Forum:Leftist Admins here on Memory Alpha

Forums → Ten Forward → Leftist Admins here on Memory Alpha

I've witnessed a tremendous amount of pro-LBBGQT support from the admins on this site. I've also noticed that any talk against it is quickly threatened and or "moderated" by the admins here. For a group that claims to be so open they sure don't appreciate any viewpoints contrary to their own, and the admins are quite efficient at using their "power" to censor it. Personally, I would like to see more support for opposing viewpoints and less domination by the liberal crowd here at MA. Thank you. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by MemoryDelta5 (talk • contribs) at 22:47, 7 December 2023.

Hi there! There seems to have been a misconception here, as we are definitely open to other viewpoints, but that openness does come to a stop when that "other viewpoint" devolves in hatespeech and disregard for other people's identity. That's the point where this platform -- so not only this wiki, but this platform -- stops being open. It's not about censoring, it's about not allowing bullying. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 23:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of leftism on Memory Alpha? Allegations require evidence. Since this is your first post under this username, I'm going to assume you're a sockpuppet of blocked User:SpooferOk and you're referring to the edit war at the Oriana article. The word "mother" does not always refer to a child's biological mother in the English language. Adopted children call their adoptive parents "mother" and "father" and children of lesbian parents do in fact call both women who raise them "mother". This isn't about a pro-LGBT agenda or censorship. This is simply about how the word mother is used in society. Everybody knows that two women can't conceive a child without a sperm donor. You don't need to point that out in the article. Gilgamesh de Uruk (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

First, to clarify Lostris' comment, what she is alluding to is the platform's community guidelines.

Second, when exactly has a tremendous amount of pro-bigot support for anything ever worked out as a positive thing for anyone? I mean, you're just as welcome to contribute here and those you abhor, the only thing stopping you is what burns inside you.

Third, Gilgamesh is absolutely correct. Even if it wasn't about some pro-bigot topic, and it was about any other mundane or magical object of unknown origin, our modus operandi remains unchanged: we don't emphasize the unknowns, we simply state the knowns: i.e., we saw two mothers with a child, so that's what we wrote, period.

Finally, for one to dive in head first off their soapbox on day one, edit one, without understanding that or opening a line of discussion before engaging in an edit war with someone who does understand that, hardly shows good faith on your/their part.--Gvsualan (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

*Raises Hand* — I don't know what is meant by "bigot". Please explain.

You can't just use terms like "Pro-Bigot" and expect people to tribally buy into what they are without explaining what they MEAN.

"Adopted children call their adoptive parents "mother" and "father" and children of lesbian parents do in fact call both women who raise them "mother". " Yes, but not always, and because they're children, who don't know any better. They accept whatever they're told by their primary caregivers.

And socially that's fine and healthy, but scientifically and biologically it's not correct.

I would refer you to "Cardassians", the episode. The boy, Ruegel.

Also, I find the term "sperm donor" offensive. There is more than one reason why a person's Father is not around to see them grow up. You can't just assume it's because he has no interest in doing so. That's actually quite rare.

DATA: An accident in Engineering shut down my cognitive functions for a short period of time, yet I seemed to remain conscious — I saw My Father.

WORF: You are very fortunate. That is a powerful vision.

DATA: If it was a vision, I do not know how to proceed.

WORF: You must find its Meaning. If it has anything to do with Your Father, you must learn all you can about it. In the Klingon MajQa ritual, there is nothing more important than receiving A Revelation about Your Father.

Your Father is a Part of You, always — Learning about him teaches you about yourself.

That is why no matter where he is or what he has done, you must find him.

DATA: ..…But I am not looking for My Father?

WORF: .…Yes, of course. Do NOT stop, until you have The Answer.

– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spike1138 (talk • contribs) at 20:47, 10 December 2023.

The English language isn't always scientifically and biologically correct. Guinea pigs are not pigs and they're not from Guinea, but we still call them that. If you have a problem with how we use the word "mother", take it up with the English language. Gilgamesh de Uruk (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"scientifically and biologically it's not correct". - With that kind of reasoning, are kids not allowed to call their step-mother "mom"? I'd also like to point out that this topic concerns 21st century understandings of 24th century life. Between 1900 and 2000, we went from "Do you think I can get this giant hunk of metal with wings to glide for 30 seconds?" to "Here is a small rectangle that instantly connects you to computers and servers that are orders of magnitude more powerful than the technology that took us to the big ball of rock thousands of miles above the surface of our planet."

Perhaps our understanding is a bit lagging behind what the Humans and aliens out in the galaxy are processing. Just saying... Noofficial96 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Can you provide an example of leftism on Memory Alpha? Allegations require evidence."

Look at the logo for the site. Gay and trans pride has essentially nothing to do with Star Trek, yet the flag has become a permanent fixture. --Pie4all88 (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right, that is an example of leftism on Memory Alpha. I don't agree with the whole gay/trans/disability pride concept and I'm a legally disabled person. Pride and shame should be reserved for our accomplishments and failures, respectively.

But a flag doesn't have any effect on Memory Alpha's day-to-day activities. I haven't seen any leftist bias in the actions of Memory Alpha's admins. In Forum:Primary Picture Format Change for One Off Characters Recast as Regulars, Gvsualan argued against replacing the animated white Robert April with the new Adrien Holmes version as the main image because doing so would violate policy. A leftist would've used any possible excuse to replace a white person with a black person. Gilgamesh de Uruk (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The term hatespeech is itself a controversial, politically charged, cultural terminology.

