Watch George Takei Denounce Trolls Attacking ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Diversity

When the new Star Trek: Discovery trailer came out, we got the usual barrage of excitement, analysis,  and critiques, covering everything from uniforms to Klingon ridges. The trailer also made it clear that the new series will be rich in diversity, and while the fans went on discussing time period and production design, a handful of vitriolic, anti-diversity trolls on Twitter and YouTube have caught the attention of the media. While you won’t find these opinions on most Trek sites and forums, the press has pounced on them, even though it’s highly likely that most of these comments aren’t even coming from fans.

This morning MSNBC’s AM Joy picked up on the story, and they brought on Star Trek’s George Takei to address it. The original Sulu correctly identified these critics not as fans but as trolls who don’t understand Star Trek history. He specifically talked about how diversity has always been part of Star Trek, noting:

We had a guiding acronym – IDIC – which stood for  infinite diversity in infinite combinations. And we boldly went where we hadn’t gone before because we were curious about what is out there. And when you go out into space you are going to have even greater diversity. Now these so-called trolls haven’t seen a single episode of the new series, because it hasn’t even aired…and they don’t know the history of Star Trek … Gene Roddenberry created this with the idea of finding strength in our diversity. And the delight of life in diversity. So they don’t know what they are talking about.

You can watch it below (or on YouTube).

Chase Masterson’s ‘Swear Trek’ message

Another Star Trek star has weighed on on this issue. Chase Masterson (Leeta from Deep Space Nine) hooked up with the popular (and profane) parody Twitter Account @swear_trek to redub a DS9 scene with message to diversity critics. Warning: Chase uses some very colorful language.

 

UPDATE: Nichelle Nichols On Star Trek’s Diversity Then and Now

In a new interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer to promote her upcoming appearance at Wizard World Philly, original Star Trek star Nichelle Nichols discussed the issue of diversity in the original show saying:

“Gene’s whole vision was that minorities weren’t on set because we were minorities, we were on set because in the future our diverse world would all be working together as equals,” Nichols said. “I understand that everyone needs to see role models that can inspire them and talk to them and represent them, but I believe we need to move to a future that transcends race, gender, or anything else. We’re all people.” 

 

 

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news and analysis here at TrekMovie.

Sort by:   newest | oldest

Amen, George! These people should be called out for their foul remarks. The Enterprise simply couldn’t *function* without the strength of its diverse crew. Anyone who takes issue with DSC being “SJW crap” has completely missed the point of Trek.

Exactly.

George Takei, himself, is a hypocrite and a troll. Diversity isn’t just diversity of the bedroom – it also includes diversity of THOUGHT. Preaching tolerance then being fascist about being “tolerant” is not what IDIC is all about. I = infinite. Which INCLUDES a diversity of thought, even if it doesn’t agree with your own. Takei needs to grow up and stop crying about people who disagree with him… so should everyone else. Point-blank.

Even IDIC has it’s limits. By your logic IDIC would mean it’s ok to be a paedophile, a rapist, a murderer, a Nazi– because hey, “INFINITE” means EVERYTHING and DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT.

So no, IDIC and tolerance doesn’t include intolerance, because it’s ABOUT TOLERANCE.

Why don’t you talk to the ‘I was born this way’ crowd.

Its also about self-control, manners and responsibility. You do not have to like someone or something, but you must not hurt or question it. You be a good citizen and you go about your life on your own terms, but within the laws of society and of the country you reside in.

Ah yes, the old “if they believe in tolerance, then they should be tolerant of intolerance” argument. Completely illogical.

Good to know that only your opinion of what should be tolerated counts.

No, it’s simply logic. What is it you’re arguing for, exactly? That we should be tolerant of discrimination, hate speech and incitement to violence against minorities? If we hold certain values to be true, such as the inherent value and equality of human beings, and if we are honest with ourselves and recognize that specific groups of humans are not treated equally at the moment, then morally, we are obligated to try to make things more equal for everyone, and to fight efforts to maintain the status quo or worse, make things even more unequal. Simply because a law passes does not mean the institution changes, or that things are made better overnight. Because institutions and laws are made by people, and people are illogical and irrational, usually out of fear of the Other. One of the key values expressed in Star Trek is that unequal treatment is bad, and that fear of the unknown, the Other, is illogical. Every other episode was a morality play about those themes. In such a world, the fact that a captain and a first officer might both be female and non-white is just normal. And frankly, as a piece of metaphor, it reflects the reality of the world today, where the majority of people on earth are not white, male, or western. Takei’s point is, to bring up a now familiar saying, that to people who have been used to being in power, equality can feel like oppression. It is a hard mental… Read more »

Anyone defending intolerance as something that modern society should put up with just proves themselves to be hateful, they’re just afraid to publicly say it.

Well said.

Ah yes, the old saw that “being intolerant of intolerance is just another form of intolerance.” What sport Gene Roddenberry would have had with that one. I remember attending those college talks featuring Roddenberry and how inspired we all were — not so much by him or even Trek itself, but by the shared vision of a hopeful and inclusive future. It feels like a million years ago.

It was a million years ago and on some other world. I have no idea where this world came from…

EXACTLY. Thank you…

Why should hate be considered tolerant? If you are hurting your fellow person, why should that be tolerant? The idea of Star Trek is to move forward and improve life. Hate does not improve anything. It brings us back to a time where the rule of law is that white is right, and I still do not know why that should be considered tolerant?

This nation, I mean this world, is filled with so many beautiful people, on a spectrum that includes a multitude of skin color, intelligence, cleverness, sexuality, and more. It is all beautiful. When you add hate and you add intolerance, you make that spectrum into one color, one belief. How is that considered tolerant?

While it is your right to spew hate, to spew intolerance, it is not your right to enact it on others. Before you continue your viewpoint of “Intolerance is tolerance”, I suggest you look at why you are intolerant and why you refuse to accept others that are different.

Richard, Couldn’t agree with you more. The whole “We need to be tolerant of people who want to hate and hurt others” is such a juvenile argument. I think these are the people who watch Star Trek for the occasional explosion and sparkly object.

Who is talking about hurting anyone? That’s what liberals always say about people they disagree with. And what do you call hurting someone, telling them the hard truth and hurting their precious feelings. Physical violence has never been tolerated. Try preaching to all the left wing protest that are violent.

So, if you don’t want to hurt the people you are intolerant of, what exactly do you want to do with them? Do you want to force them to hide who they are – pressure them into pretending they are something they are not? Or do you simply want to pretend they don’t exist by never allowing them to be represented in media – in a show such as Star Trek?

Gays and trans people are beaten, shunned, fired and even killed on a regular basis in many places in this country, even now. So when G66 whines “Who’s talking about hurting anyone?” he’s only potentially fooling himself, since no one else could be that obtuse.

Physical violence has been tolerated in the past – not only tolerated but allowed by law – it’s in the history books, in laws passed. Actually, I don’t respect anyone who protests violently – left wing, right wing, or anything in between. Protest must be peaceful to be effective.

G66 physical hurt us not the only form of hurt. If you marginalise groups of society with stereotypes and discrimination that is just another form of hurt.

Oh, and people are use violence to promote their aims are not acceptable, whatever political slat they claim. But nobody has brought up such claims but you. This is a discussion about diversity.

El Chup,
Or marginalize them by denying them medical care … the ultimate discrimination

I hate to tell you this, but Star Trek always has been and always will be a liberal-oriented programme.

Yep. Which is not to say that conservatives can’t enjoy it, or find things to value in it that align with their own philosophy. But that is simply the fact of the matter.

What hard truth are you telling them? It’s not about feelings – for many people it is about physical assault, denial of employment, denial of constitutionally guaranteed rights and denial of justice.

And note that minorities face all sorts of discrimination that you may not see because you’re not a minority.

Just speaking as a gay man, there are places where I can still legally be fired or denied housing. Sodomy laws are still on the books. Otherwise, I’m a priviledged white dude.

And what hard truth are you revealing by complaining on the Internet that a Star Trek series is trying to, at least a little, reflect the actual world? (roughly 4.3 billion Asians, 3.4 billion women, 1.25 billion Africans [plus another 250 million African descendants])

I see what you did there, at the end; and I like it.

Wrong. If you tolerate intolerance, those who are intolerant abuse your own tolerance to abolish tolerance! It’s what’s called the paradox of tolerance. It happened in many ways time and again…
That very paradox turned early-day Christianity from an anti-establishment revolutionary sect into the world’s most intolerant biogot juggernaut that ever was. That very paradox allowed the Nazis to turn the first German democracy into the world’s most dredded dictatorship. At that very tolerance towards the intolerant is about to turn the US into the Evil Empire…

“that very tolerance towards the intolerant is about to turn the US into the Evil Empire…”

This kind of hyperbole really doesn’t help your argument, Smike.

Even with the current rise of ‘us vs. them’ in the United States, this country is enormously more tolerant than it was 100 years ago when we were first called upon to save the world. At that time, Jim Crow and the KKK were still going strong. Was the US an ‘Evil Empire’ then? Or how about 75 years ago, when despite our best efforts to stay out of World War, we were attacked and called upon once again to save the world? At that time, being publicly homosexual was grounds for imprisonment. Was the U.S. an ‘Evil Empire’ then?

WOW. Christianity is the most intolerant religion ever and the US is the Evil Empire. Spoken like a true Communist.

You know the Federation runs on a communistic system right? Why are you watching this show again?

We really don’t know enough about Federation politics to say that. They have contradicted themselves more than once on matters such as the existence of money. And they do seem to have a Federation President, not a a Premier.

True. But we do know that, at least by the 24th century, there’s enough science-and-technology-based prosperity that keeping track of who has the most toys has become passe. I’d gladly take it.

