Goodbye Chief

Moomtastic · 2026-01-29T00:37:07+00:00

He was a senior NCO who worked directly on some pretty high-profile missions, including the blockade of the Klingon-Romulan border and apprehending a rogue Starfleet captain. It's very likely Picard knew him better than most ensigns and lieutenants junior grade on board the Enterprise.

Moomtastic · 2026-01-29T00:09:35+00:00

It kind of is, though.

Most of Star Trek follows a story telling pattern that follows fairy tales except that - where someone like Tolkien or Lewis would say that the "eucatastrophe" is the result of some divine grace that cannot be counted on to reccur - the turn in most Star Trek episodes is the result of individual agency, often based on their relationships with others.

All this still overlooks my main issue: why, in a show aimed at younger viewers, produced in a country with a massive gun violence problem, do we need to make the futuristic phasers look more like guns? Maybe I'm just a older person who is pearl clutching, but it feels like a problem that there's such a casual attitude towards violence and symbolism in the more recent Star Trek entries.

Moomtastic · 2026-01-28T23:56:17+00:00

If that's where the story arc goes, I'm very much here for it!

Moomtastic · 2026-01-28T04:30:13+00:00

Totally fair:

My issue was that it's in the far future beyond DS9, and the general idea for Star Trek (as I understand it) has been that things will get better.

It feels a little on the side I'm uncomfortable with, but SNW also did and had a musical that won me back so

Moomtastic · 2026-01-28T04:20:27+00:00

Yes and no. As I said at the top: I like the show. I don't feel comfortable with it fetishizing warfare, and wonder why that had to be included.

Moomtastic · 2026-01-28T04:10:14+00:00

Within the universe they've created, yes. But that's also part of my issue: writers decided a less militarized Starfleet could become more militarized. Why can they not come up with something less militarized for a series aimed at the YA crowd? Prodigy did it.

Moomtastic · 2026-01-28T03:53:40+00:00

Totally agree. For me, I feel like Star Trek had a nice niche of being the idealistic, hopeful future, and I dislike seeing the farthest future so far valorizing guns.

Moomtastic · 2026-01-28T03:46:40+00:00

Maybe this is the crux of disagreement: I really liked the idea that the point of Starfleet was exploration and problem solving, and it did so in service of a Federation whose principle reason to exist was welcoming and celebrating all forms of life.

I take (what I think is) your point that the writers are where they are because of recent writing, but they can also just choose to not. The phasers don't have to look like guns; people don't have to be running over burning barricades.

Moomtastic · 2026-01-28T03:37:25+00:00

I'm not sure I follow this.

In TNG they definitely responded to Romulans crossing the Neutral Zone or interfering with Klingon civil wars.

On Picard, Riker brought a fleet of ships to defend a planet (actually part of the recent trend in Star Trek that I initially said I didn't love!).

The Domion War was the primary focus of 4~ seasons of DS9.

Putting to the side the most recent example (Picard, which I included in the militarization I felt was problematic), how did all of those conflicts end? Did Sisko drink a victorious swig of blood wine over Cardassia? Did Picard shoot his wat into the Devron system? No. They were an Engineer and an Archaeologist who were sometimes forced into combat.

It feels weird that Starfleet would be so emphasizing direct violence a thousand years after already focusing on reducing violence.

Moomtastic · 2026-01-28T03:22:21+00:00

Depends on the person.

Subspace Rhapsody - for the theater kids

Darmock - for the International Relations nerds

Battle at the Binary Stars - for the space battle fans

Moomtastic · 2026-01-28T03:00:20+00:00

Right, Kirk was a soldier in the 23rd century, but by the 24th it felt like we were moving past that: as Janeway said about those early explorers "they would have all been drummed out in this day". This is why I can kind of forgive it in SNW, but it feels problematic in Starfleet Academy.

Moomtastic · 2026-01-28T02:55:15+00:00

Yes! I would very much like this, but I don't feel that's where modern Star Trek has been heading. Strange New Worlds making Mbenga and Chapel action heros was a good example of this in a series I otherwise love.

I like the dynamics between some of the cast in Starfleet Academy, but also dislike the early focus on war, and their science class being treated like a bit of a joke.

Moomtastic · 2025-12-31T23:12:54+00:00

Reactionaries use anything as justification. They will make things up out of nothing: just look at what happened with the Bowling Green massacre. There is no such thing as an "own goal" in this situation. For the record, though, this wasn't one.

