Why would they have hijabs in the 24th century when all human religions were gone by the time of the Federation?
Also this isn't me getting my butthole hurt over Islam, there was also a turban-clad sikh guy in the list of Serritos' crewmen I found odd. Didn't all religions die out after WW3
Also T'Lyn boobs
I want to rest my head on the betazed ones
>Episode features a trio of big titty matures who wear skimpy outfits, hit on younger men and get sloppy drunk
okay Lower Decks you got me this time
Dammit...
I won't watch your show, but i will jerk hard to these... space lookin wine aunts?
T'lyn really had the other girls all over her this episode
I kind of want to drink that.
T'lyn probably not surprisingly fits so good with thenlower deckers. She had a really good episode with Boimler. I would say that she and Rutherford have yet to make a connection, but truth be told I'm not a fan or Rutherford do who cares.
Apparently that vulcan washboard isn't as comfortable as you'd think.
they let the bajorans wear their ear bling so it'd be racist if they didn't let humans wear their cultural headgear
Yeah but all human cultures kind of mingled together by this time though. That's why Picard speaks English despite being French.
they had colony planets that often clung more to cultural heritage, like the Ireland planet or the Indian Planet
OP said after ww3, enterprise is post-ww3
Oddly enough the Picard series explains that. His family fled France due to WWII, settling in England. The Picard family chateau was still abandoned even in the early 21st century. Clearly they reclaimed their property, and its curious cache of decaying Borged up PMC troops, at some point but retained the stiff upper lip, pip pip, what what, Bob's your meat n 2 veg.
Perhaps it's not religious at all, or she's not human?
>another paramount ad in the catalog
you just dont know when to quit, do you?
buy a banner
>Disney shill
Nah, he's either netflix or WB.
also phlox said he attended catholic mass once to try out human religions
ENT takes place 22nd Century
paramount stock is down 30% from last year by the way
shilling nutrek wont save your employer
Religious freedom is a mark of the Federation. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, etc.
It's the same as Geordi's blindness. Yes, the society is technologically advanced enough to just fix his eyes, but it's better to accomodate, accept and even revel in the differences, cause then you can make him cool better eyes.
>Yes, the society is technologically advanced enough to just fix his eyes
The idea of fixing his blindness was posited as an unproven possibility when Pulaski mentioned it to him.
>when all human religions were gone by the time of the Federation?
The frick are you on? Nowhere has it been ever stated that all religions are gone in the Federation or even on earth.
Just delete this thread in shame.
Rodenberry made it a rule back in the day. I'm not sure how closely it was followed.
"mankind has no need for Gods. We find the one quite adequate."
>Rodenberry made it a rule back in the day.
No, he didn't.
"No needs" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
A hijab is very specifically about oppressing women. But NuTrek is woke, not progressive, so that’s what you get.
>A hijab is very specifically about oppressing women.
It's a pice of clothe. it is what society decide it to be. It's not oppression when it's a choice.
You logic is stupid, it would be like saying every woman is forced to abort because forbidding abortion was a tool to oppress women.
the guy in your pic should punch you in the face.
Internalized oppression is still oppression.
You have failed to establish it is internalized oppression in the first place.
where has it been established it happen in the star trek era?
>they choose to continue wearing a symbol of oppression
If it's their choice, it's no longer a symbol of oppression. I choosing to have babies a symbol of oppression?
You’re the kind of gay who would defend circumcision.
>it’s no longer done in religious context to stop kids from jerking off so it’s ok
No free woman raised in the 24th century would choose to wear a hijab.
Circumcision has never been done to stop jerking off wtf are you talking about lmao
>You’re the kind of gay who would defend circumcision.
Are you a moron. An Hijab, especially in the star trek universe, is something someone old enough DECIDE to wear. It's in no way comparable to being forced a circumcision as a baby.
>No free woman raised in the 24th century would choose to wear a hijab.
Maybe it's not up to you to decide.
The Hijab was and still is associated with extremism Islam. Before the Islamic State took over Afghanistan, women would show their hair and dress jeans. Once Bin Laden and Co. showed up, this quickly changed.
No free woman, even a Muslim woman, would willingly wear a Hijab. We have proof of this from Islamic countries from before radical Islam.
>and still is
Star trek exist in the future, anon. A futrue where it's canonically set that everyone has freedom of religion.
While do you continue to show everyone how much of a moron you are? Is this your only way to achieve erection? there are doctors for that, you know?
Yes, freedom of religion. Only a moron like you would think all Muslims are radical Muslims who believe women should wear hijabs.
Oppression of women has no place in Star Trek.
>who believe women should wear hijabs.
Anon, this contradict Freedom of religion. Why do you assume things that contradict Star Trek Canon?
The Hijab being a symbol of female oppression aside, you do realize that headgear is typically a no-no in militaries?
Maybe they should get a Texan Starfleet officer who always wears a fedora.
Have you never seen an officer with a beret?
A military beret, yes. Not a beanie or a trilby.
>headgear is not allowed in military
>except headgear that has the word "military" slapped onto it
Dumb Black person, theyd just call it a military hijab
>The Hijab being a symbol of female oppression
Not in the era of Star trek, not if it's a choice.
>you do realize that headgear is typically a no-no in militaries?
They also allow Bajoran hearing for cultural reason. You are not making a point.
also, star Fleet is not the military. Technically.
The choice doesn’t matter. The hijab’s only cultural legacy is being a tool of oppression, see
.
To who homie?
To historians. The Hijab only exists to oppress women. It literally never had any different role.
>making up bullshit
There was never a point in history where the hijab was not used to oppress women. It’s the only reason it exists. It’s not religious headwear, it’s male domination.
>The choice doesn’t matter.
The choice IS ALL that matter. freedom of religion is the canon in star Trek.
radical Islam
No one here is doing that anon. Get a reality check.
>freedom of religion is the canon in star Trek.
Fun fact: The hijab, burka, niqab, and various other coverings are not part of islam, at all. There is not a single passage, beyond calling for "modesty" that requires it be enforced by severe physical punishment or death.
The hijab is not religion. It's a symbol of oppression.
>Fun fact: The hijab, burka, niqab, and various other coverings are not part of islam, at all.
So, you are saying they would still wear it as a cultural heritage, regardless of religion?
I guess that make OP even more wrong.
>It's a symbol of oppression.
Not if it is a choice, anon, like everything else. What are you so stupid you can't understand this?
>Fun fact: The hijab, burka, niqab, and various other coverings are not part of islam, at all.
Cool, so you agree they can exist completely independently of any fundie Islamic rules, great.
There are multiple passages calling for it, what are you talking about?
Go ahead and quote them. All scholars of the quran say there is no proscribed traditional clothing mandated by the quran, and that any calls for modesty do not have any punishments.
>uhhh
>no you don't get it
>it's different because it just is, OKAY?!
I accept your concession.
(O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way it is more likely that they will be recognized ˹as virtuous˺ and not be harassed.
33:59
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze, and protect their chastity and not to show off their beauty except only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils all over their bodies and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husband’s sons, their brothers or their brother’s sons, or their sister’s sons, or other women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.
24:31
Lmao notice how that's not "wear a hijab or get battery acid thrown in your face"?
This is what you said anon
>Fun fact: The hijab, burka, niqab, and various other coverings are not part of islam, at all.
And the passage you posted does not name those things. We agree. Good talk.
Sure it does, it says cover your whole body except your hands and feet and face
The passage literally boils down to “dress modestly” which can be interpreted any way you want. For Islamist extremists it’s
>anything that makes me horny bad
>it's star trek so it's different!
Except it's only there because the creators are a bunch of homosexuals who wanted extra diversity points, not because of some established canon that humans, 400 years from now, would regard a piece of clothing, used for religious and cultural oppression for a century or more, as something innocent and meaningless.
Star Trek is insanely heavy handed about honoring the past. No one would insist that shackles have lost their meaning because the slave trade was hundreds of years ago. Or that it's just a fun fashion accessory to wear nazi uniforms, becuase the nazis happened so long ago! It's the future! We can wear swatstikas and hugo boss uniforms and no one should care right?
You're a fricking idiot and you know nothing about Star Trek. They've done so many episodes, books, and comics about this exact sort of thing. The importance of the past doesn't go away just because enough time has gone by.