Tokyo, I’ve listened to this *intolerant of opinion” nonsense so much over the years. It’s a tired line trotted out mostly by people trying to excuse their own bigotry or religious illogic and crying that their long held beliefs are being challenged.

People get attacked as “SJWs” most often because they are calling for equality of people irrespective of their colour, sexuality, race, gender or religion. If someone says to me, for instance, homosexuals are unnatural and sinners, that all Muslims are terrorists in waiting, that black people have less culture than whites or that I should never question the logic of religious belief, why am I intolerant for challenging the validity of those claims, especially when in most, if not all, cases such comments do not stand up to critical analysis?

If an attitude actively promotes division, hate and the positioning of certain members of society below that of others then it is not intolerant to engage in an articulate and well reasonable criticism of that.

@Gaijin So, you’re argument is: nobody should ever disagree with you?

You are super Fascist about Takei being fascist against actual fascists.
YOu should be more Tolerant to the intolerant Takei dude… Diversity of Thought you know.

Except that Starfleet wasn’t diverse because of some mandatory ethnic quota. Starfleet was simply best of the best: most excellent specimens of humanity, carefully selected and hand-picked for their talents and traits.
Unlike today. In today’s society, people are being hired not for their talents and traits, but for their skin color – for example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/autumnwatch-presenter-sidelined-for-being-too-white-and-middle-c/

To quote the most important part: “In April this year, the BBC introduced “tough” new diversity targets including an aim to have half the faces on screen be women by 2020, 15 per cent be black or minority ethnic, eight per cent disabled and a further eight per cent LGBT.”

Imagine Starfleet working like that. “Sorry, commander Kirk, your promotion has been postponed once again; we need a black paraplegic woman captain in order to fill the quota!” :-P

……so the underlying implicit statement is that both Captain and Commander of the USS Shenzhou were chosen because of their skin color, or because they are exactly where they belong?…

Yes. Thank you. Whites are a minority on Earth, and I don’t expect that to change in two centuries. Starfleet’s selection of the “best of the best” would reflect that demographic, on average. So any assumption that the crew on this show attained their positions through anything but merit is, in itself, fundamentally racist.

Thats what is SO funny about all of this. White people only make up less than 10% of the planet. But yet on Star Trek where its suppose to be a enlighten multicultural society most of the characters are white anyway. And guess what people on Discovery they are still MOSTLY white so I don’t even get the argument.

It comes down to we want to see even more white people on the show. Half the cast is already white lol. No one is saying they don’t deserve to be there either. But then you put on 3 minorities and a few women and the world has gone upside down for these people. I don’t think they realize how ignorant and myopic they sound.

@Paul — except this is a TV show representing your model in future application, free of the prejudices and nationalism that prevent minorities of a particular region from being given those opportunities to succeed in today’s reality. It assumes that all things being equal, then the diversity in the workplace would automatically mirror the diversity percentages found in the real world. That doesn’t happen today, but in a globalized organization like the Federation, you’d likely see it — in much the same way you will likely see a population diversity walking the halls of the United Nations unlikely to resemble that of any one country.

We have to tick boxes to represent the global diversity today, in 300 years, that will likely happen without any beuracracy involved.

Yes. The reason we need “quotas” now is because of institutional, structural and cultural issues (encoded in our institutions).

Quotas are a blunt instrument; re-examining and rebuilding a society so that quotas aren’t necessary is a much larger, longer-term project with lots of granular detail. We shouldn’t be afraid of taking on that project, though.

Well said Fred!

What makes you think these characters weren’t promoted because they were the best of the best?

@Paul. You’re talking specifically about TV news aiming to reflect, on air, the diversity of the actual population watching them.

Who says they’re not qualified?

It amazes me people like Paul equates a fictional show based 300 years in the future after a nuclear war has happened, has had first contact with alien life and now has a one government society as the same issues of 2017 lol. Its just ridiculous. These people just can’t over their own bias but constantly try to make excuses for them. Well they need to get over it, Star Trek has been doing this for literally 50 years now and it will keep doing it.

Ditto.

Only #FakeNews would think that people have a problem with Discovery because of its “diversity.” Takei is, yet again, being a mouthpiece for a situation that does not exist. People have a problem with Discovery for a litany of issues that are as tall as Mt. Fuji, including the apparent firing of the original showrunners and writers, constant delays, cancellations then resurrections, no solid release date, continuity problems in INFORMATION regarding the show, actors getting shuffled around, Netflix reportedly being very angry with it, a very divisive trailer, and the list goes on and on. “Diversity” is absolutely NOT among the most paramount of concerns.

#FakeNews

Sadly, there are millions of people in this devoting their lives to finding the grievance of the week.

Lol, someone has been watching a certain YouTube video.I cannot believe what crap is online passes as truth.Must have watched the video Doug Fitz is passing around the trek groups on facebook as fact.

I stopped short of calling you names in my response to your first comment, but here goes:

YOU SIR ARE A MORON.

This is not fake news. It happened. I saw post after post of people denouncing the show because they did not want a female asian captain, a black female first officer, a gay white man.

I see what’s happening. You’re actually one of the ones upset, but don’t want to admit it, so you cast dispersions on critics of the critics and label it fake news.

Get out of here.

It’s fine to disagree and make counter-arguments – but can we keep the name-calling out of it?

I was repeatedly called an idiot (and stupid) here one day because I (gasp) wondered aloud whether not wanting to subscribe to another streaming service (one with not a lot of other content) might lead some people to watch Discovery for free on a pirate site.

It was an issue that doesn’t matter. This one does, I’d argue. Generally, pushing anyone we disagree with out of the conversation (here or anywhere) isn’t helping.

I used to be a fan, but George Takei is now the troll.

Takei will survive your defection somehow, methinks.

Many remarks on this very board call DSC too politically correct so you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Being opposed to political correctness does not make one racist. Takei and those praising him are setting up strawmen here. No one complained when DS9 had a black lead. No one complained when VOY had a female lead.

(White male humans out of ten DS9 leads: one, and two playing aliens. White male humans out of ten VOY leads: one, and one playing a hologram and one playing an alien. Not a peep.)

“Being opposed to political correctness does not make one racist.”

So what, precisely, are you opposed to here? Define the political correctness? Casting ethic women?

Sorry, a black woman and an Asian woman.

“No one complained when VOY had a female lead.” LOL are you kidding me?????????????????? There were TONS of complaints and anger over it. Garrant Wang said that Paramount actually got death threats over it. Executives were responding about it in the press defending their decision to put a girl in the Captain’s chair. There was a lot of fan outrage about it. But of course now ‘no one ever complained”. This is the kind of revisionist history that happens over and over again. Voyager was actually quite controversial at the time when it was announced they wanted a woman Captain. ALL the same idiotic complaints people are reading right now was said for Voyager. “Putting a woman Captain is just affirmative action junk”, etc. Now to give credit ONCE Voyager aired and Mulgrew knocked it out of the park with Janeway they went away which is why you probably forgot about it. Once people just got use to the idea it was no longer a big deal. Which is funny why now, 20 years later, the same silly arguments are being retold. History repeating itself once again. But then once the show debuts and people like the characters, this silliness will go away once again. Its just too many racists and trolls with internet connections that even makes this a thing. The vast majority of fans don’t care, I know this, because Star Trek wouldn’t be so popular if the vast majority did care. Discovery will be fine its just… Read more »

Do you really expect to be taken seriously while using “Trumpian” hashtags in your comment (which aren’t any use on this site in the first place)?
Well, if so, I got BIG news for you: Your kind simply isn’t within Star Trek’s target demographic. Never was, never will be. Deal with it.

@TokyoGaijin — you’re at a minimum severely uninformed, and at worst, well it doesn’t need discussing yet. Any casual review of the comments section on this site will reveal numerous bigoted, hate-filled comments pertaining to the diversity of the crew. So no, your denial of the facts with your “clever” use of the absolutely passé hashtag phrase, has no bearing on reality.

You’ve sorta disqualified yourself from any kind of serious discussion with the use of that hashtag.
It’s a nice marker for instigators.

So all of those individual twitter accounts, posting protestations regarding the sex and race of the Discovery cast—those are fake? You’re hilarious. Sad!

@VoR
I’m afraid I have some sad news for you.
Yes, many are fake / sock accounts that rage at any progressive media platform
Ghostbusters, Rogue One, Star Trek to name but a few, have all been targeted by the 4chan mob of snowflakes spamming fake outrage for having female and / or ethnic leads

The good news is that
1 Their rage is delicious for the rest of us to enjoy
2 A boost in publicity for the project

Mass Mock outrage soon disappears when the project is released to be replaced by a few sad and lonely voices that have nothing better to do with their time and actually believed that the mass sock account spamming was a real backlash

lol

Ha ha. “Fake news”. I can’t believe that so many people are amazingly stupid as to be so easily manipulated by this catchphrase nonsense.

All news, to a certain degree, is fake in the sense that it is almost always chosen, manipulative and of a certain bias. That is true the world over. That Trumpite idiots seem to think that this only applies to news critical of Trump and alt righters and that outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are purveyors of unbiased, manipulative truth, is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing so far to come out of the Trump era. I mean, are people really THAT gullible and stupid???

The entirely world is laughing at America because of Trump and yet insular partisan types just sit in their own bubble, lapping this up into their brains like dry sponges.

TokyoGaijin I agree with you 100%, but it’s pointless having an opinion on this site, the posters are of the all-in or all-out variety. You can’t reason with them, they don’t understand any differing point of view, and I suppose that their little safe harbors on the hardcore fan websites are all they have left, so you may as well find the best brick wall in your house and ask it for a balanced opinion, you’ll get a more balanced response…

“You can’t reason with them”

Translation: They refuse to accept that bigotry is ok.

