You made some excellent points Travis but I did not see Archer and Phlox as helping others and full of kindness in the episode Dear Doctor in which they encountered an alien species dying of a genetic anomally, found a cure, and refused to give it to them because there was another humanoid species on planet not affected by the genetic anomally and if all the others died off then they could be the dominant group on the planet.
You'll get no argument or defense from me about that one. There haven't been many episodes of the canon that have really angered me, but that was one of them. It wasn't even a valid philosophical debate, withholding help that would have staved off genocide because it looks like evolution will shift things in a few centuries anyway. Even the Ferengi would have been appalled by those "ethics".
That episode would have upset me at any point, but coming so early in the first season really put the show behind the 8 ball for me for awhile. Thankfully, they didn't do anything that egregious again until Archer hijacked that ship in the Delphic Expanse. And at least that I could understand, and he and the crew had the decency to be demonstrably upset by it even though he went through with it anyway.
Yep, thats when me and many other trek fans stopped watching the show. I watched all the Enterprise eps later but only after it had been cancelled. Both Phlox and Archer thought it was a good idea to let billions die so that another humanoid species that they even say itsnt mistreated, could become the dominant species.
Except for the part where Burhnams' mistakes have little-to-no consequences. Just like the murderer whom is freely allowed to stroll the hallways of the ship. The show is about making mistakes without accountability: A lot like how the world is today...
I can understand Burnham's choices meeting with the punishment they did - she got her shot under unique circumstances, and did enough with it not to be tossed back.
What I don't understand:
Is the basic morality of a show that has Harry Mudd running around murdering people over and over and over again and then without so much as a slap on the wrist and sends him off with his father-in-law. "But continuity!" you'll say, to which I'll reply with "then don't take Mudd's murderous psychopathy up to level 11."
Or, for that matter, of the show that has the Mirror Empress feasting on Kelpiens, murdering subordinates at will, and then being saved by Burnham and set loose upon the galaxy by the Federation. This is an objectively evil character, who we know full well is off to go do more evil, and basically it's all handwaved away with a "but Michelle Yeoh is awesome!" which, while true, is insufficient.
More than anything else, that's where Discovery loses me. It's not just that it laughs at and undermines basic Federation ethics, it's that at its core it isn't a show grounded in any kind of morality. Actions are divorced from consequences, evil does just fine thank you kindly, and the heroes of the show are more than comfortable aiding and abetting the whole process on those days where they aren't actively setting it in motion.
There are all kinds of shows with anti-heroes and protagonists just as dark as the villains. But Trek, in its flawed, sometimes hypocritical, often anvillicious way is a show that has always had an element of morality play to it. It's always been aspirational. And for a particular spin-off to fail there is a pretty basic betrayal of what the entire franchise has been about.
This is why I hate prequels. The people are not allowed to do what they would really do because you cant break canon and continuity. I think it is the main reason why JJ made his movies create a new timeline so he would be free of these restrictions. The writers want to put in characters and ships that appear in later series but are then hamstrung by them.
Except for the part where Burhnams' mistakes have little-to-no consequences. Just like the murderer whom is freely allowed to stroll the hallways of the ship. The show is about making mistakes without accountability: A lot like how the world is today...
I can understand Burnham's choices meeting with the punishment they did - she got her shot under unique circumstances, and did enough with it not to be tossed back.
What I don't understand:
Is the basic morality of a show that has Harry Mudd running around murdering people over and over and over again and then without so much as a slap on the wrist and sends him off with his father-in-law. "But continuity!" you'll say, to which I'll reply with "then don't take Mudd's murderous psychopathy up to level 11."
Or, for that matter, of the show that has the Mirror Empress feasting on Kelpiens, murdering subordinates at will, and then being saved by Burnham and set loose upon the galaxy by the Federation. This is an objectively evil character, who we know full well is off to go do more evil, and basically it's all handwaved away with a "but Michelle Yeoh is awesome!" which, while true, is insufficient.
More than anything else, that's where Discovery loses me. It's not just that it laughs at and undermines basic Federation ethics, it's that at its core it isn't a show grounded in any kind of morality. Actions are divorced from consequences, evil does just fine thank you kindly, and the heroes of the show are more than comfortable aiding and abetting the whole process on those days where they aren't actively setting it in motion.
