• Anarcho-Bolshevik@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    16·
    4 days ago

    I want to see somebody write ‘Finland was wrong for allying with the Third Reich in WWII’ and then get banned with the message ‘Reason: tankie’.

    • eldavi@lemmy.mlEnglish
      6·
      3 days ago

      They’d down vote you for implying that a liberal democracy would ever align itself w fascism and turn around to experience it with Trump doing exactly that.

      Good thing this isn’t reddit it else you would be completely banned. Lol

  • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
    12·
    4 days ago

    I will fucking die on the hill that “Tankie” is a racial slur, specifically meant to demean mostly brown communists for daring to have a brain and a spine.

  • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    38·
    5 days ago

    That instance is a disgrace to Star Trek, every time i see one of theirs in the wild its always with a take that in Star Trek you would hear from the mouth of maybe Weyoun or Gul Dukat.

    • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      13·
      4 days ago

      Tsze-kung asked, saying, “What do you say of a man who is loved by all the people of his neighborhood?”

      Confucius replied, “We may not for that accord our approval of him.”

      “And what do you say of him who is hated by all the people of his neighborhood?”

      Confucius said, “We may not for that conclude that he is bad. It is better than either of these cases that the good in the neighborhood love him, and the bad hate him.”

      Not a fan of Confucius but I like the quote and it came to mind. In all honesty, Hexbear is more infamous but Lemmygrad seems to be the victim of outright dismissal by liberals.

      • Addfwyn@lemmygrad.ml
        10·
        4 days ago

        But as The Spectre of Communism, you strike fear into their hearts. Really they have no other option but to ban you, look at that fearsome profile picture.

  • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    30·
    4 days ago

    Reason: “Your political ideology made me fill my pants with shit and now it smells stinky at my keyboard!”

    • WhatWouldKarlDo@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      17·
      4 days ago

      Strange New Worlds explicitly states that it’s socialist. Liberals like to pretend there’s a difference, but I honestly don’t know what socialism means without communism being involved.

      • The Spectre@lemmy.mlOP
        7·
        4 days ago

        Wait, do you have the source on this? I need to archive it. I mean on SNW saying that it is socialist in canon

      • darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml
        13·
        5 days ago

        No, only implicitly. Afaik Gene meant for it to be like the Nordic model.

        I’ve never seen or been given any sources that really clarify what he was after. I saw several times on left reddit subs over the years people repeat the claim that his wife said on a radio show that “what the Chinese believe in, that’s what Gene saw for Star Trek” or something to the effect. But I’ve never seen a source on this.

        It certainly seems at times in places much more than just nordic social democracy extended. The in-universe hand-waving is that it was basically just a nuclear war and not violent revolution that brought about humanity coming together under this (cough communism cough) system. By DS9 the liberals are fully in control, they do things like “oh the wealthy can be shamed by riot leaders being exceptionally decent and not murdering their cops when they take power in an area, and oh being non-violent will get real change” (with regard to Bell Riots).

        For one thing the model of ToS seems very militarized but also has people who seem to me like stand-ins even if ones not always portrayed super favorably for Soviet commissars, for planning individuals within a kind of strictly run hierarchy. By TNG that seems to have been dropped.

    • marl_karx@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      12·
      3 days ago

      Star Trek literally teaches how democratic centralism is like and also has some episodes that quote directly from das Kapital hahah (Except the new shows like discovery)

      • marl_karx@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        14·
        3 days ago

        I mean the crew power dynamics are closer to a democratic centralist system than the liberal democratic system that we have today and trek fans still love it, but most are just too blind to see it imo. gene roddenberry even has some ships named after soviet generals iirc and the soviet union was reinstated in the lore, i dont even know how the writers could make it more obvious what the political stance of the show is without it getting it shut down in the US political landscape.

          • eldavi@lemmy.mlEnglish
            6·
            3 days ago

            i said this elsewhere in this post: we live in an age where trekkies think that trek is “too woke” and even american liberals feel like this, as evidenced by the startrek instance’s banning of anything further left than the american center-right political mainstream.

  • darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml
    21·
    5 days ago

    Mini-rant: I dislike Star Trek so it’s not surprising to me to see this. I used to like it when it was only ToS/TNG (mainly TNG) in my mind with Voyager kind of off in the distance with DS9 further off but as a franchise most of it by sheer volume and weight is now so liberal, so anti-communist, so just bad, so grim-dark and anti-bloomer that ST originally was that I can’t say I like it as a property or universe. I enjoy the TOS films, I enjoy TNG and the TNG films, I like a decent chunk of Voyager and some of DS9 but after that… I fell out of love once Enterprise came out and after seeing the J.J. Abrams reboot of grim-dark trek I just walked away entirely and what I hear only encourages me that I made the right choice. I don’t care what they’re doing now. I did enjoy Lower Decks but that was a fan tribute to ToS/TNG/Voy/DS9 that isn’t even really canon so that’s probably why they could get away with some of what they did.

    • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      15·
      4 days ago

      I felt like DS9 was the show to really showcase how the Federation was NOT communist. Sure, it was socialist; but it had a huge chunk of people living in the periphery of it. There is also the precedent that planets are able to run themselves however they please, as long as they abide to certain “Federation Principles”. What these are we don’t really know but there ARE planets out there that are exploitatively capitalist or just terrible to grow up on that are still a part of the Federation.

      • darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml
        8·
        4 days ago

        DS9 IMO is where the revisionism started.

        This is directly connectable to two historical events:

        1. Death of Gene Roddenberry and control being ceded to other executives who were more liberal.

        2. It was the very first Trek show made following the victory of the US in the cold war, the end of history rhetoric and feeling reaching its height. (While most of TNG was filmed after the fall of the USSR, the first 3-ish seasons were written and shot before that, thus setting a tone among the writers, additionally the impact of the fall of the USSR wasn’t really fully felt until the coup in 1994 which was most of the way through the show’s run) Additionally I believe Patrick Stewart held some sympathies as the time that might have pushed back against any attempts to revise the universe, even if they’d wanted to and I don’t think they wanted to make any major changes during the run of the show.

        This can be laid at the feet of Rick Berman really more than anything. Gene Roddenberry was weird, he was leering, but he undoubtedly had some much better politics than Berman and those who followed. In the glow of the victory of capitalism and end of history the whole IP took a very dark turn necessarily on the belief that this was it, this was how things would continue and Star Trek would have to exist in some related context with less utopianism.

        Voyager continued or at least didn’t revert these problems though given it’s situation being stranded far outside of the communist controlled space their actions and activities can be more or less justified as frontier and war communism tough stuff. What can’t be as easily bushed aside is the black ops section whatever introduced in DS9, the heavy use of fiat currency among the crew in ordinary situations including gambling, and a lot of other shifts in how the federation is defined and run.

        So I agree but I disagree in its inclusion in ST “golden age” canon which is basically just TNG. Hence why I think the IP is not worth fighting over, the liberals won long ago and it’s only ever gotten worse since then. By itself in a vacuum or with TOS TNG is a great if somewhat utopian socialist show. Everything that followed has been decay if not outright plundering in a mirror version of what Russia went through in the 90s of shock therapy and terror.

        • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          4·
          4 days ago

          Is it revisionism when this was demonstrated in TNG with the settlers in Cardassian territory? I really feel like you’re ignoring that part.

          • darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml
            4·
            3 days ago

            One episode at the tail end of the series vs a whole series/season that sprouted from that same soil after that. Not undermining my point at all IMO.

            Fact is it fell off after the fall of the USSR and Gene’s death, whatever lack of purity it had, whatever internal contradictions the overall direction and feel and politics were not awful but took a turn after that inflection point. They had some liberals on the ship all along obviously or they couldn’t seize control of the property so easily so this really isn’t a point I think as I’m contending historical forces pushed a change through, Gene’s death being one. As a whole TNG was good for a series produced under capitalism. It had problems, it wasn’t a “pure” socialist artwork as clearly it wasn’t being made that way and they had liberal writers and producers whose brainworms got worse after the end of history and Gene’s influence being lost.

            I’m not going to reply any further though as I find debating this tiring as it’s just a back and forth of cherry picking and cited examples and counters and it rarely goes anywhere but a lot of visits to online wikis. As I said I don’t like Star Trek so I’m not really up for extended arguments in the weeds with its defenders or those trying to push their favorite series as being within the cut-off window for “okay”/not-okay. I have my opinion, if you have another well maybe you could be right (as long as it’s before Enterprise, if Enterprise or after is included as still okay then well you’re flat out wrong lol).

            • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
              1·
              3 days ago

              Okay…? Thanks. I don’t think that was cherry-picking nor was it one episode…especially when that one episode had a continuation in DS9 that was specifically high-lighted as a moment of “fucked up” when Sisko goes nuts. That was a pretty important plot point…not cherry-picking. Also, bringing up that planets even in TNG had their independence either the economy of the organization is socialist or not and that the planets can have NON-SOCIALIST economies isn’t cherry-picking lmfao and the plot/sub-plot I believe of two episodes in TNG and I think at least one in DS9.

              I still don’t disagree with you, though. I don’t think it’s revisionism, though. Like yeah, show got worse after fall of USSR and I was never denying that. It’s just that even in TNG…yes it wasn’t perfect. Pointing out those cracks isn’t “cherry-picking”. Nor was I trying to push my “favorite” series when it was Voyager while I’m bringing up DS9. I also don’t see how that undermining your point but…okay?