ar be it from me to offer advice to -- ahem -- professionals, but isn't this Tweet from Star Trek: The Next Generation actress Marina Sirtis to Star Trek: The Wrath Of Khan actress Kirstie Alley more than a bit unnecessary and over-the-top?
Now, I don't want to wade into something that'll get me on more people's Crap List than I need to be. For starters, I had begun putting together my thoughts on 'toxic fandom' yesterday for a short piece in this space this morning when I stumbled across this virtual smackdown (of a sort) between these two ladies. This toxicity caught my eye for a number of reasons, but perhaps the single greatest one is the epic irony on Sirtis's part (respectfully) ... but I'll get to that in a minute.
What clearly started out as a simple explanation on Alley's part quickly descended into a bit of name-calling by the -- ahem -- 'We Are Starfleet' crowd, a self-elected contingent of Trekkies, Trekkers, and general Trek enthusiasts who claim they're 'Starfleet' of tomorrow but are acting like the Browncoats of yesterday. (For those who are unaware, Browncoats are occasionally called 'the Whedonistas,' ardent fans of Joss Whedon's Firefly/Serenity property who deluged the web back in that show's heyday and took over every possible message board for the purposes of promoting the collected works of Whedon. Sadly, their activity ended up driving fans of legitimate franchises away from these websites because, well, who wants to go on a Star Trek BBS and be innundated with questions about captain Malcolm Reynolds in every thread? Once their property dried up, I'm assuming their propaganda did as well.) These self-appointed arbitors of the future then took to blasting Alley's opinion, maligning her work and appearances in Trekdom, and generally making asses of themselves at every opportunity.
I'll say it here as I tried to say it politely in a few Tweets yesterday, but don't folks claiming to represent Starfleet understand the irony of their actions? Starfleet -- at its core -- is about the inclusion of ALL RACES for the betterment of peoples everywhere; and, yes, that would include folks who don't perhaps share the same opinion of life, liberty, and freedom. Blasting Alley for her politics is about as anti-Starfleet if not downright bigoted as you can get. Sure, Kirk hated the Klingons, but even he was able to forgive them for what happened to his son; that's always been Star Trek's central message -- that we as a species keep striving to overcome the things which tie us down personally and psychologically -- but I'm "sensing" the 'We Are Starfleet' group perhaps kinda/sorta missed that lesson from the beloved Roddenberry franchise.
Now, some of this might be owed to the latest incarnations of Star Trek -- namely Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek: Picard -- being so overtly involved in exploring a future wherein Starfleet more often than not has been crafted by showrunner Alex Kurtzman to be more 'the enemy of the people' than anything else. (Yes, I said it; and I stand by it based on what I've seen of it.) When you filled viewers' heads with stories about how ill-founded and poorly run your space government is, then you've pulled on the tapestry that was intended to bind these people -- fictional or not -- together, as a unit, as 'Starfleet' and not 'Starpersons.' Teach your viewers to hate Starfleet, and what you end up creating is something a wise-minded person might dub 'Occupy Federation.' It certainly doesn't present a driving mythology to bind soldiers and scientists together for the purposes of seeking out and exploring strange new worlds ... unless you want those worlds to end up being governed by hate, snark, and toxicity.
Wishing someone dead? That's the Starfleet way? Removing someone from the timeline? Do all of you seriously think that's something Roddenberry would've wanted much less encouraged?
Even Roddenberry's Star Trek found a place for Khan in that fictional tomorrow. Realizing the man deserved the right to seek out and explore his own place in the universe, Kirk and company gave him Ceti Alpha Five (not withstanding what eventually happened to the place). Instead of pronouncing sentence over the strongman, Kirk and Starfleet gave him a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in such a way that would've kept the greater galaxy safe while leaving the door open for him and his people to rejoin the world outside perhaps once they'd learned a better way.
Sure, it's fiction, but so is all of Trekdom, peeps.
Alley is entitled to her opinion of the greater world at large. She has the freedom to express herself and her beliefs in whatever means she feels fit. Likewise, you're entitled to blast her from your laptops or your gaming towers or your smartphones all you like ... but to claim you're doing it out of reverence to the -- ahem -- Starfleet legacy? That's a level of toxicity you're layering onto the arguments falsely ... FALSELY ... like so many news organizations and political pundits of this era do day in and day out.
Like the Browncoats, you'll be gone when your show dries up. History has a way of grounding those who wear brown into oblivion. Do yourself a little research -- just a wee bit -- and you'd know that.
I don't offer this reflection on toxicity to offend anyone. Honestly. Yes, I tend to lean more Conservative than I do anything else, but anyone who knows me knows that I've always said and maintained "I hate ALL politicians." The reason I do that is that I believe the institution has far too many flaws -- most of them built on money (something Roddenberry preached against) -- to be truly effective for everyone. Government, by definition, has to take from us in order to give to others; and there's very little if anything required of those on the receiving end to earn their way in life. When you come to that understanding, trust me when I say it's easy to lean more Conservative than Progressive. Why? Well, because not everything can be free in life. In fact, a thinking person might argue that anything free isn't worth the price paid ... and toxicity? Well, that's the ultimate freebie. It costs you nothing. It usually gets you nothing.
Things like kindness, goodness, and mercy? Those things take effort. They take time. They may even take money. But I personally feel a lot better about spreading those things than I do about spreading hate.
I'm sure I've changed no one's mind. The truth is I didn't write this to change anyone's mind. I wrote it because I needed to get it out of my mind. Now that I've done that I can get back to other things. So if you've read it, thank you (as always) for taking the time to share in my thoughts. Whether you disagree or agree with me, I truly and fundamentally appreciate your taking the time ... because at the end of this thing called life all we've had is the time we've spent.