There are all kinds of shows with anti-heroes and protagonists just as dark as the villains. But Trek, in its flawed, sometimes hypocritical, often anvillicious way is a show that has always had an element of morality play to it. It's always been aspirational. And for a particular spin-off to fail there is a pretty basic betrayal of what the entire franchise has been about.
This is why I hate prequels. The people are not allowed to do what they would really do because you cant break canon and continuity. I think it is the main reason why JJ made his movies create a new timeline so he would be free of these restrictions. The writers want to put in characters and ships that appear in later series but are then hamstrung by them.
So your premise is that the characters in the prior series would never have done the things that they did in the non-prequel episodes?
Those 'supposed' consequences never stuck. It's like a parent that threatens punishment and doesn't actually ENFORCE said punishment. A quick summary of Disco off the top of my head: Mutiny = rewarded, Murder = rewarded, Insubordination in a Federation setting = rewarded, Kidnapping and using sentient beings for Humanities' gain = rewarded, Threatening to commit planetary genocide = rewarded. These are not all Burnhams' actions, but the show as a whole is portrayed as 'realistic,' until you consider what should/would actually happen to someone whom commits such actions. Btw, I loved your previous post, but there's a huge difference: Your plight includes things out of your control. Our 'beloved' STD cast MADE choices on their own accord.
Glad you weren't my parent then. I often had the experience of getting in trouble being punished and then having it end early because my parents felt like showing mercy.
And you didn't read my post very well then. Because I talked about getting kicked out of boarding school, and it was for something that I did. I deserved the punishment. However, the headmaster decided to allow me to return the next school year because he was compassionate. This was at a fairly exclusive and expensive prep school that I was attending on a scholarship because my family could not pay the $25,000 tuition. Those spots were very competitive, and they could easily have given my spot in the class to someone else who had not broken any major rules. They had no way to know that I would not turn around and get expelled again, but it gave me an opportunity to earn back my respect and it motivated me to change and do better.
Maximum punishment isn't always the best option. I prefer to give people a chance to attone, learn, and do better. I was the first student at my school to get kicked out and come back. It wasn't easy for me either. Everyone in the school knew I had been expelled and what I had done. There were a lot of people that didn't think I should be there. I felt like I had a huge scarlet letter around my neck. But I was able to get through all of that end eventually none of that mattered to anyone anymore. I ended up with great friends and a place in my class.
Because I returned successfully, they started allowing some other expelled students the same option. About half of them did not make it and were expelled a second and final time. But for those that did make it, it was better for the community and better for them that they were shown mercy.
Those 'supposed' consequences never stuck. It's like a parent that threatens punishment and doesn't actually ENFORCE said punishment. A quick summary of Disco off the top of my head: Mutiny = rewarded, Murder = rewarded, Insubordination in a Federation setting = rewarded, Kidnapping and using sentient beings for Humanities' gain = rewarded, Threatening to commit planetary genocide = rewarded. These are not all Burnhams' actions, but the show as a whole is portrayed as 'realistic,' until you consider what should/would actually happen to someone whom commits such actions. Btw, I loved your previous post, but there's a huge difference: Your plight includes things out of your control. Our 'beloved' STD cast MADE choices on their own accord.
Glad you weren't my parent then. I often had the experience of getting in trouble being punished and then having it end early because my parents felt like showing mercy.
And you didn't read my post very well then. Because I talked about getting kicked out of boarding school, and it was for something that I did. I deserved the punishment. However, the headmaster decided to allow me to return the next school year because he was compassionate. This was at a fairly exclusive and expensive prep school that I was attending on a scholarship because my family could not pay the $25,000 tuition. Those spots were very competitive, and they could easily have given my spot in the class to someone else who had not broken any major rules. They had no way to know that I would not turn around and get expelled again, but it gave me an opportunity to earn back my respect and it motivated me to change and do better. Maximum punishment isn't always the best option. I prefer to give people a chance to attone, learn, and do better. I was the first student at my school to get kicked out and come back. Because I did it successfully they started allowing some other expelled students the same option. About half of them did not make it. But for those that did it was better for the community and better for them that they were shown mercy.
