Don’t feed the troll, there is no need to allow yourself to be put on the defensive justifying why an LGTBQ character exists. The person you’re replying to needs to make the case for why shouldn’t matter (but they can’t because the reason is they are bigoted).
It’s just a phrase. You’ve heard it. To finish it off: Homophobia only exists in 1 species (which, unfortunately for my example, would likely be Klingons).
Because they’re humanoids. We see ourselves in them.
I don’t. I think one of the more powerful aspects of Star Trek has been accepting completely alien lifeforms as inherently valuable without anthropomorphising them. We can accept the value in life without making them just like us. That’s a cheap writing technique to shortcut any kind of important world and character building, or moral uncertainty. This is one of the reasons “new” Trek has been so controversial. Writing is as subtle and nuanced and interesting as a YA novel.
To be clear, I’m not claiming Star Trek has never anthropomorphised aliens. Nor am I claiming it should never do it. I’m arguing it should be done sparingly and only when it serves a more interesting narrative. To make a topical American culture war issue the defining characteristic of a Klingon is easily one of the laziest writing mechanics I’ve seen in Star Trek, ever. It’s beating the audience over the head with a message. Star Trek has always presented moral uncertainty to viewers and allowed them to make up their own minds. This is far more powerful and interesting storytelling. Ironically, this is why The Orville has been such a hit. Despite the comedy aspects, it feels like Star Trek because it’s comfortable with moral ambiguity and treats the audience like adults.
Klingons are very definitely one of the species who have always been heavily anthropomorphised
As for “American culture war issue”…dude, gay people exist. It’s okay for gay people to exist in fiction, too. If you think this barely-mentioned aspect of his character is his “defining characteristic” then either you’re highlighting the fact that you haven’t watched the series you’re criticising, or you’re highlighting how disproportionately large this particular characteristic looms in your mind
Yes, you bashed out the tired old trope that if gay people are to exist in fiction then there must be a narrative reason. That’s nonsense. The fact that gay people exist IRL is all the reason that’s needed for them to exist in fiction
I’m arguing it should be done sparingly and only when it serves a more interesting narrative. To make a topical American culture war issue the defining characteristic of a Klingon is easily one of the laziest writing mechanics I’ve seen in Star Trek, ever.
If my interpretation is incorrect, please clarify what you meant
Klingons appear humanoid. Therefore humans see themselves in them regardless of what the writers intend. Therefore we have to shove representation in as a sort of innoculation against the exact mental gymnastics you’re performing.
Cultural inoculation is like a right wing conspiracy theory, but here you are stating it as fact. Maybe you’re right, and the writers really do view Star Trek as tool for cultural power and reeducation, instead of entertainment and art. I hope you’re wrong.
Because they’re humanoids. We see ourselves in them. Therefore representation matters.
Homosexuality has been observed in over 5,000,000 mammaloid species, including targs.
Don’t feed the troll, there is no need to allow yourself to be put on the defensive justifying why an LGTBQ character exists. The person you’re replying to needs to make the case for why shouldn’t matter (but they can’t because the reason is they are bigoted).
Can an alien from alien be gay that would be a fun watch.
It’s already more than possible in your mind.
Removed by mod
It’s just a phrase. You’ve heard it. To finish it off: Homophobia only exists in 1 species (which, unfortunately for my example, would likely be Klingons).
I don’t. I think one of the more powerful aspects of Star Trek has been accepting completely alien lifeforms as inherently valuable without anthropomorphising them. We can accept the value in life without making them just like us. That’s a cheap writing technique to shortcut any kind of important world and character building, or moral uncertainty. This is one of the reasons “new” Trek has been so controversial. Writing is as subtle and nuanced and interesting as a YA novel.
To be clear, I’m not claiming Star Trek has never anthropomorphised aliens. Nor am I claiming it should never do it. I’m arguing it should be done sparingly and only when it serves a more interesting narrative. To make a topical American culture war issue the defining characteristic of a Klingon is easily one of the laziest writing mechanics I’ve seen in Star Trek, ever. It’s beating the audience over the head with a message. Star Trek has always presented moral uncertainty to viewers and allowed them to make up their own minds. This is far more powerful and interesting storytelling. Ironically, this is why The Orville has been such a hit. Despite the comedy aspects, it feels like Star Trek because it’s comfortable with moral ambiguity and treats the audience like adults.
Klingons are very definitely one of the species who have always been heavily anthropomorphised
As for “American culture war issue”…dude, gay people exist. It’s okay for gay people to exist in fiction, too. If you think this barely-mentioned aspect of his character is his “defining characteristic” then either you’re highlighting the fact that you haven’t watched the series you’re criticising, or you’re highlighting how disproportionately large this particular characteristic looms in your mind
Of all the thought terminating cliches to ever exist, this one exists the most. No one claimed gay people don’t exist. Re-read what I wrote please.
Yes, you bashed out the tired old trope that if gay people are to exist in fiction then there must be a narrative reason. That’s nonsense. The fact that gay people exist IRL is all the reason that’s needed for them to exist in fiction
No, that’s not what I wrote. If you’re going to try to strawman my position the least you could do is put some effort it.
This is what I was responding to:
If my interpretation is incorrect, please clarify what you meant
Klingons appear humanoid. Therefore humans see themselves in them regardless of what the writers intend. Therefore we have to shove representation in as a sort of innoculation against the exact mental gymnastics you’re performing.
Cultural inoculation is like a right wing conspiracy theory, but here you are stating it as fact. Maybe you’re right, and the writers really do view Star Trek as tool for cultural power and reeducation, instead of entertainment and art. I hope you’re wrong.