The time DaystromInstitute mods contradicted each other and lashed out in anger over a disagreement
By - 13104598210
I see this on Star Trek shitposting on Facebook all the time.
Trying to use upvotes and downvotes as “proof” is inherently flawed. They can go either way at the throw of a coin.
And especially here on Reddit they often won’t be specifically tied to the overall opinion of the post, rather grammar and layout. You can make a really well thought out and layered post but if it’s dozens of lines long, not structured into paragraphs, lacks correct punctuation, has spelling errors or emojis then it may get downvoted to oblivion. On the other hand you can get mountains of upvotes on a cliche 1 sentence comment that doesn’t even start with a capital letter.
Interactions and reactions to posts on Reddit and the internet in general can fluctuate immensely based on time of posting and even on the other end based on how the reader sorts their feed, etc.
There are certainly observable patterns but there are definitely no rules and upvote/downvote ratios are to be taken with a grain of salt at best or plain discarded at worst.
If it makes you feel any better they are 100% be paid to regulate the community.
Wait, so if there's a discussion about the latest episode of DISCO season 4, you can't voice your criticisms with the episode unless it's in a specific thread labeled something like "Criticism of Disco s4 e1"?
LibraryLass is easily one of the most hilariously stupid mods I've ever had the pleasure of fucking with on reddit. Just a total witless dumbfuck who will delete highly upvoted comments if she doesn't agree with them.
I hate Kraetos. He banned me and said similar things when I simply questioned if Star Trek is a political show or not. He said I took one side in the comments (it's not political), which is true, but he then used that as a reason to say my post was 'disengenuous' discussion our something like that. How does he know whether a discussion is 'genuine' or not? Is that how academic discussions work, which is what Daystrom is based on? People don't engage if they think a discussion isn't 'honest?' No. You engage in discussion to prove your point. That's what *should* separate Daystrom from other subreddits.
He then went thru my post history and found I posted the question in another ST sub and I "got dunked on" there so that's why I was posting in Daystrom. Which is perhaps partly true. I wanted to see if Daystrom had a more enlightened response. But how does that negate my question? He was basically saying I want looking for discussion and was really trying to manipulate comments to move towards my viewpoint. But how is that bad/manipulation? It's my viewpoint. I didn't disrespect anyone. I politely had a discussion.
The truth is, Kraetos loves any conversations about ST that don't criticize the perceived leftness of ST. If I want to talk about how I love that a recent episode clearly was about, say, Trump's impeachment and how it criticized authoritarianism, Kraetos sleeps. But if I suddenly say that I disliked the same episode for being so political, suddenly I'm just trying to start fights and care not for civil discussion. Obviously I left the sub after that sad debacle.
Daystrom should be more open. If it's going to allow posts praising ST's politics while also claiming to be an open-minded space for academic discussion, it needs to also allow dissent pertaining to politics in ST.
Oh yeah and Kraetos needs to not be a mod there anymore, nor probably on any sub. He's way too biased with his authority.
Aren’t Star Trek shows all general meant to be political. And most definitely left leaning? I thought the idea for Star Trek (and most sci if) was to bring up contemporary social and political disguised as a space adventure.
As to whether an episode was written or not, I won’t argue that.
In hindsight I can definitely see certain views, but I guess I meant more that it's not overtly favoring current political trends, usually. Political issues do come up and are hidden behind galactic politics, but it's often hard to definitively say the show is picking a clear side. The shows often end in a moral gray area or maybe reference politics of past historical events, but current politics are hard to come by in this show. I think DS9 is a but of an exception to this rule, but I'm referring mostly to TOS, TNG, ENT, and VOY.
I can see the argument that the Federation itself is some kind of communist dream, but at the same time it exists under the premise that technology was necessary for such a paradise to exist. The idea is that once scarcity was no longer a thing, people didn't need money and could focus on bettering themselves. Which, presumably, lead to perfect peaceful coexistence. Government transformations occurred as a result of technology (warp drive, for example). Therefore I don't think the show is necessarily saying communism or a world without money is *absolutely* best, but rather that if our technology is sufficiently advanced, we could then live in a world like that.
>Aren’t Star Trek shows all general meant to be political. And most definitely left leaning? I thought the idea for Star Trek (and most sci if) was to bring up contemporary social and political disguised as a space adventure.
I suppose. TOS was, I suppose, very "progressive" in introducing a Russian Starfleet officer during the height of the Cold War. That said, if someone back then felt that Chekov was a Russian stereotype and that the producers were doing some kind of performative inclusivity, I'd agree.