>not because of some established canon that humans, 400 years from now, would regard a piece of clothing, used for religious and cultural oppression for a century or more, as something innocent and meaningless
Abraham Lincoln called Uhura a negress to her face and she literally said the word means nothing to her because the context behind the word as a slur is nonexistent in the future, and that was a century before the TNG/DS9/VOY/LD era. Why would a piece of fabric be any different?
Same series had them fighting nazis, my Black person.
>So, you are saying they would still wear it as a cultural heritage, regardless of religion?
So, you're saying star fleet members of israeli heritage should get numbers tattooed on their arm and wear yellow stars pinned to their clothes?
If you genuinely think the hijab is the same as yellow stars and number tattoos then you are delusional.
Of course, it is. Both are about oppression.
Not when it's a choice, anon. Stars where always imposed, while some women actually chose to wear it, whether you like it or not.
>So, you're saying star fleet members of israeli heritage should get numbers tattooed
>should
o one is being forced to anything, anon.
Gosh you are bad at making comparison.
>There was never a point in history
Star trek is set in the future.
Just accept that some woman CHOSE to wear the hijab
It's a fashion choice. They're honoring their israeli heritage by wearing the symbols of oppression their ancestors were FORCED TO WEAR
I wouldn't be surprised if some israeli people actually did this.
It’s empowering. They turned a symbol of oppression into a fashion accessory.
>Same series had them fighting nazis
Yes, because the Nazis were actual people preaching actual hate. In the absence of that hate, symbols become meaningless.
>In the absence of that hate, symbols become meaningless.
Except that's literally never been the case in Star Trek. They may not use slurs, but that doesn't mean they don't recognize the importance they once held or the problems that prejudice once caused.
Besides, Lincoln called her a "negress", a female Black, a black person. He didn't treat her as the house slave who deserved whipping and was his lesser. You homosexuals really don't understand trek at all.
>the importance they once held or the problems that prejudice once caused
That's actually the point. The importance and problems in the past, that don't exist in the future.
Like there's a DS9 episode where Sisko goes on about how he hates a 50s nightclub program because black people were mistreated and he gets told by a black woman to get his stick out of his ass because those problems don't exist anymore so he should just enjoy himself.
>The importance and problems in the past, that don't exist in the future.
Except they do still exist and that's also the fricking point of many Star Trek episodes. You quote DS9 like Bajoran and Cardasian racism isn't a massive running theme throughout the entire show. Sisko is a man of the future who is still acutely aware of the injustices of the past. The fricking Ferengi have a whole subplot about female liberation because females in Ferengi culture are a parallel for islamic countries, except they aren't allowed to wear clothes at all.
Do you just come to the LD threads to jack off to lesbians, or do you ever watch Star Trek?
>Do you just come to the LD threads to jack off to lesbians, or do you ever watch Star Trek?
This is the closest they’ve ever come to discussion. All they do otherwise is defend lesbianism, spam waifus, and jerk each other off.
None of those things you're talking about apply to Trek humans, anon. I'm aware of those being allegories to real world issues. The reason why those real world issues are dealt with in alien allegories is to portray humans as an enlightened idealized utopia of what could be. Including an enlightened idealized utopia where a piece of cloth is just a piece of cloth.
Just stop, go to your kitchen, and drink all the cleaning chemicals under the sink. Humans in Trek are not above racism, nor have they discounted their entire past as just being a thing that happened and is now all completely meaningless.
>Humans in Trek are not above racism
In rare cases where they're portrayed as wrong, and never against other humans.
>racism only counts when it's humans doing it to humans
You've completely lost the fricking plot, moron.
Sorry, is this thread whining about fictional hijabs worn by aliens or is it whining about something involving future Trek humans?
It's whatever you need it to be to try and pretend you have anything resembling a coherent argument, apparently.
Star Trek does dozens of episodes and stories about how racism and prejudice still exist, even in the distant space future, and how the injustices of the past are still bad and should never be forgotten and you're over here going
>WELL DID THEY CALL SOMEONE A Black person?! HUH? NO?! THAT MEANS HIJABS AREN'T A SYMOL OF OPRESSION IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE I SAID SO!!
>it's impossible for a piece of cloth to be considered a piece of cloth in a utopian future because aliens are racist to each other
>sorry Ensign Shamalama, you're not allowed to wear a piece of cloth in a specific way because the Cardassian ambassador called the Bajorans names again
No one ever wore hijabs in Berman Trek (and they’ve had Muslim actors), so I guess you’re just wrong.
Another L for the Woke Team.
How does that make that anon wrong? How is it an "L for the woke Team"?
Across 700 episodes, no one wore hijabs in Star Trek before McMahan’s California Woke Trek.
And how does that prove anything?
It was not an oversight. Your pozzed cartoon Trek is not making up for something Roddenberry omitted on purpose.
>Oppression of women has no place in Star Trek.
Where are you seeing oppression?
The Hijab was conceived by orthodox Islamists to cover up women. In most Islamic countries, if a woman refuses to wear a hijab she will either get killed or rape.
You cannot divorce the Hijab from female oppression the same way you cannot divorce a Swastika from Nazism.
Sure you can divorce a swastika from Nazism, the way buddhists, hindus and jainists do
Yeah, good luck with that.
Except in many Islamic families, the Hijab is not forced and those who do so only do so as a choice, it is rather common to see a family where one girl doesn't wear it while hr sister wear it.
We already live in a time where, in many place it's already divorced from it.
The other girl is wearing it due to internalized oppression. That’s how it is.
There an entire papers written about the Hijab and how it’s a symbol of female oppression.
Post them then.
Sure.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8687514/
>The other girl is wearing it due to internalized oppression
You do'nt live in her head.
>Except it's only there because the creators are a bunch of homosexuals who wanted extra diversity points
No, anon, it's because it's Star trek, which is Super Diverse and they are writing accordingly, as the Trek universe is set such as there is freedm of religion.
How much of an idiot are you?
And how do you know that it's "internalized oppression"? You sound like gays talking about "compulsory heterosexuality". And there are entire papers written about how the earth is flat.
these gays saying it's INTERNALIZED OPPRESSION are the same guys who shit their pants over a woman deciding to buy a pair of high heels or wear a skirt.
Its amazing how these morons are going "LE EVIL OPPRESSIVE ISLAM" and then using the exact same arguments muslim use for why homosexuality is bad
>Islam good
>lesbians good
Paramount shills are hypocrites.
And why exactly should there be no lesbians in Star Trek?
Because Islam, the religion you’re sucking off all thread, says so.
You are not good at rational thinking, are you?
There is freedom of religion in Star Trek, so it means no one is forced to do what Islam say.
How could you not understand this?
So Star Trek takes place in an Islamic theocracy?
It doesn’t have to. Islam is incompatible with the ideals of Star Trek.
Christianity is incompatible with the ideals of Star Trek. Does Star Trek take place in a marxist state with enforced athiesm?
Admittedly less do. The Bible doesn’t order Christians to torture homosexuals, or to wage war on infidels.
Star trek has freedom of religion, so it is compatible.
The Western world has freedom of religion, dumbass. Islam is incompatible with it, because Islam does not share your values.
That is wrong. Certain sects reject other religions but others do not such as Quranism and Sufism.
They all reject atheism because it’s a sin.
No they do not.
Apostasy is punishable by death kaffir
So youre saying
>Islam bad
>Lesbians good
I’m not saying anything. I’m pointing out your hypocrisy.
It seems you are the hypocrite. You hate the fact that there are muslim characters because you think they represent oppression or something, then you are upset about lesbians? You cant pick and choose
I don’t hate it. It just shows that the writers are hypocrites, and so are you.
Where is the hypocrisy?
You know Muslim lesbian exist, right?
Same way there are catholic gay men.
>You know Muslim lesbian exist, right?
Ex-Muslim. You cannot reconcile your belief with the fact that God hates you for being a lesbian.
>Ex-Muslim.
No. Some remain religious. Same way catholic gay men continue to be catholic.
WHAT? RELIGIOUS PEOPLE NOT 100% FOLLOWING THE ETHOS OF THEIR OWN RELIGION? WHAT KIND OF WIZARDLY IS THAT?