Hate speech is a nebulous ill-defined term, which can encompass almost anything, which is the point. It is therefore notorious as a way of silencing opposing viewpoints, because it usually relies on subjective criteria such as the claimed emotional effects of a statement, to determine what qualifies. Nobody can prove or falsify a subjective emotion, so pressure groups can simply claim that something is emotionally disturbing to expand the remit of hate speech indefinately. Simply stating a scientific result, has been called hate speech, in some topics, for example. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canondorf108 (talk • contribs) at 12:32, 19 December 2023.

I have to say, as a black man, it troubles me greatly to see people taking a simple topic and making it complex. Hate speech is a simple object, and everyone knows the term is used to describe speech directed to subject another to abhorrent insults, slurs, and ridicule. The point of attempting to explain away "hate speech" into something complex is a gigantic tell for both the readers, and yourself. All Humans know that "hate speech" is wrong so the go to great lengths to explain it away for one simple purpose, nobody wants to be the villian in their own story. So, I will make this simplistic so the concept can be filed away and we can move on...if you do not like that people exist happily as anything besides a "Straight/Cisgender", "Heterosexual", "Christian", "White/European Ancestry", "Conservative/MAGA" person and make it your mission to harass, objectify, target, bully, demean, or just plain be cruel toward anyone not fitting that and/all of the above labels, you are the villain. You are a Khan. This is a STAR TREK forum, inclusiveness is kind of its thing and you cannot force anyone to change that so you can feel more comfortable with your insecurities. Please go forth and prosper as a singular member of the same species as everyone else on this ONE PLANET. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vindictus76 (talk • contribs) at 05:34, 1 January 2024.

There's plenty of hate speech directed against white people, Christians and conservatives. Don't pretend that it's all coming from one side.

I think the admins should consider locking this thread. The original poster has long since abandoned it and it's turning into a woke vs conservative argument that has nothing to do with Memory Alpha. Gilgamesh de Uruk (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Saying that someone's opinion is a "tell", i.e. to call into question their character, rather than addressing their point on good faith, is exactly the kind of culture among modern Star Trek discourse that the original poster was probably referring to. I also don't support locking topics personally, as soon as anything against the established narrative occurs. What would be the point of discussion then?

I remember a Star Trek that warned of the dangers of false accusations, a VOY episode in which a man was falsely accused of assault, and driven to his death, or another VOY episode where history was rewritten posthumously by revisionists, to portray the Federation as villains, or when DS9 dealt with today forbidden topics like entitled migrants taking advantage of Bajor's openess, the way European countries regularily face. I remember a Star Trek that respected different national cultures right to exist, to have soveriegnty, to consent to what happens to them.

In short it was often more interested in the truth, than polemic, and writers could still (at that point) follow the truth wherever it led. It was thus often neither partisan for one arbitrary political position or another, but rather attempted to stay objective. The claim that Star Trek was always a polemical show is a rhetorical claim that too often goes unchallenged. It may have been imperfect, sometimes setting up straw-man scenarios, but writers were not above following where truth led them on several occasions, which is the definition of 'art' as opposed to mere propaganda.

Recently in Ireland, which has been colonised to the point where 20% of it's population are non-native, entirely "without consent", as no party has ever offered this as an election choice, there was a riot, after several kids were stabbed in an attack resmbling those that regularily occur now in places like France. France itself had another of these mass stabbings around then, in which a migrant group stabbed native French children at a local village dance, proclaiming their objective was to "kill whites". In either case, the news was widely censored, the Irish riot deliberatly mis-represented by the media, by politicians, as having no cause. One politician suggested the rioters should be "shot in the head". Yes, you read that right, the actual stabber should have his identity protected by the media, admitted to hospital, but the Irish natives who killed nobody, injured nobody, in their own native land, protesting a policy nobody supports, should be slaughtered en masse. This is just everyday occurance now across Europe; the occupation, gaslighting and vilification of the population. One of a thousand such incidents of stabbings, mass rapes, bomb attacks, or criminal gangs preying on the meek. We could talk about the Rotherham, Telford, Oxford and Rochdale grooming gangs in Britain, where tens of thousands of children aged 11+ were raped by migrant gangs, or the mass terrorist attacks in France, or the similar problems in Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Italy, etc.

Yet PIC season two chose to do heavy poltical signalling in favour of the globalist business establishment's agenda, which drives down corporate wages, erodes social systems, and destroys aborgininal cultures. How 'brave' to support corporations and political elites against the poor and against victims of pedophilia, murder and rape. I don't personally care to "give the benefit of the doubt" to producers anymore, or to remain balanced at this point. I just feel utter disdain for the current state of Star Trek, as many do.

How writers can support mass immigration, politicians who sound and behave like 'Gul Dukat', in a franchise that was once about protecting people, preserving the past, preserving diverse aboriginal cultures, is beyond me. Hollywood echo chambers lost touch with reality a long time ago, and still think that this is 1945, when people fleeing WW2 needed temporary sanctuary. They play a violin for criminals and never pay even one moment of thought to tens of thousands of victims of the media illusion their propaganda perpetrates. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canondorf108 (talk • contribs) at 18:11, 2 January 2024.