This talk back is littered with balanced opinions. You just pretend there are none to justify ignoring them and retreating back into a bubble.

Exactly El Chup,

I mean the nerve of people here, taking a stand against bigotry and racism. What has our society come to. ;)

The problem with the other side is their ONLY argument is they don’t like them for being women and minorities. NO ONE has said why these actors are not a good fit for the roles. Not once. I haven’t heard a single reason why they are not a good fit for DIscovery. Its ALL about their outside appearance, not about their actual acting ability or anything like that. It comes down to “You should have more white people and men” on this show while ignoring the fact MOST of the actors are still white and men lol. Its just unbelievable this is even a discussion.

Same thing with The Force Awakens. The vast majority were white and male. Someone decided to make the leads brown skin and a girl and the internet nearly melted. Its just sad. Or as Trump likes to put it, SAD!

There are REAL problems with Star Trek Discovery. Can anyone explain how the show looks like it does? We are all familiar with Constitution class star ships like the USS Enterprise and the ships look nothing like them. We are all familiar with the uniforms and I just can’t imagine the women on the Star Trek Discovery in the women’s uniforms. What gives? Why not just call this something else. It might be Science Fiction, but this is NOT Star Trek.

I can explain it pretty simply. It’s the series retconning an outdated vision of our future.

LOL! I like that!!!

Star trek is more than uniform continuity.

People are putting their criticism in the wrong place, you should be sending complaints to Apple and Samsung that their phones are too futuristic looking for the timeline.

Galactuss…

In ‘Tomorrow is Yesterday’, Kirk tells Captain Christopher there are “only twelve ships like her in the fleet”. So either you believe there are only twelve ships in all of Starfleet, or yes there are other types of starships in service. Discovery and Shenzhou are among them.

Simple answer: 1960s aesthetics wouldn’t translate well to 2010s TV screens.

Trek should be about the stories first, design second.

Besides, this has to appeal to a non fan audience as well and do you really think it plausible for the show to resemble a show made 50 years ago, with cheap wooden sets blinking lights, miniskirts and pajamas?

Yeah, it does look a little jarring, but they could never make it look like The Cage era.

Simple, it’s a series geared to drawing on 1960s’ audience misconsceptions of what the future of the 23rd century would be like to convince them that they were actually seeing it on STAR TREK, being updated to 2010s’ audiences misconceptions about it to the same end.

No, it’s nothing of the sort.
It’s CBS milking the last little bit of juice out of a 50 yearold TV show to push their already defunct online streaming service.
If it were about Trek, Fuller and the VFX team would not have been given their marching orders.

This glossy newtrek has no business anywhere near the Trek franchise for those reasons.

Defunct?

“You keep using that word. I don’t think that word means what you think it means”.
-Inigo Montoya, “The Princess Bride

Anyone handicapping the over/under on number of comments before the thread gets closed? Seems the flamethrowing has already started…

@Paul — no thanks to you.

What? DS9 was the best Trel show in my opinion (and Sisko wasnt a white guy, you know), but I still didnt like the DIS trailer. What has to do diversity with the fact that the trailer was not good?

If you didn’t like the visuals, or the concept, or the acting, or the overall tone, that’s all fine. That’s fair criticism.

But there HAS been a large, vocal group of “fans” saying the diversity is a problem. They decry Trek’s “PC agenda” and NEWSFLASH: Trek has ALWAYS had an agenda of diversity and tolerance!

Hate and bigotry, however, should not be tolerated.

And of course it will be YOU who will decide what constitutes “hate and bigotry”.
A prosecutor, a judge and a hangman in one neat package. Just like the Bolsheviks. :-P

Paul, It’s not one individual that decides, it’s society as a whole. A lot of people are upset because they are finding themselves on the losing side of the argument – hence the trolls. It used to be politically correct to enslave, kill, torture certain groups of people – it just wasn’t called political correctness.

Wow, i’m getting credit for all that just sitting at my keyboard? GO ME!

Believe me, if i could, i’d prosecute you for idiocy, judge you guilty, and hang you, right here from my laptop.

Paul, we live at a time when women, ethnic minorities and gay people remain significantly under-represented in Hollywood and the arts.

With that in mind, when a white man cries “PC agenda” because increasingly more people on TV and in movies do not represent his place in society, what does that say? It says to me that he is fearful of people different from him and fearful of losing his dominant position in global society. White men still far, far outweigh any demographic in Hollywood, so complaining about “PC agenda” suggests to me that the person complaining is inherently bigoted, whether they realise it or not. Only if white men start becoming a minority in representation would there start to be a meritorious argument.

I think the problem is that a lot of people don’t stop and think about their attitude, so when they’re called bigots they’re horrified. But, in my opinion, the onus is on them to stop and consider why they are being called bigots.

It’s so funny that certain white folks are angry because they won’t be able to “identify with a [fill-in-the-‘minority’] character”

I put minority in quotes, because actually the minority in the world is white males

@Marja I’m a white male and I just don’t get it – I’ve always wanted Trek to be even more diverse. It’s just a lot more darned interesting.

And within universe, it just makes sense – why would Starfleet vessels all be staffed disproportionately with American WASP males. Reflect the planet, for Pete’s sake. I’d argue that TOS did this better than later series – look at the panel in Court Martial (all male, though).

But we all see what we want to, I suppose. I remember having a Brexit discussion here where someone argued that the lack of alien extras in Trek Earth scenes is proof that the Federation does not allow the free movement of people.

As much as I abhor the “church of diversity” and its followers, I actually liked the trailer quite a lot, looking forward to see the show. And I’m saying that as a DS9 fan.

As they say: Thousand people – thousand tastes.

So you find it abhorrent for a person of colour or a woman to have equal standing in society?

One more good reason to love Chase Masterson. Awesome.

George is without a doubt a paramount of Star Trek ideals. Not only because he was in it, but he is of Asian descent and gay. As if that weren’t enough, he understands Trek and fights for the objective of some day reaching a 22nd, 23rd, 24th centuries (and so on) based on cooperation and equality. Why do REAL Trek fans complain about Klingons and continuity issues? Is the diversity unimportant? No! But for us who are immersed in Star Trek and have truly taken it into our hearts, the diversity is neither good nor bad, but simply the natural way of things. That is why it infuriates us when people complain about it. Look around! The World is diverse! There are women, there are men. There are people of white, black, Asian, Hispanic (and so on and so forth) ethnicities. There are straingh, gay, bisexual, asexual, bigender, cisgender, transgender, agender people. And any and everything in between! Shows SHOULD represent that, and Star Trek has always made a point of it, having people of all kinds in their shows. Even, once, a disabled person (Geordi)! All unified looking to explore and expand their knowledge. I was elated when Shazad Latif’s role was changed to a human, because I think it was necessary to have an Arabic character in the show, given what is happening in the world, just as the first one had a Russian. In Star Trek, racist, sexist and predjudiced idiots in general are the VILLAINS! It… Read more »

I do not know whether toleration is a word or not, but I agree whole heartedly with all your comments. We on this world do not conform to any norm set out by those that want to run it. We are diverse in our ethnic origin, our physical attributes, and even our sexual and gender attributes. Gene wanted GAY to be on the Enterprise, but he could not get it past the censors. Today, we get a gay crewman. Political correctness aside, it is about representation. The white man has been represented all throughout film and media for decades. It is time for others to have the same chance.

Shazad Latif is actually Pakistani not Arab. But I get your point.

But why? Seriously, why? What for? Back when men still walked the Moon, a man was simply a man and a woman was simply a woman. Now we have “bigenders” and “transgenders” and “agenders”, but we have no men walking the Moon. It’s almost as if diversity was somehow detrimental to progress. Maybe we are concentrating too much on all this subjective feel-good stuff – diversity, equality, inclusivity, affirmative action, cultural self-determination, coed bathrooms – while forgetting about the really important stuff: achieving, excelling, going forward as a whole. To illustrate the point: after a breakthrough landing on a comet was achieved in 2014, what did leftists do? Did they cheer, did they applaud? No, they dragged one of the scientists through the mud because he dared to wear a comics-themed shirt made by his female friend: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rosetta-scientist-matt-taylor-sexist-shirt Like, screw the space exploration milestone, right? Who even cares about space, right? Potentially hurt feelings of a bunch of over-sensitive hags are SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than landing on a comet, right? It may be that “bigenders”, “transgenders” and “agenders” are better off today than they were fifty years ago. The rest of us is actually worse. Fifty years ago, we could actually hope for better future; now the future is here, and it is becoming very obvious it’s NOT meant for us. Sure, it is nice that a today’s man can become a woman simply by declaring “I am now a woman” – but what’s in it for the rest… Read more »

@Paul — “what good did the empowerment of minorities bring to us as a whole?”!? Seriously!? How about ensuring that all of humanity are treated equally, and are given equal opportunities to excel and prosper, and share equally in all of the rights and privileges life has to offer? Success at any cost is not the Star Trek way. I’ve decided you must be a troll, because you can’t have watched and enjoyed Star Trek, as many episodes deal with exactly is scenario. Reaching the moon is not a success if in order to do it it tramples on the rights and freedoms of others. Your priorities are clearly misplaced, and there’s no room for that in Trek — Trek shows us a world where human rights are just as important as the technological accomplishments — in fact, it’s often explicitly stated that such accomplishments are the result of them. And you’d know that if you actually watched and/or understood Trek.

Good heavens.

The irony is that when men landed on the moon women sat in the kitchen. Now they are astronauts as well, doing invaluable work for the furtherance of scientific discovery. So right away that rubbish your comment.

I pray for your sake that there’s never a transgender astronaut. You might have to check yourself into a hospital.

