I guess?

Thank you so much!

@@OrangeRiver do you think what win the Imperium of Man Kind from Warhammer 40.000 all the Borg from Star Trek?

Thank you!

@James Furey Irish CATHOLIC as well!

@@frigyou1078 These comments are insightful. I'd love to read more!

Thank you! I've admittedly had to do lots of experimenting with the title

Thanks man! Hey, disagreement is perfectly fine-- these videos are largely intended to spark discussion after all.

@@OrangeRiver You do a great job. Star Trek and Superman helped get me though some lonely times as an child so seeing young people who love it makes me happy. If I could make an request when you have the time do an video on Worf he's the one person in Trek I wanted to be like an outsider who found a home.

@@TheDuck632 I'll certainly keep him in mind-- most of the videos I'm doing currently cover entire species, but Worf is someone I find very interesting as well.

Current Star Trek is done very bad and the political massage just doesn’t make sense for Star Trek. It feels like it’s artificially changed to match a ideology in some ways

@@latviankhan2989 I disagree. It may be hamfisted in some ways, particularly early Discovery, but it's pretty common for the first season or so of a Trek series to be kinda awful before it finds its footing.

Haha good deal!

Thanks!

"He is much like our own Mr. Spock isn't he?"

Unfortunately everything you wrote sounds like we're working with different definitions of "progressive" and "liberal."

@@OrangeRiver I suppose that's always possible, especially given to the tendency for definitions to be changed on a whim these days... However the definitions of "progressivism" and "liberalism" have been with us for several centuries, and as far as I know they're both quite clear. Progressivism is the belief that change is inherently good and must be pursued as a goal in and of itself; whereas liberalism advocates allowing diverging ideas to compete in order to determine which changes (if any) are best. If these aren't your definitions... then what are?

I mean, progressivism to me has always been about improving human society through political action. Liberalism has a bevy of definitions--there's modern market neoliberalism, for instance, and good ol' liberalism as in liberal democracy, freedom of speech, civil rights, etc. The second overlaps with progressivism. Granted, we don't know a lot about Earth's government structure in Star Trek, but there's no way in my mind that progressive politics didn't play a huge role (as OPPOSED to neoliberalism) in helping achieve their proto-post-scarcity future. So in that way, yes, Gene's vision of Star Trek was progressive. As for contradictions to that vision that skew more liberal, I'm of two thoughts on that: on the one hand, I agree Trek is very liberal in many ways, in the "marketplace of ideas" sense like you alluded to. But a lot of the soft retcons to the universe (like Ron Moore doing away with the no-money rule) don't really scream anti-progressive to me. I just don't understand where you're coming from about Trek's liberalism and progressivism being diametrically opposed to each other

