this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026

38 points (78.8% liked)

Star Trek Social Club

14108 readers

1258 users here now

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...

Maybe a little slash fic.

Rules

1 Be constructive

All posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.

2 Be welcoming

It is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.

3 Be truthful

All posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.

4 Be nice

If a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.

5 Spoilers

Utilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episode. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.

6 Keep on-topic

All submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books, etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/Quarks.

7 Meta

Questions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.

Upcoming Episodes

Date	Episode	Title
02-12	SFA 1x06	"Come, Let's Away"
02-19	SFA 1x07	"Ko’Zeine"
02-26	SFA 1x08	TBA
03-05	SFA 1x09	TBA
03-12	SFA 1x10	TBA

In Production

Strange New Worlds (TBA)

Starfleet Academy

In Development

Untitled theatrical film

Untitled comedy series

Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.

Allied Discord Server

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

ValueSubtracted@startrek.website

USSBurritoTruck@startrek.website

OpticalData@startrek.website

The recent Star Trek series are often criticized for "not being woke enough", but I've come to feel the envelope they are pushing is much more radical, bolder, and important to our specific time... (startrek.website)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Kirk@startrek.website to c/startrek@startrek.website

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Since Discovery, despite the Star Trek writers repeatedly beating us over the head with this, I still somehow didn't catch onto the pattern. If there is a through-line to all the new shows, the notion that acknowledging one's own vulnerability is a sign of individual strength, and that showing support when others are being vulnerable around you, is also a sign of individual strength.

This may not feel "woke" in the way it's usually understood, but I really think it's pushing a long overdue envelope, and one that is arguably more important to our times than a half-black half-white face representing the "illogical" nature of racism.

For example: when I read the angry tweets about the new series (ie; the "pussification of men", etc.) I can't even force myself to see them as coming from anything other than weak, scared people who are too afraid of what the world would think of them if they expressed their authentic selves. They want to scare the rest of us into being as scared as they are, because they believe it will make them feel less alone. But loneliness can only be fixed by showing vulnerability.

And that's the root of the problems in our modern era, isn't it? Deeply insecure people hurting others in a desperate effort to not be hurt themselves. They haven't always portrayed this concept in a graceful way, but kudos to Star Trek for keeping up the tradition of asking its audience: "What is it you're so afraid of?"

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 41 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

Why are you even listening to the opinions of CHUDs?

The problem with new trek isn't "wokeness", too little or too much. It's that they abandoned what made Trek so unique: It's supposed to be a time after humanity has dealt with all of the stupid in-fighting and conservative BS. It's supposed to be about a time when the drama doesn't come from inside the house. When humanity is exploring the stars, not having a moment.

It's just a complete lack of imagination. It's not like Trek has ever been wanting for drama. They just decided to write new Trek in the lamest, same-old Hollywood way possible.

The problem is it's action and drama scifi now, and not a real vision of a better future. It's no longer unique or enlightened. It's just drama with Trek paint.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's supposed to be a time after humanity has dealt with all of the stupid in-fighting and conservative BS. It's supposed to be about a time when the drama doesn't come from inside the house. When humanity is exploring the stars, not having a moment.

Though they clearly haven't, even if they think so. For example, if you're not an organic humanoid, it's very much up in the air whether you'll be treated as a person, or as an inconvenience.

The Measure of a Man was constrained to apply to that one instance, in Data's case, and he had the Sutherland automatically assuming the worst of him and nearly comm itting mutiny. Both the ExoComps and the EMH suffer from people thinking they're malfunctioning and factory resetting/lobotomising them.

If you're in a war with the Federation, it's equally ambiguous whether they'll stick to their own rules of conflict. The moment they feel threatened, they'll do things like unleash a deadly bio-weapon/memetic-weapon against your species, start laying self-replicating mines, or just make plans to blow up your homeworld. At best, your fate is left to the whims of a handful of admirals and captains.

Even within the Federation, Admiral Satie was not a isolated instance. She only made two mistakes, in going up against an unusually accepting crew that would bat for one of their own, and losing her composure in front of another admiral. If she hadn't, her crusade against Romulans in Starfleet would have continued unabated.

The fact that she could start it would suggest that those attitudes exist and are underlying within Starfleet. At least, on a significant enough level that she wasn't treated as being unusually paranoid about a non-issue.

[–] tomenzgg@midwest.social 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Also, – watching at the age I am now – it's hard for me to not notice how much carceral justice is taken as a given rather than anything remotely more restorative.