I just want to add that saying that everything is alright here sounds a bit comical to me when I look at that logo in the top left corner. I don't know what it's supposed to mean at the website. If those colors mean what I think, then I point out that I saw it every time I visited Memory Alpha, and it wasn't just in June. Písač (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I stumbled onto this talk page while perusing the rest of the wiki, and I have to say, I'm damn fascinated by this thread - enough so to make an account! For the record, I apologize for whatever formatting mistakes I am unavoidably going to make by nature of simply never having interacted in a Talk thread before. However, I can't help but notice that not a lot of people have stepped into the ring who are themselves queer - so allow me to introduce myself! Hi, I'm trans, and I have been watching Star Trek all my life; I have come to greatly idealize the Federation's ideals of equality and social justice. To get things started - OP, I am a little surprised that you used such an unorthodox version of the acronym. I don't know where on Earth you are from, but on the off-chance that you are from the Anglosphere, might I helpfully correct you by saying that it is "LGBTQIA+" This stands for, in case you were further unaware, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual, though the A can also stand for Aromantic or Asexual (it does not stand for "Ally," as an ally is someone who is not LGBT but stands in support of them). Just thought we'd cover our bases before proceeding!

While we are still here, and still talking, there is an important concept to factor into things called the "intolerance of tolerance." What this phrase means, despite its contradictory sound, is that in order for there to exist a tolerant space or society, we must be intolerant to those who act out of intolerance. To give an extreme example: A full-fledged, card-carrying, jackboot wearing, swastika-donning Nazi should not be allowed into spaces where their prejudices would be given easy targets. This may seem intolerant to the Nazi's point of view (which, by the way, if you are playing Devil's Advocate for the Nazis, might I remind you that the Nuremburg Trials already happened, and they no longer need any further advocation!), but it is preserving the free space and bodily safety of everyone else that they would be put into contact with. In other words, in order to preserve tolerance, we must be intolerant to those who practice intolerance. I understand you may be slightly upset about being compared even obliquely to the Nazis, but may I remind you that the Nazis burned the Institute for Sex Research extremely early into their rise to power, which was the foremost study of queer and trans people in Europe at the time, and arguably remains the foremost medical study due to how much was destroyed! Perhaps, it may be worth considering, why an organization as evil as the Nazis, who so callously took lives and marginalized the ones that survived so that they might be on the chopping block next, targeted queer people so aggressively!

So, allow me to proceed further; I have known people who ask for "both sides" on the queer "issue" my entire life. I know perfectly well what language is used to mask anti-queer sentiments, and even threats, to a community that is mine. I know this because I grew up in this, and was abused by the people I thought were my parents. I know very well how awful things can hide behind smiling, even tolerant-seeming faces, and yet in the end they feel the need to police my body, and the bodies of those in my community. I have made aid packages for trans youths thrown out on the street, and watched as tables of supplies slowly dwindled until there was simply no way for us to care for more. I have seen physical and mental scars, and have my own, all caused by people who simply wanted there to be some amount of "balance" in the conversation. I have gone to vigils for my people's dead, and I have fought to make sure that every member of my community that I physically can survives. There is too much that I cannot do, and while I admit making a long callout post on Memory Alpha of all places is not necessarily the most economic of uses of my energy, I also admit that I could not resist the urge to fly the flag of a people who have known violence, from the state, from their families, from their "friends." I mean this as honestly as you will believe me, but I do mean it with all of my heart - I sincerely pray that you have never known this kind of violence, this kind of fear, and this kind of hate. When you find yourself on the other side of it, you will realize quickly that there is no balance to be found; only survival and death.

I want to thank the people of Memory Alpha for their time and patience, and I again want to apologize for the inevitable formatting errors my post has/will make. However, in the spirit of tolerance, as the OP professes, I hope that you all will show patience and help me correct issues as they emerge. In the spirit of Star Trek itself, I must say as a finale that the Enterprise has always represented a future where Humanity is without biases, where one person sees another person as what they are, and listen with empathy and respect to what they have to say about their experiences, their hopes, and their fears. Starfleet's mission is of exploration, but as the series has shown us, no Starfleet captain has or should balked at defending their ideals of equality and of justice. Starfleet is, in the end, the paradox I mentioned before writ large, with warp drives and phaser banks and a thousand thousand dreamers striving for long life and prosperty: It is the intolerance of tolerance, and it has, is, and will, boldly go where no one has gone before. -- Falle96 (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As someone who is liberal on some issues and conservative on others, I can understand both perspectives in a way. LGBT people have suffered greatly in the past and still suffer greatly now in some parts of the world. LGBT pride was a concept that helped them to organize and fight for their rights. But now that gay marriage is legal just about everywhere in the Western world, I don't understand what they're still fighting for. I feel that LGBT pride now actually increases homophobia and transphobia in people who are tired of seeing LGBT pandering everywhere they look. To many, the LGBT flag represents innocent people getting yelled at and publicly humiliated for getting someone's pronouns wrong. It represents women facing competition from trans athletes in sports who have an unfair physical advantage. It represents young girls being forced to share locker rooms with pre-surgery transwomen. It represents children being put on puberty blockers when they are too young to make such a big life-changing decision. It is these issues that are the main causes of transphobia, not religion or ignorance, and this is why some people have an issue with the LGBT flag on Memory Alpha. Personally, I don't care what the flag looks like since it doesn't affect my editing experience. Gilgamesh de Uruk (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

They are fighting against the harms that are still inflicted on them. If you want to believe its a solved issue that's your business but even equal rights and pay for women is not a solved issue. Just like racism is not solved despite slavery in the USA being a long distant memory and integration being generations old. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fullofinfo (talk • contribs) at 20:02, 19 January 2024.