I love Chekov from the the films. But the guy with the Monkees haircut who foolishly thinks everything was invented by Russians is kind of lame at times. The actor himself is great, and Chekov has some great moments. But even then, there was room for criticism.
I think most people on both sides will agree that when Trek is not subtle, it can come off as cringy, like the half-black/half-white faced aliens in TOS. And having MU Lorca say "MAGA!"
I'd argue that writers back then were more focused on telling good sci-fi stories, whereas today their more focused on telling stories for the Twitter/Tumblr crowd.
> What I dislike about DIS is what a lot of left wing people dislike--the disingenuous performative politics that is more about dividing people than trying to create a genuine dialogue and move us towards a more enlightened future.
> Yes, we have long standing contributors who dislike *Discovery*. We've also had an influx of contributors since *Discovery* has been announced, usually young accounts or accounts with no previous history in Daystrom, who decry *Discovery* for being "SJW Trek" and other such inflammatory and shallow commentary.
> What we don't have is any real overlap between these groups. In fact, to the best of my recollection, you are the only poster from the former group who acts like a poster from the latter group.
OK, I find that claim difficult to believe. I'm far more circumspect on Daystrom Institute about my opinion on Discovery than here, but that's because of their heavy-handed moderation that's been there even before Discovery.
But to claim that after 2 seasons of Discovery, that not one regular gave a 'shallow comment' on Discovery?
I forgot he'd accused me of making a shallow comment. Here's the post I made at the time; you can decide if it's shallow or not:
"I don't want to debate the actual value of the political viewpoint, and whether one agrees with it or disagrees with it can be and should be absolutely divorced from an aesthetic and critical analysis of DIS, because the show is after all entertainment and, as part of Star Trek, canonical art that has important cultural significance.
That said, DIS's wokeness is killing it.
Specifically, the show's need to constantly depict minority characters stopping the foolish authoritarian white man (Pike) from doing the Wrong Thing means that he comes across as a completely ineffective and incompetent character. We constantly see Michael telling Pike what should be done, and Pike just sits back and says, "yeah, sure, if you think that's best." It is turning him into the a comically ineffectual and incompetent leader.
There are other more minute aspects of the show where its attempt to be politically relevant to today stifles the show, but I just want to emphasize the issue with Pike, because Star Trek has always been political and has always made a political point without having this dynamic of the foil to its ideology that must get struck down by the superior characters all the time.
In fact, the way Pike is treated is similar to The Neutral Zone's 20th century regenerated characters, and that episode has not aged well at all. Now the 24th century characters look condescending, rude, and entirely insensitive in that episode in a way that is disjarring and inconsistent with the rest of the show, although we pretty much all know we're not supposed to focus on that and focus instead on how silly and backward the 20th century characters act. Similarly, we're supposed to see Pike as the silly straight white cismale who needs to get out of the way for minorities to do good--and he's being a good ally by stepping out of the way. Except this isn't how a hierarchical paramilitary system can or should work, in or out of Star Trek. I fear this will not be looked at will 20 years from now when the culture wars have moved on. "
Ha. Most people wouldn't consider a 350 word essay on the undermining of one character in the attempt at building up another to be shallow, but clearly to some mods, that's just screaming invective.
I think the apotheosis of the 'Michael Burnham is the bestest person in teh universe' is still Lt Connelly.
Presumed Straight White Male who came aboard with Pike. Said some snide comments about science, got verbally shot down by Burnham, then kills himself through hubris when he doesn't follow Burnham's flight instructions.
He wasn't just the 'blueshirt who dies to prove the situation is serious'. If he had been [and presuming he had the same characterization as the present Connelly] , he should have been a likeable character who the audience was shocked by the sudden and accidental death by, not a petty jerk who died due to his own stupidity. Retroactive character assassination.
I forgot about him. Man, DIS has been so blatant in its woke pandering it's downright shocking.
So blatant and shocking that you forgot all about it, huh?
Yes, I forgot about a minor character who exists for maybe one or two episodes in a series I have watched over 2 years ago.
>Presumed Straight White Male who came aboard with Pike. Said some snide comments about science, got verbally shot down by Burnham, then kills himself through hubris when he doesn't follow Burnham's flight instructions.
The writers were so heavy handed with it too. Pike picks on him for no reason, saying he used too many words compared to Burnham's more succinct approach, which starts off the little feud.