So each of the items above should each be given a second chance after that and the one after that, etc? Where does that end? When the succeed with Planetary extinction? And we're not talking about school. We're talking about public service which includes the use of technology that can and has been used to be deadly.
A little personal there Nicole, don't you think? But when you make an error in your professional setting, and have to pay for it, you'll sure be thanking your parents then. Also, not sure if you're old enough, but Battlestar Galactica (the 2000s redo) is in fact the REALISTIC show of what could happen under stress, and almost all of those characters actually pay a noticeable price for their wrongdoings. Watch that, then tell me what you think of the Stamets/Voq scene post murder compared to BSG's finale...
Except for the part where Burhnams' mistakes have little-to-no consequences. Just like the murderer whom is freely allowed to stroll the hallways of the ship. The show is about making mistakes without accountability: A lot like how the world is today...
A life sentence followed by 6 months in prison followed by a temporary wartime reprieve is no consequences?
I am a fan of showing mercy and compassion to others, even when they might not deserve it. That's the whole point of giving someone a second chance.
So, she's going back to serve the rest of her time when?
She actually talks to Ash quite frankly about how she is going to be going back to jail after the war. She has no rank and her punishment has not been commuted. They do cover that more than once in the show.
Except for the part where Burhnams' mistakes have little-to-no consequences. Just like the murderer whom is freely allowed to stroll the hallways of the ship. The show is about making mistakes without accountability: A lot like how the world is today...
A life sentence followed by 6 months in prison followed by a temporary wartime reprieve is no consequences?
I am a fan of showing mercy and compassion to others, even when they might not deserve it. That's the whole point of giving someone a second chance.
So, she's going back to serve the rest of her time when?
She actually talks to Ash quite frankly about how she is going to be going back to jail after the war. She has no rank and her punishment has not been commuted. They do cover that more than once in the show.
I don't think anyone realistically thinks that the writers will ever let that happen for more than a brief moment (ala Season 5 opener of the A-Team). It will keep with the theme of the show to put in false tension there with no hope of delivery.
That would be a revolutionary way to end things if they had stuck to the original design of the show being an anthology, however.
A little personal there Nicole, don't you think? But when you make an error in your professional setting, and have to pay for it, you'll sure be thanking your parents then. Also, not sure if you're old enough, but Battlestar Galactica (the 2000s redo) is in fact the REALISTIC show of what could happen under stress, and almost all of those characters actually pay a noticeable price for their wrongdoings. Watch that, then tell me what you think of the Stamets/Voq scene post murder compared to BSG's finale...
I have done things at work when I was younger that I probably should have been fired for and my boss didn't fire me. People do not always default to maximum punishment. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
Except for the part where Burhnams' mistakes have little-to-no consequences. Just like the murderer whom is freely allowed to stroll the hallways of the ship. The show is about making mistakes without accountability: A lot like how the world is today...
A life sentence followed by 6 months in prison followed by a temporary wartime reprieve is no consequences?
I am a fan of showing mercy and compassion to others, even when they might not deserve it. That's the whole point of giving someone a second chance.
So, she's going back to serve the rest of her time when?
She actually talks to Ash quite frankly about how she is going to be going back to jail after the war. She has no rank and her punishment has not been commuted. They do cover that more than once in the show.
I don't think anyone realistically thinks that the writers will ever let that happen for more than a brief moment (ala Season 5 opener of the A-Team). It will keep with the theme of the show to put in false tension there with no hope of delivery.
That would be a revolutionary way to end things if they had stuck to the original design of the show being an anthology, however.
Well yeah we know that. But if we look at it from her perspective she didn't. She didn't get restored until she earned it based on her conduct. Are you suggesting she knew the future?
Except for the part where Burhnams' mistakes have little-to-no consequences. Just like the murderer whom is freely allowed to stroll the hallways of the ship. The show is about making mistakes without accountability: A lot like how the world is today...
A life sentence followed by 6 months in prison followed by a temporary wartime reprieve is no consequences?
I am a fan of showing mercy and compassion to others, even when they might not deserve it. That's the whole point of giving someone a second chance.