I have known many Muslim who still drink beer from time to time, incidentally.
If that Muslim ensign is devout enough to wear an oppressive hijab, she’s likely a radical.
That is also wrong. The Quran forbade homosexuality, specifically Anal intercourse. It did not mention lesbianism. Quranists believe that it is permitted.
cause their not real
good
It's "freedom of religion good", actually.
>"And those two of you who commit it (the shameful act), torture them both".
Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of Star Trek, but you already knew that.
So if fundamentalist Islam isn't part of the Trek future then why are you shitting yourself over a piece of cloth?
>Religion good
>OY VEY NOT LIKE THAT
ok shlomo
So if the hijab is so evil for restricting freedom and being part of an organised religion according to you why do you care about lesbians? Arent they the ultimate expression of freedom and a punch in the face to organized religion? Its one or the other you cant say both are bad
Yeah, from the 1800s.
Times have changed, the arab world isn't (and never was) some backwater sandpit where they murder women for daring to show an ankle.
The hijab was widely worn until the late 19-century, decolonization and the spread of marxism. Maybe you associate it with that, but youre not from that part of the world where its actually worn. Do you think Orthodox Christians are extremists because they wear their own version of the hijab?
A black person choosing to wear chains would be a sign of self-loathing
Do you consider Ilahn Omar is loathing herself when she wear an hijab?
>She overtly displays her religion
So does Bajorans, but many aren't fundies. you are not making a point, there.
You can't find a valid reason to complain about this.
I'm sure the threat of getting acid thrown in their face by their own father is just a choice too.
>The frick are you on? Nowhere has it been ever stated that all religions are gone in the Federation or even on earth.
>Just delete this thread in shame.
In TNG, they specifically state religions have been long since abandoned. Picard called them "superstitious nonsense".
Picard would call wearing a hijab a disgrace, but here we are.
We somehow regressed since the 80s.
Picard celebrated Christmas, so he's familiar with previously religious customs becoming secularized.
>Christmas is the same thing as oppressive headgear
Christmas is an oppressive symbol of colonizing other cultures and destroying their local customs and traditions to replace with Christian knockoffs.
No, Christmas is the celebration of Jesus’ birth. The hijab is religious clothing used to oppress women.
Your strawmanning and other logical fallacies are transparent.
>The hijab is religious clothing used to oppress women
A hijab can carry many meaning to the individual wearing it. It is not always forced upon the person.
>as oppressive headgear
You have failed to establish how it will still be oppressive in Star Trek. You can't even demonstrate how every use of it today is systematically oppressive.
Seeing what you are saying doesn't even apply to all of today's Muslim women, it won't apply either to their Star Trek era equivalent.
>Picard didn’t defend shit.
Picard was a strong defendant of the First directive and self-determination in general. He strongly believe in the values of the Federation and that include Freedom of religion.
>You have failed to establish how it will still be oppressive in Star Trek
No, ESL shill, many anons have established why the hijab is fundamentally an instrument of oppression.
Are you the same homosexual who spends hours defending the forced lesbianism in this show? Your disjointed writing style and non-sequiturs seem familiar somehow
>many anons have established why the hijab is fundamentally an instrument of oppression.
Show me the post. Is Ilahn Omar an oppressed person?
You really aren't good at this, are you, anon?
>Are you the same homosexual who spends hours defending the forced lesbianism in this show?
Are you the same anon who systematically failed to demonstrate it was forced in any way?
>Is Ilahn Omar an oppressed person?
She wears a hijab.
>She wears a hijab.
I guess you therefore have just been proven wrong.
Her existence establish that you can wear an hijab AND not be oppressed/forced to wear it.
You fundamentally misunderstand the oppressive nature of Islam. If your religion is affecting how you dress, you’re being oppressed.
>You fundamentally misunderstand the oppressive nature of Islam
No, you do. Oppression is when you are forced to. Being able to chose is the opposite of oppression.
Oh frick, better let the Pope know he's being oppressed because he's forced to wear religious clothing.
I knew you’d say that lmao
Yeah, Christian nuns and priests wear religious clothing. But an average Christian will not wear religious clothing lmao
All Christian women dressed modestly when society was more fundamentalist. What you consider "Islamic clothing" is literally just the same thing but with clothing specific to life in arid climates and deserts. Like, in Arabic the word "hijab" just means a cover of some kind, including worn veils, but also including window curtains, screens, and so on. Obviously when someone says a person is "wearing a hijab" they don't mean they're wearing a window curtain, but the point is this clothing is just normal clothing for that region and predates the existence of Islam, and the negative part is religious fundies forcing things, not the piece of cloth itself.
>All Christian women dressed modestly when society was more fundamentalist
Not because the Bible told them to.
>Picard would call wearing a hijab a disgrace
Picard defend the freedom of religion. Why are you stating things in direct contradiction with the Star Trek canon.
Picard didn’t defend shit. He was terrified when he introduced religion to those Proto-Vulcans, saying it regressed them back thousands of years.
You don’t watch Star Trek. You’re just here to shill.
Picard was afraid of introducing superstitions, not religion. I believe you have misunderstood the meaning of that particular episode.
Picard sees religion as superstition. Those are synonyms to him.
see
>Picard was a strong defendant of the First directive and self-determination in general. He strongly believe in the values of the Federation and that include Freedom of religion.
I disagree. Picard is a student of ancient history, particularly theology. We’re many episodes of him “geeking out” about the subject.
Watch “Who Watches the Watchers.”
I have. I was just discussing it.
He's against superstition and fear imposed on them, he defends peoples' rights to their own beliefs and customs. Hence the last scene of Ro's debut episode, where he's learned enough about Bajoran culture to let her wear her earring; he didn't even get the name order right at the start.
>No, Christmas is the celebration of Jesus’ birth.
So you agree that Picard is in favour of religious practices.
>So you agree that Picard is in favour of religious practices
Based upon what? Are you just hallucinating replies now?
He celebrates Christmas, which is a religious practice.
Unless you want to argue that the Christmas Picard celebrates in the future is secular, in which case you're arguing that something previously religious can be made secular in the future, like pieces of cloth.
You mean his family celebrates. Picard never celebrates Christmas.
Mega where?
The one I have doesn't have the last episode.
Has any decent place replaced RARBG?
Not in front of the 'tard. I'm pretty sure he DCMAed the last one.
The one I have is still there, but it hasn't updated with the last episode.
The other one is down.
Starfleet has uniforms. But I suppose there's fricking Troi.
Captains can give crewmen special dispensation to wear cultural garb, plenty of Bajorans wear their earrings and Picard let Worf wear his Klingon baldric.
Even if that cultural piece of clothing exists solely because women showing their hair is seen as promiscuous in that culture, so they’re forced to wear headscarves not to provoke the men into raping them?
Why would any of that matter?
The hajib is more of an authoritarian symbol of oppression than "cultural garb", where as the earrings and the baldric were more akin to a rosary or a family crest.
Just because it's not law in other middle eastern cultures, doesn't mean women still won't be beaten or assaulted for refusing to wear the hajib, my dude.
>The hajib is more of an authoritarian symbol of oppression
Not in the star trek era. See
In the era of star Trek they are no longer forced to do so. You are a complete buffoon not understanding that.
They are no longer forced to and yet they choose to continue wearing a symbol of oppression that was created because “showing hair was seen as promiscuity, and invited rape.”
You’re not very smart, are you?
Strange how you complain about that but not the sikh turbans that have been there since season 2.
Iran literally just passed an even stricter set of laws that enforce MANDATORY hijab and headscarf wear for all women, along with harsher punishments for any business that serves any woman not wearing her hijab. And this is only a year after a series of protests over a woman being beaten to death in Iranian police custody for refusing to wear a hijab led to over 500 people getting killed.
I don't know if you're moronic, willfully ignorant, or some quran-humping islam apologist, but it's not some minor issue.
How does anything you have just said contradict my point?
Are you so moronic to not understand that the issue is to be FORCED to wear one and that being able to CHOSE is in accordance to the star trek universe?
god you are dense.
Star Trek still has religions, accents, and non-coffee-coloured people. Also, a turban can be purely a fashion choice, no reason a headscarf can't be the same.