You really think that technological progress has slowed because of minority rights?? Wow, okay. Just a quick reply: First, many involved in the early space programs considered themselves progressives, they believed that going into space would go hand in hand with a diversification and liberalization of societies on Earth (hence shows like Star Trek). Second, the reason why the Apollo program ended without a true successor was economic problems of the 1970s and an unwillingness (of both parties) to further fund such a big civilian government project. But sure, ignore the rise of monetarism or shifts in policy or government spending as reasons, blame lefties and ‘transgenders’. :D

Arthur Clarke one pointed out that we could have had many of the innovations seen in 2001 by that year, but they would have cost big money and we chose to fund the war in Vietnam instead. Not exactly a progressive priority.

Clarke was only partly right. Then and now, more of our tax dollars are going to welfare than to the military. It wasn’t just Vietnam that killed Apollo, it was also LBJ’s Great Society, which enormously increased welfare spending. Neither the spending in Vietnam nor the spending on Welfare seems to have produced the desired effect. But we are still spending enormous sums on our military and on Welfare.

There are far too many reasons that the Great Society didn’t solve the problem of poverty to go into here. But if you truly think such programs can only be counterproductive, and ultimately do no good (or, in the conservative mythological alternative, more harm than good), you don’t know much about American history, or how millions have lived their lives in this country. Recently, too.

Thorny,

Re: Then and now, more of our tax dollars are going to welfare than to the military.

Bull, that twisted statistic can only maybe be arrived at by keeping all costs of the benefits that our enlisted personnel and veterans rightfully deserve due to their service, such as welfare, on the welfare side of the ledger.

In the US in 2015, %16 of the budget went to the military and only %10 went to Safety Net programs.

Disinvited,

Spending according to the Congressional Budget Office for Fiscal Year 2016:

Social Security: $900 billion
Non-Defense: $600 billion
Other: $563 billion
Medicare: $588 billion
Defense: $584 billion
Medicaid: $368 billion
Interest: $241 billion

comment image

Thorny,

First your image link is defective, I assume you meant this?

comment image

Second, now give me those figures with all the Defense burdens subtracted out from the non-Defense budgets that you listed and added to the true cost of Defense, i.e. enlisted personnel on welfare, federal military retirements, veterans’ benefits, veterans’ home loans, government hiring preferences, funerary expenses, veterans’ destitute widows’ benefits, etc.

Also, you should define what you believe is welfare “spending” because you just seem to be throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall and hoping that busy educated people might mistakenly think enough sticks to look like a point.

Exactly, DNB. The irony is that NASA’s budget was a small fraction of the funding for the US military

I’m just going to say, has anyone seen Hidden Figures? NASA wouldn’t have been able to get a man into orbit, much less the moon, without the contributions of smart women of color who, despite a system rigged against them at every turn, managed to become degreed mathematicians. And even then, they were written out of history because of prejudice and the need to project the image that it was an all-white-male accomplishment. Imagine what a society could do if it stopped actively trying to oppress half of its members.

Paul,

Re: Back when men still walked the Moon, a man was simply a man and a woman was simply a woman.

Men got to that moon with science, and that same science NEVER purported to hold that fairytale of binary simplicity that you falsely believed was true.

Evoltion and Biological sciences held from observations, even back in the 1960s, a third type labelled hermaphrodite which was further refined to “intersex”:

From the ‘Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism, 18. 729—733 (2005)’:

The present taxonomy for congenital sexual
anatomies divides humans into five types:

1.Females: defined as presenting only standard
female sexual anatomy.

2. Males: defined as presenting only standard male
sexual anatomy.

3. Female pseudohermaphrodites: defined as pre-
senting some mixture or blurring of standard
female and male sexual anatomy with the
presence of ovaries (and not testes or ovotestes)
and of an ‘XX’ chromosomal complement.

4. Male pseudohermaphrodites: defined as presen-
ting some mixture or blurring of standard female
and male sexual anatomy with the presence of
testes (and not ovaries or ovotestes) and of an
‘XY’ chromosomal complement.

5. True hermaphrodites: defined as presenting at
least one ovary and at least one testis, or at least
one ovotestis. (The definition of true hermaphro-
ditism does not depend on the presentation of
other sexual anatomy or the chromosomal
complement.)

Errata for:

https://trekmovie.com/2017/05/28/watch-george-takei-denounce-trolls-attacking-star-trek-discovery-diversity/#comment-5344105

“Evoltion” should be “Evolution”

“labelled” should be “labeled”

Good God. You really think the reason you don’t have your flying car or moonbase in 2017 is due to the existence of transgendered people? Congrats–in terms of sheer lunacy, your post wins the internets for the day.

As for those JPL scientists, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but by their political views and voting patterns many of them would qualify as what you would call “leftist.” Certainly the vast majority believe in AGW, and it’s doubtful many of them voted for Donald Trump, regardless of their taste in comic books or t-shirts.

“To illustrate the point: after a breakthrough landing on a comet was achieved in 2014, what did leftists do? Did they cheer, did they applaud? No, they dragged one of the scientists through the mud because he dared to wear a comics-themed shirt made by his female friend: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rosetta-scientist-matt-taylor-sexist-shirt

Good grief. One Internet article about a few tweets.

And to your general point, you’re saying we shouldn’t be making life better for more people here on Earth?

“Here is our future, all those “rocket cars and cities on the Moon” we were promised? What good did the empowerment of minorities bring to us as a whole?”

First things, first.

Jack,

Re: leftists

One problem: How did you determine the political persuasion of the tweets?

It’s as if you merely assume no EU Conservative Christian God-fearing man or woman could possibly be offended by that shirt or by having their elementary school children exposed to it during the live broadcast of the 11:03am historic event?

Agreed. Leftists wasn’t my term.

And I think saying “you leftists always” or “you conservatives always” as a dismissal just reveals a weak argument.

Jack,

Thank you and thanks for pointing out the correct trail to me.

—–

Paul,

So the point goes to you and please allow me to repeat: How did you determine the political persuasion of the tweets?

It’s as if you merely assume no EU Conservative Christian God-fearing man or woman could possibly be offended by that shirt or by having their elementary school children exposed to it during the live broadcast of the 11:03am historic event?

@Paul “But why? Seriously, why? What for?” Well, to reflect the actual world? Because it’s part of Star Trek DNA? Because diversity in Trek has pushed people to imagine a different future for themselves? So actors of colour get good roles too? Because it matters to people who’ve never seen people like themselves on a Star Trek bridge?

The Sulu-family scene in Trek Beyond was minor, but my eyes welled up with tears – because it was showing that somebody sees a future where I belong too.

And to point your question back at you. Why not?

What would you want to see in Star Trek casting instead?

Go, George, go.

Yay for George and Chase!

For those calling George Takei a troll, here is what Wikipedia uses as a definition:
“In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll’s amusement.”
George was not being extraneous, inflammatory or off-topic. He was talking directly to the topic, Diversity in Star Trek Discovery. Any other issues with Mr. Takei?

George Takei is a really vile person who shouts down everyone who doesn’t agree with him. This is a common tactic among major companies: if your huge project is lazy and looks like crap find a handful of people saying mean things and use them to score some sympathy points. Bioware was skilled at this.

I’ve never once heard George Takei shout anyone down, under any circumstances. Care to provide an example? Because I tend to think that “vile” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

I would trade every single white man on the ship (yeah, I’m a white male) as long as we are getting TOS Wagon Train to the Stars on the frontier with excitement, drama, action, adventure and situational comedy vs any holodeck free energy soap opera.

Can we get over all this binary thinking by the Left. Please.

It’s the right that is guilty of binary thinking. Where diversity means “white genocide” and a world where if straight white men don’t get their way, it must be evil.

I believe he is referring to the binary thinking of you’re either a full on trek fan who endorses everything, cant wait to live in the 24th century, the epitomy of liberal values, vs you hate it and think it represents everything that is wrong with society, causes problems and is unrealistic.

Unfortunately many of the users of this site tend to fall in to the latter, and brand anyone with a differing opinion as the former and attack them on that basis.

It’s the same with any specialist website.

**Unfortunately many of the users of this site tend to fall in to the former

*and brand anyone with a differing opinion as the latter and attack them on that basis.

You only need scroll through the comments on this site to see the problem. It’s an all in, or all out club so far as the hard core are concerned, whilst also touting the liberal inclusive mantra.

Look in the mirror.

I’m not sure why it’s a shame that people idealize a society without intolerance and bigotry, without crime or hatred, without greed and avarice, and where the prevailing virtue is the betterment of oneself and mankind.

Isn’t that a world EVERYONE can be happy in?

Just like I, and Glitz said, you lot are binary. You’re completely incapable of any other way of thinking. Please, do continue..

Oversight, It’s an all in, or all out club so far as the hard core are concerned, whilst also touting the liberal inclusive mantra. …Look in the mirror.

And I challenge you, sir, to look at Roddenberry’s hard-won “liberal inclusiveness” in TOS. Good god, man! The show, especially in its first season, had “minorities” everywhere you looked! How could you stand it??

Again, it’s all or nothing for you lot.

I’m sure you’ll enjoy STD, but it wont, in any reality, get a 2nd season. Netflix won’t pile money in to it with such poor viewer retention, and CBS can’t pay for it by themselves. Your little bubble universe of enjoyment is unique to hard core TOS fanboys, nothing more.

Netflix would undoubtedly pull every penny from production at this stage if STD were to be cancelled before it even aired, and CBS would end up with a huge bill. That is the only reason why production is continuing in the face of such an epic backlash and unprecedented fail in ANY kind of market research.

History will label you lot as the traitors who broke Trek, and you’ll never admit that you were wrong.

Can I get your tips on the ponies too? Probably just as useful, and certainly more fun.

Can we get rid of this binary Left or Right and nothing in between?

The hardcore TOS are incapable of it.

