Sisko can and should show up on SNW to help Pike get his jambalaya recipe just right, then vanish without any explanation other than that he needs to get back to his children and wife.

Or as the Engineer from TF2 said:

Hey look, buddy. I'm an engineer, that means I solve problems. Not problems like "What is beauty?", 'cause that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems! For instance, how am I gonna stop some big mean Mother-Hubbard from tearin' me a structurally superfluous new behind? The answer? Use a gun. And if that don't work, use more gun. Like this heavy caliber, tripod-mounted, little ol' number designed by me, built by me, and you'd best hope... not pointed at you.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

I certainly agree that there's more crying than I'm used to in Trek, but I wouldn't call that wokeness (unless the crying was about a reason that was "woke", I guess?). Mostly I chalk that up to popular entertainment dripping with CW style shows (for the worse, of course). That said there was a fair amount of crying/emotional outbursts from Sisko and others on DS9, especially if we take the Maquis into account - like Sisko said, it's easy to be a saint in paradise. Doesn't jive with the perfect crews we've seen on the Enterprises, but like DS9 being a run-of-the-mill station that got swept up in religious politics and galactic war, Discovery was "just" a bleeding edge science ship that went through hell, so it does kind of make sense that people would be more than a little traumatized and outburst-y.

Totally agree that the casts being treated like it was normal is a great message to send without focusing on it, but they did touch on it occasionally. In the TNG pilot itself, Geordi and Crusher talk pretty openly about his blindness IIRC, and he says something to the effect of "I was born this way", and he rejects potential "cures", showing how comfortable he was with what others would consider a curse.

Also there most certainly episodes reassuring Data he was part of the crew. An entire episode reassuring him he was sentient, right? It was central to his (and others') growth over the series. Whether he was truly a sentient being or not definitely draws parallels to dehumanization in the real world, and was pretty blatant about it.

Plenty of folks on TNG had to talk through their problems - that was pretty much the point of Guinan, in a lot of ways, and even having a Betazoid on the bridge. Feelings and emotion were being pretty openly explored in a way that's just different to the way things are now. Mental illness has over the decades been normalized in a way that is kind of incredible. Again though, the amount of crying does irk me (that much I agree with, especially when shit is literally on fire). I just don't consider that to be wokeness in my face, just shoddy writing.

I'm not downvoting either of you, and I hope this doesn't sound like me being argumentative, I just want to know what you're seeing in Discovery that I haven't seen in all the other Trek series (see me other comment in this thread, I guess). Morality lectures are central to Trek, IMHO.

I must be ancient here, because nobody has claimed this is like September 1993 all over again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

FRIENDLY NOTE: I don't mean this to sound combative, I just want to offer a different (more optimistic) perspective.

What's missing here is the central conceit of Trek: that humanity grew up. We could have a utopia now if people would just stop being greedy little shits, and decided to embrace empathy and forgiveness. There's nothing stopping every single person in a modern conflict from dropping their weapons, but we still want vengeance and punishment. and I'm not saying I'm above that: someone kills someone I love, and I'm going to want blood. On paper I'm against capital punishment, but I know if I was faced with a war on my doorstep, bombs being dropped, my morals may not hold.

In Star Trek, they had WW3/the Eugenics Wars, and after that...humanity finally had enough. Never again, but for all the ills of humanity, in a way.

So very few people in the Trek world would actually complain about working a shit detail, because they're in it for the greater good. We saw in TNG episodes that randos from the 20th century could just waltz around the ship at their leisure, and how lax security is...because people just generally behaved well. Humanity really did bind themselves to a stronger social contract, if that's the right term.

As for needing ships: there seem to be plenty of civilian ships out there, from trading and light exploration to proper science vessels. Not all Starfleet, though the shows have focused on them. So I can only imagine there's plenty of opportunity for non-Starfleet folks to get out there.

Granted, DS9 pushed back on all this a little, as the Maquis are comprised of a lot of Federation members that went feral/colonial and don't hold themselves to the Federation ideals that seem to keep the rest of humanity and others acting in good faith at almost all times. Likewise still plenty of BadMirals out there, and they do show the Tom Paris-es of the world in some kind of prison, so it's not all roses, and could definitely be spun as drops of dystopia in a utopia, but we're also told (and have no reason to doubt) that it's all well-above board, humane, and focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

Also, all that said, I do wish it wasn't so hierarchical, but that's my anarchist streak flaring up.

It's designed that way in the same way as a hole was designed for a puddle*. The caterpillars are evolutionarily successful because of a "spray and pray" strategy, and other species are successful because of the easy food.

Biology is an arms race, in a sense: so everything is interlinked, and affected by everything else, even if only by distant, myriad links in an unbroken web of chains. It's the reason a lot of biologists like myself are anxious about the ecological destruction that's been unfolding for so long. Life finds a way in the long term, but short term...it sucks to be alive when many of the things you depend on aren't.

*This metaphor thanks to Douglas Adams

There are some damn cool Karen-looking folks out there.

When I was a gawky high schooler, I worked in a pet store. A lady came in demanding a refund for a broken bottle of flea spray. I apologized and took a look at it: turned out she hadn't flipped the little fiddly bit on the end of the nozzle around correctly, so it was actually functional.

She still didn't want it, and demanded a cash refund. Small independent pet store, so we didn't do that for credit card purchases, or ones without a receipt: store credit only, unfortunately. She started to get mad, and I told her she could talk to the manager first thing on Monday. She wasn't having it.

Behold the entrance of a Savior sandwiched between spiky dyed-blond hair and leopard-patterned pants. Summoning the strength of all the Karens out there - but wielding that power for good - she put herself between us. She started by simply telling her to "leave this poor kid alone, he doesn't make the rules", but when it was clear that the lady wasn't going to budge, she advanced on her prey and said "if you're too stupid to figure out how to use a spray bottle you don't deserve a refund anyway".

Wish I could thank her again: it defined the best and worst of working retail.

Is anyone here calling for it to be canceled outright? If it's canceled because people don't want to watch it because they think an actor sucks as a human, that's just the free market, right? If it was a better show/actor, they'll still do alright (look at Tom Cruise or any number of problematic actors).

In addition to what others have said (all those examples are equally misleading IMHO), given that its the 25th Anniversary of Half-Life, a lot of us are primed to hope for news of a new game from Valve.

There's a difference in understanding and supporting, or considering something morally correct.

As another example: I understand why some folks get sucked into gangs. If someone grows up in a crumbling school system, falls through the holes in whatever is left of a social safety net, has no proper familial support, and sees nothing but violence and economic despair day-to-day, joining a gang suddenly becomes a viable path to prosperity. Exceedingly dangerous, but this hypothetical teen can look around and see they're likely to have a shit future regardless, so why not take that chance, right?

So this isn't me saying that I support gang violence, but I can understand why it happens. Which is why my politics are what they are: we don't need to just beat the shit out of gang members in the streets, but give folks support so they don't feel like joining a gang is the only way to survive.

The other poster is (I think) making a similar kind of argument. What the fuck else is some kid in that situation going to grow up to be? Some folks will make it out alright, sure: but on the whole it's a recipe for despair, which often leads to horrific acts. It doesn't make the acts right, but we can understand a little more about the why.

Please don't let the far-right get away with distorting reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Fox News is right-wing, it's just that we have extremely far right members essentially in control of the GOP.