>Why would they have hijabs in the 24th century
Because the creators of this show think Hajib = culture = diversity, because they're a bunch of sheltered hollywood homosexuals who never stopped to consider for a second that the forced wear of a particular garment might not still be considered part of their cultural identity or embraced by future generations from those cultures that are currently fighting RIGHT FRICKING NOW to end forced hajib wear.
They think it's a kitschy little fashion choice, and not a symbol of religious oppression. At the same time, you'd never see them have a chinese female starfleet officer with footbindings, or an african officer with a colossal lip disk.
>cultures that are currently fighting RIGHT FRICKING NOW to end forced hajib wear.
"forced" is the operative word in that sentence. There are absolutely women in those cultures who are still willing to wear hijabs, but who don't want it to be compulsory. You're talking like if there wasn't a rule saying muslim women had to wear it then absolutely no one would
The writers are Californian
>the year is 2381
>Muslim women still risk death for refusing to wear a hijab
>alternatively, they suffer from internalized misogyny so they choose the wear the hijab
Just like Gene envisioned.
women still risk death for refusing to wear a hijab
No? Where are you getting that from? Do you have brain problem?
>when all human religions were gone by the time of the Federation?
They weren't, both TOS and TNG explicitly reference Earth religious practices. What they reject is the idea that a sufficiently advanced alien should be worshipped as a god, because the Federation is sufficiently advanced enough that they could be if they wanted to be.
Shut the frick up. TNG is opposed to organized religion. Hell, even Freeman in Lower Decks mentions that humanity is against organized religion.
But in the eyes of Californian dipshits, organized religion = Christianity.
Lower Decks once again proves that it’s regressive woke shit instead of actually being progressive like old Star Trek.
Bravo Thumb Man! Bravo!
>lesbians good
>Islam good
>Christianity bad
>straight people bad
bad
people bad
Where does it says that?
>who never stopped to consider for a second that the forced wear of a particular garment
How about you stop a second to consider it is no longer something forced on them.
In the Star trek universe, the Federation has freedom of religion, so why do you assume things that contradict canon?
>Muslim woman wearing a hijab participates an orgy-like scenario
Is there some radical Islam organization we could sent this to?
Good idea.
Tell them about Alan Moore rewriting Islam to suit his pozzed prejudices in Crossed too.
Still annoyed that the Betazoids weren't a reference. Just colour code their clothes/hair and we'd get a Totally Spies reference.
It's pretty stupid to imply that in a future where people still cook despite owning replicators that all humans would move on from religion
>ITT: Redittors seething that women wear clothes
>ITT: Redittors seething at religion
So Redditors are just Ferengi?
But Ferengi were extremely religious.
Women in Japan's feudal era were beaten to death for dressing immodestly, yet today many women voluntarily choose to wear kimono as traditional cultural garb. Since Star Trek takes place hundreds of years in the future where uppity religious fundies were rightfully exterminated and nobody has to risk being beaten to death or having acid thrown in their face, it stands to reason people in that era would similarly choose to voluntarily wear cultural garb since it would no longer have any negative associations.
And yes it's the exact same thing, because """Islamic religious clothes""" are just generic desert garb that predates Islam by centuries and were adopted by Christian nuns because the fricking Virgin Mary wore them.
>feudal japan
They also tested new katanas on the living bodies of prisons and yet the katana is still regarded as an iconic part of their culture. Almost like the general association wasn't the problem, but the culture at the time, which changed and was never strictly built around holding up the kimono as a mandatory style of dress, nor the katana as a prisoner murdering weapon. Wow.
You know nothing you just said contradict his point, right?
Islamic countries moved backwards by centuries and created new rules and still enforce hijab wear. The kimono was just a piece of clothing and was never strictly associated with any modesty laws. The hijab and various headscarves are intentionally enforced as mandatory wear. Japanese people regard it as a piece of fashion with a long cultural history. Women in islamic countries regard hijabs and burkas as a thing they have to wear or they will be assaulted or killed.
>The hijab and various headscarves are intentionally enforced as mandatory wear.
Seeing that's no longer the point in the era of Star Trek, you fail to make a point.
You don't actually care about Star Trek, do you?
>ST: Picard literally says religion leads to fascism in both alien & human in every season.
>Lower Decks also dunked on religion with every artifact going haywire/being corruptive, borderline fedora tipper mode too.
>Nah, Muslim's are pure heckin chungus goys, Islam never did anything wrong.
Shlomo, out of all things to pilpul & shill for, you choose to defemd something that destroys Star Trek and the Chaim Gang too.
>>ST: Picard literally says religion leads to fascism in both alien & human in every season.
He doesn't really say that, though.
Decks also dunked on religion with every artifact going haywire/being corruptive, borderline fedora tipper mode too.
They also made a point to respect the cultures and traditions of the people they encountered. They only tackle fundamentalism.
>>Nah, Muslim's are pure heckin
That's not what they say either. the Federation has freedom of religion, how is it a contradiction?
>you choose to defemd something that destroys Star Trek
How a showcase of freedom of religion destroy Star Trek in any way?
I think you should get your brain checked, you are seething about things that objectively don't exist.
You’re making a lot of assumptions and bending the franchise to your liking. Religion is very often simply not an object in the world of Star Trek. And if it’s brought up, it’s often in the negative light.
It seems to me you’re taking Gene’s utopia and attempting to reconcile it with your contemporary notions of what is progressive.
>You’re making a lot of assumptions
I am making zero assumptions. all the assumptions are made there
Learn to read before arguing, anon. you still have no valid reason to complain about that character and how she dress.
Shlomo, you started the assumptions with your post here
trying to gaslight people and then kvetched your kippah off when presented with stuff refuting you. We're trying to warn you that capitualting to regressive wokism not only harms Star Trek but will lead to the alt-fascist world Star Trek:Picard (TV show so you don't get confused this time). Just like the all Muslim group stopped the gay flagging, women are kept in check with the hijab. Only a matter of tome before the israelites are on the chopping block next.
>TL;DR
Don't go so fake woke you shoah yourself again Shlomo. This time I doubt others will come to your rescue against the oppressive system you invited and we don't have a dying Q to wish it all away .
>you started the assumptions with your post here
Its funny you quote that post where I precisely point out that anon was making assumption. Also, it has nothing to do with what I was replying to there
Can you at least try to have some self-consistency in your mindless an uncalled for rant?
>Showed you how IRL even moderate Muslims turned away from progressive values here for fundamentalism.
Shlomo, I don't thing you should be encouraging this behaviour with your pilpul. When the Muslim's are done screwing over the gays, israelites are next.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/09/16/hamtramck-michigan-pride-flag-ban/
You then denied this doesn't happen and defended the hijab which comes from Islamic fundamentalism, it's not the cool headscarf Californinans appropriated like they did with Buddhism and other cultural practices.
Is not me, you've got a touch of israeli schizophrenia that needs to checked Chaim.
>
Except you have failed to establish any kind of "regressive wokism" existing in the first place so you fail to make a point.
Trying to claim the hijab as just some precious headdress and not what it represents is peak regressiveness. Again I'm warning you because just like Picard's alt-verse season was about fundamentalism reigning supreme, Islam will do the same to you and this time no one will save you from the mess you made.
You’re trying to reason with a deranged libtard.
I am not the one who ignore make up things that didn't happen, there.
>We're trying to warn you that capitualting to regressive wokism not only harms Star Trek
Except you have failed to establish any kind of "regressive wokism" existing in the first place so you fail to make a point.
>Islamic countries moved backwards by centuries and created new rules
Irrelevant, because those pieces of clothing predate these new rules by millennia, predate Islam by centuries, existed on a widespread basis outside of Islam, and therefore are not inherently tied to those rules, especially in a utopian future where those rules do not exist.
Yes, thank you for agreeing with me.
You are literally agreeing with him moron
>things that only exist in the heads of right-nuts.
Shlomo, I don't thing you should be encouraging this behaviour with your pilpul. When the Muslim's are done screwing over the gays, israelites are next.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/09/16/hamtramck-michigan-pride-flag-ban/
>the ESL Lower Decks shill will defend both Islamic oppression and lesbians
OH IM LAFFIN
How do liberals reconcile sucking off homophobic Islam with their love of homosexualry?
>will defend both Islamic oppression
Where?