LGBTQ+ people are suffering right now in the United States. And you just quoted many examples of the issues they face. You say you don't understand what they're fighting for and then mention all the things that are being forcibly taken away from them. They are being legislated into nonexistence. There were times when disabled people faced very similar problems (being ostracized, sterilized, treated as sub-Human, etc) so I would think that you, for one, would understand their plight. Anyway, you're wrong; most of the issues causing transphobia DO come from religion and ignorance... and you just gave yourself up as an example.TheRogueX (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Trans people have the same rights as everyone else. They can compete against their biological sex where they don't have a physical advantage. They can use the locker rooms that correspond to their biological sex at least until they get surgery. They can get gender affirming treatment when they turn 18. Many trans people do and end up living happy lives. No one is trying to take away their rights. --Arbusala (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This conversation has gone on long enough with some pretty wild points of views being shared as facts that are downright harmful to women and people of the queer community. All relevant things have been more than said before, so it's time to just move on. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 11:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Strange New Worlds

I think people should step back here, especially those who look with total intolerance on those who disagree with their beliefs or worldview. In SNW: "Strange New Worlds" Captain Pike told the people of Kylie 279 how they were very much like Humans two hundred years before, blinded by hatred and determined to commit planetary suicide. (And almost succeeded in killing all of Humanity OFF). This is the sort of garbage will lead to it being a time where if there are any Humans left someday saying "We called it the Second Civil War,then the Eugenics War,and finally just World War III." Servo (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

At this point, a substantial proportion of fans believe our hobby has been captured by bad faith individuals; it does not resemble the humane franchise it once was, where all people were respected. Surely 'Infinite Diversity' means a diversity of nations, who are all allowed to exist on their own terms? Why else have a 'Prime Directive' regarding non-interfearance? Why else respect Federation member's sovereignty?

There is a veritable tone of disdain from the TV producers, toward the fans who are heamoragging away from the franchise in response to it's new cynical and polemical style. A coup has taken place, without the consent of Trekkers, in which every previous producer was replaced by a new production team. Some forums, in my personal exeprience, are also no longer nice places.

I have been bullied in the past on Star Trek discussion groups, without saying a single disrespectful thing to anyone; in fact I didn't even hold the opinions I now do, so I am no longer under any illusion that Star Trek produces a welcoming or tolerant environment. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canondorf108 (talk • contribs) at 18:11, 2 January 2024.

This conversation has gone on long enough with some pretty wild points of views being shared as facts that are downright harmful to women and people of the queer community. All relevant things have been more than said before, so it's time to just move on. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 11:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"Leftist Admins" lol

First of all, there are no admins here. Not sure where you got that idea. Paramount+ owns this website and force various Trek actors, writers, and directors to update it regularly. It's in their contract. Is this news? I thought everyone knew that. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardHere (talk • contribs) at 19:59, 5 January 2024.

I'm curious if OP objects to pro-African American support on Memory Alpha and in Star Trek (pro civil rights material in TOS, DS9 etc.)? Pro women? How does he feel about the Eurocentrism here and in the Star Trek franchise as a whole? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamking01 (talk • contribs) at 20:13, 5 January 2024.

Ummmm... not sure where you're getting your information, but MA is *not* owned by or associated with Paramount in any way, shape, or form. The admins here are volunteers, as are the many other editors. Nobody is forced to participate here, nor is anyone contractually obligated to do so. So, no, not everybody knows. Oh, and if that comment was meant as satire, then... ha. -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hatred is not a viewpoint. it is hatred. And keeping in mind that this is a discussion page on one of the wokest TV/movie franchises to ever exist.

Star Trek has always been woke, right from The Original Series... And it will continue to be woke. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. --SnowyRVulpix (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Woke and progressive are not the same thing. Wokeness is a toxic form of progressivism that only started in the last 10 years or so. It is a racist ideology characterized by a hatred of white people and obsession with LGBT people to the point of absurdity. Wokeness encourages white supremacy by proving white supremacists right when they say the white race is under attack. As an actual progressive person who is opposed to any kind of racism, I am against wokeness. Star Trek has definitely not always been woke. Gilgamesh de Uruk (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You're just making stuff up. You clearly don't know the history of the Left if you think there hasn't always been a contingent telling the Left they are too radical. Look at the nineties where people like you would've said "I'm progressive but not one of those politically correct robots." Or when African Americans were told by the Left "we want rights for you but if we go too fast white people will get nervous."

Most people who support so-called wokeness don't hate white people and aren't obsessed with LGBT, though we certainly should ALL be obsessed with equal rights. Trans rights are under attack and if that falls don't think it'll stop there. The core of Progressivism (and Star Trek) is to come to the defense of those under attack. Right now, that's the LGBT community, especially transgender people. As far as wokeness being racist, please find for me examples where anyone is against white people? Wanting more diversity in a cast doesn't count. Television and movies are still overwhelmingly white. Wanting to see a more varied look at the Human race doesn't mean anyone is hated. Wickedjacob2 (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Watch the trailer for the movie The American Society of Magical Negroes and then tell me that woke people don't hate white people. Every writer, director, producer and actor involved in the making of that movie somehow thought it was a good idea, proving that the hatred of white people is very pervasive in Hollywood. If someone had proposed a movie about a magical society of white people trying to prevent "black rage" in order to keep other white people safe, that person would be blacklisted as a white supremacist (and rightfully so). So why is it okay the other way round? This is just one of many examples.