And treatment of mental disability still unfomfortably mirrors our current system than anything I'd hope for so far into the future.

I think we can accept that the premise is we've made astounding strides and there are still areas of improvement; I don't think that tarnishes the hopeful and utopian dream at the heart of Star Trek.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think we can accept that the premise is we've made astounding strides and there are still areas of improvement; I don't think that tarnishes the hopeful and utopian dream at the heart of Star Trek.

It doesn't, but it also shows that even in the future, they're not free from the foibles of being a person. Achieving and maintaining something like the Federation needs active, constant work. They can't just go bang, Federation, and be done with it for good. Constant vigilance is the price we must pay for our freedoms.

It's an angle that I'm honestly disappointed that hasn't been tackled yet, since it seems perfect for a Star Trek story. Early Picard seemed to be going that way, with former Borg drones being mistreated, and the Federation outlawing reproduction for inorganic beings, but then it veered off for the Season 3 plot.

There's a really juicy three-way conflict between people who think that the Federation is too soft to survive, those who think it's fine as it is, and those who think it doesn't go far enough, and should be expanded to cover more, that could easily come into play, and show how much work it took them to get and stay there.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 2 weeks ago

Early Picard seemed to be going that way,

Discovery went there in its first season, with the Federation prepared to sell its soul to win the war until they found another (problematic) way.

The post-Burn 32nd Century is coming at it from the other side, with SFA in particular reckoning with some of the choices that were made during the period when everything was falling apart.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

It's supposed to be a time after humanity has dealt with all of the stupid in-fighting and conservative BS. It's supposed to be about a time when the drama doesn't come from inside the house. When humanity is exploring the stars, not having a moment.

And yet all the drama is derived directly from real world human issues, so what makes a difference between Starfleet characters creating it or some fictional alien race? The latter too closely resembles "American exceptionalism" by acting like Starfleet always has all the answers and can do no wrong and these uncultured foreign aliens need to bend to our will in order to solve their problems. I don't see that being super appealing considering everything that is happening currently.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The latter too closely resembles “American exceptionalism”

Yeah, I've always found the "Starfleet must always be in the right" mentality to be patronizing at best, imperialistic at worst.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I can think of another sci-fi series where the highly advanced civilization is always in the right, and I've heard it kinda sucks

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It’s supposed to be about a time when the drama doesn’t come from inside the house. When humanity is exploring the stars, not having a moment.

I agree 100%, but I'm also saying that's exactly what's happening and we've (at least I) just been too blind to see it until SFA. This current era is portraying a future where "strength" doesn't mean swallowing your pain in order to conform and being ashamed of what makes you different. Real strength is the ability to be your true self, and (more importantly) the strength to radically accept others for being their true selves.

TOS taught us there's no need to fear people with different skin color. SFA is teaching us that there's no need to fear someone for exposing their vulnerabilities and expressing their emotions in a healthful way. It's a radical concept for our time.

EDIT because I want to reply to this:

Why are you even listening to the opinions of CHUDs?

If by "CHUDS" you mean the people I described as being "insecure and afraid" then the answer is I listen to them because they are human beings in pain. As Star Trek is trying to teach us, real personal strength comes from being able to listen with our whole hearts.

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Star Trek has always been about accepting others for who they are. They make that explicitly clear many times in their interactions with other species and cultures.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 2 weeks ago

I certainly won't disagree with that

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] rozodru@piefed.social 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't have a problem with "nu-trek" being "woke". Star Trek has always been "woke" (I really hate that word). My issue is it just feels dumb now. all of it. it doesn't challenge the viewer anymore.

TNG had that in spades. a problem would arise before the intro even rolled and it challenged the viewer to figure out what's going on. That was most of the fun. Like the episodes where all the damn clues were right in front of you and it wasn't until the end with the "ooooh of course!" moment. Primary example of this is the episode when the Enterprise kept blowing up and Data had to keep going back to try and figure out how to avoid it. Or the episode where Barclay, Picard, and Data were trapped in the Holodeck and they didn't even know they were in the Holodeck. And there were clues all over the place like Geordi using his left hand for something when he's right handed. I want more trek like that.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 2 points 2 weeks ago

Fucking this. What happened to "show don't tell"? If I wanted a narrator to tell me what to think I would watch Grey's Anatomy.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

That is a small thing. Meanwhile in Picard you have have the most boomer takes you can get : technology bad, young are brainwashed, fate,... I haven't seen any science after season 1, and I haven't seen any progress.