Now, I don't want to wade into something that'll get me on more people's Crap List than I need to be. For starters, I had begun putting together my thoughts on 'toxic fandom' yesterday for a short piece in this space this morning when I stumbled across this virtual smackdown (of a sort) between these two ladies. This toxicity caught my eye for a number of reasons, but perhaps the single greatest one is the epic irony on Sirtis's part (respectfully) ... but I'll get to that in a minute.
What clearly started out as a simple explanation on Alley's part quickly descended into a bit of name-calling by the -- ahem -- 'We Are Starfleet' crowd, a self-elected contingent of Trekkies, Trekkers, and general Trek enthusiasts who claim they're 'Starfleet' of tomorrow but are acting like the Browncoats of yesterday. (For those who are unaware, Browncoats are occasionally called 'the Whedonistas,' ardent fans of Joss Whedon's Firefly/Serenity property who deluged the web back in that show's heyday and took over every possible message board for the purposes of promoting the collected works of Whedon. Sadly, their activity ended up driving fans of legitimate franchises away from these websites because, well, who wants to go on a Star Trek BBS and be innundated with questions about captain Malcolm Reynolds in every thread? Once their property dried up, I'm assuming their propaganda did as well.) These self-appointed arbitors of the future then took to blasting Alley's opinion, maligning her work and appearances in Trekdom, and generally making asses of themselves at every opportunity.
I'll say it here as I tried to say it politely in a few Tweets yesterday, but don't folks claiming to represent Starfleet understand the irony of their actions? Starfleet -- at its core -- is about the inclusion of ALL RACES for the betterment of peoples everywhere; and, yes, that would include folks who don't perhaps share the same opinion of life, liberty, and freedom. Blasting Alley for her politics is about as anti-Starfleet if not downright bigoted as you can get. Sure, Kirk hated the Klingons, but even he was able to forgive them for what happened to his son; that's always been Star Trek's central message -- that we as a species keep striving to overcome the things which tie us down personally and psychologically -- but I'm "sensing" the 'We Are Starfleet' group perhaps kinda/sorta missed that lesson from the beloved Roddenberry franchise.
Now, some of this might be owed to the latest incarnations of Star Trek -- namely Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek: Picard -- being so overtly involved in exploring a future wherein Starfleet more often than not has been crafted by showrunner Alex Kurtzman to be more 'the enemy of the people' than anything else. (Yes, I said it; and I stand by it based on what I've seen of it.) When you filled viewers' heads with stories about how ill-founded and poorly run your space government is, then you've pulled on the tapestry that was intended to bind these people -- fictional or not -- together, as a unit, as 'Starfleet' and not 'Starpersons.' Teach your viewers to hate Starfleet, and what you end up creating is something a wise-minded person might dub 'Occupy Federation.' It certainly doesn't present a driving mythology to bind soldiers and scientists together for the purposes of seeking out and exploring strange new worlds ... unless you want those worlds to end up being governed by hate, snark, and toxicity.
Wishing someone dead? That's the Starfleet way? Removing someone from the timeline? Do all of you seriously think that's something Roddenberry would've wanted much less encouraged?
Even Roddenberry's Star Trek found a place for Khan in that fictional tomorrow. Realizing the man deserved the right to seek out and explore his own place in the universe, Kirk and company gave him Ceti Alpha Five (not withstanding what eventually happened to the place). Instead of pronouncing sentence over the strongman, Kirk and Starfleet gave him a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in such a way that would've kept the greater galaxy safe while leaving the door open for him and his people to rejoin the world outside perhaps once they'd learned a better way.
Sure, it's fiction, but so is all of Trekdom, peeps.
Alley is entitled to her opinion of the greater world at large. She has the freedom to express herself and her beliefs in whatever means she feels fit. Likewise, you're entitled to blast her from your laptops or your gaming towers or your smartphones all you like ... but to claim you're doing it out of reverence to the -- ahem -- Starfleet legacy? That's a level of toxicity you're layering onto the arguments falsely ... FALSELY ... like so many news organizations and political pundits of this era do day in and day out.
Like the Browncoats, you'll be gone when your show dries up. History has a way of grounding those who wear brown into oblivion. Do yourself a little research -- just a wee bit -- and you'd know that.
I don't offer this reflection on toxicity to offend anyone. Honestly. Yes, I tend to lean more Conservative than I do anything else, but anyone who knows me knows that I've always said and maintained "I hate ALL politicians." The reason I do that is that I believe the institution has far too many flaws -- most of them built on money (something Roddenberry preached against) -- to be truly effective for everyone. Government, by definition, has to take from us in order to give to others; and there's very little if anything required of those on the receiving end to earn their way in life. When you come to that understanding, trust me when I say it's easy to lean more Conservative than Progressive. Why? Well, because not everything can be free in life. In fact, a thinking person might argue that anything free isn't worth the price paid ... and toxicity? Well, that's the ultimate freebie. It costs you nothing. It usually gets you nothing.
Things like kindness, goodness, and mercy? Those things take effort. They take time. They may even take money. But I personally feel a lot better about spreading those things than I do about spreading hate.
I'm sure I've changed no one's mind. The truth is I didn't write this to change anyone's mind. I wrote it because I needed to get it out of my mind. Now that I've done that I can get back to other things. So if you've read it, thank you (as always) for taking the time to share in my thoughts. Whether you disagree or agree with me, I truly and fundamentally appreciate your taking the time ... because at the end of this thing called life all we've had is the time we've spent.
RSS Feed