Diversity is a good thing, but it should never be done at the expense of any group of people. In the last 10 years there have been countless examples of a white character being race-swapped into a person of color, but I can't think of a single example of a race-swap in the opposite direction or a race-swap between two non-white races. That clearly shows bias against white people.

Trans people are not an oppressed minority. Yes, they have mental health problems and a much higher suicide rate than the general population. But otherwise, they are some of the most privileged people in Western society. In situations where one transwoman wants to use the women's locker room and a dozen women feel uncomfortable, the desire of the transwoman wins out every time. That's privilege. I'm in favor of equal rights for everyone, but participating in sporting competitions against the opposite sex is not a Human right. Making irreversible bodily changes while still a child is not a Human right either. Gilgamesh de Uruk (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with you on several points but this is not the place for a full debate on the definition of gender, minor bodily autonomy, the reasons why barring someone from an activity is a greater harm than making someone else feel uncomfortable, etc. I relooked at the constraints of Ten Forward and had forgotten that while general this is not an off-topic forum. So since I think we can both agree we've drifted far from matters directly affecting an encyclopedia, I'll leave it here with apologies for having participated in the straying. Wickedjacob2 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Star Trek allowed Vulcans to be Vulcans, Klingons to be Klingons, and Andorians to be Andorians. So Star Trek was nationalist - just as all nations are by default, or they wouldn't exist, China wouldn't be China, and Persia wouldn't be Persia. It celebrated a diversity of nations, with different national cultures, not the imperial homogenisation of all groups under a totalitarian ideology, against their will. Just as the United Nations is nationalist (in it's name and it's principles if not in reality), for protecting different nations right to exist.

The Federation didn't ban Vulcans from performing kuhn-ut-kal-if-fee, nor did it shame them for favouring Vulcan culture. "This comes down to us from the time of the beginning." Modern activists ban Europeans from applying for jobs in their native lands, shame them for in any way wanting to preserve their traditions, place hateful messages about them in entertainment, and go so far as re-writing history.

Julius Caesar blackwashed, Joan of Arc blackwashed, Sri Lancelot blackwashed, Sir Bedevere blackwashed, Heimdall blackwashed, Jarl Haakon blackwashed and gender swapped, Cleopatra blackwashed, Friar Tuck blackwashed, Sir Isaac Newton Asianwashed, Hannibal of Carthage blackwashed, Margaret of Anjou blackwashed, Hans Christian Anderson's 'The Little Mermaid' blackwashed, J.M. Barrie's 'Peter Pan' blackwashed, Andrzej Sapkowski's 'The Witcher' blackwashed, Isaac Asimov's 'Foundation' blackwashed and gender swapped, Doctor Who blackwashed and gender swapped, Zeus blackwashed, Achielles blackwashed, Star Trek's Captain Robert April blackwashed.

Imagine if the gods of the Yoruba or Zulu were treated as the Norse gods or Greek gods have been, or any major bantu historical figure, the media-engineered outcry that would occur now. Imagine if 10 million people were settled in Tibet, the way they have in France, the world-wide protests that would occur. Wokeness is not about celebrating diversity, we all know it's about erasing Europeans, people of European descent, and shaming their valid culture.

This racist ideology of erasing them is the opposite of IDIC. -- User:Canondorf108

There's still plenty of white people in media. Nobody is erasing them. The world is diverse and multicultural and television hasn't done a good job depicting of that. So new interpretations are fun and interesting. Notice how many of your examples are American and European stories. That's what the majority of television and movies still are. Don't worry, white culture still rules. No one is killing it off. Wickedjacob2 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Demographically, aboriginal Europeans are being erased, by low birth rates and infinite non-consensual immigration. For any other tribe, this would be a point of political activism. Your reply is misrepresentative of reality. Since European-descended countries are being forced to 'diversify' their entertainment, but globally no other culture is. Thus your supported policy's real effect is to globally destroy European representation in media. They have no other homelands to look after their affairs. Iranian cinema is near-100% Iranian, Indian cinema is near-100% Indian, Chinese cinema is near-100% Chinese, and Japanese cinema is near-100% Japanese. Nigeria just recently banned foreign actors, meaning Europeans and Asians, from commercials. All other nations, look after their national tribe first. That is the entire point of a nation-state. You are arguing that the film industry of say France, which serves the French nation, should serve all nations. -- User:Canondorf108

And you are arguing for nationalism and tribal separatism instead of IDIC. I applaud diversity and moving beyond petty tribal squabbles, as anyone who claims to be a Star Trek fan should. You sound like Chang. Wickedjacob2 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You act as if readers are meant to think nationalism a bad thing. Actually it's a compliment. Nationalism is one of the great liberating forces of history. King Alfred the Great of Anglo-Saxon England, Jawaharlal Nehru the first Prime Minister of India, the Greeks who fought against Ottoman occupation, the new Irish Free State of the 1920s, the Meiji Restoration in Japan, or the numerous other times nationalism resulted in an independent self-confident people.