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Let's give Picard some credit, it spent most a season giving us a look at the challenges of building a community while evading immigration officers, and the heartbreak of losing someone whose only crime was being "illegal" or undocumented.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yes indeed. But the season before that it showed us a planet were romulan migrants took over the planet they took refuge on and made an apartheid for them.

There are a few good things in Picard. There are also a lot of terrible things.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think that planet was portrayed as a particularly idyllic place...

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That is irrelevant to the matter.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The implication is that the portrayal of bad things is somehow an endorsement of bad things, so it most certainly is not.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

You're wrong. This is a depiction of something that doesn't exist and hasn't existed in the last 2 centuries. Yet this is what the far right is obsessed about. That is called propaganda.

[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

migrants took over [an area] they took refuge on and made an apartheid for them.

That sounds familiar.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'd say they took it even further than that - the reason they were in that all-too-relevant "past" to begin with was that they had travelled back in time to an inflection point that could lead to a global descent into fascism.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That is a small thing.

I extremely disagree but I'd be curious to know your thought process behind saying it. To me, it seems like the biggest thing and that every social issue ever addressed in every Star Trek series has this at it's core.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

By this I mean that it's a step forward and a step backward. The good things don't remove the bad ones.

[–] David_Eight@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I seems like your combining two separate groups and their separate criticisms. I've definitely criticised the new shows for not doing woke well. I think TNG era trek also covered vulnerability but in a more subtle way, were new Trek seems overly dramatic and forced to me.

I think anyone who complains about characters being pussies is probably a conservative who is just looking for something to complain about today lol.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I really don't think I am. Star Trek has always wrapped social topics in a scifi setting. It just took me until now to recognize what social topic they've been advocating this time, and it isn't "nonbinary people are people too", or "Black women can be a main character". It's "Not being ashamed to expose your vulnerabilities is a sign of strength more powerful than the mightiest Klingon warrior". And "Standing up and showing support to others being vulnerable" is a sign of strength too.

The way we are quick to dismiss those expressing their vulnerability as "being dramatic" is exactly the topic they're addressing. They're trying to make us ask WHY vulnerability makes us uncomfortable. Facing it dead on takes extreme courage.

[–] David_Eight@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. The people saying "pussification of men" and the ones saying "not being woke enough" are two completely different groups. Your post comes off as if you're trying to conflate those to groups even though they're on completely different sides of the spectrum.

Now I feel like you're trying to paint me as being insensitive to people showing vulnerability which would be unfair and untrue. Just because I'm critical of how the new shows executed the message doesn't mean I don't agree with the message itself. I just think that message was was conveyed better in TNG era shows.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Ah I see, you definitely misinterpreted. I was indeed describing them as two different groups.

Group A (myself and I assume most here) have been looking for more specific and obvious political/cultural messaging from the writers, and in focusing in on the details, we were missing perhaps the single most consistent messaging of all.

Group B (The angry Twitter users) are an example of what happens when society isn't recognizing the real strength that is showing (and being receptive to) vulnerability. They (falsely) believe strength comes from hiding vulnerability.

The writers have been telling us this very apt concept all along, but myself (and many others based on posts here) haven't yet fully noticed how radical an idea it actually is. The more obvious messaging flows from this idea.

[–] David_Eight@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

OK that's fair.

Are you saying this "radical idea" spans all off the new shows or one specific show. I stopped watch the new shows at some point, it just wasn't for me. I don't know what you're really talking about in this post cause I haven't seen anything new or groundbreaking like you're describing, its all been quite generic in my opinion.

Can you point or link to a specific scene or plot that shows what you mean?

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Jay-Den and Darem's recent scene together illustrates it well, I think. And the negative reaction to it from people online who described it with terms like "woke" and "cringe" illustrates that many people are so uncomfortable and so afraid of the concept of being vulnerable that they dismiss it out of hand.

But to be clear, I actually went out of my way not to describe this as "new or groundbreaking". If anything the messaging I highlighted in my OP has been the consistent through line for the past decade in DSC, SWW, and SFC (and to a lesser extent Picard). But I do think it's spot-on for our current cultural climate. I (and many others who thought the new series have been too timid with their politics) have been missing the forest for the trees.