Then some alien starfleet officer sneezes all this snot all over his face in the turbolift, just so the writers could be more mean-spirited. Strangely enough, the alien officer doesn't apologize and Burnham just laughs. I mean, holy shit, that alien officer was an asshole. And no one said, "hey dick, that was fucked up what you did!"
Then of course, he predictably ignores Burnham's advice and actually mansplains to her and gets killed in mid-mansplain.
It doesn't even feel like a real, organic story. Just some writer's pandering the Twitter SJW crowd. lol take that straight white male!!
Like Chief Engineer Olson? Or would it only have counted if it'd been Uhura telling him to open his chute and not Kirk?
For reference to anyone who doesn't remember a minor-character from *2009* by name, Olson was the redshirt who fell into the Narada's drilling beam over Vulcan to prove the situation was serious.
This is all his dialogue:
> OLSON: Oh yeah. I can't wait to kick some Romulan ass. Right?
> KIRK: Yeah.
> OLSON: Oh yeah.
> OLSON: Three thousand meters.
> KIRK: Two thousand meters.
> SULU: Pull your chute.
> (Sulu and then Kirk pull their chutes. Olson does not.)
> OLSON: Two thousand meters!
> KIRK: C'mon, pull your chute, Olson!
> OLSON: Not yet! Fifteen hundred meters!
> SULU: Open your chute!
> OLSON: Yeah!
> KIRK: Olson, pull your chute!
> OLSON: One thousand meters.
> (Olson pulls his chute. He slams into the platform and is sucked into the energy beam)
> KIRK: Olson!
Note that Olson is characterized as a brash young officer (maybe not, Memory Alpha lists him as chief engineer, USS Enterprise. Oh dear) whose overeagerness gets him killed.
Note that he doesn't have a verbal sparring match against Kirk or Sulu, and his death is, as previously suggested, shocking and somewhat saddening to the audience.
Olson was just a gag. "The red shirt that we've never met who dies immediately"
Connelly is also just the trope of "asshole who thinks he knows better than the main character, doesn't, with often fatal results." He's in every disaster movie, he's in Trek a lot
But people get upset.
>That said, DIS's wokeness is killing it.
Trek has always been 'woke'.
It ultimately depends on what you mean by woke. For me, it means a militant and illiberal obsession with physically visible characteristics and a dislike of treating people equally and valuing the content of one's character over the color of one skin. Star Trek was never about that.
>a militant and illiberal obsession with physically visible characteristics and a dislike of treating people equally and valuing the content of one's character over the color of one skin. Star Trek was never about that.
Like how Geordi was the blind man flying the ship?
Like when Janeway murdered Tuvix?
I admit I got nothing about the MLK quote in classic Trek.
Geordi wasn't there to constantly tell Picard "You have no idea where you're going. I'm turning this ship around and going somewhere else."
No, but that wasn't quite my point.
"For me, it means a militant and illiberal obsession with physically visible characteristics"
Geordi as a blind man at Helm/Conn was seen by a minority as evidence of 'pc gone mad' that the show/Federation was being 'too inclusive' and several episodes focus on the 'superiority' of the Visor over normal vision, such as The Masterpiece Society.
So does that not qualify TNG as OP's version of 'woke'?
Kinda the same deal with Seven now that I think about it.
Maybe I'm just not getting what 'visible characteristics' means?
No, a character with a significant handicap being able to function in everyday society (possibly with assistance, like the VISOR) is just a nice, inspirational story and a lesson to not write people off because they're handicapped.
Wokeness would be if Geordi didn't have the VISOR and spent every episode lecturing everyone else that their experience as sighted people was invalid, and somehow **still** was a better pilot because he could just "feel" all the planets in the way before he hit them.
Ok, can you give me a specific example of this is Disco?
Everything involving Michael "My Tears Are Literally Jesus" Burnham.
> Like how Geordi was the blind man flying the ship?
Like how Geordi's blindness was never brought up in the context of him being a pilot. The first mention of it (as exposition to the audience) was a medical checkup by the new Doctor Crusher due to his persistent headaches due to the VISOR.
It's almost like the show treats him the same as any other character, and had his blindness and use of his VISOR are a recurring but minor character trait, similarly to Data's lack of emotions or Worf's being raised by humans.
Almost like, and say it with me now, everyone was treated based on the content of their character and not their physical disabilities/artificiality etc.
> I admit I got nothing about the MLK quote in classic Trek.
Have your forgotten *Let This Be Your Last Battlefield*? A story about the irrationality of separating ourselves by arbitrary skin tones, in a fairly ham-handed allegory?