These can’t be fans making these complaints. And it’s too early — we haven’t even seen the Discovery crew yet. We also don’t know how a strong a character Michael Burnham(?) is. When TOS aired, just having diversity was enough — no cast like that existed (Mission Impossible maybe, but not to the same degree). Much as I love TOS, Nichelle Nichols and George Takei — and Walter Koenig, who had a couple of romances — needed more to do. So I’d have to see what this lead character is about before saying it’s really special.

Ah great, the cultural warriors found Trek. Everybody who doesn’t like the new show will be labled as misogynist or whatever and the people who do like it have a bunch of right wing nuts at their heels.

No, those who dislike the show on the basis that it features too many blacks, Asians, women, or gays will be labeled as misogynists, racists, homophobes, or worse. And rightfully so.

One of my short film projects for the past few years is a LGBT sci-fi romance story, so I say: Diversity in Star Trek? IT’S ABOUT DA**ED TIME!

Love George …He keeps it real !!!

I wonder if some don’t understand what’s at the root of tolerance. It’s based on a “willingness to allow,” which implies that we make a choice to allow or not. If two parties disagree with each other’s belief they are faced with a choice: are they willing to let the other believe what they want, or are they going to insult and berate the other’s belief and try to bully them into believing what they believe? Everyone who participates in a pointless, circular argument is making a choice to do so and choosing to be unwilling to allow the other’s point of view. Intolerance doesn’t just happen. It is something that we DO. If you are accusing someone of being intolerant of your point of view, you might be exhibiting your intolerance of theirs. There’s your no-win scenario…

I never thought I’d come to a Star Trek website to discuss political topics but okay. I can’t believe all of the outrageous things the liberals on this site are posting. The self-righteous attitude and you thinking that your views are the absolute moral high ground is sickening and just goes to show how out of touch with reality you are. Conservatives aren’t against tolerance or diversity, we’re against a BS agenda that’s pushing a false narrative that claims people aren’t equal when in fact everyone is equal under the law, but liberals still perpetuate this myth as if we’re still living in the 60s. We’re also against the double standard where liberals think that minorities or anyone else who they feel is discriminated against can get away with nearly anything these days but if a white person said or did it everyone would explode. You can accuse everyone of being a racist, bigot, or whatever accusation you wanna throw but if you look in the mirror you would see that all the qualities you claim to be so against are actually the ones you exhibit, classic case of projection and hypocrisy. Liberals are completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their self-righteous views to the point that they will violently attack someone just because they disagree with their view. Let’s not forget it was actually the Democrats who started the KKK and supported slavery and openly opposed the civil rights movement, it was the Republicans who were founded to… Read more »

So a couple of women cast on a Star Trek show is propaganda?

You knew he just had to throw in the bit about the Democrats founding the KKK. Some folks just can’t resist the low-hanging fruit because, in the end, that’s all they can reach.

Jack, from the very beginning they’ve chanted about how “progressive” they’re trying to make this show be. I could care less about the casting as long as the characters are good and it fits the story, but doing it just for diversity’s sake rarely ever works out well, just look at what happened when Marvel started pushing that agenda, their sales dropped dramatically. Whatever happened to just hiring whoever is best for the job?

And Michael Hall, it’s absolutely hilarious that you’re trying to say that me pointing out a historical fact is somehow the low-hanging fruit. It’s a fact and more facts about how hypocritical the Democrats are need to be exposed. I could sit here all day and provide factual information that absolutely obliterates everything the Dems claim they stand for.

Your grasp of United States history is profoundly limited.
Do you really think that the political parties –the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, respectively, of *1865* did not, or have not changed since in ideology or party member representation?

The the “party of Lincoln” transformed during the 20th century. For more on this, see the civil rights movement. Then research LBJ’s presidency, the election of 1964, George Wallace’s failed candidacy and Goldwater’s too. Then do a little reading about Nixon’s “southern strategy.”

Here, I’ll even start you off: check out the wesbite http://www.270towin.com/ and go to “historical elections timeline”. Start with pretty much any year after the civil war… then jump ahead to 1964. Notice anything interesting about the political party shift? Can you figure out what’s going on there?

I think you’re the one with the limited grasp of U.S. history. There was never a party switch like everyone claims, the facts prove otherwise. Go check out the following link that literally point by point with factual references obliterates the Dems, make sure you click on the expand buttons: http://hillarysamericathemovie.com/evidence/

Also quite hilariously and ironically the site obliterates literally every single thing you just said. I didn’t even have to look far lol.

No, you only had to look so far as a nakedly partisan website–Hillary’s America, whazzat?!–to snag that low-hanging fruit you were going for. Well, snookums, I’m well-aware that Democrats were historically no angels on the subject of racial equality, and why should I deny it? I’ve never been a registered Democrat, and don’t ever intend to be one. I concur with the Founders on that point: political parties generally suck, mostly appealing to those who would gladly swap their agency and ability to evaluate policy rationally with the cold comforts of groupthink. Not for me, thanks. That said, here’s a basic primer on the vote taken on the Civil Rights Act. Surprise: it’s a bit more nuanced than your trumpeting of Democrats = KKK, but we understand, if nothing else, that nuance isn’t something taught at Dittohead U. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/25/michael-steele/steele-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196/ So Democrats (and LBJ, for all his sins) were instrumental in pushing for the Act, and in raw numbers more of them voted for it. But the Republicans voted for it as a greater percentage of their numbers. Well, good for them. The reason for this was because, as recently as the ’70’s, there were actually liberal Republicans (as well as conservative Democrats, which is still the case) in Congress. Lowell Weicker and George Romney, who both opposed American involvement in Vietnam, would be two examples, but there were many others. I’m old enough to remember them pretty well, actually. But sadly, that species has been long-extinct, leaving the fortunes of… Read more »

While it’s certainly true that Republicans once fought against slavery and the Southern secessionists were Democrats it belies the reality of American politics and history, allowing racists and revisionists to confuse the facts. Progressives have historically fought for equal rights, civil rights, women’s rights, immigrant rights, gay rights. Conservatives fought against all these ideals, going back to a time when they supported King George III. That’s right, Unamerican. Don’t let labels confuse the issue. Stay in school!

I think you have it a bit backwards, the so-called “progressives” were and continue to be the racists and revisionists. You’re the one who’s getting confused with the labels cause you’re associating conservatives with being against those ideals which isn’t accurate, these issues aren’t as black and white like the liberals think, they’re much more complicated than that. Also quite ironic how you say to stay in school when schools are actually teaching revisionist history.

The fact that you have to resort to insults just proves my point for me, so tolerant you are. And you can try to debate the issue all you want but the site I provided no matter how partisan has links to historical records to prove its points. Also funny that you keep mentioning LBJ considering he was the one who referred to blacks as the n-word saying he’ll have them voting Democrat for the next 200 years, the Dems use equal rights as nothing more than a ploy to gain votes and keep minorities dependent on a welfare state, hence his quote and the website explained that beautifully.

But as for modern times, my original post clearly points out some of the many hypocrisies of liberals in general and I would be more than happy to point even more out to you, but knowing you you’ll just continue to throw insults with a self-righteous attitude. See my original post again.

TM11,

Re: Insults

I believe you got that ball rolling when you insultingly claimed isolated factions are representative of a body as a whole, and that ALL liberals without exception, which include the likes of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, are monolithically “… completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their self-righteous views to the point that they will violently attack someone just because they disagree with their view.”

Then you further insult people’s intelligence by trying to claim Liberalism and Conservatism only exist along Democratic and Republican divisions which logic compels, since the Republican Party didn’t come into existence until 1854, that there therefore were no Conservatives prior to the Republican Party, which is hogwash. Further, in 1854 since The Republican Party was brand new with no prior history to be conservative about, and advocated a radical dismantling of that past status quo it was actually LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE in its day, and obviously NOT Conservative.

“Then you further insult people’s intelligence by trying to claim Liberalism and Conservatism only exist along Democratic and Republican divisions. . .”

Amen, brother. We reach. :-). But whining when your targets actually stand up for themselves and respond in kind is the way of bullies everywhere, isn’t it?

How is what I said an insult? It’s the truth and the facts speak for themselves, how can a fact be an insult? An no it’s not isolated factions it’s most of the liberals of today, very few of them denounce their despicable behavior. Also nowhere did I say that liberals and conservatives only exist within the parties, reread my posts cause obviously I don’t have to insult anyone’s intelligence you clearly insulted your own.

TM11,

You spake the insult, “Liberals are completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their self-righteous views to the point that they will violently attack someone just because they disagree with their view.”

You, insultingly, keep insisting it is true without exception just because you can type it, when to prove it false only took one counter example. I cited two, one more than needed to show it for the filthy lie that it is.

Neither Mahatma Gandhi nor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were completely intolerant of all who disagreed with their so-called “self-righteous” liberal views to the point that either of them violently attacked each and every one of that all just because they disagreed with their views. In fact, they were so completely the opposite of your absolute violent truth that they didn’t even respond in kind several times when conservatives threw the first blows visiting violence on their persons.

Dr, King’s assassin, James Earl Ray [AKA Eric Galt] was a self-described campaign worker for the far-right American Independent Party.

https://books.google.com/books?id=mOHLVJpSxaEC&pg=PA60

I defy you to find one iota of scholarly reviewed research that shows Dr. King violently attacked Ray, and while you are at it, why don’t you regale us with tales of how Gandhi violently attacked Winston Churchill for disagreeing with him for good measure!

TM11,

Re: … nowhere did I say that liberals and conservatives only exist within the parties

Oh, so when you said:

“Let’s not forget it was actually the Democrats who started the KKK and supported slavery and openly opposed the civil rights movement, it was the Republicans who were founded to abolish slavery and we were the ones who gave equal rights to both women and blacks.” — TM11

You identified yourself as a Republican via “we” because you meant to identify yourelf as a liberal Northern Republican as opposed to the conservative Southern Democrats? Who are you trying to kid?