@@OrangeRiver (P.S. Apologies in advance for the length, but this has got me thinking and it's a really interesting discussion) Isn't every political action an attempt to improve human society? By that definition alone, both Greenpeace and the Nazi Party are progressive, since they both seek/sought to improve society through political action. In fact, the only _non-progressives_ would then be anyone who either takes political action to keep things exactly as they are (Ultra-Conservatism?) or abstain from political action altogether (Anarchism? Or just nihilist inaction?). The key to progressivism is instead an approach to *change itself as a inherently desirable,* as diametrically opposed to *traditionalism* in which there are things that must _never_ be given up. Liberalism doesn't really "overlap" with progressivism as much as it is simply a different metric. In a sense it's the application of the scientific method to determine whether, at any given point in time, it is preferable to be progressive or traditional. That is why freedom of action or thought is so integral to liberalism - you must be able to entertain various theories in order to determine which, if any, is desirable at any given time. This even applies to neoliberal markets, in the sense that interfering with the individual pieces of an economy can stifle by mistake anyone who might come up with the correct solutions. Taken to the extreme, you get libertarianism, wherein almost any interference in individual action is seen as undesirable. As such, the opposite of liberalism is not progressivism but *authoritarianism.* Unfortunately, that is a key component of progressivism, being the attempt to push society forward constantly, whether the individuals or even the majority agree. Political action is used to obtain the power required to enforce change. That "forward" direction, however, is always subjective, so you *can* still put things like the Nazi Party or the Soviet Union into that progressive basket - they both thought they were making a change for the better in their societies, even though neither were at all liberal by any sense of the word. That still does not mean "liberal" is the opposite of "progressive", of course - it's all about _how_ a society reached the decision to change. And that brings us back to Star Trek. It's very clear, as we both agree, that the Star Trek vision is highly progressive, in the sense that humanity is collectively assembled in order to change itself "for the better". Simultaneously, it is also liberal, as we see many aspects which ensure individual rights - whether or not they conflict with said progressive goals. However I contend that the show has _far_ more examples where the liberal ideal trumps the notional progressivism, with a clear message that the authoritarian aspect of progressivism must _always_ give way whenever there is a conflict between them. This effectively makes the show decidedly _liberal,_ within a progressive framework. The best example I can give off the top of my head is "The Measure of a Man". Maddox's approach is 100% progressive: He's proposing to dismantle one creature for the chance to acquire an *incalculable* benefit to _trillions._ That whole "the needs of the many" thing. In a strictly progressive society, Maddox would be lauded as a hero. But in a courtroom that operates on liberal principles - one that has to consider the individual as well as opinions that differ from the dry calculation of societal benefit - Picard argues to consider the minority's viewpoint, to literally halt progress in defense of an individual's rights. This is not a singular example, either - it crops up almost every time there is a philosophical dilemma from TOS to DS9 (sadly I can't vouch for later shows). In fact, whenever the show's liberal ideals happen to clash with _traditionalist_ views (usu. when dealing with alien cultures), it tends to relent to traditionalism with very little argument! Fortunately, whenever that happens you can be sure it'll get backlash from fans, and often *rightly so.* As a result of all this, I am very much opposed to calling Star Trek a progressive show. Again, I think it is much better defined as a strictly liberal show where only the *setting* is progressive-oriented.

I still don't agree with how you're using the word progressive, albeit with my admittedly broad definition. Progressivism should self-evidently not include endorsing eugenics like the Nazis...that's bonkers. (I know, Woodrow Wilson's segregationist policies are calling...) Modern American progressivism inherently values social justice, in my experience. That CAN be authoritarian, but also can include libertarian socialism...frankly the problem is that neoliberal Democrats have muddied the waters on what progressive even means anymore. Even though it's consistent with your definitions, I don't agree with your point about Maddox--if he won Starfleet would have greenlight the creation of a slave race. Maybe I'm thinking in too America-centric terms, but I think the framing of your last sentence is something I can get behind. In any event, "progressive" is not even a word in my vocabulary much anymore

@@subraxas LOL We have a serious SCIENCE problem here! How do you design a 1430 ft skyscraper (70 ft in the 6 basement levels) to hold itself up without figuring out how to distribute the steel? Look at the shape of 10,000 tons of wrought iron in the Eiffel Tower which did not have to support twice its own weight in concrete. So how do you analyze a supposed straight down collapse without knowing the distributions of steel and concrete? Try finding any "experts" discussing that in the last two decades. The 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report by the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. Science fiction should address the ailment of sci-fi readers who are poor at science. But we now have sci-fi writers who say "plane of the elliptic" when it should be "plane of the ecliptic". The Laws of Physics are not patriotic.

Bruh... I know you got those nostalgia goggles on because youre including enterprise and im old enough to remember when people said the same thing about it back in the day. Disco, Picard, and whatever else they got coming honestly aint worth all the drama. People are going to be making nostalgia clips on them in a decade and im gonna keep lapping up the star trek because I love star trek and want more lol

@@eminentbishop1325 I gave them all a go and can't stand anything after enterprise. The writing, characters and themes are not trek to me...but that's just me

@@eminentbishop1325 enterprise is great (every now and then)

@@eminentbishop1325 There are so many things wrong with Trek after ENT. Why is 7 of 9 in Picard, they never met in TNG or VOY. Plus after the best of both worlds Picard had a bigotry towards the borg, but now he's aligning himself with them? Star Trek hasn't been Star Trek since 2009.

@@mjanderson4 ... you know you could actually watch the show... right? You sound idiotic. Since when is it a requirement that characters have to personally know each other to be in a show together? What kind of fucking complaint is that??? And trauma is not "bigotry" and the whole point of First Contact is him worki g through it. Not to mention, if you were actually in good enough faith to get the most basic facts about the show right, he isn't siding with the fucking borg. There are only former drones, mainly Hugh whith whom he shares a long relationship established on TNG. Also he literally is a former drone himself. Jesus you whiny old men