Discussion:
Star Trek: Discovery preview: Watch Anthony Rapp's first scene - Meet Lt. Stamets, the first openly gay character in the `Star Trek' TV universe
Add Reply
Ubiquitous
2017-09-30 09:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/29/star-trek-discovery-anthony-rapp/

When Star Trek: Discovery‘s third episode debuts this Sunday, the hour
will make history for the 51-year-old franchise: Revealing Trek‘s first
openly gay TV series character — Lt. Stamets, played by Anthony Rapp
(Rent). Above is an exclusive preview of his debut scene.

The setup: Disgraced Starfleet officer Michael Burnham (Sonequa
Martin-Green), en route to prison after having been convicted of
mutiny, is picked up by the U.S.S. Discovery and tasked by its captain
(Jason Isaacs) to assist with a secretive project.

While there’s no indication of Stamets’ sexuality in Sunday’s episode,
titled “Context Is King,” his relationship with another member of
Starfleet becomes a story point in the show beginning next week. “I’m
really excited and happy when a gay character is a part of a story —
especially when a gay character is created in a complex and human and
non-stereotypical, interesting way, and that has certainly been the
case with Stamets,” Rapp told EW. “And you get to see his relationship.
There was a little glimpse [of a relationship with] Sulu in Beyond, and
it was a nice nod. But in this case, we actually get to see me with my
partner in conversation, in our living quarters, you get to see our
relationship over time, treated as any other relationship would be
treated.”

Stamets’ research involves fungus spores and it will be key to
Starfleet’s war with the Klingons, though he isn’t exactly the easiest
character to get along with. “He’s a really, really smart guy and as
smart guys go, he sometimes can be a little difficult to deal with
because not everybody’s as smart as he is,” Rapp says. “So he’s got a
little bit of an edge sometimes, which is fun to play.”

According to EW’s critic Darren Franich, Sunday’s hour ranks as the
best of the first three episodes that were screened for reporters and
is probably the closest to showing what the series will be like week to
week now that Burnham has reached the U.S.S. Discovery of the show’s
title.

Here’s a preview of the next episode and beyond:

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Doc O'Leary
2017-09-30 19:45:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Ubiquitous
When Star Trek: Discovery‘s third episode debuts this Sunday, the hour
will make history for the 51-year-old franchise: Revealing Trek‘s first
openly gay TV series character — Lt. Stamets, played by Anthony Rapp
(Rent).
Does Trek seriously think they can pat themselves on the back for not
only being late to the game, but also burying their “progress” in a
series that is only being made available to a *very* limited number of
CBS viewers?

More concerning for the franchise itself is their timeline. They’ve
set Discovery *before* the original Star Trek, which means that either
homosexuality got eliminated in the Trek universe, or they forced
homosexuals to go back to living closeted lifestyles. Is there going to
be a press release that touts *those* events?
Post by Ubiquitous
There was a little glimpse [of a relationship with] Sulu in Beyond, and
it was a nice nod.
But Beyond was set in a different Trek universe. In the original
universe, where Discovery takes place, Sulu (along with everyone else)
was depicted as straight. So what happened between now and Enterprise
that suppressed the LGBTQ population, what allowed them to recover by
the time Discovery depicts, and then eliminated them again in the 10
year span that lead up to TOS?
Post by Ubiquitous
But in this case, we actually get to see me with my
partner in conversation, in our living quarters, you get to see our
relationship over time, treated as any other relationship would be
treated.”
Then why the press release? If it’s normal, just depict it as being
normal. The only reason it’d be newsworthy as a story element is if
they were going to do what I described and wage (another) war on
homosexuals in the Trek universe. Otherwise, this is all just
pandering.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-09-30 21:01:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
When Star Trek: Discovery‘s third episode debuts this Sunday,
Revealing Trek‘s first openly gay TV series character — Lt.
Stamets, played by Anthony Rapp (Rent).
Does Trek seriously think they can pat themselves on the back
for not only being late to the game, but also burying their
“progress” in a series that is only being made available to
a *very* limited number of CBS viewers?
As has been point out, very credibly, Discovery isn't about Star
Trek, it's about building up the subscriber list for CBS' streaming
service, s othat CBS can raise the rates they charge _other_
streaming services.
Post by Doc O'Leary
More concerning for the franchise itself is their timeline.
They’ve set Discovery *before* the original Star Trek, which
means that either homosexuality got eliminated in the Trek
universe, or they forced homosexuals to go back to living
closeted lifestyles. Is there going to be a press release that
touts *those* events?
The original series didn't exactly show a lot of heterosexual
relationships, either. At least, none that weren't either a)
failed, often specactularly enough to be a key plot element, or b)
highly dysfunctional, like Kirk boning green slaves.

But yeah, late to the game, sanctimonius and self serving.

It'll be a big hit.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2017-10-01 00:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 14:01:10 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
When Star Trek: Discovery‘s third episode debuts this Sunday,
Revealing Trek‘s first openly gay TV series character — Lt.
Stamets, played by Anthony Rapp (Rent).
Does Trek seriously think they can pat themselves on the back
for not only being late to the game, but also burying their
“progressâ€? in a series that is only being made available to
a *very* limited number of CBS viewers?
As has been point out, very credibly, Discovery isn't about Star
Trek, it's about building up the subscriber list for CBS' streaming
service, s othat CBS can raise the rates they charge _other_
streaming services.
Post by Doc O'Leary
More concerning for the franchise itself is their timeline.
They’ve set Discovery *before* the original Star Trek, which
means that either homosexuality got eliminated in the Trek
universe, or they forced homosexuals to go back to living
closeted lifestyles. Is there going to be a press release that
touts *those* events?
The original series didn't exactly show a lot of heterosexual
relationships, either. At least, none that weren't either a)
failed, often specactularly enough to be a key plot element, or b)
highly dysfunctional, like Kirk boning green slaves.
In what episode does Kirk "bone green slaves"? In "The Cage" Kirk is
not even a character in the show yet. In "The Menagerie" Kirk sees
one in a recording--he has no interaction with her. In "Whom Gods
Destroy" she attempts to seduce information out of him, failing that
tries to kill him, and ultimately gets blown up by a lunatic. Is
there another episode in which there is reason to believe that any
such "boning" takes place?

You should probably watch TOS through if you are going to express
opinions about it.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
But yeah, late to the game, sanctimonius and self serving.
It'll be a big hit.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-10-01 00:40:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 14:01:10 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
When Star Trek: Discovery‘s third episode debuts this
Sunday, the hour will make history for the 51-year-old
franchise: Revealing Trek‘s first openly gay TV series
character — Lt. Stamets, played by Anthony Rapp (Rent).
Does Trek seriously think they can pat themselves on the back
for not only being late to the game, but also burying their
“progressâ€? in a series that is only being made available
to a *very* limited number of CBS viewers?
As has been point out, very credibly, Discovery isn't about Star
Trek, it's about building up the subscriber list for CBS'
streaming service, s othat CBS can raise the rates they charge
_other_ streaming services.
Post by Doc O'Leary
More concerning for the franchise itself is their timeline.
They’ve set Discovery *before* the original Star Trek, which
means that either homosexuality got eliminated in the Trek
universe, or they forced homosexuals to go back to living
closeted lifestyles. Is there going to be a press release
that touts *those* events?
The original series didn't exactly show a lot of heterosexual
relationships, either. At least, none that weren't either a)
failed, often specactularly enough to be a key plot element, or
b) highly dysfunctional, like Kirk boning green slaves.
In what episode does Kirk "bone green slaves"? In "The Cage"
Kirk is not even a character in the show yet. In "The
Menagerie" Kirk sees one in a recording--he has no interaction
with her. In "Whom Gods Destroy" she attempts to seduce
information out of him, failing that tries to kill him, and
ultimately gets blown up by a lunatic. Is there another episode
in which there is reason to believe that any such "boning" takes
place?
You should probably watch TOS through if you are going to
express opinions about it.
That hooko tasty, is it, fanboi? Trekkies are *so* easy.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Adam H. Kerman
2017-10-01 01:06:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 14:01:10 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
The original series didn't exactly show a lot of heterosexual
relationships, either. At least, none that weren't either a)
failed, often specactularly enough to be a key plot element, or
b) highly dysfunctional, like Kirk boning green slaves.
In what episode does Kirk "bone green slaves"? In "The Cage"
Kirk is not even a character in the show yet. In "The
Menagerie" Kirk sees one in a recording--he has no interaction
with her. In "Whom Gods Destroy" she attempts to seduce
information out of him, failing that tries to kill him, and
ultimately gets blown up by a lunatic. Is there another episode
in which there is reason to believe that any such "boning" takes
place?
You should probably watch TOS through if you are going to
express opinions about it.
That hooko tasty, is it, fanboi? Trekkies are *so* easy.
Could you be an even bigger wanker? You took a cheap shot. You got
it wrong. You got called out for it, then tried to preserve what
miniscule amount of dignity you possess by with a pathetic insult.
J. Clarke
2017-10-01 02:05:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 01:06:55 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 14:01:10 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
The original series didn't exactly show a lot of heterosexual
relationships, either. At least, none that weren't either a)
failed, often specactularly enough to be a key plot element, or
b) highly dysfunctional, like Kirk boning green slaves.
In what episode does Kirk "bone green slaves"? In "The Cage"
Kirk is not even a character in the show yet. In "The
Menagerie" Kirk sees one in a recording--he has no interaction
with her. In "Whom Gods Destroy" she attempts to seduce
information out of him, failing that tries to kill him, and
ultimately gets blown up by a lunatic. Is there another episode
in which there is reason to believe that any such "boning" takes
place?
You should probably watch TOS through if you are going to
express opinions about it.
That hooko tasty, is it, fanboi? Trekkies are *so* easy.
Could you be an even bigger wanker? You took a cheap shot. You got
it wrong. You got called out for it, then tried to preserve what
miniscule amount of dignity you possess by with a pathetic insult.
Terry's trying to be the biggest wanker in the whole world. Didn't
you know that? I guess it's good to have goals. Pity he didn't
settle on a more constructive one.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-10-01 03:02:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 01:06:55 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 14:01:10 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
The original series didn't exactly show a lot of heterosexual
relationships, either. At least, none that weren't either a)
failed, often specactularly enough to be a key plot element,
or b) highly dysfunctional, like Kirk boning green slaves.
In what episode does Kirk "bone green slaves"? In "The Cage"
Kirk is not even a character in the show yet. In "The
Menagerie" Kirk sees one in a recording--he has no interaction
with her. In "Whom Gods Destroy" she attempts to seduce
information out of him, failing that tries to kill him, and
ultimately gets blown up by a lunatic. Is there another
episode in which there is reason to believe that any such
"boning" takes place?
You should probably watch TOS through if you are going to
express opinions about it.
That hooko tasty, is it, fanboi? Trekkies are *so* easy.
Could you be an even bigger wanker? You took a cheap shot. You
got it wrong. You got called out for it, then tried to preserve
what miniscule amount of dignity you possess by with a pathetic
insult.
Terry's trying to be the biggest wanker in the whole world.
Didn't you know that? I guess it's good to have goals. Pity he
didn't settle on a more constructive one.
Puts me several steps up from you, who aspire to be the stupidest
retard in the world. And you can't even get that right. You fail
at failure.