How is me saying that liberals are intolerant an insult when I see clear factual evidence of it every single day? I see literally 20 examples per day of it happening and you’re saying it’s a filthy lie, are you delusional? Are you seriously gonna try to deny that especially after what Kathy Griffin just did? And no you didn’t provide any counter examples, I wouldn’t classify Dr. King or Gandhi liberal by today’s standards whatsoever, meanwhile as I said I see like 20 examples per day that I would be more than thrilled to provide.

And really? You’re gonna argue based on me saying the word “we”, yet again reread my posts cause I clearly also said “we” when referring to conservatives. You are literally pulling this crap out of your ass just to argue.

Also not to mention how many times on a daily basis the left disgustingly insults the President and his supporters. But yet you’re accusing me of insulting liberals just by calling them intolerant when they hurl far worse insults lol, go back to your safe space.

TM11, Re: intolerant Now you are just backpedaling. When you said, “Liberals are completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their self-righteous views to the point that they will violently attack someone just because they disagree with their view.” You didn’t modify “Liberals” with “Today’s” and immediately after in the next sentence you went back two centuries to the creation of the KKK. Who are you trying to kid? BFWIW I wouldn’t classify Lincoln’s dismantling of the conservative Whig Party and creation of the progressive abolitionist Republican Party in 1854 conservative by today’s standards whatsoever, either. There is no delusion on my part, just plain English. You said: “Let’s not forget it was actually the Democrats who started the KKK and supported slavery and openly opposed the civil rights movement, it was the Republicans who were founded to abolish slavery and we were the ones who gave equal rights to both women and blacks.” — TM11 And you were clearly identifying yourself as “the Republicans” and NOT “the Conservatives.” Twenty Examples? OK, as you walked down the streets where you live what were the 20 examples you saw and how did you accurately determine that a liberal was responsible for each other than you just using “today’s liberal” as a generic boogeyman for anything and everything that upsets you? Kathy Griffin? Just an entertainer plowing the same road entertainer Ted Nugent plowed on Presidents that got him a Secret Service visit: “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop… Read more »
I’m not backpedaling, all I did was point out hypocrisies and historical facts, and I did identify myself as both Conservative and Republican, you’re just arguing semantics now. And yes 20 examples a day, both in my own experiences that I witness myself as well as things I read or hear about and things I research, and all of whom were accurately and factually determined to be liberals that were responsible. It’s funny that you mention using liberals as a generic boogeyman because that is literally what liberals are guilty of doing to Trump and his supporters all the time. As for Kathy Griffin and Ted Nugent, both are horrible things to do and I do believe Ted did admit he was wrong but either way it’s disgusting no matter which side it’s coming from. And why do you have to throw race into the mix? It’s horrible no matter what side or what race it happens to, there’s no reason to be extra sensitive for one race over the other, true equality is treating it the same for everyone. And no I don’t have a knee-jerk reaction and automatically assume it’s a liberal Democrat cause unlike them I view everyone as human first and our differences second, not the other way around like they do, so as I said no matter whether a liberal or a skinhead is guilty of something it is terrible no matter what. But ironically many of the cases recently of supposed racist acts were… Read more »
TM11, Re: Semantics No, you are the one that argued semantics when you falsely claimed, “You’re gonna argue based on me saying the word “we”, yet again reread my posts cause I clearly also said “we” when referring to conservatives.” In, “Let’s not forget it was actually the Democrats who started the KKK and supported slavery and openly opposed the civil rights movement, it was the Republicans who were founded to abolish slavery and we were the ones who gave equal rights to both women and blacks.”, you did nothing of the kind clearly. Re: all I did was point out hypocrisies and historical facts The Confederate States of America did not have a Democratic party. West and Middle Tennessee which included Pulaski were rapidly conquered by Grant in 1862 and all civil law was suspended by him. All Confederate soldiers were declared traitors there by the military government and were disenfranchised, i.e. they couldn’t join a Southern Democratic Party even if there was one. According to this source: https://archive.org/stream/HornStanleyFitzgeraldInvisibleEmpire/Horn_Stanley_Fitzgerald_-_Invisible_empire#page/n37/mode/2up/search/Jones The KKK was founded by 6 well-off educated ex-Confederate soldiers, 3 of them captains, in late December of 1865. The only route to enfranchisement that December was a “Damnasty” oath that all were loath to perform and that only if their property value was less than $20,000.01 . It says before the war there were 6500 registered white voters in all of Tennessee and by 1870 there were only 1600 in the entire state due the “Damnasty” disenfranchisement which encompassed… Read more »

So now you’re calling me a liar when I know exactly what I said. Here’s a refresher: “Conservatives aren’t against tolerance or diversity, we’re against a BS agenda that’s pushing a false narrative that claims people aren’t equal when in fact everyone is equal under the law, but liberals still perpetuate this myth as if we’re still living in the 60s. We’re also against the double standard where liberals think that minorities or anyone else who they feel is discriminated against can get away with nearly anything these days but if a white person said or did it everyone would explode.” As you can see I clearly said WE when referring to conservatives, so keep trying to lie, scroll up and actually read my original post moron. And I actually did provide proof of my claims a while back but you obviously didn’t read any of it.

And lol, so yet again you’re justifying what Kathy Griffin did and saying that it would be worse if it was towards blacks. What part of equality do you not understand? There’s not a single person alive today who experienced slavery, so you’re claim is complete BS.

TM11, Re: I know exactly what I said. Apparently you don’t because I’m calling you out that in that same introductory post to this forum that in the very next paragraph you emphatically asked us: “Let’s not forget it was actually the Democrats who started the KKK and supported slavery and openly opposed the civil rights movement, it was the Republicans who were founded to abolish slavery and we were the ones who gave equal rights to both women and blacks.” — TM11 Not to forget that conservatives are Republicans, like yourself, who were the ones who gave equal rights to both women and blacks. Re: And I actually did provide proof of my claims You make statements and repeat them, but repetition is not proof, and merely because you can type something, does not a fact make. You don’t cite sources which is an essential starting place for a proof. I HAVE.You have provided absolutely no evidence that the founding members of the KKK were registered Democrats at the time of its creation despite repeatedly claiming it as a Democratic Party creation. You NEVER cited the source of your LBJ quote [I had to find it.], etc. Re: justifying what Kathy Griffin did I’m not justifying anything. I’m just pointing out the hoops that YOU have to go through to justify Nugent, who paved the road for her act and others, being welcomed with open arms to the Trump White House while advocating hypocritically that it is fair and… Read more »
TM11, “There’s not a single person alive today who experienced slavery, so you’re claim is complete BS.” — TM11 Is there no end to your mendacities? http://books.google.com/books?id=nq0rAQAAMAAJ&dq=%2227+MILLION%22&focus=searchwithinvolume “But researchers estimate that today there are 27 million people worldwide living in slavery. Traditional forms of slavery, such as absolute ownership of a person and debt bondage are still widespread.” — “American Business Values: A Global Perspective”, by Gerald F. Cavanagh: Chair of Business Ethics and Professor of Management at the University of Detroit Mercy, p 141, 6th edition, Pearson Prentice, 2010 And what kind of complete BS delusion are you under that you believe experiencing slavery is some sort of prerequisite for blacks in the US to experience a deep culturally shared fear at white terrorist styled threats? Such was and is totally irrelevant to the black culture’s special terror experienced at the hand of the KKK terrorist organization which never let a little thing, like stopping to check for ownership papers and matching brands, stop them from a century plus reign of terrorizing and murdering black people, to this very day. And speaking of BS, this shows that in the election of 1860, that made Lincoln president, that the Southern Democrats seceded from the Democratic Party: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1860 The Southern Democratic Party was the ONLY Democratic Party in that election with an explicit pro-slavery platform and was shortly dissolved under the Confederate States of America’s anti-organized political party system: http://books.google.com/books?id=iFHRBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA389&lpg=PA389&dq=“NO+ORGANIZED+POLITICAL+PARTIES” “…the Confederate Congress (which, unlike the Union Congress, had no organized… Read more »

For some reason this site lopped off the highlighting because of the quotes:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iFHRBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA389&lpg=PA389&dq=“NO+ORGANIZED+POLITICAL+PARTIES”

This quotes-less version should achieve the same result of making the quote easier to spot on the cited page:

https://books.google.com/books?id=iFHRBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA389&lpg=PA389&dq=ORGANIZED+POLITICAL+PARTIES

So you’re not just full of it, but lazy as well. Understood. As to LBJ, exactly which part of “for all his sins” did you not get? Whatever his motives (and when dealing with actual human beings as opposed to partisan caricatures motives are often complicated, even conflicted, and not all that easy to parse decades after the fact), he did end up using his almost unparalleled legislative skills to push very hard for a bill that both Democrats and Republicans of good conscience could vote for–and that, whatever its own flaws, vastly expanded what was possible for an entire class of people. Even with Vietnam and the persistent rumors of involvement with Kennedy’s murder there are worse legacies to be had, as Donald Trump will undoubtedly remind us.

You still keep going with the insults when you don’t even know me lol, yet again proving my point. And wow I can’t believe that you are actually excusing LBJ for his remarks and motives, so typical. There is nothing complicated or conflicted about it, you’re just trying to deflect from the truth. Also btw it was mostly Republicans who got that through, not many Democrats supported it. Haha worse legacies? Tell me what exactly has PRESIDENT Donald Trump done to warrant such attacks and accusations from the left? Cause all I’ve seen is a whole bunch of nonsense with absolutely ZERO evidence to back them up, people especially celebrities and the media will attack him for anything just cause they don’t like him, if he were to walk on water they would try to claim it’s because he can’t swim. President Trump has done more so far than most presidents have in their entire terms, but of course the media refuses to report on that which makes sense considering it was proven they colluded with the Democrats and it was also proven that 97% of their reporting on the President was all negative. I can go on all day.