It's just fashion now. She happens to think hijabs are cute and is wearing one.
>thread is the disgusting flipper baby of paramount shills and neo-nazis
How horrifying
>defend radical Islam
>defend lesbians
I fricking hate you gays
Jesus christ you people are such enormous homosexuals
I hope everyone ITT gets banned, including me
I work on Lower Decks. They’ll introduce a burka uniform in S5.
>defend Islamic oppression
>defend lesbianism
Which way, Paramount employee?
Islamic oppression
Where?
You’re being intentionally obtuse.
No. Show me a single post that defended Islamic oppression.
>and he gets told by a black woman to get his stick out of his ass because those problems don't exist anymore
Actually not her point. what she say was that white people had their fun in this era, so it's only fair that black people can also have their turn at having this fun. She does not dismiss in any way Sisko's critic, she validate them, even, but she only suggest a different way to deal with it.
shills
>oh cool a LD thr-
You gays will whine about everything won't you?
Someone see a hijab and decided to be a whining baby who would get BTFO by actual facts.
I guess realizing that a symbol of female oppression has no place in the secular future of Star Trek is whining.
>that a symbol of female oppression
You have been told many tile already that it isn't Oppression when it's a choice. You have failed to argue otherwise. Do you think Ilhan Omar is an oppressed woman?
Do you have a link to the last episode?
It was /misc/ bait from the start
Report the OP and move on
Do not engage
shills
Maybe she's the 24th century equivalent to embarrassing weebs who wear stuff they see in anime in public.
>the same shills who defend homosexuality also defend Islam
Islam is a regressive third world religion. It has no place in the world of Star Trek.
ok Shlomo
So by that logic homosexuality does have a place in Star Trek
>It has no place in the world of Star Trek.
Why are you contradicting the canon that the federation has freedom of religion?
>It was not an oversight.
>something Roddenberry omitted on purpose.
source?
You remember the episode from tos where everyone gets drunk off of the water virus? Somebody wrote some bullshit about "sinners" on the wall. To insinuate that religion doesn't exist is to go against the oldest and assuredly MOST star trek-trek there is
>add Muslim ensign wearing a hijab
Cool. Do the writers also support stoning gays to death? I know they’ve had lesbians in the show, so this is all so confusing.
>Cool. Do the writers also support stoning gays to death?
No, they don't.
Star Trek is a setting where there is freedom of religion. It's as simple as that.
The Federation is full of nerds who love to cosplay old shit.
>all human religions were gone by the time of the Federation?
TOS crew members show preferences for God and Christian principles several times, TNG baby. That's still canon no matter what they tried to retcon later. Also, obvious shill thread is an obvious shill thread.
Paramount figured out that bait keeps the advertisement on Page 1 longer. Remember to always sage these threads.
>Paramount figured out that bait
Or maybe it's just something the writer wanted.
>most of thread is just two anons moronicly debating OP question
Dead show. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a samegay.
>Didn't all religions die out after WW3
No it's a post-religous society. Pretty much atheism is the mainstream and religious people are the minority
But of course you're a shitposter so you'll just ignore that.
>He doesn’t like Rutherford
Religion still exists. Chakotay followed a 1990s native American nature Religion. Yeah he was a terrorist but he lived on a Federation colony
Buy an ad, shill
Religions aren't gone. It's just out of style. Amping people up to kill each other doesn't work anymore.
How are you all such morons? Christians pick and choose what beliefs to follow to this day. Why is it assumed that muslims wouldn't follow less oppressive sects and just choose to be kind to others?
I asked a Muslim classmate of mine in university why she wore a hijab even though her family considered themselves progressives and she said it was because the city we lived in is stupidly windy and gets bitterly cold in the winter, so it helps keep her hair from getting tangled in the wind and her ears warm in the winter.
>defend Islam
>defend dykes
>defend megacorp
This show might have the most obnoxious fanbase in existence.
Islam
Defend the freedom of religion, anon. Why do you want an important setting of Star Trek to be contradicted?
That’s what happens when your fanbase is made up entirely of soijaks
>Twitter screenshot
Go back.
Will someone please save the nuns. they’re being oppressed!
Are you telling me that all Christian women dress like nuns? Even the most religious Christian women won’t dress like nuns.
>Are you telling me that all Christian women dress like nuns?
Are you yelling me all Muslim women cover their hair?
Find me a Christian woman who does for religious reasons.
There’s really just no way for you to defend this. The hijab was conceived as an instrument of oppression, and even if a woman chooses to wear it, it’s because she she agrees with Quran’s oppressive views on female modesty. You’re just descending down a rabbit hole to defend what is a misogynist practice.
Anon, you already know where this is going. People are going to point out the numerous Christian denominations in the US that still enforces modest clothing among women, some including both women and men, and you're going to insist those are a small minority and not reflective of """most""" Christians, because you're being dishonest and can't form an argument without moving the goal posts.
There are multiple passages in the New Testament that command modest clothing, and they're equally as vague and easily abused as the passages in the Quran or whatever passages in the Miqra that Orthodox israelites use to justify their own beliefs. Lust is literally one of the seven deadly sins, and chastity the corresponding heavenly virtue, and dressing modestly was enforced to drive away lust.
>Find me a Christian woman who does for religious reasons.
Nuns. I guess you utterly failed to make a point.
Now you can be happy with the learning that you there are actually no reason to get upset with the last Lower Deck episode.
Of course there isnt youre arguing with a moron who thinks one religious custom = oppression but another isnt oppression and thinks that religion shouldnt be in star trek because its oppressive but has a problem with lesbians that he never explains
>nuns
No, this is their work uniform. Swing and a miss again.
Read
>Find me a Christian woman who does for religious reasons.
Are they wearing those uniforms for religious reason, anon?
Yes and no. It’s a work uniform, the work in question being religious. Many wear normal clothes off-duty.
>the work in question being religious
And they do so for religious reason. I guess the case is settle.
You’re equating members of the Church hierarchy with random Muslims.
That doesn't make the answer to that question any less valid.
It remains Hijab isn't oppression when this is a choice and that not all Muslim women wear one, as they have chosen to.
The hijab was and always will be about oppression. Unless you’re one of those leftist weirdos who thinks it’s “empowering.”
>The hijab was and always will be about oppression
Is Ilahn Omar oppressed in wearing a Hijab?
That’s a question for her.
So if it's a choice, it's not oppression. I guess anon there
fail to make a point.
>Because American writers nowadays only do it to shoehorn diversity.
shwoing something that exist sin't "shoehorning", anon.
>Even though the OG Star Trek was one of the first mainstream shows to have a sizable minority cast.
So there is no reason to complain about that character and how she dress.
>something that exist
It doesn’t, not in the 24th century.
>It doesn’t
Source religion doesn't exist in the 24th century of star Trek?
>There is no religion in Star Trek
The frick are you on? there is freedom of Religion in Star Trek. No one ever stated there was no religion. Are you new to the show?
>Muslim isn't a race
how does that contradict my point?
>Source religion doesn't exist in the 24th century of star Trek?
Gene Roddenberry's own words
Not speaking of it doesn't mean it does not exist.
We have seen the existence of many religions in the federation before, anon. It seems it has only become a problem for you now, for some reason.
>Not speaking of it doesn't mean it does not exist.
That’s where you’re wrong. The omission of religion in Star Trek was intentional.
>The omission of religion in Star Trek was intentional.
Maybe, but it doesn't mean religions don't exist in the federation.
>Yeah, from aliens.
And humans too, like Chakotay.
>We have seen the existence of many religions in the federation before, anon.
Yeah, from aliens. Human religion doesn't exist in the OG Star Trek canon. The Rick and Morty looking shit-fest that's Lower Decks seems to have forgot about that though.
>The frick are you on? there is freedom of Religion in Star Trek
Irrelevant. None of the characters presented in the franchise over the last fifty years have shown to be religious.
Ensign Letterbox is an exception.
>Irrelevant
Very relevant, it means anyone is free to practice their religion, including muslim.
>None of the characters presented in the franchise over the last fifty years have shown to be religious.
Chakotay
Chakotay doesn’t even belong to a real world tribe.
Doesn't change that it make religions exist in the fictional setting of Star trek.
They exist, but they’re purposefully omitted. TNG in all its progressiveness didn’t feel the need to give officers religious headwear.