Or how about how Uhura's race is brought up exactly once [twice if you include her mentioning her first language is Swahili], as a historical archaism:
> LINCOLN: What a charming negress. Oh, forgive me, my dear. I know in my time some used that term as a description of property.
> UHURA: But why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century we've learned not to fear words.
> KIRK: May I present our communications officer, Lieutenant Uhura.
It's almost like it was an intentional point by Roddenberry that the ethnic and cultural diversity of the crew is a non-point to the denizens of the Federation, no more significant than the handedness of a person is today, in direct opposition to the definition laid out by u/13104598210.
Now, in Discovery's defence [shudder], I think it's catastrophic flaws lie in it's abysmal writing, rather than injection of politics into it.
Everything surrounding the show, from the statements by the writers/producers to the comments from the cast, is steeped in it. But the show itself got away remarkable free, with a notable exception in a certain 31st century wunderkind that would give Westley a run for his money.
Yes, THIS exactly. Thank you
Well said, and I would agree that the problem is the writing more than the politics. But they are related, My whole contention has always been that Discovery isn't political per se but is pandering to a political disposition it doesn't fully understand or really care about
I highly suggest we use the more apt term “virtue signaling” to describe pandering writing choices. More precise language will better serve us in pointing out the abysmal character treatments.
>Like how Geordi's blindness was never brought up in the context of him being a pilot. The first mention of it (as exposition to the audience) was a medical checkup by the new Doctor Crusher due to his persistent headaches due to the VISOR.
That wasn't my point, see reply to arcxjo.
"a dislike of treating people equally and valuing the content of one's character over the color of one skin. Star Trek was never about that."
OP cites woke/Disco having a *dislike* of treating people equally, so you're points about the TOS episodes are correct, but for the Merriam Webster 'Woke', not OP's definition. Which is why I said nothing came to mind from classic Trek.
"Now, in Discovery's defence \[shudder\], I think it's catastrophic flaws lie in it's abysmal writing, rather than injection of politics into it."
Agree 100%. I think the show is god-awful frankly, but it's down to the writing (Time Crystals FFS) and not IMHO, the same 'agenda' Trek has had since it's inception.
Yeah, that's not what woke is, so maybe a different term would be more helpful.
"aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"
Seems like Star Trek to me, no?
For me Trek was always genuinely probing and not performative. The two recent series however seem totally superficial, and not intellectually derivative of the source material.
TOS broke mores, and the following series followed suit. The present series feel imprisoned by our own era.
Interesting, can you explain what you mean by 'performative' and give me a specific example from Disco?
Looks like my time commenting on Trekcore articles all over again. The same goes for Ghostbusters Fans. Anyone here a member of that website? Their mod Kingpin is a real control freak.
Reminder that /r/ShittyDaystrom is the actual Daystrom Institute sub
Preach it brother
>the disingenuous performative politics that is more about dividing people than trying to create a genuine dialogue and move us towards a more enlightened future.
There they are wasting time trying to work out where everyone is on the interesctionalty pyramid of oppression and Bezos is spanking his dead book shop money playing fucking spaceships!
Yeah, I mean look. We know that the woke/SJW/The Elect/whatever you want to call them are extraordinarily hostile to discussion and are operating out of a basically religious faith in certain illiberal precepts about identity. I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but you’re basically an atheist trying to get angry Christians to accept a post that’s basically “this shows overdedication to a Christian message is hurting it.”
I’m not sure what the answer is. I go back and forth. Mockery usually deflates the precious and pious but you always hold out hope that kindly asking for some consideration might work. But zealous church folk are rarely particularly kind.
Fully agreed. We're living in a neo McCarthy era, satanic panic 2.0, a Spanish Inquisition. It will fade, and people will cringe when they look back on this particular period in history. There's really nothing for us to do but not engage and wait for them to burn themselves out.
>It will fade
You sure about that? I don't recall them tearing down statues during the McCarthy period. This feels more like a Chinese cultural revolution.
Tearing down statues? Oh yeah which statues?
Wasn't the Satanic Panic partially real though? Not the cults and people falsely accused of it, but in entertainment?
A lot of music and entertainment was purposely trying to be edgy by putting some satanic imagery and references in their music. Even today it's being done when rappers were purposely putting baphomet imagery in their videos, and you have Lil Nas X making Satanic Nike shoes and twerking on the devil.