TM11,

Funny, in the Lincoln/Douglas debates, Douglas made a pretty decent argument that Lincoln was using abolition as nothing more than a ploy to gain votes by dismantling both the Whig and Democratic Parties.

And when it came to throwing around the n-word, LBJ’s Republican contemporary, RMN, wasn’t averse to it:

”Let’s leave the N-WORDs to Bill [Secretary of State William Rogers] and we’ll take care of the rest of the world.” — President Richard Millhouse Nixon

But I believe RMN’s most favored racial slur for blacks was “jigs”, i.e. jig-a-boos.

And Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman, said that RMN twice related to him that “… blacks were genetically inferior to whites.”

Doesn’t RMH’s White House, using your LBJ logic, associate its conservatives with being against those “ideals” and thus dismantle your contention that “Conservatives being against those ideals isn’t accurate.”?

So now you’re refusing to acknowledge and condemn what LBJ did and justifying it by saying that Republicans have done the same, but by your logic you keep saying that the parties aren’t the same as they used to be? Your hypocrisy is so damn obvious. I really don’t understand how you can sit there and defend the Dems for what happened back then by saying they changed but yet at the same time you’re accusing Republicans of things and saying that they haven’t changed. If you really think conservatives are against ideals that any normal human being would be for you seriously are delusional.

TM11,

Re: Your hypocrisy is so damn obvious.

As is yours, in your refusal to acknowledge and condemn, what his contemporary, your fellow Republican, president’s did. You hold liberals and others to standards that even you yourself fail to uphold and observe. Oh, and by the way, ever since Michael Hall brought up LBJ you’ve mentioned what he did, but not once have you condemned it.

This is your hypocritical logic — not mine.

Re: saying that they haven’t changed.

I said nothing of the kind. I said the Republicans started out as Progressive Liberals. I was reflecting back your own logic where you claim LBJ’s comments are proof that the Democrats are racists, ergo Nixon’s, his contemporary, comments are proof the Republicans CHANGED to conservative bigots.

Your failure to acknowledge what Nixon did and condemn both men while casting aspersions on me clearly shows YOUR hypocrisy in this delusional reasoning of yours that the Nixonian Republican Whitehouse held ethnic ideals that any normal human being would be for.

How exactly do I fail to uphold and observe those standards? Do you know me personally? Please enlighten me. And yeah I think it was pretty obvious that I condemned what LBJ did, and until I see irrefutable proof of any wrongdoing a Republican has done I’m not gonna condemn something cause I have yet to see any proof of. At this point you’re just talking in circles and deflecting and projecting using a bunch of straw man fallacies. Why can’t you just admit the wrongdoings of Democrats and liberals of both today and throughout history?

TM11,

Re: How exactly do I fail to uphold and observe those standards?

You “prove” Johnson was a racist by referring to a quote that you never accurately fully cite with leeway given for an expletive obfuscation nor give its source. Which was:

“I’ll have them n-WORDs voting Democratic for two hundred years.” — Robert M MacMillan, Air Force One steward, interview, March 28 1993

I provide you with a quote from Nixon’s White House Aide, John Ehrlichman that he heard Nixon say twice that blacks were genetically inferior to whites and you say:

“… until I see irrefutable proof of any wrongdoing a Republican has done I’m not gonna condemn something cause I have yet to see any proof of.” — TM11

Proving yourself to be a double standard toting two-faced lying hypocrite.

Re: I think it was pretty obvious that I condemned what LBJ did…

And, likewise, I think it was pretty obvious what I condemned.

Re: Why can’t you just admit the wrongdoings

Possibly, because of your wise counsel that I don’t until I see from you irrefutable proof of any wrongdoing a Democrat or Republican has done, is why I’m not gonna jump through hoops for you because I have yet to see any irrefutable proof of it from you.

TM11,

Re: Democrats who started the KKK

I was born and raised in The South. Something about this claim of yours struck me as specious but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it until now. The Confederate States of America had NO Democratic Party. The KKK was founded in Pulaski, Tennessee in June of 1866 by 6 former Johnny Reb officers. Tennessee didn’t rejoin the Union until the end of the following month. How could those 6 Johnny Rebs be members of the Union Democratic Party BEFORE Tennesse was admitted?

I already provided proof and it’s a pretty well known fact that the Dems started the KKK, idk where you get your information from.

TM11, Re: I already provided proof… Saying “…it’s a pretty well known fact…” is NOT proof but an attempt to avoid providing or citing it. It certainly is NOT a fact in any of my history books the the Democratic Party created the KKK. Re: idk where you get your information from. As we still do not know yours. I provided my sources in your other thread in this same comment chain: From my comment-5344137 source from which I will again cite and quote: https://archive.org/stream/HornStanleyFitzgeraldInvisibleEmpire/Horn_Stanley_Fitzgerald_-_Invisible_empire#page/n37/mode/2up/search/Jones “… six young men who lived in Pulaski, Tennessee, a short distance south of Nashville — Captain John C. Lester, Captain John B. Kennedy, Captain James R. Crowe, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed and J. Calvin Jones. … These six young men had all been in the Confederate army, and after they got back home and while they were adjusting themselves to the new conditions of life, time hung heavy on their hands. On an evening late in December, 1865, they were sitting around the fireplace in the law office of Calvin Jones’s father, Judge Thomas M. Jones, idly discussing the dearth of amusements and possible ways and means of supplying the lack. As might naturally be expected under such circumstances, somebody suggested that a club or society [The KKK] of some sort be formed.” — INVISIBLE EMPIRE:The Story of the Ku Klux Klan 1866-1871, BY STANLEY F. HORN, HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY • BOSTON, 1939 It’s very simple, for the Democratic Party to have… Read more »

Errata:

“It certainly is NOT a fact in any of my history books the the Democratic Party created the KKK.” should be, “It certainly is NOT a fact in any of my history books that the Democratic Party created the KKK.”

The following is a better link from the same google book that hi-lights the beginning of the sentence while showing the entire end of the last paragraph on page xii that spilled over to the next page:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xVnpHGSwGUEC&pg=PR13&v=snippet&q=“Most anti-Radicals”&f=true

for:

“Most anti-Radicals would later identify themselves as Democrats, but this party did not reorganize formally in the state [TENNESSEE] until 1869.” — Tennessee’s Radical Army: The State Guard and Its Role in Reconstruction, 1867-1869 | Ben H. Severance | page xiii | Univ. of Tennessee Press | 2005

page xiii is where last bits of the page xii paragraph end up.

Sorry, but diversity for diversity sake is pandering. I liked STAR TREK because it was about a future, where humanity had put aside their differences before going to the stars. And if there were in difference among the crew that was pointed out by an “alien” race (such as the time when “Abraham Lincoln” pointed out the fact that Uhura was “Black”, while serving in a prominent position on board the USS Enterprise, in the TOS episode “The Savage Curtain”), such a thing was treated as it should be: trivial. The sad thing is that now, so-called champions of “diversity” not only want to point out the differences among people, but want to accuse people who want to be, let’s say, “color-blind” of being “racist”. In fact, there is a push now for college students to “self-segregate” themselves as a means of creating “safe-spaces” for people of “color”. And on a more personal note, I used to be a fan of Mr. Takei, until he decided to advocate the use of the state, as a means of going after people of faith for having firm religious beliefs over very intrinsic values, rather than use the market place of ideas to create new opportunities (such as patronizing those businesses who do not care to use their personal feelings to interfere with their livelihoods). That’s not advocating “diversity”; that’s advocating fascism. As for the criticism on DSC’s push for diversity: stupid all around, with one side, again, pushing for diversity for diversity’s… Read more »

I don’t understand this argument. Discovery casting Michell Yeoh and Sonequa Martin is pandering? But Roddenberry’s casting wasn’t?

And businesses following existing laws against discrimination is fascism?

(by the way, I was unwittingly posting under a couple of different names today – Jack and Jason – thanks to autofill)

Let me guess: when you prattle on about the rights of people to practice their religious views, what you’re really advocating is their right to discriminate. Well no, sorry; we had that argument in the ’60s and the bigots lost: you don’t get to keep people from sitting at your lunch counter just because you have a sincere belief–even a religiously-based belief–that the “races” shouldn’t mix. The same right to public accommodation applies to gays–again, sorry. Y’all lost on that one.

Anyway–to second Jack’s very reasonable query below, what sort of ‘pandering’ is involved in the casting of Yeoh and Martin? We self-righteous liberals didn’t bring this whole mess up–you did.

Go George! Love the guy – he’s one of the most genuinely friendly cast members in his dealings with the fans.

Trek is the mythology I subscribe to in my personal religion. The Great Bird’s vision holds more importance now than it ever did, including in part, IDIC.
The fear I have with the new show is that instead of portraying diversity in a casual, mater-of-fact way, it could instead be “on the nose”. If it tries to make it an unmistakable point, it will miss what made classic Trek such a valuable vessel for commentary and education. Yes, there are entire episodes about such topics, but as for the day to day life portrayed among the crews, it was never over the top.
I hope, and patiently wait for, Discovery to be true to the method of storytelling that is the hallmark of Trek.

Really frustrating that this is even a news story. The Alt-right trolls are determined to suck the joy out of anything we enjoy.

You got that too? Misery loves company, I guess.

Actually, I think the laugh is on the Alt-right trolls, because making this a news story is free publicity for the show. It think controversy is what’s lacking in the JJ films. Star Trek at its best is quite controversial.

