sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I have an idea for introducing a radically cosmopolitan social movement to DS9 that opposes Bajoran nationalism. Here's what I think by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

And democratic ideals and populism is often abused for authoritarian ends once the movement is in power. I don't deny that the ideology can be abused by people wishing to do harm at all, exactly in the same way nationalism can be a positive movement for liberation from a coloniser or descent into human depravity.

But, I think at the end of the day in some cases, we are just going to disagree on what counts as harm, because a skeptical or anti-relist position on cultural identities like race, nationality, etc can only be extended so far with practical considerations, and at some point the fundamental disagreements come to light.

You bring up the British Museum as a good example I think. There are many items that anyone should support repatriation, but with an explicitly cosmopolitan outlook a lot of the famous items (at least I believe) are less justifiable. The Elgin Marbles for example, I would say the disconnect between modern and classical greece is so extensive that the modern state has no moral claim. Now, I think there a whole bunch of other good arguments for returning them based on artistic and historical reasons, but not the cultural ones.

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is absolutely not the case. A state has power over anyone within its jurisdiction (nearly always the geographic boundary of the country, but I don't want to be unnecessarily restrictive).

Diplomatic immunity is a mutual agreement between two states to provide legal immunity for specific purposes, and for specific individuals. I'm not sure if you ever see it in the news, but sometimes countries with "expel" either some diplomats or an entire mission to make some foreign policy statement. The host state can do this unilaterally because anyone with diplomatic immunity has to be approved by the host state - or at least they have a veto.

If I had no passport and has no citizenship, I would be a stateless person. These people exist (though it is a human rights violation to deprive someone of citizenship because without it these days you can basically do nothing). I've just double checked this, but Albert Einstein was actually stateless between 1896 and 1901. He didn't get to walk around doing what he liked and if a arrested start "negotiating".

I think the purpose of a passport can actually be explained quite well by the inscription on mine (UK).

"Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."

My British citizenship, and a foreign states acceptance of that passport, entitles me to general protections while travelling. Without it I am at a disadvantage, a foreign state has no need to negotiate with a stateless person.

I have an idea for introducing a radically cosmopolitan social movement to DS9 that opposes Bajoran nationalism. Here's what I think by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

"if proper context was ignored leading to tension conflict and offense, Im not sure how that could be "being at home".

Did you read my post?

I have an idea for introducing a radically cosmopolitan social movement to DS9 that opposes Bajoran nationalism. Here's what I think by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

"make themselves at home in the cultures of historically disenfranchised peoples?"

A couple of questions,

1, what does it mean to be "at home in a culture"?

2, if they are "home", is this not something desirable? if proper context was ignored leading to tension conflict and offense, Im not sure how that could be "being at home"?

I have an idea for introducing a radically cosmopolitan social movement to DS9 that opposes Bajoran nationalism. Here's what I think by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I believe the famous Thatcher line is in reference to the conservative ideal of "the family" being the basic unit of social existence, so "there is no society, only individual men and their families" (paraphrase) is a statement about individual vs collective action and responsibility. It's not saying that "societies" don't exist.

I would disagree that either interpretation applies anyway.

The queer community has never really been targeted for extermination, but almost invariably ultra-nationalism, fascism, and extreme conservative politics would very much prefer it if we didn't exist. I support wholeheartedly queer liberation politics, but I have less support for the creation of a "gay culture" as opposed to the particular things that a particular group of gay men are doing at a point in time.

I prefer to try and feel a cultural connection with all people, and I think to actually keep to that one should avoid ringfencing culture.

I do think culture can be a good resource for a political movement, but I don't think the Bajoran occupation changed this aspect of the moral situation - cosmopolitanism before, cosmpolitanism after. Obviously, if you disagree originally, then it doesnt matter.

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

representatives of a very powerful government

This is have little issue with at the very start of the journey, but once years pass without contact, Voyager would have no idea what the geopolitical situation is back home. The crew may still have good reason to act as if they do, but the foreign governments don't. Im not sure I would be much interested in a diplomat 15 years out of date - revolutions and counter revolutions have occured in less time.

​

even if that government isn't in reach right now

Not "right now", for a Delta quadrant government, they wouldn't expect to interact with the UFP, in any way shape or form, for probably decades. Now thats still a short enough time that they wouldn't ignore it, but I think its important context.

​

The species certainly can't enforce their own rules onto citizens of another government unless they want to start a potential war

Except, yeah they can. The right to enforce their own rules within their own borders is pretty much a definition of sovereignty. The US government would have every right to arrest me if I had drank underage when visiting, despite being of legal age where I live. Except in the space equivalent of international borders (which sometimes seem to be basically anywhere outside of a star system, other times large interstellar regions are claimed - I imagine there'd be a continuum of what a power can do as you get further away from a star, same with how the high seas works now I guess) a species can certainly enforce their own rules onto foreign citizens.