Dumbass.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-10-01 03:01:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 14:01:10 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
The original series didn't exactly show a lot of heterosexual
relationships, either. At least, none that weren't either a)
failed, often specactularly enough to be a key plot element,
or b) highly dysfunctional, like Kirk boning green slaves.
In what episode does Kirk "bone green slaves"? In "The Cage"
Kirk is not even a character in the show yet. In "The
Menagerie" Kirk sees one in a recording--he has no interaction
with her. In "Whom Gods Destroy" she attempts to seduce
information out of him, failing that tries to kill him, and
ultimately gets blown up by a lunatic. Is there another
episode in which there is reason to believe that any such
"boning" takes place?
You should probably watch TOS through if you are going to
express opinions about it.
That hooko tasty, is it, fanboi? Trekkies are *so* easy.
Could you be an even bigger wanker?
Yes. Easily. I'm sure you'll need a demonstration. Which you'll
get.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You took a cheap shot.
Yes. And dumbass swallowed it without a second (or first) thought.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You got
it wrong.
That's what makes it funny.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You got called out for it, then tried to preserve what
miniscule amount of dignity you possess by with a pathetic
insult.
Y'all are new around here. I'm sure someone will 'splain it to
you. You won't understand it, of course, but eventually, you'll
pretend to so you can run away with your tail between your legs.
Which makes you smarter than Clarke, who will keep swalling hooks
no matter how sore his ass is from the spankings.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-01 16:18:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 14:01:10 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
The original series didn't exactly show a lot of heterosexual
relationships, either. At least, none that weren't either a)
failed, often specactularly enough to be a key plot element, or b)
highly dysfunctional, like Kirk boning green slaves.
In what episode does Kirk "bone green slaves"?
Trying to single out a particular “relationship” is splitting hairs.
The fact remains that Trek, especially through various captains/alpha
males, depicted a *lot* of non-human sexual attraction/relationships
(aka, beastiality), but essentially no non-normative human sexual
identities. That represents a *huge* problem when you try to fit the
themes of Discovery in with the existing universe.
Post by J. Clarke
You should probably watch TOS through if you are going to express
opinions about it.
The problem isn’t TOS, it’s attempting to retcon the Trek universe into
something that just doesn’t fit the stories that were being told 50
years ago. You just can’t go from excluding to including to excluding
homosexual relationships without explanation. And if they ever set
another series in the same universe’s future, they’ll have another
(likely) inclusion to explain. Everyone has a right to express their
opinion on how terrible the writers are for not handling the retcon
very well.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
David Johnston
2017-10-12 01:38:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 14:01:10 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
The original series didn't exactly show a lot of heterosexual
relationships, either. At least, none that weren't either a)
failed, often specactularly enough to be a key plot element, or b)
highly dysfunctional, like Kirk boning green slaves.
In what episode does Kirk "bone green slaves"?
Trying to single out a particular “relationship” is splitting hairs.
The fact remains that Trek, especially through various captains/alpha
males, depicted a *lot* of non-human sexual attraction/relationships
(aka, beastiality)
...OK that was stupid.
Ubiquitous
2017-10-08 21:10:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
When Star Trek: Discovery‘s third episode debuts this Sunday, the hour
will make history for the 51-year-old franchise: Revealing Trek‘s first
openly gay TV series character — Lt. Stamets, played by Anthony Rapp
(Rent).
Does Trek seriously think they can pat themselves on the back for not
only being late to the game, but also burying their “progress” in a
series that is only being made available to a *very* limited number of
CBS viewers?
More concerning for the franchise itself is their timeline. They’ve
set Discovery *before* the original Star Trek, which means that either
homosexuality got eliminated in the Trek universe, or they forced
homosexuals to go back to living closeted lifestyles. Is there going to
be a press release that touts *those* events?
There was a little glimpse [of a relationship with] Sulu in Beyond, and
it was a nice nod.
But Beyond was set in a different Trek universe. In the original
universe, where Discovery takes place, Sulu (along with everyone else)
was depicted as straight. So what happened between now and Enterprise
that suppressed the LGBTQ population, what allowed them to recover by
the time Discovery depicts, and then eliminated them again in the 10
year span that lead up to TOS?
People are quick to forget that homosexuality was illegal in the 1960's.
You are attempting to look at this with 20/20 hindsight.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-10-08 20:37:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Doc O'Leary
When Star Trek: Discovery‘s third episode debuts this Sunday,
Revealing Trek‘s first openly gay TV series character — Lt.
Stamets, played by Anthony Rapp (Rent).
Does Trek seriously think they can pat themselves on the back
for not only being late to the game, but also burying their
“progress” in a series that is only being made available to
a *very* limited number of CBS viewers?
More concerning for the franchise itself is their timeline.
They’ve set Discovery *before* the original Star Trek, which
means that either homosexuality got eliminated in the Trek
universe, or they forced homosexuals to go back to living
closeted lifestyles. Is there going to be a press release that
touts *those* events?
There was a little glimpse [of a relationship with] Sulu in
Beyond, and it was a nice nod.
But Beyond was set in a different Trek universe. In the
original universe, where Discovery takes place, Sulu (along with
everyone else) was depicted as straight. So what happened
between now and Enterprise that suppressed the LGBTQ population,
what allowed them to recover by the time Discovery depicts, and
then eliminated them again in the 10 year span that lead up to
TOS?
People are quick to forget that homosexuality was illegal in the
1960's. You are attempting to look at this with 20/20 hindsight.
What's your point? The political climate in Hollywood (and
throughout liberal wingnuttery) is that all things male and
caucasian throughout the past are evil and must be suppressed.
Anything involving a decades old franchise being milked for every
penny possible, all white males *must* either have tits, be gay, or
cease being white. Or be retardedly stupid bad guys.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Ubiquitous
2017-10-09 17:48:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Doc O'Leary
When Star Trek: Discovery‘s third episode debuts this Sunday,
Revealing Trek‘s first openly gay TV series character — Lt.
Stamets, played by Anthony Rapp (Rent).
Does Trek seriously think they can pat themselves on the back
for not only being late to the game, but also burying their
“progress” in a series that is only being made available to
a *very* limited number of CBS viewers?
More concerning for the franchise itself is their timeline.
They’ve set Discovery *before* the original Star Trek, which
means that either homosexuality got eliminated in the Trek
universe, or they forced homosexuals to go back to living
closeted lifestyles. Is there going to be a press release that
touts *those* events?
There was a little glimpse [of a relationship with] Sulu in
Beyond, and it was a nice nod.
But Beyond was set in a different Trek universe. In the
original universe, where Discovery takes place, Sulu (along with
everyone else) was depicted as straight. So what happened
between now and Enterprise that suppressed the LGBTQ population,
what allowed them to recover by the time Discovery depicts, and
then eliminated them again in the 10 year span that lead up to
TOS?
People are quick to forget that homosexuality was illegal in the
1960's. You are attempting to look at this with 20/20 hindsight.
What's your point? The political climate in Hollywood (and
throughout liberal wingnuttery) is that all things male and
caucasian throughout the past are evil and must be suppressed.
Anything involving a decades old franchise being milked for every
penny possible, all white males *must* either have tits, be gay, or
cease being white. Or be retardedly stupid bad guys.
The point I was trying to make is that homosexuality was regarded
much differently in the 1960's than it is now. There simply wouldn't
be an open homosexuals on Star Trek, so concluding the lack of them
means it had been "cured" is baseless.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
J. Clarke
2017-10-08 20:40:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Doc O'Leary
When Star Trek: Discovery‘s third episode debuts this Sunday, the hour
will make history for the 51-year-old franchise: Revealing Trek‘s first
openly gay TV series character — Lt. Stamets, played by Anthony Rapp
(Rent).
Does Trek seriously think they can pat themselves on the back for not
only being late to the game, but also burying their “progressâ€? in a
series that is only being made available to a *very* limited number of
CBS viewers?
More concerning for the franchise itself is their timeline. They’ve
set Discovery *before* the original Star Trek, which means that either
homosexuality got eliminated in the Trek universe, or they forced
homosexuals to go back to living closeted lifestyles. Is there going to
be a press release that touts *those* events?
There was a little glimpse [of a relationship with] Sulu in Beyond, and
it was a nice nod.
But Beyond was set in a different Trek universe. In the original
universe, where Discovery takes place, Sulu (along with everyone else)
was depicted as straight. So what happened between now and Enterprise
that suppressed the LGBTQ population, what allowed them to recover by
the time Discovery depicts, and then eliminated them again in the 10
year span that lead up to TOS?
People are quick to forget that homosexuality was illegal in the 1960's.
You are attempting to look at this with 20/20 hindsight.
There was (and still is) government censorship of OTA television--a
station could lose its license for showing something that depicted
homosexuality in a positive light (or at all for that matter if it
wasn't a news item).
A Friend
2017-10-08 21:26:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Doc O'Leary
When Star Trek: Discovery?s third episode debuts this Sunday, the hour
will make history for the 51-year-old franchise: Revealing Trek?s first
openly gay TV series character ? Lt. Stamets, played by Anthony Rapp
(Rent).
Does Trek seriously think they can pat themselves on the back for not
only being late to the game, but also burying their “progress” in a
series that is only being made available to a *very* limited number of
CBS viewers?
More concerning for the franchise itself is their timeline. They’ve
set Discovery *before* the original Star Trek, which means that either
homosexuality got eliminated in the Trek universe, or they forced
homosexuals to go back to living closeted lifestyles. Is there going to
be a press release that touts *those* events?
There was a little glimpse [of a relationship with] Sulu in Beyond, and
it was a nice nod.
But Beyond was set in a different Trek universe. In the original
universe, where Discovery takes place, Sulu (along with everyone else)
was depicted as straight. So what happened between now and Enterprise
that suppressed the LGBTQ population, what allowed them to recover by
the time Discovery depicts, and then eliminated them again in the 10
year span that lead up to TOS?
People are quick to forget that homosexuality was illegal in the 1960's.
You are attempting to look at this with 20/20 hindsight.
Soon to be 2020 hindsight. Heh.