The reason that nations appear time-after-time in history, is that other people don't make any effort to transcend their petty tribal loyalties. The Ottomans kidnapped Greek children, as one of the worst examples. Not all cultures are equal in respect for others. Some seek priviledge, through nepotism and supremacism. Some have in-built religious bigotry. Other groups put their own ethnic interests first, whether they intend to or not.

Nationalism is thus the natural consequence of healthy Human life. You will note that Star Trek fully supports it. Vulcans are not obliged to accept infinite migration from the Andorian or Klingon nations. It is so obvious, it barely needs stating. When people don't give their consent in sex, it is termed 'rape'. Likewise we have a term for when entire tribes settle your homeland without consent. Nobody consented to mass immigration at any point. No culture ever has done.

When 1400 children are raped in Rotherham, or 1000 in Rochdale, or 1000 in Telford, or 900 in Oxford, by Islamic-supremacist gangs, it just reminds people why nation-states existed in the first place. To protect a given ethnicity aginst the predation of other hostile cultures or civilizations. This is why Barbary pirates no longer regularily kidnap Europeans from the shores of their home nations, for sale into slavery. A Human tragedy that can easily return without vigilance.

The TV drama with the most audience of all time, is India's 1988 adaptation of the Hindu epic "The Mahabharata". Shows in Asia, such as numerous adaptations of "Journey to the West" or "Water Margin", make up the majority of entertainment. Your assertion that "most stories are European" was so wrong, that I was shocked. The majority of television is not for you, except in your homeland. I don't see why Europeans should fund the continued representation of groups that hate them. It was a courtesy in Star Trek, not an obligation without reciprocation.

I recall an anecdotal story, in which 1960s pilgrims talking to an Asian monk, explained that in the West, people hate themselves. The monk could not believe it, and thought there must be a mis-translation. The idea of loathing your own culture or body was anathema to his spiritual thinking. Yet Westerners are taught to hate everything Western. Your blind praise of predatory 'diversity', a euphemism for ethnic nepotism, is disturbing. This is the opposite of Star Trek, in which "We've each learned to be delighted with what we are." Love yourself more. -- User:Canondorf108

Very pretty. I prefer "Let me help." Wickedjacob2 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This conversation has gone on long enough with some pretty wild points of views being shared as facts that are downright harmful to women and people of the queer community. All relevant things have been more than said before, so it's time to just move on. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 11:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Instant hate

I'll forgive the guy for calling me names, as I understand that these issues can be polarizing, and it "feels good" to take a side and use all your resources in fighting for that side. There's a never ending search for meaning and purpose in life, and this is a popular avenue many people take in finding that purpose: fighting for a cause. If you don't take the Bible as truth, or don't believe there are any divine powers, consequences, or absolute rights and wrongs outside of the laws in your current society, then jumping onto a political bandwagon is the next best thing to garner some self-worth.

Jumping onto a bandwagon can be fun, meaningful, and gives you a great sense of purpose and inclusion, but the big issue is this: how far do you take it? Every Human "right" can be taken too far. And to further that point, open-mindedness can eventually turn into empty-mindedness.

All left to right changes on Fandom are quickly censored and reverted by moderators, even if changes hold true to reason or common sense. My original statement stands: Fandom is run by leftists and is without a doubt being used to normalize and promote their ideals. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpooferOk (talk • contribs).

Edit: a moderator just deleted my image above this post that provided proof of the name-calling, deeming it an "-irrelevant image". I'm really curious what sort of limits are in place for these moderators, and why the seem to have unlimited power when it comes to censoring what they deem fit. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpooferOk (talk • contribs).

That image was removed because yes, it was irrelevant to the wiki. And that part of the conversation that you've raised isn't relevant to the conversation in this top ic either. -- Sulfur (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we request to have the pride flag removed from the logo?

Sure, there are many different cultures and viewpoints in the world of Trek, but if someone wants to follow a faith, or exercise their innate differences, they usually do it with modesty, in private, or in sole company of others just like them. Odo is shy about his transformations and was always hesitant to shapeshift in public. Worf and Kira exercise their respective religions in the privacy of their own quarters or sanctuary. Data curbs his desire to quote time to the seconds place, and routinely attempts to fit in my adopting his crewmates' styles and mannerisms. Sisko keeps his African decorations in his own quarters and very rarely wore the garb when in someone else's company. Klingon "pride" celebrations were almost always strictly Klingon-only affairs.

I think you're trying to tie Star Trek into the pride movement, when it really can stand okay on its own. Human kind had "grown out of its infancy" in the eyes of Gene Roddenberry, and wasn't plagued by warring groups of people with different viewpoints.

If you had a different viewpoint in Star Trek, you kept it to yourself, unless you were in command and could offer a solution to a problem based on your own outlook. Innate differences in the physical characteristics of the species were hard to hide, but you never saw anybody shoving those differences in people's faces (except when Laas decided to fog the entire promenade). During issues concerning the Prime Directive, which were often catalysts for drawing out the stronger emotions in the crew, it was always the Captain (and the Star Fleet rulebook, technically) who had the last say.