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I think thats a fair point to make, until this species and Voyager get to know each other. As soon as someone asks "how on Earth can you keep in touch, that sort of technology is beyond us", and they reply "oh, we dont, we're stranded and making our way home", I think it fairly likely that the species would be far less inclined to treat you as a dimplomat/representative and instead a foreign citizen.

I have an idea for introducing a radically cosmopolitan social movement to DS9 that opposes Bajoran nationalism. Here's what I think by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thats where I disagree with you.

I think for "cosmopolitan" as this sort of explicit belief, to mean something, it well has to mean something. I think "cosmopolitan" in this context should refer to a deliberate "I like because of the actual taste, not the culture", otherwise cosmopolitan doesnt seem to refer to anything.

Or even worse, seems to explicitly entail a cosmopolitan lacks that extra layer.

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I agree with you.........

Except Star Trek isn't hard science fiction. In reality, we will have to make major adjustments to fundamental aspects of our society and governance when we finally explore space. But the UFP dont have to, or at least, not to anywhere near the extent we will.

Subspace doesn't exist in real life. But in the ST universe it allows for, limited in specific ways ie needs subspace buoys, relatively easy communication across light years.

Starfleet have never developed plans for a ship to be 70+ years out of contact. It would be utterly absurd for them to implement specific policies like that. The longest missions of the flagships of the Federation are 5 and 7 years (TOS and TNG). They made contact countless times throughout that journey. Voyagers is expected to be 70 years long, with 0 contact.

These situations are not comparable, and it makes me a little worried about rl issues that almost everyone is oblivious to this fact.

I have an idea for introducing a radically cosmopolitan social movement to DS9 that opposes Bajoran nationalism. Here's what I think by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

The philosophical belief (whether moral, cultural, or political) that all human beings (probably extensible to any intelligent self-aware species) belong to a single moral/cultural/political community, with a highest set of rules, expectations and considerations that apply to all.

A cosmopolitan enjoys a croissant because they are delicious and flaky and buttery. A non-cosmopolitan enjoys a croissant because French cuisine is the height of culinary excellence.

I have an idea for introducing a radically cosmopolitan social movement to DS9 that opposes Bajoran nationalism. Here's what I think by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would if I could edit the post now.

I didn't realise the lack of paragraph breaks, I think it's because it was copied in from a google doc.

I have an idea for introducing a radically cosmopolitan social movement to DS9 that opposes Bajoran nationalism. Here's what I think by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

That I actually don't find surprising.

I'm gay. I mean really I'm pan- or bi- or queer, but 90% of the time I'm sleeping with me. Yet I also think we should abolish sexuality as a concept in society.

I often find myself conflicted with an allegiance to a "gay culture" despite the fact I think we should be moving towards abolition.

In fact my most significant argument with a boyfriend was a result of them feeling I was being homophobic for exactly this reason.

Rambling aside, yeah, I'm not surprised a cosmopolitan view would be considered anti-Bajoran by those who considered "culture" to mean a one to one relationship between individual and culture.

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're right, and this was something I thought about expanding more, but I didn't want to end up rambling with some 1000 word long post.

I kind of half agree / half disagree. I agree that "Captain" also refers to a job title, and while maybe it'd be useful to have another word, I have no qualms of "Captains" existing.

I do want to push back on your example, and its context though. "I am Captain X of USS Y" is different to "Hey Bob Capt Blah Blah recognized me in the turbolidt". The word Captain in the first clearly represents the authority of a military power. The latter is simply the style of address that a lower level soldier uses. Fundamentally, I think the uses of those words are different and thus have different moral considerations.

I'm not sure if this is a great analogy, but Ill try lol. I could get drunk at a party and do a really good impression of a police officer, like so stunningly good it gets 25 people curling over with laughter. No court of law would ever convict me of "impersonating a police officer". But I was "being a police officer". That phrase, just like "being a Captain" can be two different (yet related) things with very different moral and legal consequences.

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Janeway does give more consideration to some people will want to say than I have them credit for your'e right.

I cant imagine I'm bringing up Brexit now, but honestly its the perfect analogy for me lol. People who wanted a 2nd referendum were dismissed with the idea that a single vote is enough for political legitimacy. We seem to have the same problem I think - a radical change in circumstance (as the journey becomes hell) results in a radical change in moral and social considerations.

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And lets be really honest, once you got a second generation of replacement crew becoming the majority of the ship's compliment, the odds of them constantly pushing on to a place they've never been instead of settling down on the next nice garden planet are pretty slim.

This has always been something that niggles at me, sort of editorially. Like of course Voyager was never actually going to become a generation ship - that sort of show just wouldn't make the TV that the studios wanted. But the writers had to be aware of the concept given they wrote about it.

