JasSmith

Are you making a technical point of contention on a specific case, or broadly disagreeing? Germany's social services are as expansive as they are expensive.

Things are pretty good here in Denmark. We rank higher than the U.S. in ease of doing business, and our economy is strong. This means good wages and low rates of poverty. Americans are surprised to learn that we don't even have a minimum wage. It's also very easy to fire people, unlike most of our European neighbours. On the other hand, we have strong social safety nets to catch people if they are fired, and give them enough time to find a new job. We also have universal healthcare, meaning no one is desperate to remain in a bad workplace to keep their health insurance. This levels the bargaining power between employers and employees, and results in much fairer workplaces and wages.

I think the best combination for prosperity is pretty clear: a strong, dynamic economy with low regulations and a strong work ethic; and an expansive social safety net paid for by high taxes. For the record, other nations I think are doing pretty well right now include Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, and Singapore. This is not to say those nations have no problems. Of course they do. I mean that in aggregate, when we look at the many factors which produce prosperous societies, these countries are doing well right now, and have positioned themselves to continue doing well into the future. I will also add that I think many places in the U.S. continue to be great places to live with excellent economic prospects. Say what you will about the president, but the U.S. is a huge and diverse place. It's full of bright entrepreneurs.

Today anon learned that men like to look at attractive women. What wonders will he learn tomorrow? Tune in next time... for... Dragon... Ball... Z!

By most accounts he spends most of his days living in a reinforced bunker surrounded by a very close group of trusted security. He is deeply paranoid after a lifetime of KGB work. He knows exactly how to get to someone like him, and he appears exceedingly good at anticipating potential attacks. His brutality and cunning appear to have worked so far. This is why you see people occasionally being murdered in very public fashion. It doesn’t matter if they actually crossed him. Suspicion is sufficient. He keeps everyone in a constant state of fear that every conversation they have is being recorded, because it is.

The only way things might get bette in Russia is when he dies, but the truth is, the Russian people accept this kind of authoritarianism. Russia has always had monarchs and dictators, and the Russian people practise an infamous brand of stoicism and nationalism. It’s very likely that they simply accept a new dictator after Putin. Russians are not revolutionaries at heart. They won’t fight civil wars to overthrow dictators. They don’t value freedom like we do.

Yes, in response to this comment.

Agreed. People should dislike modern Star Trek for it’s bad writing, not because it’s progressive.

I didn't raise the topic. I replied to it. I presume you can see that comment? Are you using an application which truncates the discussion? If you disagree with something, feel free to tell me what :)

I clearly explained the distinction despite not using the term "forced inclusion," which I didn't raise. You did. I can't reply qualitatively unless you explain which part confuses you.

"Nuh uh" isn't an argument. If you won't read the comment then I won't be able to give you a meaningful reply.

If these themes are ancillary and not the one dimensional focus, no problem. In Ko’Zeine, the entire episode arc hinges on Darem being gay. It is the plot. To make it worse, there was never any ambiguity. The writers telegraphed the “correct” outcome from the beginning and never let the viewer stew in any kind of reflection or moral dilemma. We knew exactly what the outcome would be and the only reason we watched was to see how we would reach the only “right” conclusion. That’s not good storytelling. It’s a poor choice of plot. So would be a “murder is bad” plot. The issue isn’t a gay character existing. We have plenty of examples of gay characters existing in media in which “the right” takes no issue. See Six Feet Under, Will & Grace, Willow in Buffy, Remy in House, and a thousand other examples.

The issue is the poor writing. I levy similar criticisms of any writing like this. If these episodes revolved around “I’m short,” or “I’m ugly,” or “I’m fat,” they would also be uninteresting. There needs to be more complexity and moral ambiguity to provoke thought. I don’t watch Star Trek for the flashy lights. I watch it for the interesting dilemmas. Academy is the very lowest brow Netflix slop I could imagine.

I think it did. If you disagree please tell me how. I provided two examples.

But this is exactly my point. "Gay people are ok and normal" shouldn't be a plot. It's like a "murder is bad" plot. Yes, murder is bad. We know. That's just not an interesting theme to explore. Maybe if it were presented as a trolly problem, where a crew member were forced to kill someone in order to defend their own life, or the life of a friend, that could be an interesting plot. Forcing the viewer to explore the tension of morality between killing or being killed, or taking an innocent life to save another innocent life. That could be interesting television.

We could apply this to a "gay" plot as well. What if the crew met a civilization that were on the brink of extinction for some reason, and they had outlawed homosexuality for reasons of survival. The crew could explore the tension between individual liberty and existentialism. Someone might argue, "our civilization doesn't deserve to survive if we strip people of such basic human rights." Another might argue, "if our civilization is to survive we must make hard decisions as we have always done during war and other crises." They might argue it's only "temporary," and someone else might argue, "it's been 30 years!"

The issue is driven by one-dimensional plot.

Which part of my explanation did you not understand or disagree with?