I think so, the federation is often seen and portrayed as close as you can get to a utopia (Since it's practically impossible to achieve a "true" utopia). They still have issues, make mistakes and wrong calls, and even some (albeit greatly reduced) crime.
So having more positive association/references for the term socialist, a term that most general people can have a connection with, cant hurt.
What went wrong: The US government allowed studios to own streaming and broadcast channels. This resulted in extreme fragmentation of the market where programs were no longer sold on the open market and every studio felt like they had to open their own streaming channel to compete.
It didn’t work when studios owned movie theaters and so that was outlawed. Now we’ve come full circle and studios can buy movie theaters. That’s not going to save the theaters because the studio is going to put their product out for a week before shuffling it off to their streaming channel. Or worse, cancel it for a write off rather than let it air on competing networks.
A side effect of so many streaming channels is that they are all feeling the pressure to keep up with the catalog depth of Netflix and Disney/Hulu. This results in lots of mediocre content being produced to create the illusion of lots of stuff to watch. But no one wants to watch it or hasn't heard of it to build mind hype for it. All that content is wasted money to prop up a failing service that is bleeding every contender dry. There will be more like Paramount. Consolidation is coming.
Why not? The bell riots themselves was one of the steps to class consciousness, something we desperately need now. Yeah people were hurt, but how different is that than BLM and other rights protests being mass arrested or openly fired upon these days?
That is a very machivellian attitude. I don't believe that hurting people who aren't a threat in the name of "progress" is justified, even if it were somehow a shortcut to utopia, which it's not.
Nonviolence is an inherently privileged position in the modern context. Besides the fact that the typical pacifist is quite clearly white and middle class, pacifism as an ideology comes from a privileged context. It ignores that violence is already here; that violence is an unavoidable, structurally integral part of the current social hierarchy; and that it is people of color who are most affected by that violence. Pacifism assumes that white people who grew up in the suburbs with all their basic needs met can counsel oppressed people, many of whom are people of color, to suffer patiently under an inconceivably greater violence, until such time as the Great White Father is swayed by the movement’s demands or the pacifists achieve that legendary “critical mass. -- How Nonviolence Serves the State
I didn't say anything about pacifism, but I also disagree with your proposition equating violence and politics. Violence is a breakdown of politics. Politics, almost definitionally, is how a people settle disputes without violence.
Politics is how how decisions are made in groups. If one person or group is forcing their will upon others, then no decision or compromise between the parties can be said to have been made freely. And therefore it cannot be truthfully described as following a political process.
Pacifism is an ideology centered on political change through nonviolence. Maybe you didn't explicitly say it, but you might as well have. Can you provide a source on violence being a result of political breakdown and not intrinsic to politics itself? How do current regimes uphold their power?
Politics is, more or less, how decisions are made in groups. Making a decision doesn't preclude violence. Wars are political and their entire point is violence. Colonialism was foundational to the politics of the last 3+ centuries and it was incredibly violent. Besides vibes, what evidence do you have to support the claim that politics aren't violent?
It's only Gish galloping if you edit your original message so they appear disconnected. You'd said all hurting was wrong, and my question was a direct followup to that.
Nah, Futurama is pessimistic. A thousand years passed and nothing got better. Humans just found new ways to screw each other over and more aliens to hate. Lower Decks is based and hopepilled.
It took me a few episodes to like Enterprise and now I really enjoy the series. I really wish it when t a couple of more seasons.
The theme song was off putting to me at first. Once I bonded with the cast and characters it somehow became better and now I let it play for most episodes and even sing along.
I think the reason people don't really like the theme song very much is because it isn't the classic instrumental. All of the other Star Treks have been very obviously Star Trek from the opening few tones. Enterprise isn't like that.
Strange New Worlds got this, even though it was a brand new piece of music just the first few notes, you can tell it's Star Trek without even looking at the screen.
Back when Enterprise was airing some fan took the opening footage and added instrumental music to it instead and it was soooooo much better. Worked wonderfully. Really wish I'd saved a copy of it, because I can't find it anymore.
I think it matches with the prequel aspect before Starfleet was really a thing, and it matches up beautifully with the montage of Big E’s evolution. DS9 has the best instrumental but ENT’s intro is great.
Star Trek
Active