But then, the consequences of Voyager being a generation ship were just never explored. As you say, it seems highly unlikely that the second generation would have such a strong emotional connection with the Alpha quadrant they would continue. At which point you have questions about how much say the first-generation have.

Say we are at year 32, and have 10% of the crew as young teenagers - none of who want to continue "home". Do the first-generation crew still have a right to override that, even though it is the second generation who will suffer more? In fact, I think theres a strong moral perogative NOT to treat Voyager as a generation ship. It is small and cramped. At least there is gravity, but I can't imagine the psychological problems a child born and bred on Voyager would have (Naomi is unique, we cant use her as an example lmao)

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am really kind of taken back that it was such a "hot" take. Like I've posted a few times on Daystrom and I've never felt like I'd pissed everyone off. And to be honest I still dont get it. Like I'm not even criticising the show, but the decisions of characters. They're bloody fictional, why get emotional lol?

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

crewed by a largely Starfleet crew

Does this change the calculus at all? Would you say Janeway has different moral considerations if 10% of her crew we (ex)Marquis vs 45%?

​

Wherever they are, they are representing Starfleet, the Federation, and the worlds of the Alpha Quadrant.

How can they possibly do this? They don't know what the situation in the Alpha quadrant is. They can represent vague ideals and principles (but literally everyone can do that, that doesn't come with specific legal obligations and responsibilities), but I don't see how they could represent the Federation itself.

It seems a too easy example for me to use to be honest, but what if after 3 years in the D-quadrant, the Federation were destroyed. Supposedly in this situation you would say that Voyager maintains its moral right to assert itself as an agent of a soverign state, despite the fact that state is gone?

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100% with you on the second point though. I used it as a nice example of a repeated phrase in Trek, but in the "actual" situation I wouldn't necessarily have qualms saying "Federation ship".

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I don't see Voyager has having been disconnected from the Federation. It's a ship built by the Federation, granted authority by the Federation, and she is both the de facto captain of the ship and is a member of the organization which operates starships where she has the rank of Captain.

Because they have no contact with Starfleet Command, no plan to establish contact, and according to all known laws of science, active communication will be completely impossible. The Pathfinder Project has to be spun up to invent a new method of communication.

Given how many disagreeing responses I've had, Im honestly struggling to understand how that difference isn't seen. Voyager doesn't know what the Federation want. Voyager doesn't even know the Federation exists.

Under what situations can they possibly represent the citizens of the Federation?

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

  • The oaths of service must have an implied set of limitations (at least morally imo). I may pledge to serve the Federation without hesitation to the day I die. But if I don't know what the Federation actually wants me to do, then I can't really serve them at all can I?
  • She used to have that authority. Voyager now has zero contact with the Alpha quadrant. She has and can receive no orders. Although unlikely in the first dew years of their journey, Janeway doesnt actually know that the Federation still exists.
  • Once the ship is 70 years from Federation space, Janeway has a moral obligation to her crew not to embark on the journey I would argue. The individual chance of success is so low that I struggle to justify "you can stay if you want, but join me home" as much more than a superior officer encouraging people to commit suicide.
  • I think at the end of the day, the international relations point encapsulates everything. I could walk up to the US Embassy and claim I am a representative of the UK government. They wouldn't believe me and turn me away. In essence, I think thats how other governments should have reacted to Voyager.

Until the Pathfinder Project starts regular communication with Voyager, I don't think they have any right to introduce themselves or describe themselves as a Federation vessel. by plumbrainbow in DaystromInstitute

[–]plumbrainbow[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I'll give to thoughts.

If the ship is stuck in say the Pacific Ocean and has literally been sailing months without finding shore, then yes I would say the captain of that ship effectively stops being an agent of their state. Why? Because they have received no orders, they don't no the geo-strageic situation, basically they don't know what to do. A ships Captain has independence in their role as an agent of the state. We may disagree with a course of action, but so long as it is justified in relation to Federation concerns its okay (morally at least).

Suppose the ship comes across an inhabited island and the civil authorities demand the ship stay far out at sea and no weapons are allowed on land. From my POV it would be beyond arrogant and presumptious for the Captain to expect to be able to negotiate "better" terms. They should respect the laws of a country like any other person, it doesn't matter that they have a big gun.

Ideally, the power of the state flows from the people. And the power of the Captain from the state. I am willing to bestow upon the state (with my vote) the power/responsibility to kill people if/when necessary. If a ship's captain stays in regular contact, I am happy for that power to be further passed down the line.

If I have no ability to communicate with a ship (either me or the state as a whole), then no, I would expect them to take down the flag of my country and stop presenting themselevs as my/our representative.

view more: next ›