You understand that Takei is a magnet for the Alt-Right as you call them. Because of his blatant hatred for Trump and anyone who doesn’t fit in his lil echochamber. Take has become so volatile that he has become self destructive. We do not shun diversity we shun forced diversity. I never got angry watching Capt. Janeway kick ass or Sulu half naked doing fencing poses in TOS. But when I hear rhetoric from Hollywood elites that their main priority is “Diversity” not “Story” not “Character Development” not “Entertainment” but “We want to push diversity and inclusiveness and show how PC WE ARE!” than you start to tick me off. Because that shows they want a program that pushes only there left wing ideology and not creating a show worth watching in the first place.

Good job Takei! Its amazing we still have trolls who are Star Trek fans and against the most basic spirit of the franchise. I can’t WAIT for Discovery now. I love everything I seen about it so far. And I can get over a woman (gasp) having the lead role since women have been having lead roles for several decades now. I can also get over the fact the show doesn’t just have white people in it but all people. Gee, a show that represents multiple cultures, yeah that’s Star Trek alright. Again can’t wait!

Who isn’t for social justice? Not sure how that became an insult.

You wouldn’t think it would be amongst Trek fans, that’s for sure. We truly live in a degraded age.

No idea what they mean by “genocide”.

But, how about the notion of treating a Black actor and an Asian actor like they’re some sort of novelties, selling points for a product, due to their ethnicities? Step right up, folks, and see the new Star Trek show! We got us a Black! We got us an Asian! We got us a gay! And who knows what else?!! Sign up for CBS All Access to find out!

How about…and hold onto your hat, because this is going to sound outlandish…but, how about: The lead will be played by a very talented actor. Is that totally crazy, or what?

It’s just funny that when George denounced the changing of Sulu’s sexual orientation in STB he was criticized and was portrayed as an old senile man who wasn’t progressive enough for today’s psycho leftists. Now that he’s denouncing trolls to defend the new shows diversity he’s back in their good graces lol. That’s something they can get behind. No pun intended.

Da Trufe,

Re: It’s just funny that …

Not nearly as funny as you pretending to have conducted a peer-reviewed scientific poll that accurately determined that anyone that portrayed him as an old senile man is today a psycho leftist who did so for no other reason but the sole one that he wasn’t progressive enough, and that you didn’t intend the pun. LOL!

MSNBC? God really? I don’t have problems with there being a multi-ethnic crew with aliens and the rest. But what I do have problems with is
A. Takei and his politics he is batsh** crazy when it comes to politics.
B. Hollywood’s forceful nature to push diversity. I believe in a fluidity of things. So if I did a cast call I wouldn’t be like “Only men or women of Color can come to try out for the lead” I would go for personality traits, how they interact with other cast members, how they react to the temporary transcript, if they are able to show the emotions I am looking for.
But it seems today RACE is the first Priority then GENDER and then what goes into creating a emotional or conducive dialog in the film.

I will end this with saying that I liked the trailer for Discovery and I am hoping it is even better when it releases.

I always find it interesting when people criticize diversity (or inclusivity/accurately reflecting reality) by using words like “forced” and “shoved down my throat”. It implies that the existence of non-white and non-straight characters is a violent act to you.

If simply seeing different kinds of people, be people in creative media makes you feel that way, it aligns perfectly with the philosophy of hate groups. And that is sad.

It also implies a huge measure of fragility as we who aren’t white men have seen that majority leading media for years without that thought.

You miss the point its not that its a violent act or that it offends white people. It is the fact that one picks any Color even white because they want to please people or be politically correct the pendulum goes both ways. Just in today’s day and age the popular rule of thumb is to thumb white people and do their best to exclude them in the process so they can get wider sales with POC.

Huh? Why is pleasing people who don’t usually see themselves bad? The answer is it’s not.

If you have most of the toys, it’s not hurting you to see others play with a few of theirs too. It would take thousands of non-white and LGBT folks to even put a dent in the amount that represent straight white people.

This is what you sound like: http://data.whicdn.com/images/237862825/large.png

Are you just ignorant? Or Daft? Its not about how many its about how good they are. Its about if they fit the story. I’ll give you an example. Robin Hood classic tale about the thief and his band of merry men. How would you cast such a film? Anyway you like? Well for the most part you could. You could make Robin Hood black for instance. Now of course if he was related to Royalty as some stories say then that might not work. But heck I would take that over what is being done to the latest Robin Hood film. They are using a man not one tall and big but a normal sized man to play “Lil John” and to top it off he isn’t English nor White. But because it “Diversify s” the story its OKAY? -(FILM)- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4532826/ -(Film)-

Like I said I don’t care if the whole crew is fricken black and they fly everyweek to get some chicken from some klingons. (Yes I threw in a stereotype for levity)

That doesn’t mean that Diversity should be used just for the sake of Diversity. If you can’t get that or understand the fundamentals of casting and fitting the “Role” than maybe its time you learn.

You aren’t daft, you’re worse. You are ignorant and there’s no excuse for that in world where we all have access to internet. I’m about to educate you on a basic that is easily googlable. Guess what? Non-white people existed in different parts of the world from their origins at many different points in history, because… Get this. People traveled! Suggesting that non-white races are unrealistic in a futuristic imagined setting is bad enough. Because goodness knows even now populations trend towards more diversity and not less. A bunch of white dudes would be the unrealistic thing, but I digress… Yes, it would be cool to see some diversity among Robin Hood’s merry men as (I know it’s shocking for you) but *plenty* of non-white people existed and in that time and space. Heck, it’s even more okay, as the tale is folklore! …As in not something that actually happened. Who does it hurt to have diversity for the sake of diversity? Why is it a bad thing? Especially, when it’s clear from you (and quite a few others, unfortunately) believing that diversity isn’t realistic in certain spaces where it actually existed in truth and is wrongly believed to not have been due to unrealistic mono-racial fictional depictions, that the lack of diversity only contributes to widespread ignorance. You not knowing this basic that people didn’t exist in mono-racial pockets, but interacted with, lived around, and traded with diverse groups actually makes the best case for why diversity is absolutely… Read more »

I’m sorry but LIL JOHN wasn’t a small black dude you can try to explain away nationalities being in different countries. But I can bet my hand that Blacks were not nobles in England at any time.

Lil’John doesn’t exist. Therefore he can be whatever race. Honestly? Jamie Foxx the oscar-winner playing that part? You should be grateful.

>>> But I can bet my hand that Blacks were not nobles in England at any time.

You gonna mail it to me by FedEx or UPS?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/familyhistory/9975930/Britains-blue-blood-has-been-mixed-for-centuries.html

Like I said, the fact that you didn’t know that more than makes the case for why so much more media needs to be accurately diverse.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/royalfamily.html

Never make wagers when you’ve done absolutely zero research.

gingerly,

Maybe this will help you get the traveling point across, the Roman Empire map 117AD, i.e. before Robin Hood?:

http://www.nms.ac.uk/media/1150390/roman_empire_trajan_117ad.jpg

Oh good, you *can* do your own research. Fabulous! Now, scurry off!

gingerly,

Re: research

I am not sure what you mean by that? Research wasn’t involved, because I knew for what map I was looking beforehand, as I was a matriculate and have a college diploma to prove it. That and I’m regarded by some in my occasional encounters with the exceedingly young as older than dirt.

I swear you didn’t read half of what I wrote. I told you I had no problem of blacks being in the film it was the use of having that black person being in a role he didn’t fit. Damn you are daft.

Nothing is more daft that arguing over what race “fits” a fictional character. So, I’m done trying to convince your simple ignorant racist ass that an Oscar winner is worthy (honestly too good for the role).

You can say you have no problem with “blacks” but you still having that an issue, shows what you really are and that is a bigot.

I already know about the Kevin Costner film as it is one of my favorite movies. My EXAMPLE if you read it was of LIL JOHN which even the name JOHN especially back then was not a Moorish name. It was a WHITE ENGLISH name. And LIL didn’t actually mean he was small it was a nickname because he was LARGE. So sorry but Jamie Foxx does not fit in that role he may fit the “Moorish” role of the outsider who Robin hood meets on his travels ala Keven Costner film. But not as Lil John PERIOD.

So, now he’s too small. You are not only woefully ignorant, but utterly transparent. Yes, Virginia, there were black people named John in that time-period in England so, get this, a fictional character whose race is never described can be portrayed by black Oscar winner.

Again, the fact that you didn’t know that, bolsters the reason why a black person should be cast. Because no one should be that ignorant of basic history.

The funny thing is you wouldn’t have a single solitary pre-issue with an an unknown amateur who is white playing that part.

Here Dursley, enjoy this image of “one toy” for the other that’s chapping your butt among the piles and piles you have hoarded.

comment image

Yeah Morgan Freeman played a great part in Robin Hood and actually fit as he wasn’t from England but from where they were fighting in the Crusades. Plus he is an AWESOME actor no matter what role he takes!

Yeah, he certainly is one of the good blacks, but somehow Jamie Foxx who won a best actor Oscar isn’t right for Lil John because he’s black.

You’re a bigoted person with an incredibly selfishly limited world-view.

Travel is fatal to ignorance and prejudice, paraphrasing, that is what Mark Twain said. Gene was a military vet, who was stationed all over the world.

I tell you, surviving in the trenches with and for all kinds of people and cultures opened his eyes and confirmed beliefs he already had about enjoying difference instead of condemning it. He was bullied for being frail and a young boy. I imagine the difference is how he was treated then vs. when he got to be a huge imposing man really made in impression on him, right along with all the different kinds of folks he had the privilege of meeting and working with over the years.

Brilliant and creative as he was, he wanted all of us to have the same epiphany and joy. Thus, Star Trek.

wpDiscuz
Advertisment ad adsense adlogger