] buerviper@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

I only got to know her videos after watching the 4 h dissection of SNW season 3, but her analyses (at least the ones I have seen so far) are very much on point. I love it. Far better content than that alt-right outrage about "pronoun Torpedoes" and "phasers set on woke"

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

its almost always women in power that gets thier panties in a wad, or a lgbtq+ person. ALmost always devolving into mysogynistic attacks, like they are too emotional, why are they leaders over men. this aside from the poor quality of Kurtzmen's nutrek.

[-] CuriousMonotreme@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Thank you for sharing, truely happy to have a new creator to enjoy and sit with.

[-] BreadOven@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Is the first chud in the picture "the critical drinker". If so fuck that guy. There's a pretty good parody channel that is pretty funny. Boozed banter is the channel:

https://youtu.be/rD56SbPAUDk

I know it's parody, but it really captures the stupidity of some of these people making videos like that that are not a parody.

this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2026

80 points (90.0% liked)

Star Trek Social Club

14006 readers

89 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