So, she's going back to serve the rest of her time when?
She actually talks to Ash quite frankly about how she is going to be going back to jail after the war. She has no rank and her punishment has not been commuted. They do cover that more than once in the show.
I don't think anyone realistically thinks that the writers will ever let that happen for more than a brief moment (ala Season 5 opener of the A-Team). It will keep with the theme of the show to put in false tension there with no hope of delivery.
That would be a revolutionary way to end things if they had stuck to the original design of the show being an anthology, however.
Well yeah we know that. But if we look at it from her perspective she didn't. She didn't get restored until she earned it based on her content. Are you suggesting she knew the future?
So we should only perceive the show through her perspective and not by reality around it?
The writers of the show are the ones running the show and determining the themes.
We know there will be no consequences of note, unless they make a radical change in writing.
And they will find another creature to exploit and torture, and maybe actually blow a planet up rather than just threaten to do so.
A little personal there Nicole, don't you think? But when you make an error in your professional setting, and have to pay for it, you'll sure be thanking your parents then. Also, not sure if you're old enough, but Battlestar Galactica (the 2000s redo) is in fact the REALISTIC show of what could happen under stress, and almost all of those characters actually pay a noticeable price for their wrongdoings. Watch that, then tell me what you think of the Stamets/Voq scene post murder compared to BSG's finale...
I was attempting to use a personal real life example to show that people do often show compassion to people who could face severe punishment. Most cultures in the world have always considered mercy and compassion to be virtuous and worth striving for. It helped me when I was shown mercy and it helped Burnham when she was shown mercy too. I don't want to live in the world where everyone always gets what they deserve.
You do know there is a difference between giving someone mercy and putting them in the spotlight as a protagonist and in the role of hero right?
There have been plenty of examples of second chances within Trek do date, Ro, Paris, even Kira to some extent. But in all of it StarFleet and the Federation seemed to actually stand for something, which was the other point Nairne was making as well.
You do know there is a difference between giving someone mercy and putting them in the spotlight as a protagonist and in the role of hero right?
Yeah people who have done bad stuff can then subsequently do good stuff and then become heros. That's the whole redemption concept, which you obviously don't understand or relate to. I'm not sure I've ever met someone who had a hard time understanding or appreciating this concept or be so opposed to it.
You do know there is a difference between giving someone mercy and putting them in the spotlight as a protagonist and in the role of hero right?
Yeah people who have done bad stuff can then subsequently do good stuff and then become heros. That's the whole redemption concept, which you obviously don't understand or relate to. I'm not sure I've ever met someone who had a hard time understanding or appreciating this concept or be so opposed to it.
And to be complicit in the exploitation of other creatures, and possibly blow up a planet. Yes those are qualities a redeemed hero do.
Fully redeemed, check.
(and on the planet blowing thing, other War Criminals stated they were just 'following orders')
The concept of Discovery is that the crew would not just discover the universe but discover themselves as well. Not just Burnham needed to discover what kind of person she was, but Saru, Tilly, and Stamets had to as well. Some people will like this, some wont. Whether the show succeeds or fails to tell this story I applaud them for doing something a little different than we have seen in other treks. Watching the other trek shows I found it annoying that the writers would often do the same stories over and over. You would watch a Voyager ep and say, I liked this ep better when TNG and TOS did it. Then watch Enterprise and say, geez, Voyager, TNG, and TOS all did this ep storyline better. So I like the new material and stories we have not seen before.
The concept of Discovery is that the crew would not just discover the universe but discover themselves as well. Not just Burnham needed to discover what kind of person she was, but Saru, Tilly, and Stamets had to as well. Some people will like this, some wont. Whether the show succeeds or fails to tell this story I applaud them for doing something a little different than we have seen in other treks. Watching the other trek shows I found it annoying that the writers would often do the same stories over and over. You would watch a Voyager ep and say, I liked this ep better when TNG and TOS did it. Then watch Enterprise and say, geez, Voyager, TNG, and TOS all did this ep storyline better. So I like the new material and stories we have not seen before.
You mean like how they redid Equinox with a different ending?
