Agreed. People should dislike modern Star Trek for it’s bad writing, not because it’s progressive.

I mostly agree, but with shows like Starfleet Academy, the writing is bad in part because of the forced inclusive themes. You’re broadly correct: these could be handled with tact for a better show. I still think these themes are handled best when they give the audience room to consider nuanced and complex ideas. Don’t shoot me, but instead of a classic New Generation episode I’m going cite an episode of The Orville - “About a Girl”. Bortus and Klyden have a baby, who is born female. They try to argue that she should be allowed to remain female, but ultimately the court rules that she undergo the Moclan gender reassignment procedure.

This touches on contemporary issues but also doesn’t present the situation as “this side is 100% right, and this side is literally Hitler.” The audience is actually left wondering, where does this sit in the contemporary debate? If a child is born one sex, should they be given the right to remain as that sex? Or should a court be allowed to step in and reassign sex? The episode also brilliantly explores the difficult dynamic between Bortus and Klyden, and doesn’t portray one as a cartoon villain and the other as a male Mary Sue.

This is where New Trek fails horrible. Zero nuance. Everything is presented in the first 10 seconds as “this is good, this is bad. Accept the message we are feeding you are you are a bad person.” That’s not Star Trek. Most importantly, that’s not interesting. It’s not good storytelling. It might appeal to people who really like circlejerking about that particular issue, but that’s a minority of people.

That’s a lot of words to not provide a single example from a show of what makes “forced inclusion” different than “inclusion”

EDIT: Before anyone bothers clicking through the replies, he never actually explains himself or why he’s parroting a common right wing buzz-phrase to discourage the presence of minorities in media.

Someone asked that question two hours ago and I replied with two examples.

I saw that but I didn’t see anything about what makes inclusion “forced” in one series but not in another.

I thought I did a reasonable job of explaining the narrative distinction in my comment. Maybe you could be specific about which part you don’t understand, or which part with which you might disagree?

yeah sure so im curious to know what “forced inclusion” means and how we’re supposed to tell it apart from regular inclusion.

Which part of my explanation did you not understand or disagree with?

Your explanation didn’t explain what “forced inclusion” means and what makes it different from regular inclusion. Maybe you could give an example of each from Star Trek?

I think it did. If you disagree please tell me how. I provided two examples.

Your two examples didn’t explain what “forced inclusion” means and what makes it different from regular inclusion.

“Nuh uh” isn’t an argument. If you won’t read the comment then I won’t be able to give you a meaningful reply.

Your examples provided made no mention of “forced inclusion” or what makes it different from regular inclusion.

I clearly explained the distinction despite not using the term “forced inclusion,” which I didn’t raise. You did. I can’t reply qualitatively unless you explain which part confuses you.