We've known for quite a while that Gene Roddenberry felt that
homosexuality would have been "cured" by Trek time, so he saw no need
to address it. He'd said this more than once over the years, on the
record. Poor Wil Wheaton got clobbered early during the run of ST:TNG
when he said the same thing at a public appearance, having heard it
from Roddenberry and not appreciating the sheer stupidity of the
comment. He was just a kid.

There were gay people who presumed that Roddenberry was a friend and
ally simply because Trek was supposed to be forward-looking, but that
was not the case.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-09 16:57:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Doc O'Leary
In the original
universe, where Discovery takes place, Sulu (along with everyone else)
was depicted as straight. So what happened between now and Enterprise
that suppressed the LGBTQ population, what allowed them to recover by
the time Discovery depicts, and then eliminated them again in the 10
year span that lead up to TOS?
People are quick to forget that homosexuality was illegal in the 1960's.
You are attempting to look at this with 20/20 hindsight.
No, I’m attempting to reconcile the timeline of Star Trek *itself* with
respect to what is depicted in the new series. Discovery is a major
deviation from the established universe. It hints at multiple LGBTQ
genocides, and ought to be explained.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
m***@hotmail.com
2017-10-09 17:05:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Doc O'Leary
In the original
universe, where Discovery takes place, Sulu (along with everyone else)
was depicted as straight. So what happened between now and Enterprise
that suppressed the LGBTQ population, what allowed them to recover by
the time Discovery depicts, and then eliminated them again in the 10
year span that lead up to TOS?
People are quick to forget that homosexuality was illegal in the 1960's.
You are attempting to look at this with 20/20 hindsight.
No, I’m attempting to reconcile the timeline of Star Trek *itself* with
respect to what is depicted in the new series. Discovery is a major
deviation from the established universe. It hints at multiple LGBTQ
genocides, and ought to be explained.
In that respect, no. In the original Star Trek series ('Balance of Terror' episode), the Romulans destroyed several federation outposts. In Deep Space Nine, whole planets of people were killed due to the actions of very few, as well. So this genocide theme has been visited by Star Trek, before.
J.B. Nicholson
2017-10-12 03:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@hotmail.com
In that respect, no. In the original Star Trek series ('Balance of
Terror' episode), the Romulans destroyed several federation
outposts. In Deep Space Nine, whole planets of people were killed
due to the actions of very few, as well. So this genocide theme has
been visited by Star Trek, before.
DS9 also featured the Federation (via its secret police force "Section
31") trying to kill the Founders (shapeshifters, changelings capable
of taking the form of a lot of things including a hovering ball of
fire) with a lethal disease. The more a poisoned shapeshifter used
their abilities to change shape, the more the disease spread in them
and rendered that shapeshifter unable to change shape.

Odo (a shapeshifter) mentioned the genocidal disease but the show
didn't get into the consequences of the Federation's choice (perhaps
because the Alpha quadrant powers won the war). The war with the
Founders was ended largely by brokering a deal where Odo would return
home and cure the other shapeshifters on the Founders' homeworld in
exchange for getting the Female Shapeshifter (the shapeshifter's
representative) to stand trial.

DS9 was interesting in that way -- the show offered a more critical
view of Federation policy (as a stand-in for American policy) than the
other Star Trek shows. I think DS9 was Star Trek's best series and
what little I've seen of the Discovery series doesn't give me the
impression it's Star Trek except in name. The Orville seems to me to
be more like the Berman-era Star Trek than what Star Trek became under
J.J. Abrahms (basically the difference between thought-provoking
sci-fi versus action-oriented fantasy).
A Friend
2017-10-12 03:47:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by m***@hotmail.com
In that respect, no. In the original Star Trek series ('Balance of
Terror' episode), the Romulans destroyed several federation
outposts. In Deep Space Nine, whole planets of people were killed
due to the actions of very few, as well. So this genocide theme has
been visited by Star Trek, before.
DS9 also featured the Federation (via its secret police force "Section
31") trying to kill the Founders (shapeshifters, changelings capable
of taking the form of a lot of things including a hovering ball of
fire) with a lethal disease. The more a poisoned shapeshifter used
their abilities to change shape, the more the disease spread in them
and rendered that shapeshifter unable to change shape.
Captain Kirk gave General Order 24 in "A Taste of Armageddon": If Kirk
and his landing party were not freed by the Eminiarians within two
hours, Scotty was to eradicate all life on the planet from orbit.

That certainly has the whiff of genocide to it.
Barry Margolin
2017-10-12 15:05:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Friend
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by m***@hotmail.com
In that respect, no. In the original Star Trek series ('Balance of
Terror' episode), the Romulans destroyed several federation
outposts. In Deep Space Nine, whole planets of people were killed
due to the actions of very few, as well. So this genocide theme has
been visited by Star Trek, before.
DS9 also featured the Federation (via its secret police force "Section
31") trying to kill the Founders (shapeshifters, changelings capable
of taking the form of a lot of things including a hovering ball of
fire) with a lethal disease. The more a poisoned shapeshifter used
their abilities to change shape, the more the disease spread in them
and rendered that shapeshifter unable to change shape.
Captain Kirk gave General Order 24 in "A Taste of Armageddon": If Kirk
and his landing party were not freed by the Eminiarians within two
hours, Scotty was to eradicate all life on the planet from orbit.
That certainly has the whiff of genocide to it.
It also has the whiff of a bluff.

According to memory-beta.wikia.com, one of the TNG novels mentions an
"Eminiar Amendment" to the Articles of the Federation that rescinds
General Order 24.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
A Friend
2017-10-13 02:39:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by A Friend
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by m***@hotmail.com
In that respect, no. In the original Star Trek series ('Balance of
Terror' episode), the Romulans destroyed several federation
outposts. In Deep Space Nine, whole planets of people were killed
due to the actions of very few, as well. So this genocide theme has
been visited by Star Trek, before.
DS9 also featured the Federation (via its secret police force "Section
31") trying to kill the Founders (shapeshifters, changelings capable
of taking the form of a lot of things including a hovering ball of
fire) with a lethal disease. The more a poisoned shapeshifter used
their abilities to change shape, the more the disease spread in them
and rendered that shapeshifter unable to change shape.
Captain Kirk gave General Order 24 in "A Taste of Armageddon": If Kirk
and his landing party were not freed by the Eminiarians within two
hours, Scotty was to eradicate all life on the planet from orbit.
That certainly has the whiff of genocide to it.
It also has the whiff of a bluff.
In later context, maybe, but Scotty wasn't acting as if it were a
bluff. In any case, General Order 24 said what it said. It
legitimized genocide.
Post by Barry Margolin
According to memory-beta.wikia.com, one of the TNG novels mentions an
"Eminiar Amendment" to the Articles of the Federation that rescinds
General Order 24.
If we're going to the novels and such, Memory Alpha says General Order
24 was actually carried out in the novel "Reap the Whirlwind" and the
Gold Key comics series "The Planet of No Return." I'm not familiar
with the novel. The story in the comics doesn't mention General Order
24, but the Enterprise does destroy an entire planet full of malevolent
plant life (as well as animals and butterflies and so on).
anim8rfsk
2017-10-12 03:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by m***@hotmail.com
In that respect, no. In the original Star Trek series ('Balance of
Terror' episode), the Romulans destroyed several federation
outposts. In Deep Space Nine, whole planets of people were killed
due to the actions of very few, as well. So this genocide theme has
been visited by Star Trek, before.
DS9 also featured the Federation (via its secret police force "Section
31") trying to kill the Founders (shapeshifters, changelings capable
of taking the form of a lot of things including a hovering ball of
fire) with a lethal disease. The more a poisoned shapeshifter used
their abilities to change shape, the more the disease spread in them
and rendered that shapeshifter unable to change shape.
Odo (a shapeshifter) mentioned the genocidal disease but the show
didn't get into the consequences of the Federation's choice (perhaps
because the Alpha quadrant powers won the war). The war with the
Founders was ended largely by brokering a deal where Odo would return
home and cure the other shapeshifters on the Founders' homeworld in
exchange for getting the Female Shapeshifter (the shapeshifter's
representative) to stand trial.
DS9 was interesting in that way -- the show offered a more critical
view of Federation policy (as a stand-in for American policy) than the
other Star Trek shows. I think DS9 was Star Trek's best series and
what little I've seen of the Discovery series doesn't give me the
impression it's Star Trek except in name. The Orville seems to me to
be more like the Berman-era Star Trek than what Star Trek became under
J.J. Abrahms (basically the difference between thought-provoking
sci-fi versus action-oriented fantasy).
Kirk's (well, Scotty's) beaming of the Tribbles into the Klingon engine
room eventually led to the Tribbles obliteration as a species.

In the holonovel ENTERPRISE, Archer the Executioner committed genocide
against a race of people that had asked for his help simply because his
Dear Doctor thought one of their scientists was rude to a subordinate
from another species.

McCoy killed the last of the Salt Vampires.

Those miners would have killed every last Horta if they could have.

Kirk killed the entire race of flying vomit monsters in Operation:
Annihilate!
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-09 17:16:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Doc O'Leary
In the original
universe, where Discovery takes place, Sulu (along with everyone else)
was depicted as straight. So what happened between now and Enterprise
that suppressed the LGBTQ population, what allowed them to recover by
the time Discovery depicts, and then eliminated them again in the 10
year span that lead up to TOS?
People are quick to forget that homosexuality was illegal in the 1960's.
You are attempting to look at this with 20/20 hindsight.
No, I’m attempting to reconcile the timeline of Star Trek *itself* with
respect to what is depicted in the new series. Discovery is a major
deviation from the established universe. It hints at multiple LGBTQ
genocides, and ought to be explained.
You are massively over-reacting and making yourself look like an idiot
in the process by basing your "conclusion" on a sample size of about
0.000000001%.

We also haven't seen any human dwarves, does that automatically mean
there was a dwarven genocide in the Trek timeline?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Ubiquitous
2017-10-09 17:44:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Doc O'Leary
In the original
universe, where Discovery takes place, Sulu (along with everyone else)
was depicted as straight. So what happened between now and Enterprise
that suppressed the LGBTQ population, what allowed them to recover by
the time Discovery depicts, and then eliminated them again in the 10
year span that lead up to TOS?
People are quick to forget that homosexuality was illegal in the 1960's.
You are attempting to look at this with 20/20 hindsight.
No, I’m attempting to reconcile the timeline of Star Trek *itself* with
respect to what is depicted in the new series. Discovery is a major
deviation from the established universe. It hints at multiple LGBTQ
genocides, and ought to be explained.
You are massively over-reacting and making yourself look like an idiot
in the process by basing your "conclusion" on a sample size of about
0.000000001%.
We also haven't seen any human dwarves, does that automatically mean
there was a dwarven genocide in the Trek timeline?
Is it genocide if they were never born?
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-11 03:42:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Dimensional Traveler
You are massively over-reacting and making yourself look like an idiot
in the process by basing your "conclusion" on a sample size of about
0.000000001%.
It’s just an idle thought experiment, based on the sample set of 100%
of current and past Trek that is using this one timeline.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
We also haven't seen any human dwarves, does that automatically mean
there was a dwarven genocide in the Trek timeline?
Quite possibly. Which is to say that whatever the cause of dwarfism
is/was may have been eliminated in humans by the time of Trek.
Regardless, the incidence rate of dwarfism according to Wikipedia is
upwards of 0.0022%, so it’s easier to explain away it not being
widely depicted.

Or are you suggesting that homosexuality is equally rare in modern
society? And even more rare in a future society that open embraces
sexual relations with all manner of non-human creatures (aka,
beastiality)?
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-11 04:33:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Dimensional Traveler
You are massively over-reacting and making yourself look like an idiot
in the process by basing your "conclusion" on a sample size of about
0.000000001%.
It’s just an idle thought experiment, based on the sample set of 100%
of current and past Trek that is using this one timeline.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
We also haven't seen any human dwarves, does that automatically mean
there was a dwarven genocide in the Trek timeline?
Quite possibly. Which is to say that whatever the cause of dwarfism
is/was may have been eliminated in humans by the time of Trek.
Regardless, the incidence rate of dwarfism according to Wikipedia is
upwards of 0.0022%, so it’s easier to explain away it not being
widely depicted.
Or are you suggesting that homosexuality is equally rare in modern
society? And even more rare in a future society that open embraces
sexual relations with all manner of non-human creatures (aka,
beastiality)?
No, I'm saying you have a sample size of maybe a dozen people depicted
in enough depth to have any kind of vague clue as to the possibility of
their sexual orientation out of a human population of 10s of billions.
In comparison, basing an assessment of the population of the US on a
sample size of 1 individual would be several orders of magnitude more
accurate.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-12 03:25:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Dimensional Traveler
No, I'm saying you have a sample size of maybe a dozen people depicted
in enough depth to have any kind of vague clue as to the possibility of
their sexual orientation out of a human population of 10s of billions.
More than “dozens” have been depicted over the years. It’s more a
question of whether or not Starfleet is a representation of a random
population. If so, we should have seen homosexual couples at least
*holding hands* a long time ago. If not, it means Starfleet has been
actively excluding them from serving, or worse.

Again, beastiality is widely depicted in Trek. What do you think the
prevalence rate of *that* trait is in the human population compared
to homosexuality? My argument is simply that if pansexuality had
progressed to such a point that sex with non-humans was common, I’m
not sure it made any sense for those same people to not also be going
at it with other humans in a non-binary fashion.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
In comparison, basing an assessment of the population of the US on a
sample size of 1 individual would be several orders of magnitude more
accurate.
That’s not how statistics work.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-12 04:44:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
Again, beastiality is widely depicted in Trek.
I know I'm going to regret asking but where the <censored> are you
getting THAT from?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Obveeus
2017-10-12 14:30:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Doc O'Leary
Again, beastiality is widely depicted in Trek.
I know I'm going to regret asking but where the <censored> are you
getting THAT from?
It seems to be based upon an insanely broad definition of 'beastiality'
that includes all relations between sentient humanoids.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-13 17:15:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Obveeus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Doc O'Leary
Again, beastiality is widely depicted in Trek.
I know I'm going to regret asking but where the <censored> are you
getting THAT from?
It seems to be based upon an insanely broad definition of 'beastiality'
that includes all relations between sentient humanoids.
Well, yeah! And it’s not exclusive to Trek in any way. It’s a simple
thought experiment: what does and doesn’t define beastiality in the
modern sense such that it doesn’t apply to these future scenarios? It
can’t be about being humanoid, since even Trek has depicted it with
symbionts, shapeshifters, etc. *Especially* in the cases where there is
an obviously *large* imbalance in the sophistication of two species
(e.g., a god-like alien takes a human as a mate), how can you call it
anything other than beastiality?

Or, my counter argument, if it’s *not* so terrible to have sex with
another random humanoid shape, why the hell wasn’t Trek widely depicting
homosexual relationships a long time ago? What makes everyone so
accepting of the idea of aliens being sexy, but not other humans?
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
Obveeus
2017-10-13 17:33:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Obveeus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Doc O'Leary
Again, beastiality is widely depicted in Trek.
I know I'm going to regret asking but where the <censored> are you
getting THAT from?
It seems to be based upon an insanely broad definition of 'beastiality'
that includes all relations between sentient humanoids.
Well, yeah! And it’s not exclusive to Trek in any way. It’s a simple
thought experiment: what does and doesn’t define beastiality in the
modern sense such that it doesn’t apply to these future scenarios? It
can’t be about being humanoid, since even Trek has depicted it with
symbionts, shapeshifters, etc.
...all in humanoid form.
Post by Doc O'Leary
*Especially* in the cases where there is
an obviously *large* imbalance in the sophistication of two species
(e.g., a god-like alien takes a human as a mate), how can you call it
anything other than beastiality?
Insanely broad definition. For one, beastiality would have to preclude
pairings that created viable offspring.
Post by Doc O'Leary
Or, my counter argument, if it’s *not* so terrible to have sex with
another random humanoid shape, why the hell wasn’t Trek widely depicting
homosexual relationships a long time ago?
Because TV sensors. Original TREK couldn't even really show an
interracial kiss...even when they claimed that they were doing so.

Besides, the whole of original TREK was a very small number of
characters, certainly not representing the full array of the universe's
sexual desires. None of those folks even managed to practice marriage.
Post by Doc O'Leary
What makes everyone so
accepting of the idea of aliens being sexy, but not other humans?
Who's doing that...other than the homophobes?
BTR1701
2017-10-13 22:36:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Obveeus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Doc O'Leary
Again, beastiality is widely depicted in Trek.
I know I'm going to regret asking but where the <censored> are you
getting THAT from?
It seems to be based upon an insanely broad definition of 'beastiality'
that includes all relations between sentient humanoids.
Well, yeah! And it’s not exclusive to Trek in any way. It’s a simple
thought experiment: what does and doesn’t define beastiality in the
modern sense such that it doesn’t apply to these future scenarios? It
can’t be about being humanoid, since even Trek has depicted it with
symbionts, shapeshifters, etc.
...all in humanoid form.
You don't know that. When Odo and Kira got busy he could have taken any
shape he wanted, which could have been what made it so good for her. He was
able to go where no man had gone before.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-15 16:39:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Obveeus
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Obveeus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Doc O'Leary
Again, beastiality is widely depicted in Trek.
I know I'm going to regret asking but where the <censored> are you
getting THAT from?
It seems to be based upon an insanely broad definition of 'beastiality'
that includes all relations between sentient humanoids.
Well, yeah! And it’s not exclusive to Trek in any way. It’s a simple
thought experiment: what does and doesn’t define beastiality in the
modern sense such that it doesn’t apply to these future scenarios? It
can’t be about being humanoid, since even Trek has depicted it with
symbionts, shapeshifters, etc.
...all in humanoid form.
By what definition of beastiality does it cease to be beastiality simply
because you dress up the non-human creature? What is *your*
comprehensive definition? Keep in mind that apes are “in humanoid
form”. Also note that you (presumably) wouldn’t want to classify humans
that don’t have the normal “form” of a humanoid (e.g., due to birth
defect or accident) as “beasts”.
Post by Obveeus
Post by Doc O'Leary
*Especially* in the cases where there is
an obviously *large* imbalance in the sophistication of two species
(e.g., a god-like alien takes a human as a mate), how can you call it
anything other than beastiality?
Insanely broad definition. For one, beastiality would have to preclude
pairings that created viable offspring.
Would it? Use your sci-fi imagination for a second and ponder all that
can be made “viable” at some distant time. Just because a “god” can
impregnate you doesn’t mean it isn’t beastiality. Hell, Greek and Roman
mythology straight up had their gods fucking all sorts of animals!