You do know there is a difference between giving someone mercy and putting them in the spotlight as a protagonist and in the role of hero right?
Yeah people who have done bad stuff can then subsequently do good stuff and then become heros. That's the whole redemption concept, which you obviously don't understand or relate to. I'm not sure I've ever met someone who had a hard time understanding or appreciating this concept or be so opposed to it.
And to be complicit in the exploitation of other creatures, and possibly blow up a planet. Yes those are qualities a redeemed hero do.
Fully redeemed, check.
(and on the planet blowing thing, other War Criminals stated they were just 'following orders')
Ok while you are throwing out spoilers for the show you hate, Burnham kind of stopped everyone from doing what you're complaining about and the Discovery crew backed her fully. I get that you hate the show but seriously chill out.
You do know there is a difference between giving someone mercy and putting them in the spotlight as a protagonist and in the role of hero right?
Yeah people who have done bad stuff can then subsequently do good stuff and then become heros. That's the whole redemption concept, which you obviously don't understand or relate to. I'm not sure I've ever met someone who had a hard time understanding or appreciating this concept or be so opposed to it.
And to be complicit in the exploitation of other creatures, and possibly blow up a planet. Yes those are qualities a redeemed hero do.
Fully redeemed, check.
(and on the planet blowing thing, other War Criminals stated they were just 'following orders')
Ok while you are throwing out spoilers for the show you hate, Burnham kind of stopped everyone from doing what you're complaining about and the Discovery crew backed her fully. I get that you hate the show but seriously chill out.
Fine spoiler tag
By empowering someone to do that same thing. Giving the loaded weapon to another does not absolve you of what happens next because you didn't pull the trigger. That's like giving North Korea a fully loaded missile and saying I did good cause I didn't use it on them.
Except for the part where Burhnams' mistakes have little-to-no consequences. Just like the murderer whom is freely allowed to stroll the hallways of the ship. The show is about making mistakes without accountability: A lot like how the world is today...
A life sentence followed by 6 months in prison followed by a temporary wartime reprieve is no consequences?
I am a fan of showing mercy and compassion to others, even when they might not deserve it. That's the whole point of giving someone a second chance.
So, she's going back to serve the rest of her time when?
She actually talks to Ash quite frankly about how she is going to be going back to jail after the war. She has no rank and her punishment has not been commuted. They do cover that more than once in the show.
I don't think anyone realistically thinks that the writers will ever let that happen for more than a brief moment (ala Season 5 opener of the A-Team). It will keep with the theme of the show to put in false tension there with no hope of delivery.
That would be a revolutionary way to end things if they had stuck to the original design of the show being an anthology, however.
Well yeah we know that. But if we look at it from her perspective she didn't. She didn't get restored until she earned it based on her content. Are you suggesting she knew the future?
So we should only perceive the show through her perspective and not by reality around it?
The writers of the show are the ones running the show and determining the themes.
We know there will be no consequences of note, unless they make a radical change in writing.
And they will find another creature to exploit and torture, and maybe actually blow a planet up rather than just threaten to do so.
Whenever you watch a show do you actually watch it thinking that the people in the story know everything that the audience does? Why are you so fixated on people being punished? And why does the concept of moral ambiguity bother you so much?
You do realize these concepts are imaginary right? Cultural norms and right and wrong aren't written down on some stone tablets somewhere. They're part of an inter-subjective reality that exists in our human collective imaginations. So the definition of what is right and good is subject to change as the beliefs about it change. So being so rigid about what must happen to people and how moral or unmoral someone is and how they must be punished is really up for a bit of subjective interpretation.
The concept of Discovery is that the crew would not just discover the universe but discover themselves as well. Not just Burnham needed to discover what kind of person she was, but Saru, Tilly, and Stamets had to as well. Some people will like this, some wont. Whether the show succeeds or fails to tell this story I applaud them for doing something a little different than we have seen in other treks. Watching the other trek shows I found it annoying that the writers would often do the same stories over and over. You would watch a Voyager ep and say, I liked this ep better when TNG and TOS did it. Then watch Enterprise and say, geez, Voyager, TNG, and TOS all did this ep storyline better. So I like the new material and stories we have not seen before.
Exactly. The writers have been quite open about this point from the beginning. It's that whole thing about the unexamined life being not worth living. People having to face difficult choices often struggle and question their most deeply held principles and values. The choices they make as a result then shape the people they become. Most people aren't going to default to the moral choice in a tough decision if it results in the death of themselves or their loved ones . Burnham's crime at the beginning of Discovery came about because she made a wrong choice when faced with one of those difficult decisions. She did the wrong thing because she wanted to protect the people she cared about. So she was never actually evil and unworthy of redemption. She also accepted responsibility for what she did, plead guilty, and accepted punishment willingly. Giving Burnham a second chance is not equivalent to giving Hitler a second chance.
You do know there is a difference between giving someone mercy and putting them in the spotlight as a protagonist and in the role of hero right?
Yeah people who have done bad stuff can then subsequently do good stuff and then become heros. That's the whole redemption concept, which you obviously don't understand or relate to. I'm not sure I've ever met someone who had a hard time understanding or appreciating this concept or be so opposed to it.
And to be complicit in the exploitation of other creatures, and possibly blow up a planet. Yes those are qualities a redeemed hero do.
Fully redeemed, check.
(and on the planet blowing thing, other War Criminals stated they were just 'following orders')
Ok while you are throwing out spoilers for the show you hate, Burnham kind of stopped everyone from doing what you're complaining about and the Discovery crew backed her fully. I get that you hate the show but seriously chill out.
Fine spoiler tag
By empowering someone to do that same thing. Giving the loaded weapon to another does not absolve you of what happens next because you didn't pull the trigger. That's like giving North Korea a fully loaded missile and saying I did good cause I didn't use it on them.
Why don't you just say you hate the show and move on? I can't believe that you are actually the most rigidly black and white thinking person I've ever met, and so you must just hate discovery and have to keep justifying your hate. You seem to think that everything boils down to choice a = good choice b = bad. Solving a problem, especially ending a war, may take the threat of overwhelming destruction to bring about peace. Kind of like dropping a bombs ended WWII. Or mutually assured destruction prevented the cold war from ever becoming a hot war. There's not always going to be a solution that leaves everyone involved with pristinely clean hands. Judge people for what they do and the reasons that motivated them to make that choice not what might have happened had things not worked out.
I don't even care about ENT or Disco now. I just want to talk about how amazing Andre Braugher was on Homicide and how brilliant that show was. The fact he didn't have an entire shelf of Emmy's invalidates the entire awards system.
He's SO good on Brooklyn 99 as well. It's amazing how good he is at both comedy and drama. There's a moment a season or two ago when he did a physical comedy bit with just his eyes while intoning a lingering, "Ooooh.... nooooo" that had me crying.
Comments
So your premise is that the characters in the prior series would never have done the things that they did in the non-prequel episodes?
Glad you weren't my parent then. I often had the experience of getting in trouble being punished and then having it end early because my parents felt like showing mercy.
And you didn't read my post very well then. Because I talked about getting kicked out of boarding school, and it was for something that I did. I deserved the punishment. However, the headmaster decided to allow me to return the next school year because he was compassionate. This was at a fairly exclusive and expensive prep school that I was attending on a scholarship because my family could not pay the $25,000 tuition. Those spots were very competitive, and they could easily have given my spot in the class to someone else who had not broken any major rules. They had no way to know that I would not turn around and get expelled again, but it gave me an opportunity to earn back my respect and it motivated me to change and do better.
Maximum punishment isn't always the best option. I prefer to give people a chance to attone, learn, and do better. I was the first student at my school to get kicked out and come back. It wasn't easy for me either. Everyone in the school knew I had been expelled and what I had done. There were a lot of people that didn't think I should be there. I felt like I had a huge scarlet letter around my neck. But I was able to get through all of that end eventually none of that mattered to anyone anymore. I ended up with great friends and a place in my class.
Because I returned successfully, they started allowing some other expelled students the same option. About half of them did not make it and were expelled a second and final time. But for those that did make it, it was better for the community and better for them that they were shown mercy.
So each of the items above should each be given a second chance after that and the one after that, etc? Where does that end? When the succeed with Planetary extinction? And we're not talking about school. We're talking about public service which includes the use of technology that can and has been used to be deadly.