TNG S1 had a Hindu officer. Did you see him wearing a turban? No, because he’s on duty. His religion, if he has any, is secondary to his job.
TMP had background extras in turbans, and while you really have to squint to look for them, it's also the single part of the franchise that had the most of Gene's personal direct involvement in it, so he'd obviously veto it if he felt it actually went against the setting.
>TMP had
Incorrect.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Turban
How does that proves anon to be incorrect?
>changes the goal posts the second someone presents evidence
Every fricking time.
>character worships fictional religion
What goalpost is moved here?
The initial claim was that
>None of the characters presented in the franchise over the last fifty years have shown to be religious.
Chakotay's character contradict this. That he does not belong to a real-life tribe doesn't change any of that.
Is Chakotay really going to be the hill you’re going to die on to defend your Muslim representation?
You know exactly what the problem here is, it’s been explained to you many times. And you still pretend you don’t get it, because you think that it’ll you act dumb long enough, people will just get tired and you’ll walk away with a victory after your 9 hour marathon. I can see you’re getting desperate though.
>I explained it
No, you moved the goalposts. You pretended it "didn't count" when it was inconvenient for your argument.
Roddenberry never said "religion is bad unless it's fake lol"
Your argument consists of hijabs being somehow wholly tied to a religion only, ignoring the multitudes of real human beings who wear them without being Muslims.
Ferengi wore stupid hats on their heads, and there was no indication that was religious. Nog wore his ON THE JOB. Starfleets dress code is inconsistent, and you need to stop sucking wieners.
Sorry to break it to you, but you’re not a good debater. You’re incessant, unwavering, desperate to claim a victory, but all those cheap tricks ultimately fall flat.
Your entire shtick of “I pretend I don’t understand” is tiresome. Everyone can see right through your bullshit. You keep flip-flipping on whether you’re discussing real world religion or fictional in an effort to confuse, when you’re painfully aware of politics at play, but because you’re closely-aligned with them, you pretend they don’t exist. What’s worse is you trying to pretend Star Trek has always been “yours,” but everyone present can dismantle your whole string of bullshit with one main argument: Star Trek characters don’t worship real life religions, and they definitely do not display their worship openly.
Not the same anon, ultra gay.
have a nice day immediately. But first, address anything I fricking said.
Did Nog wear a stupid hat on the back of his head whilst on the job?
T or F
>Did Nog wear a stupid hat on the back of his head whilst on the job?
Here’s your answer: stop trying to muddy the waters. You really think trying to confuse us will work here?
>here's your answer
>uuuuuhhhhhhh I'm not gonna answer
Holy shit have a nice day IMMEDIATELY
You are the only one who muddy every argument, there.
>Already debunked,
Nope, you didn't.
>. Also, everyone knows Picard is an atheist
Your complain was the showcase of some explicit real life religion in Star trek. The Christmas Tree showcase a precedent that invalidate your complain.
>Also, everyone knows Picard is an atheist.
And the girl could just be wearing it for cultural reason.
You have already been told that and you keep pretending to not have to. This is a pathetic display of bad faith.
you have zero valid reason to complain about the girl wearing a hijab.
>The Christmas Tree showcase a precedent that invalidate your complain
No, you’re making a faulty assumption that one must be Christian to celebrate Christmas, which is just silly. Even Shinto Japanese decorate Christmas Trees.
This is honestly laughable.
>No, you’re making a faulty assumption that one must be Christian to celebrate Christmas
Nope. No assumption of the sort from my part. You said there was no explicit symbol of existing religion showed before and this Christmas tree prove you wrong. it still prove you wrong whether or not the people in that scene are actual Christian. it's still a christian symbol regardless of that.
The same way that character might actually not even be Muslim and only wear it for cultural reason. You have no valide reason to complain about the hijab.
>No, his job is to respect what came before.
You have failed to establish to hat he didn't.
>Christmas tree prove you wrong
The Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all. It was pagan, originally, if you want to get all specific.
So no, Nexus Christmas is not explicitly Christian at all, it doesn’t imply any worship. Christmas can be secular, and it very often is. And in the case of Generations, there’s nothing to suggest that the celebration is anything but secular and familial.
A hijab, however, is inherently tied to worship. It cannot be secular.
>a hijab can't be secular
Says who moron
>The Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all.
Well you have gone beyond mental gymnastic and brought your back. there. anyone seeing you saying that know you are a fricking joke, now.
>he’s pretending to be a moron again
The Japs decorate Christmas Trees. This has nothing to do with the worship of Christ.
No, the one pretending to be a moron is the one literally saying "The Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all."
sorry, you lost the argument.
Man, you just have no way of disproving that Christmas is celebrated by non-Christmas and it’s hilarious.
Prove all hijabs are worn exclusively by Muslims then
All hijabs are worn for religious reasons. There’s really no argument there.
Prove that though. You just say it's true. That doesn't make it true.
It's a head scarf. There is nothing inherently religious about it.
Why else would a Starfleet officer wear it? You say it’s for religious reasons. You dug that hole yourself.
>Why else would a Starfleet officer wear it?
Part of her cultural heritage.
> You say it’s for religious reasons
And a further display of bad faith argument.
>-Starfleet allow for specific CULTURAL or religious garments to be wear with uniform.
This is so pathetic.
also, you have said
>The Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all.
You have lost the argument.
>I said that
No I didn't?
Of course you did. You say Starfleet lets people wear religious symbols to celebrate their culture. The hijab is tied to Muslim culture, so the girl is a Muslim.
>culture from desert region is the same thing as religious headgear
And again, you are arguing with multiple people. Not me.
>still arguing in bad faith
>>-Starfleet allow for specific CULTURAL or religious garments to be wear with uniform.
>CULTURAL or religious
>CULTURAL
>OR
Do you enjoy being this much of a pathetic loser?
Even if she was Muslim, there still wouldn't be valid reason to complain that people of the Islamic religion exist in the Federation.
Strange that they’ve been absent for hundreds of years. Guess 2380s saw a major Islamic resurgence.
Or maybe the writer is just a hack trying to score cheap diversity points with no regard to previous worldbuilding.
So what
You being mad that the writers put something in doesn't mean it's unprecedented for the series.
You can't make both arguments at the SAME TIME
>Strange that they’ve been absent for hundreds of years
Not appearing on-screen doesn't mean it was absent, anon. You fail to make a point.
It was omitted for a reason, as previously established. This was not a mistake on Roddenberry or anyone else’s end.
>It was omitted for a reason, as previously established.
You have never established any valid reason to begin with. And you have already been shown that real life religions have been mentioned before. you are not making a point, there.
It’s an issue because it’s a political statement. It shows favoritism towards one particular real life group, something Star Trek specifically avoided in the past.
If I see a character wearing a cross in Lower Decks, I will eat my own shoe.
>It’s an issue because it’s a political statement
Simply showing things that exist in the real world is not a political statement.
Furthermore making political statement is something common for star trek. you fail to make a point. There is no valid reason to complain about that character wearing a hijab.
>that exist in the real world
Star Trek is not the real world and it has no obligation to pander to you and your diversity quotas.
The hajib doesn’t belong in Roddenberry’s future, and if you need proof of that, just rewatch old Star Trek in search of Muslim officers.
>Star Trek is not the real world
It's still mean to be the future of our real world, or at least the future of the real 60's.
You are not making a point, here.
>and it has no obligation to pander to you
Doesn't mean it's forbidden to showcase hijabs either. You fail to make a point becaquse they did not do that out of any obligation. they did it BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO!
>The hajib doesn’t belong in Roddenberry’s future
You have failed to establish that and all your attmept to have been debunked
>-Religion exist in the federation in star trek
>-Religious character from the Federation have been featured in star trek before.
>-Explicit symbol real-life Religion have been showcased in star trek before.
>-The Hijab can be just as well worn for religious or just cultural reason.
>-Starfleet allow for specific cultural or religious garments to be wear with uniform.
>You have failed to establish that and all your attmept to have been debunked
No, I don’t care about your little list. It doesn’t belong because Roddenberry purposefully omitted it.
>No, I don’t care about your little list
I made that least because you tried to pretend I never debunked your point. It's showing that I did.