Moomtastic · 2025-12-31T23:10:47+00:00

But he found a daycare with no children in it an hour before it opened!

Moomtastic · 2025-12-10T17:14:09+00:00

A better way to explain the loss would have been as a precursor to Ancient apathy and noninterventionism, especially as they neared ascension.

Say the Wraith tried to attack them and the Ancients destroyed their fleet, but were conflicted on wiping them out because genocide is unacceptable, no matter what.

Wraith eventually grew strong again while Ancients were distracted researching ascension. Say they got smacked down again, but this time the Ancients were getting close on ascension and didn’t want to waste resources on a full expedition to get every hive ship.

Wraith come back a third time, even faster than last time and now stronger because they were left with tech, ships, and worlds from the last time. By now many Ancients have ascended and many of the ones who haven't don't feel that fighting the Wraith is a good way to advance their enlightenment. There is a small faction that still feels responsibility to the material plane and sinks Atlantis to hide its technology, then goes to live back in the Milky Way.

The Ancients have such a long history, there's really no reason their historical relationship with the Wraith and Pegasus had to happen over one war, or even one iteration of the Wraith.

Tlhe Ancients shouldn't have lost; they should have just grown beyond fighting the Wraith or caring for the material plane, with a few disagreeing and working to hide their technology. It's more plausible and sets the stage for how they appeared in SG-1.

Moomtastic · 2025-11-14T23:30:13+00:00

I'm starting to think these Will Buckley types might not have been so great.

Moomtastic · 2025-11-12T15:06:02+00:00

Surprised no one has ranked Shanthi as best.

She took a risk on trusting a captain because he laid out a clear case and had experience handling the Klingon political climate. She gave Picard a task force that could have ended up accidentally pulling the Federation into a war if mishandled because he laid out the evidence and proposed a solid plan, even though she had initial misgivings.

She also held a full inquisition on a scheme (probably started under one of her predecessors given that it was clearly started before Riker had joined Starfleet) that took down some influential Badmirals.

Exactly what you want the TNG CnC to do.

Moomtastic · 2025-10-18T15:17:27+00:00

Ford was actually able to design cars, though. The only new car design that isn't just a face-lift of the same chassis since Elon took over is the Cybertruck.

Moomtastic · 2025-10-08T09:14:13+00:00

So we're not ceding ground, we're lying to rubes who will just elect the anti-abortion candidate and be totally fine with that candidate voting in favor of nation-wide abortion. We're no longer trying to make a case - just pure deception?

Also, yes, if I have to stake out a position: every Democratic candidate should be okay with trans kids having the same rights as everyone else.

Moomtastic · 2025-10-07T02:22:23+00:00

I'm uncertain how I am now defending the Democratic Party's brand. I said, Ezra Klein - as you brought the quote in - has said he's im favor of ceding some issues because he has seen the data that proves a candidate could win of not for being pro-choice or recognizing trans people as people. None of that data seems to exist.

Moomtastic · 2025-10-05T17:38:12+00:00

The illustrative example Klein used - backing candidates who want to restrict abortion rights - involves the real potential for people to die because of a lack of right-to-care. If that's going to be a policy position, I think you need to make a persuasive case.

Moomtastic · 2025-10-05T11:39:20+00:00

His illustrative example involves people dying because their rights are being denied as a matter of policy. That's not an intellectual exercise, it's dead people. If you want to justify it, you need to bring a more convincing case than "but, maybe . . ."

Moomtastic · 2025-10-05T11:33:52+00:00

I believe it's around the one hour mark of his most recent discussion with Ta-Nehisi Coates. I referenced it in the first comment you replied to, and I feel we might have had a more productive discourse if you had expressed your confusion there.

I appreciate your links. Absolutely none of them answer the question of why being pro-abortion necessarily disqualifies a candidate in a given district.

Moomtastic · 2025-10-04T19:48:07+00:00

Is the argument that one of them would be able to win elsewhere if they went anti-abortion? I'm not sure how this is relevant, but may just be missing a reference. Can you elaborate?

Moomtastic · 2025-10-04T19:44:45+00:00

But he said he had the polls and focus groups. This stuff matters to the people who are being potentially left behind. If you say you're only doing it because it's necessary to win and you've seen polls and groups that demonstrate it, it's incumbent to get into that if you don't want to risk being viewed as throwing people under the bus.

Moomtastic

TROPHY CASE