Incidentally you sound more like Tom Paris.....
She actually talks to Ash quite frankly about how she is going to be going back to jail after the war. She has no rank and her punishment has not been commuted. They do cover that more than once in the show.
I don't think anyone realistically thinks that the writers will ever let that happen for more than a brief moment (ala Season 5 opener of the A-Team). It will keep with the theme of the show to put in false tension there with no hope of delivery.
That would be a revolutionary way to end things if they had stuck to the original design of the show being an anthology, however.
I have done things at work when I was younger that I probably should have been fired for and my boss didn't fire me. People do not always default to maximum punishment. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
Well yeah we know that. But if we look at it from her perspective she didn't. She didn't get restored until she earned it based on her conduct. Are you suggesting she knew the future?
So we should only perceive the show through her perspective and not by reality around it?
The writers of the show are the ones running the show and determining the themes.
We know there will be no consequences of note, unless they make a radical change in writing.
And they will find another creature to exploit and torture, and maybe actually blow a planet up rather than just threaten to do so.
I was attempting to use a personal real life example to show that people do often show compassion to people who could face severe punishment. Most cultures in the world have always considered mercy and compassion to be virtuous and worth striving for. It helped me when I was shown mercy and it helped Burnham when she was shown mercy too. I don't want to live in the world where everyone always gets what they deserve.
There have been plenty of examples of second chances within Trek do date, Ro, Paris, even Kira to some extent. But in all of it StarFleet and the Federation seemed to actually stand for something, which was the other point Nairne was making as well.
Yeah people who have done bad stuff can then subsequently do good stuff and then become heros. That's the whole redemption concept, which you obviously don't understand or relate to. I'm not sure I've ever met someone who had a hard time understanding or appreciating this concept or be so opposed to it.
And to be complicit in the exploitation of other creatures, and possibly blow up a planet. Yes those are qualities a redeemed hero do.
Fully redeemed, check.
(and on the planet blowing thing, other War Criminals stated they were just 'following orders')
You mean like how they redid Equinox with a different ending?
Ok while you are throwing out spoilers for the show you hate, Burnham kind of stopped everyone from doing what you're complaining about and the Discovery crew backed her fully. I get that you hate the show but seriously chill out.
Fine spoiler tag
Whenever you watch a show do you actually watch it thinking that the people in the story know everything that the audience does? Why are you so fixated on people being punished? And why does the concept of moral ambiguity bother you so much?
You do realize these concepts are imaginary right? Cultural norms and right and wrong aren't written down on some stone tablets somewhere. They're part of an inter-subjective reality that exists in our human collective imaginations. So the definition of what is right and good is subject to change as the beliefs about it change. So being so rigid about what must happen to people and how moral or unmoral someone is and how they must be punished is really up for a bit of subjective interpretation.
Exactly. The writers have been quite open about this point from the beginning. It's that whole thing about the unexamined life being not worth living. People having to face difficult choices often struggle and question their most deeply held principles and values. The choices they make as a result then shape the people they become. Most people aren't going to default to the moral choice in a tough decision if it results in the death of themselves or their loved ones . Burnham's crime at the beginning of Discovery came about because she made a wrong choice when faced with one of those difficult decisions. She did the wrong thing because she wanted to protect the people she cared about. So she was never actually evil and unworthy of redemption. She also accepted responsibility for what she did, plead guilty, and accepted punishment willingly. Giving Burnham a second chance is not equivalent to giving Hitler a second chance.
Why don't you just say you hate the show and move on? I can't believe that you are actually the most rigidly black and white thinking person I've ever met, and so you must just hate discovery and have to keep justifying your hate. You seem to think that everything boils down to choice a = good choice b = bad. Solving a problem, especially ending a war, may take the threat of overwhelming destruction to bring about peace. Kind of like dropping a bombs ended WWII. Or mutually assured destruction prevented the cold war from ever becoming a hot war. There's not always going to be a solution that leaves everyone involved with pristinely clean hands. Judge people for what they do and the reasons that motivated them to make that choice not what might have happened had things not worked out.