>it doesn’t belong because Roddenberry purposefully omitted it.
And yet, later, trek show has made explicit mention of existing religion before that episode and it's only bothering you now. You have failed to make a point.
>All hijabs are worn for religious reasons
You have failed to establish that.
Sorry but you have said
>The Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all.
You have lost the argument.
>hijab is religious
>no it isn't durr, prove it isn't religious durr
nta but I hate these fricking pilpul Black folk
We could've had a nice thread but you ruined it.
>The Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all
The Japanese and non-Christians decorate them. Are you implying they all secretly worship The Lord?
The Tree is a Christmas symbol, but not a purely Christian one. And it has roots in paganism.
>The Japanese and non-Christians decorate them
And? It doesn't change that the Christmas tree is a classic Christian symbol.
Sorry, but you have said
>The Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all.
You have lost the argument.
>And? It doesn't change that the Christmas tree is a classic Christian symbol.
It’s a Christmas symbol, and as we have established, Christmas is not exclusively Christian. The Tree actually has absolutely no connection to the worship of Christ, it has no religious meaning.
>It’s a Christmas symbol, and as we have established, Christmas is not exclusively Christian.
And Hijab is not exclusive to Islam.
I will pretend you are not arguing in bad faith and remind you that the reason it was brought up was because you (or someone else) argued that the Star Trek show never showcased religious symbol of existing religion.
The Christmas tree prove that argument AND that argument alone false. Do you understand, now?
>argued that the Star Trek show never showcased religious symbol of existing religion
Incorrect. The argument was that no character wore real life religious symbols before.
>real life
>religious symbols
Start at the top and read again, Black person
YOU introduced both of those as arguments. Nobody else played along
>Incorrect. The argument was that no character wore real life religious symbols before.
For that to be a valid argument, you first have to establish how this is an issue and why that would not be okay when it's okay for character to wear fictional religious symbol.
>The Christmas tree prove that argument AND that argument alone false
Fallacy of composition. Even if you consider the argument false, it does not invalidate the rest of the arguments.
You’re desperate to get that win, admit it. It’s actually extremely easy. Just close the tab and go for a walk.
>Even if you consider the argument false
Anon, it objectively prove false that no religious symbol of existing religion have never been shown before.
> it does not invalidate the rest of the arguments.
Actually, it doe, anon. You got nothing.
>Anon, it objectively prove false that no religious symbol of existing religion have never been shown before.
Expect that wasn’t the argument. You know it wasn’t.
>Expect that wasn’t the argument.
Yes it was, anon. You know it was.
You’ve warped “no Star Trek character wore real life religious imagery.”
Maybe I misjudged you. Maybe you’re not trying to be dishonest, maybe it’s just your poor command of the English language. But even then, that wouldn’t excuse your unpleasant and incessant personality.
Again, I have already addressed that, see
>For that to be a valid argument, you first have to establish how this is an issue and why that would not be okay when it's okay for character to wear fictional religious symbol.
>Expect that wasn’t the argument. You know it wasn’t.
Here are is the whole complain entirely addressed:
>-Religion exist in the federation in star trek
>-Religious character from the Federation have been featured in star trek before.
>-Explicit symbol real-life Religion have been showcased in star trek before.
>-The Hijab can be just as well worn for religious or just cultural reason.
>-Starfleet allow for specific cultural or religious garments to be wear with uniform.
>All of this was true before this episode. You thus have no valid reason to complain about the character wearing an hijab.
Good job, you’ve debunked your own arguments. The argument was “Star Trek characters don’t wear real life religious clothing.”
This does in no way debunk my own argument.
>The argument was “Star Trek characters don’t wear real life religious clothing.”
Again for that to be a valid argument in the first place, you first need to establish how this is an issue and why that would not be okay when it's okay for character to wear fictional religious symbol.
>Again for that to be a valid argument in the first place
Uh, no? You don’t make the rules on what is and what isn’t a valid argument here.
And the answer is it doesn’t belong in the universe Roddenberry created. There’s not a single character across fifty years who openly displayed a real world religion. The reasons behind that are tied to Star Trek’s leanings towards humanism and atheism, but we’ve discussed that at length already.
>And the answer is it doesn’t belong in the universe Roddenberry created.
You have failed to establish that.
>There’s not a single character across fifty years who openly displayed a real world religion
Sisko's fiancee tlaked about Marriage ordered by a minsiter. That's an open display of religion. The Christmas tree is an open display of Christianity too. That's an open display of religion by a group, even if they are not wearing the tree on their sweater.
> The reasons behind that are tied to Star Trek’s leanings towards humanism and atheism
Doesn't mean religion doesn't exist, this isn't a valid argument.
>but we’ve discussed that at length already.
And you have been systematically debunked, anon. but keep arguing in bad faith.
>The Christmas tree is an open display of Christianity too
No… just no lmao
>No… just no lmao
So you have lost the argument again. A Christmas tree is a Christian symbol, whether the people celebrating around it are Christians or not.
Trek allow display of existing religious symbol. Whether it's an ornament or worn make no difference.
>A Christmas tree is a Christian symbol
Incorrect. It has no symbolism in Christianity, it has no ties to Christ. You associate it with Christianity due to cultural osmosis, but it’s not recognized by the Church. Santa Claus, I will concede, because he’s a literal Saint, but the tree is purely secular.
The Hajib is a different beast, as it’s technically rooted in the Quran’s ideas about female modesty, so it’s intrinsically tied to worship in one way or another.
It should be impossible to be so wrong with so much conviction, but here we are.
>>A Christmas tree is a Christian symbol
>Incorrect. It has no symbolism in Christianity
You have just lost the argument. opinion discarded.
Do you really think claiming victory over and over again will suddenly make it so?
I know it’s really important to you because you’ve spent 12 hours on this, but the only loser here is you because:
A) You failed miserably to convince anyone.
B) You’ve wasted hours of your life.
C) You’ll do it all over again.
>Do you really think claiming victory over and over again will suddenly make it so?
No, but pointing out the abysmal contradiction and hypocrisy of your arguments will.
>A) You failed miserably to convince anyone.
I am not the one who failed to establish why it's an issue for a character to wear a hijab. You still haven't done so.
>B) You’ve wasted hours of your life.
t least I didn't do so being piss angry at a fictional piece of fabric.
>C) You’ll do it all over again.
You are the one who have decide to barge in a thread about a franchise you have clearly showed you don't actually care about or even understand.
>You are the one who have decide to barge in a thread about a franchise you have clearly showed you don't actually care about or even understand
I love Star Trek 🙂
But unlike you, I love it for what it is and not for what I think it should be.
>I love it for what it is
No, you have showed for a whole thread tat you hate it for what it is.
what star trek is is being okay to casually feature a character with Hijab. you hated it, you hate Star trek for what it is.
And you love for what you would like it to be: a show that never show the existence of islam. But this isn't what star Trek is.
star trek is an embrace of diversity and tolerance. You are not.
>The Hajib is a different beast, as it’s technically rooted in the Quran’s ideas about female modesty, so it’s intrinsically tied to worship in one way or another.
Women wear the Hijab without being Muslim, you are factually incorrect. You fail.
>The Hajib is a different beast
I see white girls wear it all the time.
>The argument was “Star Trek characters don’t wear real life religious clothing.”
But you haven't established why this is a bad thing to do so. It's not even sure she wear it for religious reason.
Just watch it turn out she's an alien who's been wearing an exotic human fashion relic this entire time.
Ignoring the Christmas tree, there is still reference to the Christian concept of "Sinners" as seen in "The Naked Time"
>You’re desperate to get that win
Anon, you have only got lost. You have been unable to showcase a single valid argument against that hijab. Now, how about you actually say why it REALLY bother you for it to appear in a show where it makes sense for it to appear.
>you just have no way of disproving that Christmas is celebrated by non-Christmas
I have never argued against that anon. and that point doesn't change that it's a clear classic symbol, whether it is also celebrated by non-Christian or not. the same way non-Muslim will sometimes also wear the Hijab.
No, your argument is
>Picard attends a Christmas dinner in the nexus ergo he’s a Christian
which is just silly.
attends a Christmas dinner in the nexus ergo he’s a Christian
This has never been my argument anon. You are really bad at this.
also, you have said
>The Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all.