The Satanic Panic and Satanic messages in metal music were related, but separate in two important ways. One, the Satanic Panic was about identifying real Satanists abusing children--other aspects of Satanism (e.g. Levay and Satanism in metal) were considered related, possibly even contributory elements to the Satanic abuse of kids, but weren't the core concern of the Satanic Panic. Secondly, a lot of the Satanic imagery in music was a response to the Satanic Panic--the hysteria over the issue made it edgy and thus was adopted--so it was an effect of the Satanic Panic, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way.
But to say that then demonstrates the Satanic Panic is partially real is a bit like blaming the victim.
>But to say that then demonstrates the Satanic Panic is partially real is a bit like blaming the victim.
Well lots of things in the past have been described as a moral panic of some kind and turned out to have some degree, however small, of validity.
For example the concerns of the Parents Music Resource Center. That originally started over pop-music that contained references to sex, drug use, and violence. But mostly sex. It was seen as a moral panic. This was around 1985 I believe, Wikipedia lists it as a moral panic.
Yet, by the early 90s, popular, mainstream albums were promoting gang affiliation, gang violence, rape, murder, theft, drug selling, drug use, sexism, misogyny, and homophobia.
If the "Satanic Panic" doesn't include music, D&D, backmasking, all that, then my bad. But I explicitly excluded the false accusations made against people and the alleged cults that people claimed existed.
I don't buy the self-fulfilling prophecy about Satanism in music. You had the band "Black Sabbath" existing before the Satanic Panic that started in 1980. The Misfits had some pretty misogynistic and violent lyrics and were already flirting with the occult in their image/music, by the late 70s. Later, Danzig formed Samhain. Primarily, these groups wanted to be edgy, but then, most music aimed at the youth try for that, whether it be making music about Satanism, gang banging, killing, attacking gay people, being overly promiscuous, using men/women, etc. Just because there's an outcry against say, homophobia and hate crimes, I don't see that as a justifiable excuse for someone like Eminem to make music that talks about murdering gay people.
I don't think of trek as "progressive" because that is a term that has always kinda meant progress towards socialism. I do think trek has always kinda been egalitarian meritocracy, everyone can contribute and it doesn't matter who or what they are. There's a big difference between the two, and trek wasn't even the first inter-racial kiss on tv.
You do realize Star Trek economics is socialism right?
A term first invented by Karl Marx.
No it's not. More post scarcity than Socialism and only Earth, not the entirety of Trek.
except... its not?
I don't get why political views are constantly mentioned here. Star trek has nothing to do with politics.
It's because other star trek forums are engaging in censorship removing posts while this one doesn't. No violation of reddit rules, but simply making minor comments about Discovery or anything new
A part of the freedom to post here is to discuss this openly.
There are so many political episodes in old Trek I can't even count them all
Classic Trek was really more of a 45 minute morality play, they'd often use some political allegory as a backdrop, or catalyst for the ethical dilemma of the week. It definitely did have political positions it either argued for, or tacitly assumed humanity as having progressed to in the future, but I do understand the perspective of people who do not see it as overtly political.
The big distinction versus nuTrek is subtlety and writing quality.
* In-universe: The Federation, Romulan Empire, Klingon Empire, The Doninion *et al* are all political organisations, whose structures have been story points in Trek fiction since it’s beginning.
* Behind the scenes: Patrick “booooo Brexit” Stewart, Wil “u h8 ghostbusters 2016 COz U sEXiSt” Wheaton, Whoopi “not my President” Goldberg, Marina “Republicans are evil” Sirtis, Tim “Republicans are liars” Russ *et al* are prominently, publicly splashing their political views all over the web.
Holy shit, I thought this was a cool star trek sub. Not a showcase for r/FragileWhiteRedditor.
I guess you missed the part where I'm not white
Doesn't matter. You come off as a reactionary man child thats angry at everyone. Im sorry if that's not true but your post comes off as disingenuous when you say you don't want to post this but you just so happen to have it saved from years ago.
You clearly have a personal grudge with Krateos and I don't think you should be using our disdain of the mods there to gather sympathy for your pathetic personal feud.
> Not a showcase for r/FragileWhiteRedditor
> I'm not white
> Doesn't matter
LOLOL, shut up you fucking dimwit.
Thank you, is-numberfive, for voting on asadarmada.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Are you sure about that? Because I am 100.0% sure that asadarmada is not a bot.
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Wow--someone actually thinks the word "woke" is only used on YouTube? Like, I never use YouTube--I'm a middle aged PhD who probably hears the word most from podcasts and the news than anywhere else. Anyway, time to block.