Other than the Ferengi, Klingons, and maybe the jaded Jadzia Dax, hardly anybody in Star Trek acted as flamboyant and obnoxious as most present day people that want to willingly broadcast that they are counter-culture and proud of it. If everyone in Star Trek purposefully had to wear a flag that broadcasted which group they aligned with, the show would be ruined. In Star Trek, everyone KNOWS they are different, but it's not a cause to attach oneself to and rally behind as if it was "WHO I AM AND EVERYONE MUST KNOW". I would say the most flamboyant/outspoken group may be Vulcans, in all honesty. Most Vulcans on the show showed no restraint when it came to expressing their opinions and pushing their arguments of logic onto the people around them. They had an arrogance about them that had the potential to truly annoy. If you are doing something illogical and/or against the grain of their beliefs, Vulcans are quick to let you know. We loved them for it, but I doubt anybody would welcome an outspoken Vulcan into their real life circles.

Anyways, here's the TLDR: Pride flag is just that: a symbol of pride that was borne out of the warring communities of present-day Earth. It represents a divided world. United people don't need flags to broadcast their differences. A pride flag doesn't align with the visions of Gene Roddenberry or Starfleet. If you want to affix some sort of flag that embraces the spirit of Star Trek, you should perhaps design a world government flag which might represent a united world? Please remove the rainbow flag. PluribusDriver (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll only add here that if you think the importance of the rainbow flag is to "broadcast being different", then you've entirely missed the point of what Pride stands for, as it's not about broadcasting that you're maybe not like the majority of people, but that you are still a person, a Human, and that you deserve just as many rights as everyone else. Also, while this encyclopedia is about Star Trek, the wiki itself is build by people who live in the present on this earth. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 12:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, if you think that people just wanting to be acknowledged for existing (LGTBQ+ folks) instead of having to hide in the closet for their entire lives is the same~thing as "shoving those differences in people's faces" then honestly YOU are the problem, not them. I suggest you look up the trope "feeling opressed by their existence" and start to rethink your life. Signed, a NON-LGTBQ+ person. Timjer (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the best way to view the various swatches of color surrounding the MA logo is as being representative of IDIC. Yes, the colors are similar to the ones in the Philadelphia and/or Progress Pride flags, and yes, we first made the change to celebrate/support Pride Month, but in the context of Star Trek, it represents not only sexual or gender diversity, but also racial, cultural, neurological, anthropological, political, and pretty much any other diversity one can think of... in other words, IDIC. -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, this issue doesn't interest me, as I've explained above, my principle concern is with entertainment's increasing propaganda support for colonial globalism. The colonisation of native European countries, by tens of millions of often racist or religiously hostile people, without the consent of the dying native population, I believe, constitutes genocide under the United Nation's 1948 'Genocide Convention', defined as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The ethnic groups of Europe are over 2000 years old; by comparison the entire islands of Iceland and New Zealand were only inhabited in the last 1000 years. If any other native tribe on Earth were dying out with the same speed, scholars would organise an expedition to save them. Perservation applies to anyone else.

However, I think that it should be noted that not all gay people support the "intersectional" pride flag ("intersectionality" being a contentious ideology that many people believe is racist), or believe in pride parades, or are convinced that the trans issue really has anything to do with broader homosexuality. Some gays point out that trans surgery may be preventing adult homosexuals from ever discovering their sexuality, by administering treatment to them at a young age, before they can decide their path in life, with the experience of time. I would point out that removing healthy tissue from a person, for a purely psychological reason, could be a violation of the doctor's hippocratic oath, i.e. do no harm. I would also point out that administering drugs that stop a person ever undergoing puberty, likely sterilising them, preventing them from ever passing on their genes, or choosing at some future time, is a moral and ethical issue of considerable controversy. 'IDIC' implies logic dictates our path, not that all paths are valid. It is a celebration of mathematical variables, it does not imply all variables are equally desired. Morality is not arbitrary in Star Trek. -- User:Canondorf108

None of what you just said had any relevance to this wiki or this platform. You're free to have your opinion, but please be mindful of not spreading misinformation regarding medical health and presenting an opinion as a fact.

I do think a lot of the relevant discussion has already run its course here. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 12:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it does have relevence, when both Memory Alpha and Memory Beta, the two most important Star Trek wikis, have been displaying the colours of the intersectional 'progress pride flag', which incorporates race based ideology, in the brown and black stripes, for something like two years non-stop. It also groups the trans issue with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, which as stated, is controversial amongst some gays. That part is represented in the white, pink, and light blue section. This is what your wiki members seem to be unhappy about; Memory Alpha taking a hardline political stance on an ethically dubious issue that many of it's members don't agree with.

Star Trek recently tried to suggest that a new Civil War is possible in America, showing political protestors in a montage, as if to suggest they are the harbingers of such war. Perhaps if both sides would actually treat those they share a disagreement with in good faith, as people with a legitimate philosophical position, this could be averted. -- User:Canondorf108

The fact that you declare it as something political is exactly why I'm asking to be mindful to not conflate your personal opinion with facts. As if the overstating of "many" of it's members. For the rest I defer to previous comments of mine. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 14:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, the issue is controversial, the issue is politicised, and is debated in numerous legislative bodies. It is therefore, by definition, a political issue. Furthermore, since the issue incorporates a metaphysical position on the nature of the Human identity, it is also a philosophical issue of contention. I would surmise that this is why your members brought it up. Respecting all living things, does not mean agreeing with them, or affirming their philosophical ideologies. I do not agree with my friends, when they risk their lives, by driving too fast, or smoking; I warn them of potential risks, out of care for their wellbeing. - User:Canondorf108

Personally, I see no reason for the pride colors to have been added to our logo in the first place. We can show our respect for the LGBTQIA+ community without putting them on our logo, just like we do for many other groups, marginalized or otherwise. That being said, I see no strong reason to remove the colors, and it could be taken the wrong way by some people.

Actions speak stronger than words, and treating Memory Alpha users based on the edits they make – regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual identity, or any other identity group – is a better way to be inclusive than to put the pride colors on our logo. If it were that simple, I would support removing the pride colors from our logo. But I know that there are many people who would, understandably, feel hurt by this, especially if they are not aware of this discussion.

Although I feel that the decision to change the logo in the first place should have been considered more carefully, perhaps by way of a community discussion, I do not feel we should revert the change, as it would send the message that we are against the groups the logo currently represents, which is a message I firmly oppose.

TL;DR: I believe that all Human beings are equal and entitled to a set of natural rights; I respect the groups represented by the pride colors, but I do not believe the colors should have been added to our logo; Despite this, I feel that the colors should be left in place, and I oppose their removal. 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I expanded on the idea pretty thoroughly and didn't dwell too much on the fact that it's solely "broadcasting being different". PluribusDriver (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the word "pride". This is a movement, right? I think this all goes much deeper than just "I want to be acknowledged". PluribusDriver (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"Many" is also used on the official announcement concerning the permanent fixture of the pride flag. "with the knowledge and understanding that many of our community identify with these colours.. and reflects the bigger reality out there". I don't know if it's the right word to use, but that feels mighty presumptuous, right? PluribusDriver (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of this is well stated. But you have to remember that there are countless groups/minorities/under-privileged/under represented people that are NOT supported by those colors in the pride flag. The current colors are simply the "hot news item of the year", ie a current focus with a lot of support. In a parallel universe there's an Aborted Children flag on Memory Alpha (which, by the way, represents an extreme amount of unheard, under-privileged voices). There could be a parallel where Pedophiles are fighting for rights! As stated above, sure, the pride flag may tie into some Star Trek themes, and many here may love the "representation and support" they get in the Star Trek universe, but I still don't think it should be integrated into the logo for the entire wiki. I agree that removing it may offend some people, but by not removing it you're sort of offending the other half, right? PluribusDriver (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

From what I can see, it doesn't appear that *anyone* read what I posted above. IDIC is Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, which is simply a Vulcan way of expressing tolerance to all. Stop viewing those colors as simply representing Gay Pride, and view them as representing overall diversity and tolerance. Once you have all of the colors of the rainbow represented, what's left? -- Renegade54 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right, Renegade. That really is the best way to look at it. When I see a real rainbow, I think about how beautiful it is, not about what those colors often represent in the world today. Including all the colors is a truly beautiful way to include everyone and a wonderful representation of IDIC.

I don't know if you were including my comment in your "anyone" reference above, but incase you were, I just want to clarify that I was simply referring to the way many people view the use of those colors, not to my personal feelings surrounding them.

I support both the LGBTQIA+ community and the philosophy of IDIC. This is part of why, as I said above, I support the logo staying as-is. The only reason that part of me feels otherwise is that there are many people out there who, even if in support of those who have long suffered from oppression, feel excluded by the colors. I am not one of those people, but I empathize with them.

Overall, I support leaving the logo as-is. For the purposes of MA, the rainbow represents both what it does on the Progress Pride Flag and the more broad philosophy of IDIC.

Sorry, I seem to be prone to writing long-winded posts :P 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but some of what Pluribus said is disgusting. The MA logo's nod toward LGBT tolerance is not just random, but because it is a form of tolerance which aligns with Trek ideals. Pedophile pride or the stripping of bodily autonomy from women does not align with Trek ideals, and acting like the difference in a Trek forum supporting gay people vs a trek forum supporting pedophiles is just luck of the draw or a popularity contest is ridiculous. Wickedjacob2 (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "stripping bodily autonomy from women"? Please elaborate. The abortion rate stands at roughly 1 million potential citizens aborted, per annum (930,000 in 2020). The USA's birth rate stands at 1.64 births per couple, lower than the 2.10 replacement rate, needed to avoid eventual extinction. It seems to me that a logical society might debate it's future soberly. Perhaps the rational case could be made, that the death of their tribe, isn't in women's ultimate interest? -- User:Canondorf108

Beep boop, Potential Citizen Aborted. Speak out loud to at least one Human being this month, please. NokiaTouchscreen (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This conversation has gone on long enough with some pretty wild points of views being shared as facts that are downright harmful to women and people of the queer community. All relevant things have been more than said before, so it's time to just move on. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 11:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Have to disagree. The so-called pride flag, and it's recently added abomination, have nothing to do with Star Trek. If you want to show the site is compatible with the notion of IDIC, use the IDIC symbol. There's nobody remotely attached to Star Trek Fandom that will be offended by that symbol. You should remember that Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations only works when EVERYONE works towards a common goal. Using divisive symbols is counter to that goal. --Koppa Dasao ƒłелањі каселањін на 16:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(you frantically try to hide Ro Laren's earring, Worf's sash and the IDIC medal with your hands. Everyone continues to point and laugh at you.) NokiaTouchscreen (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)