We can laugh now at TOS preaching the "illogicality of racism" to be self-evident, but during the time of scientific racism and Jim Crow laws, stating that self-evidence was considered radical. TOS never had an episode about Uhura earning her right to be on the bridge. She was just there. Discovery never had a plot line about Adira coming out as non-binary, they just did.

"Vulnerability is strength" is the radical idea of our modern era where things like emotional insecurity and ability to tolerate loneliness are held up as examples of strength, and not the reality, which is that they are the beliefs of a fearful person.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

For a more serious critique of new Trek that you might find more interesting than the angry tweets you refer to, consider this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB5DroolqFU

[–] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

As if Star Trek wasn’t corporate from the beginning!

Every major difference between the original pilot ‘The Cage’ and the original series / TOS was rooted in corporate priorities.

The bright, primary coloured uniform tunics, bright colourful flashing lights on the bridge and other sets were designed to promote NBC’s ‘Living Color’ television broadcasts.

Kirk was younger, physically more vigorous and less cerebral than Pike, no matter what Roddenberry wanted. Action adventure hero, romancing women, was what the network wanted no matter that Roddenberry wanted Kirk to be a ‘stack of books with legs’ and for Yeoman Rand to be the original third principle character and long term romantic interest.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Sure they were subject to all the constraints of commercial prime-time TV, but as that video discusses in some detail with respect to DS9, the writers still had freedom within that corporate framework to tell woke anticolonialist stories beyond the classic sci-fi adventure fare of TOS which itself often explored what was new ground for commercial television at the time. Under some other corporate masters it might've been possible for the new crew to find similar freedom today, if things had worked out differently — and if any of them have the ability to do it and the willingness to try. But Larry Ellison and the forces he's standing in for seem far more alert to the subtleties of it than they used to be. There's bigger money involved now and they're keeping it on a tighter leash.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is there any evidence at all of the writers of the more recent series not having "freedom," or of corporate interference in the shows?

[–] kbal@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago

I don't know. It just seems like one plausible explanation for what's been produced. To me it has that feel to it.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] usernamefactory@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I’ve definitely maintained that the overarching theme of Discovery was valuing mental health, and so far that seems to be getting carried forward by Academy. I think that aligns with what you’re saying. I’m not sure it applies quite as much across all the other Trek shows. Probably yes, but to a lesser degree.

Most of the discussions of “wokeness” I see break down into a grievance with white men not being the overwhelming majority of characters, so I never really thought of it in those terms, but it makes sense. It’s definitely something the world needs more of but large chunks seem actively opposed to.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think Discovery walked so SNW and SFA could run. TOS/TNG showed us a future where people wouldn't be ostracized for their race/gender. The newer series are showing us a future where people won't be ostracized for being their authentic selves.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] CCMan1701A@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I though the main criticism of the new shows was the lack of lighting? I really miss the lighting in the older shows... :(

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] hallettj@leminal.space 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

This is an interesting take! I'll admit, I was concerned about whether there will be enough wokeness in Starfleet Academy, and in upcoming seasons of Strange New Worlds. But you're right, the foundation of what we need is a sense of shared humanity. And when you put it that way, I see how new Trek is showing us that. Thanks!

But I'd still be delighted to see another episode on unionizing!

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 4 points 2 weeks ago

Hah! Sign me up for a unionizing episode too. And thanks for reading!

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Actually, I like the inhumanity in SFA. So many of the extras are aliens, it's great. I've had enough of Starfleet being mostly humans

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 2 weeks ago

The most recent SFA episode was brilliant with that

[–] hallettj@leminal.space 2 points 2 weeks ago

I like DS9 for that too. There are lots of scenes where I've though, "Oh hey, there are no humans in this scene!"

[–] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

It's cringe when "wokenes" is so emphasized. It looks clownish. That's how I perceived half of discovery. Like if half of tng would be of people talking about how is ok to be bald.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

TOS wasn't exactly subtle with its wokeness...

This is from an episode about how stupid racism is.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Agreed. DSC was filled with superficial Mary Sue slop. All anyone ever needed to overcome their problem was a cookie-cutter motivational speech from Burnham, while inspirational music played and the camera slowly panned across every crew members face as they smiled and gave a nod of approval.

It is cringy because it's like a virtue signaling characature of "wokeness" along the same vein as "after-school TV specials" or Christian evangelist movies of decades past. There's no depth or substance just endless variations of "there's no problem that can't be solved with a hug."

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments