Allowing this to stay up but not linking to it seems wrong. I don't know anything about this site other than the headline but if you disagree that strongly, which seems to be the right reaction, you should ban the headlines too.

Yeah it's a profoundly stupid take.

There's the famous Whoopi Goldberg quote about how as a little kid she saw it with a black woman not beimg a maid and running around the house screaming about it in celebration

There's the famous story about Nichelle Nichols wanting to quit to do plays until MLK jr told her that she needed to stay for black people everywhere to be represented as an equal member of the crew, and it was the only show he'd let his kids stay up late to watch.

From its inception it's been "woke" by daring to put both a black woman and an asian man in roles where they were to be treated as equals and valued members of the group.

I'd like to add more examples, but it's been so long since I've watched any star trek.

EDIT: I just remembered the not at all subtile jab at racism with the two guys that had half black half white faces.

Conservatives do not understand subtext, satire, or allegory. They don't assign what they like or don't based on any meaningful understanding of the message it conveys. They get told what to like and believe by authority and follow it, constantly dismissing or dissonancing any message from what they consume that doesn't align with their instilled beliefs.

@Zephorah And all of this is pretty obvious to anyone with their brain turned on. But even that seems a bridge too far for some.

They entertained TVs first interracial kiss

This is not true, in several ways.

Firstly, it needs the modifier “American” in there. The UK’s first interracial kiss on TV, for example, was in 1962.

Secondly, if we’re defining “interracial” as specifically between someone Black and someone white, then Nancy Sinatra & Sammy Davis Jr. preceded Star Trek by a year.

Thirdly, perceptions of race change. The studio which made I Love Lucy was extremely hesitant to allow Ball & Arnaz to portray themselves as a married couple, precisely because the fact that Arnaz was Cuban meant that the marriage was “interracial”. The kiss they shared in the first episode - in 1951 - would have been seen at the time as an interracial kiss.

Fourthly, even without a changing definition of race there had been previous interracial kisses on the lips on US television - William Shatner himself had previously twice shared a romantic on-screen kiss with someone of Asian descent, once actually in Star Trek.

None of this is to diminish the importance, impact, or progressiveness of the Uhura/Kirk kiss, but it is often overstated. It doesn’t need to be the first ever interracial kiss on TV to be significant. If it really does have to be the first ever something, then it’s the first ever kiss on the lips on US television between a Black person and a white person.

Yeah conveniently the photo they chose left uhura out...

Probably just a coincidence

@PhilipTheBucket They get such a shallow understanding of things, and then get all butt hurt when other people provide a much more logical interpretation based on the specifically stated intents of the original show creators.

Well the reasoning in the article has nothing to do with the audience being conservative. It's: Star Trek has a mainly male audience. Males are conservative. Then they show some picture how males went more conservative some 50 years(!) after it aired... I'm speechless. Maybe AI "reasoning". Or just very, very stupid.

Weird. My stay at home mom and favorite aunt watched it back when TVs had 5 stations on a dial. They introduced me, female, to it at a young age. None of us are Trump voters.

The only dislike expressed was for the Spock’s brain episode. They still talk about what a terrible episode they thought it was.

Where is this article getting their demographic numbers, wishful thinking? The wiki says it’s always been a diverse viewership with a slight skew to male.

It seems the only data provided about the demographics and political leanings of the fandom are anecdotal accounts from social media. Do you think it ever occurred to the author that they might just have an algorithm that recognizes their preference for shitty content?

Why would a company create a piece of media knowing it would be unpopular with it's core demographic?

But that's a whole other bag of worms

a hopeful future. dystopian futures have plenty of republicans.

Nice

Let us boldly go there

Republican levels, so checks out?

Remember not so long ago when people noticed that Rise Against makes political songs? A lot of people are blind to stuff like this until you point it out.

Bold of you to assume they know it's space communism. If the boys is of any indication Star Trek needs to explicitly say "we're space communism" for there to be a 50/50 chance of Republicans getting it.

