• jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    “The people in the Federation exist in a bubble of safety and happiness, but there are outsiders to that sphere of the Federation—surrounded by the Dominion, the Founders, the Klingons [of this era], the [Romulan secret police] Tal Shiar, that don’t have the same moral relativity that we do. They would see [the Federation] destroyed to fit their moral relativism,” Kazinsky argued. “People need to understand why people don’t like the idea [of Section 31], but it hasn’t changed the idea.”

    This kind of logic implies that stooping down to barbarism is OK as long as you are hypocritical about it.

    • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I agree, that logic has been used to justify atrocities throughout history, including right now. It’s exactly what Israel says about Palestine, China about the Uyghurs, Trump about Mexican immigrants. And it’s completely antithetical to Star Trek’s values.

    • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      To be honest, that’s always been the core argument.

      I don’t know where the line is - obviously, the morphogenic virus in DS9 was beyond the pale, but is it wise to expect hostile neighbours to be won over by sunshine and rainbows?

      • inverted_deflector@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I feel like the big issue is the difference in how it’s portrayed. In DS9 and even enterprise section 31 are the bad guys. They are portrayed as a shadowy organization that thinks it’s doing the right thing but when confronted gets in the way. In DS9 they even lose. Section 31 arent an example of the end justifying the means being a necessary evil, they are something from within for the idealistic federation to overcome and defeat.

        As a concept section 31 doesnt make a whole lot of sense lore wise because the federation is a paramilitary organization. Sure they are scientists, explorers, and philosophers at heart, but they are also very much a military Navy. We also see that starfleet does have a non section 31 intelligence complete with spies that go deep undercover get the trust of their enemies and sell them out. The federation knows the galaxy is a hostile place which is why they explore in heavily armed warships with a crew that follows a strict chain of command.

        I think part of the wish fulfillment and idealism of the federation lies in the implication that they are also very powerful and able and willing to defend themselves with great force. Even the cruise ship Enterprise D was able to take on multiple enemy warships at once and win.

        The major difference between section 31 and standard federation operating procedures seems to be their appetite for genocide and civilians.

        It is a thing that has made me nervous about this new project since it was announced. Section 31 appearing as a bump in the road for our idealistic federation members to deal with works and allows them to stay the badguy. Them as the protagonists of a show or movie puts us in a situation where we get told stories where the ends justifies the means. And they either do this by making the federation seem naive and incompetent(which they arent they have a prime directive where they sterilize all life on a planet) or it has them justifying some heinous crap.

      • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        There’s a very clear line between having a military and intelligence services and having a MKULTRA-era-CIA-in-space.

  • ThirdMoonOfPluto@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m disappointed that they clearly don’t. The same tired justifications which amount to the ideals of Star Trek are a luxury made possible by hard men doing bad things in the dark.

    • toast@retrolemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah. Reading the article, Section 31 seems great if you just want to just shit on everything else in the franchise. Nope, not for me.

        • astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Section 31 is supposed to be. Sloan wasn’t a good guy. 31 actively tried to commit genocide.

          The idea behind them is that arguments of ends justifying the means and “getting dirty” to preserve higher ideals is morally, philosophically, and practically bankrupt. The Federation didn’t need 31 to win the war, and in fact, their methods would have made it much worse. Section 31 as a plot device exists to show us that there will always be those looking to use higher ideals to support terrible actions, and we must be constantly vigilant against them.

          It truly pains me how that message has been twisted, and people think Section 31 are not only good guys but also cool.

          • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            The Federation didn’t need 31 to win the war

            Do we know that for certain? The cure to the virus was actually pretty fundamental to the Female Changeling ordering the Jem’Hadar to stand down. She refused to surrender until Odo linked with her and cured her.

            • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              18 hours ago

              i think that the existence of the disease is more of a maguffin than the point that the solution was achieved without section 31… the “problem” could have been any number of unrelated things (eg some spacial anomaly threatening the founders for some reason, etc) and the fact that it’s s31 is more an interesting plot device to create other narratives around, rather than degrading the ultimate point

          • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            What, then, is the message in the episode where Sisko “would do it all again” concerning assassinating a political rival and faking evidence to bring the Romulans into the war against the Dominion? It’s an example where I can still see the show trying to say “sometimes good people must do bad things for the good of all” that doesn’t even concern Section 31.

            • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              18 hours ago

              episodes shouldn’t be assumed to be exploring the same moral or philosophical points… it’s very difficult to explore complex logical arguments through innuendo whilst also maintaining a consistent grounding for all of them

              and also, the decision is left up to the viewer: by presenting situations that both (perhaps) cross, and do not cross the line it allows us to form our own opinions, rather than the shows writers convince us of their idea of what’s right and wrong

              people are fallible: the shows writers, and the characters. in some of that inconsistency, we can form our own ideas of what we believe

            • astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Sorry if I wasn’t clear; I didn’t mean to make it sound like an attack or a lecture. Section 31 is just one of my pet peeves in Trek for a while. We are in agreement! 😊

        • toast@retrolemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 days ago

          Villains or heroes isn’t the issue. It’s the argument that we need a group that doesn’t play by the rules that apply to the rest of society that I find problematic.

          Shouldn’t we strive for a world in which the rules really do apply to all? Can’t we hope to conceive of a set of laws standards by which we should all be judged? Isn’t the world of Star Trek meant in some way to be aspirational, rather than just a reflection of what we have now?

          • MalikMuaddibSoong@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            We live in a world that has walls federation worlds, and those federation worlds have to be guarded.

            Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Barclay?

            • williams_482@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Barclay?

              Yes?

              Lieutenant Barklay and the huge, powerful, and successful paramilitary organization who employs him are exactly who is supposed to guard Federation worlds. Which is what they do.

        • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          They were definitely villains in the series…but I don’t think DS9 ever made a strong case that they weren’t necessary (nor do I think they were trying to).

          Right up until the end, the morphogenic virus was critical to the end of the war.

          • Mina@berlin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 days ago

            @ValueSubtracted

            I wanted to watch the series again, anyway. It’s been a time.

            As I remember it, they left it rather ambiguous, which is the actual point.

            If moral choices were easy, we wouldn’t have to think about them too much.

            Yes, the virus ended the war, but at what price?

            • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 days ago

              I completely agree.

              I’ve often thought that there must have been plenty of Section 31 operations that didn’t rise to the level of, you know, genocide, and that those operations were likely more ambiguous.

              I’m hoping that whatever they’re up to in this movie is more in that vein - almost certainly illegal, but probably more ethically murky?

        • Corgana@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Villains who’s engineered virus forced the Dominion to the negotiating table… just saying.

          “Good and evil isn’t as black and white as TNG portrayed it” is kinda DS9’s whole deal.

  • Corgana@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    inb4 someone on lemmy says a single piece of media they haven’t even seen is responsible for “shitting all over the entire franchise”

    EDIT: nvm