And things get *really* complicated when you try to imagine what it
means to have a universe with gay aliens. I mean, can Vulcans even
*be* homosexuals, or is that seen as something that’s simply “not
logical”? Might there be an alien race where the women and men have a
sexual dimorphism that is the opposite of humans? All these story
lines Trek could have explored have been just wasted. If HBO ever
wanted to make a show (maybe a Twilight-Zone-esque anthology) where the
freak flag flies high, I’d enjoy being in that writers’ room. :-)
Post by Obveeus
Post by Doc O'Leary
Or, my counter argument, if it’s *not* so terrible to have sex with
another random humanoid shape, why the hell wasn’t Trek widely depicting
homosexual relationships a long time ago?
Because TV sensors. Original TREK couldn't even really show an
interracial kiss...even when they claimed that they were doing so.
You can use that excuse for the original Trek, but by the time TNG
rolled around, TV had depicted plenty of homosexual characters. To
*finally* incorporate it in 2017, and on a non-broadcast show, is not
something CBS should pat itself on the back over.
Post by Obveeus
None of those folks even managed to practice marriage.
Now *that* is a very interesting observation. Marriage clearly exists
in the Trek universe, but seemingly not in Starfleet. Still, that’s the
kind of thing that works against you. Marriage is a usually seen as a
conservative thing so, by not depicting that, the show swings more
liberal. Sex with aliens, even if you don’t classify it as beastiality,
is pretty liberal, too. So why not show relations with other humans of
the same gender?
Post by Obveeus
Post by Doc O'Leary
What makes everyone so
accepting of the idea of aliens being sexy, but not other humans?
Who's doing that...other than the homophobes?
Exactly my point: Trek has been homophobic for a long time. It’s hard
to give them any credit for Discovery because it seems like such a
reluctant and poorly done addition.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
A Friend
2017-10-15 17:14:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Obveeus
None of those folks even managed to practice marriage.
Now *that* is a very interesting observation. Marriage clearly exists
in the Trek universe, but seemingly not in Starfleet.
Except, of course, in "Balance of Terror," when Kirk was going to
officiate at the marriage of two of his officers.

And Starfleet officer Beverly Crusher was the widow of another
Starfleet officer.

Riker and Troi got married in the (thankfully) final TNG film.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-16 16:45:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by A Friend
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Obveeus
None of those folks even managed to practice marriage.
Now *that* is a very interesting observation. Marriage clearly exists
in the Trek universe, but seemingly not in Starfleet.
Except, of course, in "Balance of Terror," when Kirk was going to
officiate at the marriage of two of his officers.
And Starfleet officer Beverly Crusher was the widow of another
Starfleet officer.
Riker and Troi got married in the (thankfully) final TNG film.
OK, so it’s not a *hard* rule against marriage, but it is something that
is not *actively* depicted in the major and minor characters. It’s
another thing that makes you question the prevalence in the general
population compared to Starfleet crews. Maybe there have been good
reasons we haven’t seen it, just like there may have been good reasons
we haven’t seen any LGBTQ depictions, but it’s pretty poor writing to
not adequately explain those reasons to the audience.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
The Last Doctor
2017-10-16 21:18:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by A Friend
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Obveeus
None of those folks even managed to practice marriage.
Now *that* is a very interesting observation. Marriage clearly exists
in the Trek universe, but seemingly not in Starfleet.
Except, of course, in "Balance of Terror," when Kirk was going to
officiate at the marriage of two of his officers.
And Starfleet officer Beverly Crusher was the widow of another
Starfleet officer.
Riker and Troi got married in the (thankfully) final TNG film.
OK, so it’s not a *hard* rule against marriage, but it is something that
is not *actively* depicted in the major and minor characters. It’s
another thing that makes you question the prevalence in the general
population compared to Starfleet crews. Maybe there have been good
reasons we haven’t seen it, just like there may have been good reasons
we haven’t seen any LGBTQ depictions, but it’s pretty poor writing to
not adequately explain those reasons to the audience.
Chief O’Brien and Keiko. Benjamin and Kasidy Yates Sisko. Main enough for
you?

You didn’t see it in ST:TOS because at the time the show was made, in the
society that it reflected, naval vessels, even when they had mixed crews,
discouraged relationships between crewmates. You didn’t see LBGTQ
relationships depicted because at the time the show was made, in the
society that it reflected, NO TV SHOW DEPICTED SUCH RELATIONSHIPS.

To try to interpret this kind of difference between TOS and Discovery in
in-universe terms, to try to troll about sexuality, is disingenuous.

There are plenty of things that can legitimately be raised as problems with
Discovery IF, as claimed by the show runners, it is supposed to be set in
the TOS universe 10 years before TOS.

The Klingons shown are a completely different species. Their technology and
ships - and the maturity of technology in the Federation (site to site
transports in ship, for example). These are egregious issues.

Having generally better special effects, not trying to copy 1960s fashions
in hairstyles or in the depiction of human society, are not valid
criticisms. Demanding that an in story explanation be found for these
things is carping in a very petty and pointless way.
J. Clarke
2017-10-17 01:06:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:18:43 +0100, The Last Doctor
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by A Friend
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Obveeus
None of those folks even managed to practice marriage.
Now *that* is a very interesting observation. Marriage clearly exists
in the Trek universe, but seemingly not in Starfleet.
Except, of course, in "Balance of Terror," when Kirk was going to
officiate at the marriage of two of his officers.
And Starfleet officer Beverly Crusher was the widow of another
Starfleet officer.
Riker and Troi got married in the (thankfully) final TNG film.
OK, so it’s not a *hard* rule against marriage, but it is something that
is not *actively* depicted in the major and minor characters. It’s
another thing that makes you question the prevalence in the general
population compared to Starfleet crews. Maybe there have been good
reasons we haven’t seen it, just like there may have been good reasons
we haven’t seen any LGBTQ depictions, but it’s pretty poor writing to
not adequately explain those reasons to the audience.
Chief O’Brien and Keiko. Benjamin and Kasidy Yates Sisko. Main enough for
you?
Dax and Worf.
You didn’t see it in ST:TOS because at the time the show was made, in the
society that it reflected, naval vessels, even when they had mixed crews,
discouraged relationships between crewmates. You didn’t see LBGTQ
relationships depicted because at the time the show was made, in the
society that it reflected, NO TV SHOW DEPICTED SUCH RELATIONSHIPS.
To try to interpret this kind of difference between TOS and Discovery in
in-universe terms, to try to troll about sexuality, is disingenuous.
There are plenty of things that can legitimately be raised as problems with
Discovery IF, as claimed by the show runners, it is supposed to be set in
the TOS universe 10 years before TOS.
The Klingons shown are a completely different species. Their technology and
ships - and the maturity of technology in the Federation (site to site
transports in ship, for example). These are egregious issues.
Having generally better special effects, not trying to copy 1960s fashions
in hairstyles or in the depiction of human society, are not valid
criticisms. Demanding that an in story explanation be found for these
things is carping in a very petty and pointless way.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-18 15:01:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by The Last Doctor
Chief O’Brien and Keiko. Benjamin and Kasidy Yates Sisko. Main enough for
you?
Eh, not really. DS9 lost me early on and, regardless, life on a space
station is not what I would consider to be a standard Starfleet “to
boldly go” mission. I’m generally talking more about the depiction of
life on a space ship in the 24th century. It might be perfectly
reasonable that people who choose that kind of lifestyle are less
inclined to be married or gay or whatever, but without solid writing
it leaves the audience questioning the hows and whys of it.
Post by The Last Doctor
You didn’t see it in ST:TOS because at the time the show was made, in the
society that it reflected, naval vessels, even when they had mixed crews,
discouraged relationships between crewmates. You didn’t see LBGTQ
relationships depicted because at the time the show was made, in the
society that it reflected, NO TV SHOW DEPICTED SUCH RELATIONSHIPS.
That’s a cop-out excuse, *especially* for a show with a progressive
agenda like Star Trek. By your logic, they also never should have had
a black female as part of their bridge crew. And more to my point,
they didn’t depict anything LBGTQ in the multiple series that were
produced *decades* after other shows tackled such issues. The closest
they came was when they were dealing with alien species, but I still
maintain that the bigger sticking point from that perspective is
undertones of acceptable beastiality rather than the issue of whether
or not that non-human you’re boning is a male or female.
Post by The Last Doctor
To try to interpret this kind of difference between TOS and Discovery in
in-universe terms, to try to troll about sexuality, is disingenuous.
Hardly. I’m simply saying they shouldn’t have used the TOS universe
for the show. And they shouldn’t be patting themselves on the back for
*finally* depicting LBGTQ lifestyles. There’s nothing progressive
about that in 2017.
Post by The Last Doctor
The Klingons shown are a completely different species. Their technology and
ships - and the maturity of technology in the Federation (site to site
transports in ship, for example). These are egregious issues.
It’s all related. The timeline is the timeline they choose, so the
onus is on them to make the connections between *all* the elements of
the new and old shows. If they don’t have anyone overseeing that, the
whole franchise will fall apart. I would argue it already has.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
J. Clarke
2017-10-23 01:26:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:01:04 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Chief O’Brien and Keiko. Benjamin and Kasidy Yates Sisko. Main enough for
you?
Eh, not really. DS9 lost me early on and, regardless, life on a space
station is not what I would consider to be a standard Starfleet “to
boldly go” mission. I’m generally talking more about the depiction of
life on a space ship in the 24th century. It might be perfectly
reasonable that people who choose that kind of lifestyle are less
inclined to be married or gay or whatever, but without solid writing
it leaves the audience questioning the hows and whys of it.
You didn’t see it in ST:TOS because at the time the show was made, in the
society that it reflected, naval vessels, even when they had mixed crews,
discouraged relationships between crewmates. You didn’t see LBGTQ
relationships depicted because at the time the show was made, in the
society that it reflected, NO TV SHOW DEPICTED SUCH RELATIONSHIPS.
That’s a cop-out excuse, *especially* for a show with a progressive
agenda like Star Trek. By your logic, they also never should have had
a black female as part of their bridge crew. And more to my point,
they didn’t depict anything LBGTQ in the multiple series that were
produced *decades* after other shows tackled such issues. The closest
they came was when they were dealing with alien species, but I still
maintain that the bigger sticking point from that perspective is
undertones of acceptable beastiality rather than the issue of whether
or not that non-human you’re boning is a male or female.
To try to interpret this kind of difference between TOS and Discovery in
in-universe terms, to try to troll about sexuality, is disingenuous.
Hardly. I’m simply saying they shouldn’t have used the TOS universe
for the show. And they shouldn’t be patting themselves on the back for
*finally* depicting LBGTQ lifestyles. There’s nothing progressive
about that in 2017.
The Klingons shown are a completely different species. Their technology and
ships - and the maturity of technology in the Federation (site to site
transports in ship, for example). These are egregious issues.
It’s all related. The timeline is the timeline they choose, so the
onus is on them to make the connections between *all* the elements of
the new and old shows. If they don’t have anyone overseeing that, the
whole franchise will fall apart. I would argue it already has.
Well, 7 episodes in they're out of ideas. Next week they're doing
Groundhog Day.

Ubiquitous
2017-10-18 15:58:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by A Friend
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Obveeus
None of those folks even managed to practice marriage.
Now *that* is a very interesting observation. Marriage clearly exists
in the Trek universe, but seemingly not in Starfleet.
Except, of course, in "Balance of Terror," when Kirk was going to
officiate at the marriage of two of his officers.
And Starfleet officer Beverly Crusher was the widow of another
Starfleet officer.
Riker and Troi got married in the (thankfully) final TNG film.
OK, so it’s not a *hard* rule against marriage, but it is something that
is not *actively* depicted in the major and minor characters. It’s
another thing that makes you question the prevalence in the general
population compared to Starfleet crews. Maybe there have been good
reasons we haven’t seen it, just like there may have been good reasons
we haven’t seen any LGBTQ depictions, but it’s pretty poor writing to
not adequately explain those reasons to the audience.
Chief O’Brien and Keiko. Benjamin and Kasidy Yates Sisko. Main enough for
you?
You didn’t see it in ST:TOS because at the time the show was made, in the
society that it reflected, naval vessels, even when they had mixed crews,
discouraged relationships between crewmates. You didn’t see LBGTQ
relationships depicted because at the time the show was made, in the
society that it reflected, NO TV SHOW DEPICTED SUCH RELATIONSHIPS.
And, as I mentioned earlier, homosexuality was illegal and considered abnormal
behavior.
There are plenty of things that can legitimately be raised as problems with
Discovery IF, as claimed by the show runners, it is supposed to be set in
the TOS universe 10 years before TOS.
The Klingons shown are a completely different species. Their technology and
ships - and the maturity of technology in the Federation (site to site
transports in ship, for example). These are egregious issues.
Having generally better special effects, not trying to copy 1960s fashions
in hairstyles or in the depiction of human society, are not valid
criticisms. Demanding that an in story explanation be found for these
things is carping in a very petty and pointless way.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
BTR1701
2017-10-15 18:15:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Obveeus
None of those folks even managed to practice marriage.
Now *that* is a very interesting observation. Marriage clearly exists
in the Trek universe, but seemingly not in Starfleet.
Troi and Riker got married.
Ubiquitous
2017-10-13 00:07:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
Again, beastiality is widely depicted in Trek.
TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
J. Clarke
2017-10-09 18:10:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:57:34 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by Doc O'Leary
In the original
universe, where Discovery takes place, Sulu (along with everyone else)
was depicted as straight. So what happened between now and Enterprise
that suppressed the LGBTQ population, what allowed them to recover by
the time Discovery depicts, and then eliminated them again in the 10
year span that lead up to TOS?
People are quick to forget that homosexuality was illegal in the 1960's.
You are attempting to look at this with 20/20 hindsight.
No, I’m attempting to reconcile the timeline of Star Trek *itself* with
respect to what is depicted in the new series. Discovery is a major
deviation from the established universe. It hints at multiple LGBTQ
genocides, and ought to be explained.
You are assuming that the showrunners give the slightest crap about
continuity with the earlier series.

Between the tardigrade drive, the Klingon cloak, and Spock's sister
being in Starfleet, it is already clearly established that they don't
give such a crap.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-11 03:48:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:57:34 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
No, I’m attempting to reconcile the timeline of Star Trek *itself* with
respect to what is depicted in the new series. Discovery is a major
deviation from the established universe. It hints at multiple LGBTQ
genocides, and ought to be explained.
You are assuming that the showrunners give the slightest crap about
continuity with the earlier series.
Well, I’m not so much assuming anything as I am concluding that there’s
a lot of reasons the show sucks beyond the base “diversity” complaints.
Post by J. Clarke
Between the tardigrade drive, the Klingon cloak, and Spock's sister
being in Starfleet, it is already clearly established that they don't
give such a crap.
And thus they shouldn’t be surprised when Trekkies don’t give a crap
in return. It’s like they’ve been intentionally trying to destroy the
franchise.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
J. Clarke
2017-10-12 00:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 03:48:23 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:57:34 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
No, I?m attempting to reconcile the timeline of Star Trek *itself* with
respect to what is depicted in the new series. Discovery is a major
deviation from the established universe. It hints at multiple LGBTQ
genocides, and ought to be explained.
You are assuming that the showrunners give the slightest crap about
continuity with the earlier series.
Well, I’m not so much assuming anything as I am concluding that there’s
a lot of reasons the show sucks beyond the base “diversity” complaints.
Post by J. Clarke
Between the tardigrade drive, the Klingon cloak, and Spock's sister
being in Starfleet, it is already clearly established that they don't
give such a crap.
And thus they shouldn’t be surprised when Trekkies don’t give a crap
in return. It’s like they’ve been intentionally trying to destroy the
franchise.
The thing is they don't care if Trekkies watch it. They're after a
mainstream audience, not a niche audience.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-12 02:46:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The thing is they don't care if Trekkies watch it. They're after a
mainstream audience, not a niche audience.
That’s a double edged sword. A mainstream audience might not care about
their established franchise, but then why base a new show on that
franchise? If they’re trying to get people to sign up to their
streaming service, why would they expect a Trek series to be attractive
to anyone *other* than diehard Trekkies? None of it makes any sense
whatsoever.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-12 04:43:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The thing is they don't care if Trekkies watch it. They're after a
mainstream audience, not a niche audience.
That’s a double edged sword. A mainstream audience might not care about
their established franchise, but then why base a new show on that
franchise? If they’re trying to get people to sign up to their
streaming service, why would they expect a Trek series to be attractive
to anyone *other* than diehard Trekkies? None of it makes any sense
whatsoever.
Because everyone has _heard_ of Star Trek. People are more likely to
"check out" a new show that they think they already know something about
than something they've never heard of before.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-13 16:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Because everyone has _heard_ of Star Trek. People are more likely to
"check out" a new show that they think they already know something about
than something they've never heard of before.
Well that’s certainly true, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to
deliberately give them a *shitty* product using that name recognition.
What would the problem have been in setting the new series in the new
timeline? Or a third timeline? But, no, they decided to do the
stupid thing and depict post-TOS norms and post-TOS technology in the
pre-TOS timeline. And even in a non-TOS timeline, Trek is about 30
years too late to claim they’re doing *anything* to champion LGBTQ
issues.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
J. Clarke
2017-10-13 02:08:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 02:46:52 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The thing is they don't care if Trekkies watch it. They're after a
mainstream audience, not a niche audience.
That’s a double edged sword. A mainstream audience might not care about
their established franchise, but then why base a new show on that
franchise? If they’re trying to get people to sign up to their
streaming service, why would they expect a Trek series to be attractive
to anyone *other* than diehard Trekkies? None of it makes any sense
whatsoever.
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after. If
they pick up some who actually liked the pre-Abrams franchise so much
the better.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-13 16:24:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it in the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were LGBTQ-friendly?
They can’t have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell their
target audience “This show has the same name and look, but nothing you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.”
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
J. Clarke
2017-10-14 01:03:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it in the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were LGBTQ-friendly?
They can’t have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell their
target audience “This show has the same name and look, but nothing you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.”
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-15 15:32:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it in the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were LGBTQ-friendly?
They can’t have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell their
target audience “This show has the same name and look, but nothing you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.”
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Yes, but *then* it actually makes sense. It’s (sadly) a time-honored
tradition to do a reimagined reboot with the idea that “this is not
your father’s” Star Trek (or Spiderman or whatever). Had they simply
done that with Discovery, it wouldn’t be *nearly* as problematic to
sell. I see no good reason to have set it in the TOS universe.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
J. Clarke
2017-10-15 18:22:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:32:09 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it in the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were LGBTQ-friendly?
They can?t have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell their
target audience ?This show has the same name and look, but nothing you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.?
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Yes, but *then* it actually makes sense. It’s (sadly) a time-honored
tradition to do a reimagined reboot with the idea that “this is not
your father’s” Star Trek (or Spiderman or whatever). Had they simply
done that with Discovery, it wouldn’t be *nearly* as problematic to
sell. I see no good reason to have set it in the TOS universe.
What leads you to believe that it's "set in the TOS universe"? Some
PR flack may claim that it is, but that doesn't make it so.
BTR1701
2017-10-15 18:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:32:09 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it in the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were LGBTQ-friendly?
They can't have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell their
target audience. This show has the same name and look, but nothing you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Yes, but *then* it actually makes sense. It's (sadly) a time-honored
tradition to do a reimagined reboot with the idea that "this is not
your father's" Star Trek (or Spiderman or whatever). Had they simply
done that with DISCOVERY, it wouldn't be *nearly* as problematic to
sell. I see no good reason to have set it in the TOS universe.
What leads you to believe that it's "set in the TOS universe"? Some
PR flack may claim that it is, but that doesn't make it so.
It isn't "PR flacks" making the claim. It's the people making the show.
J. Clarke
2017-10-15 20:42:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:32:09 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it in the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were LGBTQ-friendly?
They can't have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell their
target audience. This show has the same name and look, but nothing you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Yes, but *then* it actually makes sense. It's (sadly) a time-honored
tradition to do a reimagined reboot with the idea that "this is not
your father's" Star Trek (or Spiderman or whatever). Had they simply
done that with DISCOVERY, it wouldn't be *nearly* as problematic to
sell. I see no good reason to have set it in the TOS universe.
What leads you to believe that it's "set in the TOS universe"? Some
PR flack may claim that it is, but that doesn't make it so.
It isn't "PR flacks" making the claim. It's the people making the show.
They can claim anything they want to. Doesn't make it so. They've
already shown events inconsistent with it being in that universe.
Dimensional Traveler
2017-10-15 22:18:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:32:09 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it in the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were LGBTQ-friendly?
They can't have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell their
target audience. This show has the same name and look, but nothing you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Yes, but *then* it actually makes sense. It's (sadly) a time-honored
tradition to do a reimagined reboot with the idea that "this is not
your father's" Star Trek (or Spiderman or whatever). Had they simply
done that with DISCOVERY, it wouldn't be *nearly* as problematic to
sell. I see no good reason to have set it in the TOS universe.
What leads you to believe that it's "set in the TOS universe"? Some
PR flack may claim that it is, but that doesn't make it so.
It isn't "PR flacks" making the claim. It's the people making the show.
They can claim anything they want to. Doesn't make it so. They've
already shown events inconsistent with it being in that universe.
"We are telling our own story set in the original TOS timeline but won't
be restricted by it if we think we can write something that gets better
ratings by scandalizing everyone by how we aren't following the original
TOS timeline."
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Doc O'Leary
2017-10-16 16:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by Dimensional Traveler
"We are telling our own story set in the original TOS timeline but won't
be restricted by it if we think we can write something that gets better
ratings by scandalizing everyone by how we aren't following the original
TOS timeline."
This. What is it about sci-fi franchises that results in them being so
poorly managed? Star Trek and Star Wars could learn a lot from
McDonald’s and Burger King.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
BTR1701
2017-10-16 06:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:32:09 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it in the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were LGBTQ-friendly?
They can't have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell their
target audience. This show has the same name and look, but nothing you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Yes, but *then* it actually makes sense. It's (sadly) a time-honored
tradition to do a reimagined reboot with the idea that "this is not
your father's" Star Trek (or Spiderman or whatever). Had they simply
done that with DISCOVERY, it wouldn't be *nearly* as problematic to
sell. I see no good reason to have set it in the TOS universe.
What leads you to believe that it's "set in the TOS universe"? Some
PR flack may claim that it is, but that doesn't make it so.
It isn't "PR flacks" making the claim. It's the people making the show.
They can claim anything they want to. Doesn't make it so.
Yeah, it does. If I write a story, I get to define when it's set.
They've already shown events inconsistent with it being in that universe.
All of the STAR TREK universe itself, from beginning to end, is
inconsistent with itself.
J. Clarke
2017-10-17 01:13:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:32:09 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it in the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were LGBTQ-friendly?
They can't have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell their
target audience. This show has the same name and look, but nothing you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Yes, but *then* it actually makes sense. It's (sadly) a time-honored
tradition to do a reimagined reboot with the idea that "this is not
your father's" Star Trek (or Spiderman or whatever). Had they simply
done that with DISCOVERY, it wouldn't be *nearly* as problematic to
sell. I see no good reason to have set it in the TOS universe.
What leads you to believe that it's "set in the TOS universe"? Some
PR flack may claim that it is, but that doesn't make it so.
It isn't "PR flacks" making the claim. It's the people making the show.
They can claim anything they want to. Doesn't make it so.
Yeah, it does. If I write a story, I get to define when it's set.
So? Methuselah's Children, Sundiver, and Downbelow Station are all
set in the same "when" but they are most assuredly not in the same
universe.
Post by BTR1701
They've already shown events inconsistent with it being in that universe.
All of the STAR TREK universe itself, from beginning to end, is
inconsistent with itself.
Not to the same extent.
BTR1701
2017-10-17 17:58:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:32:09 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established
franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the
highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it in the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were LGBTQ-friendly?
They can't have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell their
target audience. This show has the same name and look, but nothing you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Yes, but *then* it actually makes sense. It's (sadly) a time-honored
tradition to do a reimagined reboot with the idea that "this is not
your father's" Star Trek (or Spiderman or whatever). Had they simply
done that with DISCOVERY, it wouldn't be *nearly* as problematic to
sell. I see no good reason to have set it in the TOS universe.
What leads you to believe that it's "set in the TOS universe"? Some
PR flack may claim that it is, but that doesn't make it so.
It isn't "PR flacks" making the claim. It's the people making the show.
They can claim anything they want to. Doesn't make it so.
They've already shown events inconsistent with it being in that universe.
All of the STAR TREK universe itself, from beginning to end, is
inconsistent with itself.
Not to the same extent.
So you get to define how much is too much and therefore invalid?
J. Clarke
2017-10-18 01:19:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:32:09 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established
franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the
highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it in
the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were
LGBTQ-friendly?
They can't have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell their
target audience. This show has the same name and look, but nothing
you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Yes, but *then* it actually makes sense. It's (sadly) a time-honored
tradition to do a reimagined reboot with the idea that "this is not
your father's" Star Trek (or Spiderman or whatever). Had they simply
done that with DISCOVERY, it wouldn't be *nearly* as problematic to
sell. I see no good reason to have set it in the TOS universe.
What leads you to believe that it's "set in the TOS universe"? Some
PR flack may claim that it is, but that doesn't make it so.
It isn't "PR flacks" making the claim. It's the people making the show.
They can claim anything they want to. Doesn't make it so.
They've already shown events inconsistent with it being in that universe.
All of the STAR TREK universe itself, from beginning to end, is
inconsistent with itself.
Not to the same extent.
So you get to define how much is too much and therefore invalid?
I get to decide that this conversation is a waste of bandwidth.

Have a nice life.
BTR1701
2017-10-18 14:48:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:32:09 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established
franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the
highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're
after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it
in
the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were
LGBTQ-friendly?
They can't have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell
their
target audience. This show has the same name and look, but
nothing
you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which
between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Yes, but *then* it actually makes sense. It's (sadly) a time-honored
tradition to do a reimagined reboot with the idea that "this is not
your father's" Star Trek (or Spiderman or whatever). Had they simply
done that with DISCOVERY, it wouldn't be *nearly* as problematic to
sell. I see no good reason to have set it in the TOS universe.
What leads you to believe that it's "set in the TOS universe"? Some
PR flack may claim that it is, but that doesn't make it so.
It isn't "PR flacks" making the claim. It's the people making the show.
They can claim anything they want to. Doesn't make it so.
They've already shown events inconsistent with it being in that universe.
All of the STAR TREK universe itself, from beginning to end, is
inconsistent with itself.
Not to the same extent.
So you get to define how much is too much and therefore invalid?
I get to decide that this conversation is a waste of bandwidth.
Funny how that happens when logic starts to close in.
J. Clarke
2017-10-19 01:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:32:09 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:24:29 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
Post by Doc O'Leary
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by J. Clarke
The mainstream audience enjoys sneering at the established
franchise.
That's why Abrams first Trek movie made three times what the
highest
grossing real Trek movie made. That's the audience they're
after.
Then why set the new series in the old timeline? And why set it
in
the
span between Enterprise and TOS, neither of which were
LGBTQ-friendly?
They can't have it both ways. It just makes zero sense to tell
their
target audience. This show has the same name and look, but
nothing
you
see actually relates to those movies you loved.
You could apply the same argument to the Abrams movies which
between
them have made over a billion dollars.
Yes, but *then* it actually makes sense. It's (sadly) a time-honored
tradition to do a reimagined reboot with the idea that "this is not
your father's" Star Trek (or Spiderman or whatever). Had they simply
done that with DISCOVERY, it wouldn't be *nearly* as problematic to
sell. I see no good reason to have set it in the TOS universe.
What leads you to believe that it's "set in the TOS universe"? Some
PR flack may claim that it is, but that doesn't make it so.
It isn't "PR flacks" making the claim. It's the people making the show.
They can claim anything they want to. Doesn't make it so.
They've already shown events inconsistent with it being in that universe.
All of the STAR TREK universe itself, from beginning to end, is
inconsistent with itself.
Not to the same extent.
So you get to define how much is too much and therefore invalid?
I get to decide that this conversation is a waste of bandwidth.
Funny how that happens when logic starts to close in.
You aren't applying "logic", you are insisting that your beliefs are
truth..
RichA
2017-10-01 02:31:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
But there won't BE any gays in that age. Genetic flaws like that will all have been corrected. No matter how "accepting" society is with existing gays today, no parent, save one who is sociopathic would want to bring a gay child into being if the problem was easily identified and fixed, perhaps before conception. "Gayness" like cerebral palsy or cystic fibrosis will be a memory of the past.
Ed Stasiak
2017-10-01 04:16:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
RichA
But there won't BE any gays in that age. Genetic flaws like that will all have been corrected.
No matter how "accepting" society is with existing gays today, no parent, save one who is
sociopathic would want to bring a gay child into being if the problem was easily identified
and fixed, perhaps before conception. "Gayness" like cerebral palsy or cystic fibrosis will
be a memory of the past.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41386849
By James Gallagher
Health and science reporter, BBC News website
28 September 2017


DNA surgery on embryos removes disease

Precise "chemical surgery" has been performed on human embryos to
remove disease in a world first, Chinese researchers have told the BBC.

The team at Sun Yat-sen University used a technique called base editing to
correct a single error out of the three billion "letters" of our genetic code.

They altered lab-made embryos to remove the disease beta-thalassemia.
The embryos were not implanted.

The team says the approach may one day treat a range of inherited diseases.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-01 04:20:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
But there won't BE any gays in that age. Genetic flaws like that will all
have been corrected.
No matter how "accepting" society is with existing gays today, no parent,
save one who is
sociopathic would want to bring a gay child into being if the problem was
easily identified
and fixed, perhaps before conception. "Gayness" like cerebral palsy or
cystic fibrosis will
be a memory of the past.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41386849
By James Gallagher
Health and science reporter, BBC News website
28 September 2017
DNA surgery on embryos removes disease
Precise "chemical surgery" has been performed on human embryos to
remove disease in a world first, Chinese researchers have told the BBC.
The team at Sun Yat-sen University used a technique called base editing to
correct a single error out of the three billion "letters" of our genetic code.
They altered lab-made embryos to remove the disease beta-thalassemia.
The embryos were not implanted.
The team says the approach may one day treat a range of inherited diseases.
And the parents will refuse, like the idiot deaf people.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
RichA
2017-10-01 05:51:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
But there won't BE any gays in that age. Genetic flaws like that will all
have been corrected.
No matter how "accepting" society is with existing gays today, no parent,
save one who is
sociopathic would want to bring a gay child into being if the problem was
easily identified
and fixed, perhaps before conception. "Gayness" like cerebral palsy or
cystic fibrosis will
be a memory of the past.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41386849
By James Gallagher
Health and science reporter, BBC News website
28 September 2017
DNA surgery on embryos removes disease
Precise "chemical surgery" has been performed on human embryos to
remove disease in a world first, Chinese researchers have told the BBC.
The team at Sun Yat-sen University used a technique called base editing to
correct a single error out of the three billion "letters" of our genetic code.
They altered lab-made embryos to remove the disease beta-thalassemia.
The embryos were not implanted.
The team says the approach may one day treat a range of inherited diseases.
And the parents will refuse, like the idiot deaf people.
Yes, they think a genetic flaw is a reason to designate and protect something as a distinct "culture."
Obveeus
2017-10-01 12:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
But there won't BE any gays in that age. Genetic flaws like that will all
have been corrected.
No matter how "accepting" society is with existing gays today, no parent,
save one who is
sociopathic would want to bring a gay child into being if the problem was
easily identified
and fixed, perhaps before conception. "Gayness" like cerebral palsy or
cystic fibrosis will
be a memory of the past.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41386849
By James Gallagher
Health and science reporter, BBC News website
28 September 2017
DNA surgery on embryos removes disease
Precise "chemical surgery" has been performed on human embryos to
remove disease in a world first, Chinese researchers have told the BBC.
The team at Sun Yat-sen University used a technique called base editing to
correct a single error out of the three billion "letters" of our genetic code.
They altered lab-made embryos to remove the disease beta-thalassemia.
The embryos were not implanted.
The team says the approach may one day treat a range of inherited diseases.
And the parents will refuse, like the idiot deaf people.
I think deaf people would relent once the cure can be made before birth.
Of course, 100 years from now, all the humans will likely be wearing
Borg style implants to enhance their hearing and eyesight and ability to
bio-electronically participate in financial transactions. After all,
once the technology exists, why would people want to wander around with
the birth defects/limitations that we all suffer with today?

As for homosexuality, it isn't a defect and won't be treated as a defect
in the future. The bigoted/racist dinosaurs like Rich will largely die
off from this Earth. There will always be haters born (I don't think
such disabled people can be cured), but society's value system will
continue to evolve and as such those haters will have to find new things
to be afraid of rather than homosexuality. Maybe it will be a fear of
people with red hair or people with freckles or people who are
overweight or people who are bald or etc... There will always be something.
anim8rfsk
2017-10-01 13:00:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
But there won't BE any gays in that age. Genetic flaws like that will all
have been corrected.
No matter how "accepting" society is with existing gays today, no parent,
save one who is
sociopathic would want to bring a gay child into being if the problem was
easily identified
and fixed, perhaps before conception. "Gayness" like cerebral palsy or
cystic fibrosis will
be a memory of the past.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41386849
By James Gallagher
Health and science reporter, BBC News website
28 September 2017
DNA surgery on embryos removes disease
Precise "chemical surgery" has been performed on human embryos to
remove disease in a world first, Chinese researchers have told the BBC.
The team at Sun Yat-sen University used a technique called base editing to
correct a single error out of the three billion "letters" of our genetic code.
They altered lab-made embryos to remove the disease beta-thalassemia.
The embryos were not implanted.
The team says the approach may one day treat a range of inherited diseases.
And the parents will refuse, like the idiot deaf people.
I think deaf people would relent once the cure can be made before birth.
Of course, 100 years from now, all the humans will likely be wearing
Borg style implants to enhance their hearing and eyesight and ability to
bio-electronically participate in financial transactions. After all,
once the technology exists, why would people want to wander around with
the birth defects/limitations that we all suffer with today?
Do you remember the militant deaf people that insisted there was nothing
wrong with being deaf and damning their children to the same lifestyle
choice?
Post by Obveeus
As for homosexuality, it isn't a defect and won't be treated as a defect
in the future. The bigoted/racist dinosaurs like Rich will largely die
off from this Earth. There will always be haters born (I don't think
such disabled people can be cured), but society's value system will
continue to evolve and as such those haters will have to find new things
to be afraid of rather than homosexuality. Maybe it will be a fear of
people with red hair
Hey, they'll take your soul if you let them

or people with freckles or people who are
Post by Obveeus
overweight or people who are bald or etc... There will always be something.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-10-01 13:10:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
But there won't BE any gays in that age. Genetic flaws like that will all
have been corrected.
No matter how "accepting" society is with existing gays today, no parent,
save one who is
sociopathic would want to bring a gay child into being if the problem was
easily identified
and fixed, perhaps before conception. "Gayness" like cerebral palsy or
cystic fibrosis will
be a memory of the past.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41386849
By James Gallagher
Health and science reporter, BBC News website
28 September 2017
DNA surgery on embryos removes disease
Precise "chemical surgery" has been performed on human embryos to
remove disease in a world first, Chinese researchers have told the BBC.
The team at Sun Yat-sen University used a technique called base editing to
correct a single error out of the three billion "letters" of our genetic code.
They altered lab-made embryos to remove the disease beta-thalassemia.
The embryos were not implanted.
The team says the approach may one day treat a range of inherited diseases.
And the parents will refuse, like the idiot deaf people.
I think deaf people would relent once the cure can be made before birth.
Of course, 100 years from now, all the humans will likely be wearing
Borg style implants to enhance their hearing and eyesight and ability to
bio-electronically participate in financial transactions. After all,
once the technology exists, why would people want to wander around with
the birth defects/limitations that we all suffer with today?
Do you remember the militant deaf people that insisted there was nothing
wrong with being deaf and damning their children to the same lifestyle
choice?
Yes, but I think that wave of 'empowerment' will subside once people
without hearing loss are being regularly retrofitted with electronic
devices to enhance hearing (hear better, implanted phones / implanted
internet radio, etc...). When everyone is modifying their hearing, it
won't be an acknowledgement of disability for deaf people to also do
something to hear better.

Meanwhile, deaf people who damage their children's hearing by blasting
music and such should be prosecuted for child abuse.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
As for homosexuality, it isn't a defect and won't be treated as a defect
in the future. The bigoted/racist dinosaurs like Rich will largely die
off from this Earth. There will always be haters born (I don't think
such disabled people can be cured), but society's value system will
continue to evolve and as such those haters will have to find new things
to be afraid of rather than homosexuality. Maybe it will be a fear of
people with red hair
Hey, they'll take your soul if you let them
or people with freckles or people who are
Post by Obveeus
overweight or people who are bald or etc... There will always be something.
BTR1701
2017-10-01 16:45:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by RichA
RichA
But there won't BE any gays in that age. Genetic flaws like that will all
have been corrected.
No matter how "accepting" society is with existing gays today, no parent,
save one who is
sociopathic would want to bring a gay child into being if the problem was
easily identified
and fixed, perhaps before conception. "Gayness" like cerebral palsy or
cystic fibrosis will
be a memory of the past.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41386849
By James Gallagher
Health and science reporter, BBC News website
28 September 2017
DNA surgery on embryos removes disease
Precise "chemical surgery" has been performed on human embryos to
remove disease in a world first, Chinese researchers have told the BBC.
The team at Sun Yat-sen University used a technique called base editing to
correct a single error out of the three billion "letters" of our genetic code.
They altered lab-made embryos to remove the disease beta-thalassemia.
The embryos were not implanted.
The team says the approach may one day treat a range of inherited diseases.
And the parents will refuse, like the idiot deaf people.
I think deaf people would relent once the cure can be made before birth.
Nope. Any 'cure' for deafness is seen by the activists as leading to the
elimination of their 'culture'. They've actually used the term 'cultural
genocide' to describe cochlear implants.

They're nuts.
Post by Obveeus
As for homosexuality, it isn't a defect and won't be treated as a defect
in the future.
You say this based on what?

I suspect even the most 'progressive' of parents will, when faced with a
choice between a gay or a straight child will pick straight, especially
if the change can be accomplished with a quick, non-invasive tweak to
the fetus's genetics.
RichA
2017-10-14 01:18:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Imagine if they played this guy like the Oscar Wilde of the Federation, flitting around the Enterprise, hitting on every male crew member talking in a high-pitched, lisping, falsetto? Instead, you won't know he's gay unless he acts on it.
Loading...