@Archangel1313 Noooo, true ST is about straight manly men kicking alien butts!

Conservatives like Star Trek because it promotes the values of meritocracy, hierarchy, authority, and military discipline. None of these are commonly held by people in the American left (especially not the academic left, which tend to be pretty anti-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian).

The people usually referred to as Republicans these days are right-wing populists. They have very little in common with the types of conservatives who loved the franchise in the 20th century. Those older conservatives are almost extinct in the Republican Party today.

Tbh I think we need to accept that they're so turned on by the idea that they've effectively given prior consent.

I do, they just think it's an unrealistic world, not a bad one. Something that could never happen here.

@LadyMeow I was hoping they'd all be raptured a couple of weeks ago. Imagine all the problems that would have immediately been solved.

Not just Republicans...anyone that votes for a conservative party.

@owenfromcanada @socprof

I was only 14 when I put on my big boy pants and learned from the Bell Riots that socialism was bad and I will forever ignore the factors that create such mass unemployment.

@owenfromcanada These people have invested their entire identities in being miserable. Which ironic because ST is largely optimistic about the future.

Bring back the DS9 writers if they are willing, also fuck Rick Berman.

continuity of the star trek universe

Actually I think this is a fairly low priority if you want to gather more viewers.

I agree with all you said, I just can't believe it is possible for conservative viewers of the show to be blindered to the numerous, numerous ways where the show morals, both implied and very much stated, are antithetical to the entire value structure of the modern right-wing of the USA.

But then again, when I think of the Trek fans I know in real life, it is surprising how many of them are Republicans. Not a majority, but enough. So they might just be overlooking the things they don't agree with.

Part of the reason the show works is that we never really see Federation life outside of Starfleet. Mostly this is for practical budget reasons; what does a post-scarcity egalitarian society actually look like? That's difficult to depict in a show designed to recycle the same set every episode and only very occasionally go outside to film.

So what little we see of the civilian federation looks... a lot like the US. There's a president. Member states planets. Constant references to US history. A military that operates how Americans like to think their military works, rather than what it actually historically has done.

Newer shows take this even further. Section 31, as it was first introduced, was supposed to be a highly illegal, unsanctioned conspiracy acting in the shadow of the proper Federation. Now they're presented as the ultra official, coolest badasses who are the only reason any of the egalitarian principals are able to survive.

Tell me you know nothing about Star Trek without telling me.

ST broke so many cultural barriers, nothing else in its time period even comes close. Other than that they wore uniforms almost nothing is militaristic. It was a science vessel not a warship. Money and capitalism were virtually non-existent and when they did show up, they were ridiculed. I could go on, but you should learn for yourself.

Nah, it's just your typical conservative with zero media literacy not understanding Star Trek and thinking no one else does either.

Republicans think women are animals. otherwise why would they want to strip away their human rights like access to abortion clinics and revoke their rights to vote? (no need to answer we all know why)

if they don't hate women, Republicans have a really fucked up view of the equality that Trek embodies from start to finish.

In fairness, it is an American show.

Its somewhat justifiable, kinda.

most old americans may be republican but not most old trekkies are not.

Education has been bad for a long time in this country it seems

Gay humans exist today, they existed throughout history, and they will continue to exist for as long as humans do.

Do you consider Uhura being a bridge officer to be "pushing a narrative"? Because that was a political statement in much the same way that gay characters in Star Trek are (arguably more so).

It sucks to be a person whose very existence is political in this world that we live in now. Sci-Fi that includes those people is a way of saying "hey, wouldn't it be nice if people could live their lives without their existence being the battleground for political ideology.

@Soktopraegaeawayok @socprof So the existence of lgbt people is a political statement.

Me living my gay life normally is a push to a narrative of... real life? Am I a living political agenda just because I exist?

Instead of seeing it as normal as the marriage of O'Brien being part of the normal life in DS9, if it is a gay marriage then it can't be part of life, it has to have some ulterior motivation.

Do you see how you sound?

If you want to push the straight agenda, you have Hallmark movies.