You have lost the argument.
>The Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all. It was pagan, originally, if you want to get all specific.
That's the case of many religious symbol. It doesn't change that in this scene, it's a classical symbol of a Christian tradition.
This is so pathetic from you.
>replies twice again
lol
Sorry anon, but you said
"The Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all."
You have lost the argument.
Christmas is not purely a Christian tradition so the Tree is not a purely Christian symbol. It’s been utterly secularized.
And yet, you pretend this isn’t an obvious fact.
>Christmas is not purely a Christian tradition
And Hijab is not purely solely worn by Muslim either. You fail to make a point.
sorry, but said
>The Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all.
You have lost the argument.
>but you’re not a good debater.
No, non, you are the one who keep reashing the same bad arguments that have already been addressed.
>Your entire shtick of “I pretend I don’t understand”
Every of your point have been fully understood and debunked.
>That’s not your decision to make. Nor is it Mike McMahan’s.
That's literally his job.
>when Trek writers elected to have Starfleet characters not adhere to real life religions.
That has never been a active decision nor a strict rule, anon. And you have Picard literally celebrating Christmas in the Nexus, so it's not even true.
>And you have Picard literally celebrating Christmas in the Nexus
Already debunked, like the rest of your disjointed arguments. Also, everyone knows Picard is an atheist. There’s no other character in Star Trek that could be a more obvious atheist.
Again, you’re pretending to be a moron to confuse people. And you’ll keep getting called out on it too.
also for
>That's literally his job.
It’s his job to appropriate Star Trek into his own personal propaganda machine? At least Berman honored Roddenberry’s wishes.
>It’s his job to appropriate Star Trek into his own personal propaganda machine?
You have failed to establish any propaganda to begin with. Ad it's his job to decide what make sense to exist in Star Trek or not.
>Ad it's his job to decide what make sense to exist in Star Trek or not
No, his job is to respect what came before. He didn’t make Star Trek, he didn’t even inherit it. It’s being rented out to him, and he’s being a particularly destructive tenant.
>. You keep flip-flipping on whether you’re discussing real world religion or fictional
There was no flip-flopping, only addressing each of your points.
You’ve addressed them, you didn’t debunk anything. You can keep trying to confound us, but it won’t work.
>you didn’t debunk anything
-Religion exist in the federation in star trek
-Religious character from the Federation have been featured in star trek before.
-Explicit symbol real-life Religion have been showcased in star trek before.
-The Hijab can be just as well worn for religious or just cultural reason.
-Starfleet allow for specific cultural or religious garments to be wear with uniform.
All of this was true before this episode. You thus have no valid reason to complain about the character wearing an hijab.
I am going to point back to that post from now on any time you ignore a point.
>All of this was true before this episode. You thus have no valid reason to complain about the character wearing an hijab.
And yet, in over fifty years, Star Trek never had a person wearing a hijab until a Californian leftie willed it into existence, because he thinks it’s progressive.
This is going to haunt you. You cannot deny this in any way.
>And yet, in over fifty years, Star Trek never had a person wearing a hijab
And the goalpost has been moved again. So pathetic.
that it has not been done before doesn't mean it's forbidden to do so.
>that it has not been done before doesn't mean it's forbidden to do so
So you think this was a mistake?
That is not what I said at all, anon. Learn to read.
>you’re going to die on to defend your Muslim representation?
Why would I need to defend it? I have no reason to justify it in the first place. It exist in the real world, it make sense it exist in the trek universe, it doesn't need any other justification for it to appear in a trek show. It doesn't need my defending.
>You know exactly what the problem here is
No, I don't, how about you spell it out for me.
>it’s been explained to you many times.
No, it hasn't. At no point has there been a single valid reason provided.
>And you still pretend you don’t get it, because you think that it’ll you act dumb long enough
I am not pretending anything. i have systematically demonstrated why every reason you provided is incorrect. All you have done is rehash the same argument that have already been invalidated before.
In other word,
>act dumb long enough, people will just get tired and you’ll walk away with a victory after your 9 hour marathon.
is YOUR strategy, not mine.
>make sense it exist in the trek universe
That’s not your decision to make. Nor is it Mike McMahan’s.
This decision has already been made, multiple times, when Trek writers elected to have Starfleet characters not adhere to real life religions.
Anon you lost the argument. This isn't the first time you moved the goal posts in this thread, too.
>Is Chakotay really going to be the hill you’re going to die on
You're even trying a third time? Either man up and admit defeat or continue being a lying c**t.
>shwoing something that exist sin't "shoehorning", anon.
There is no religion in Star Trek, all human based religions died out long before any of the cast was born. Which makes the idea of Muslims being in the show moronic
>So there is no reason to complain about that character and how she dress.
Muslim isn't a race
>he said, posting an image from a show that had characters explicitly praying at an explicitly Catholic chapel
Oppression is often a choice.
For the oppressed. And you aren't establishing that Ilahn Omar chose to be oppressed, there.
you still have no valid point to complain about that character and how she dress.
Bringing in nuns is moronic, there are still plenty of women in fundamentalist Christian communities who wear modest clothing because of their religious beliefs, or the beliefs of the people around them. I live in one of the reddest areas of the US and I see them constantly, usually lecturing some college girls about how they shouldn't be dressing like bawds.
>There’s really just no way for you to defend this.
There is no way for you to validly complain about that character and what she wear.
Nowadays, there already are Muslim women who ear it by choice, you therefore have no valid reason to complain it happen in the future.
Frick, OP is not even a real star trek Fan, as he thought there was no religion in the fStar trek Universe
you failed, Muhammed.
hijabs make me horny
I'll smash because it's just an outfit and she isn't a real muzzie.
Jen!
So, now that the moron is gone, any chance someone could share a mega or even just a torrent?
Looking forward to the Neo-Hindu crewman with a a swastika tattooed on his face
Looking forward to a Starfleet burka.
Neo-Jainist, they use swastikas a lot more
Why no Starfleet nuns, huh?
Ooh, I want to see that.
Why the frick can't there ever be a normal conversation about this show?
To be honest, I prefer this instead of the shipping wars and that one raggot who kept saying the Chiet Engineer got raped.
What else is there to discuss? Waifus of the week? Shipping? Some boring serialized plot about a whale ship that’ll end up being another disappointment?
I'd like for someone to mention a mega.
The funny thing is, the schizo was here long before the Mariner turned out to be bi. I think it just has something to do with Cinemaphile and the Star Trek general over there.
>schizo schizo schizo!!!
Because American writers nowadays only do it to shoehorn diversity. Even though the OG Star Trek was one of the first mainstream shows to have a sizable minority cast.
Plus Muslims aren't even numerous in America either (The population only being around 4 million or so) which makes it funnier.
Christianity, Hinduism, Shinto, and native American religion have all been portrayed in pre-CBS Trek, and whining otherwise will not change the facts.
Having a hajibi ensign perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with modern Star Trek.
The Starfleet uniform is perfect, it’s egalitarian. Everyone is equal in when they’re wearing one. The only distinction being rank and the division color. There is no room for showing off your fashion sense because everyone is there to do their job. But once you start introducing stuff like headscarves, it takes away from that. It starts to become about individual expression, expression of one’s religion, which really has no place while on you’re duty.
>Having a hajibi ensign perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with modern Star Trek.
Not really. seeing that star trek is a setting that support diversity and freedom of religion, it fit perfectly.
>The Starfleet uniform is perfect
There are leeways given for cultural reason, like for the Bajoran hearing.
>Not really. seeing that star trek is a setting that support diversity and freedom of religion, it fit perfectly.
Cool, you can express your religion off-duty. While you’re on duty, you wear the standard uniform.
Worf and Ro have exceptions for cultural reasons. And don't point out that they're aliens because that makes your argument worse because you're then arguing that non-Federation aliens have more rights within Starfleet than actual Federation citizens. Cultural and spiritual practices are only discouraged when they actively interfere in your duty. Worf can wear his sash whenever he wants, he only gets written up when he trips on Klingon peyote and misses his duty shifts.
>Cool, you can express your religion off-duty.
Some garments are allowed for cultural reason, like the Boajrans and their hearing pieces. Or Mesk and this Orion gear.
Giving examples from a show that breaks the rules of the universe won’t help your argument.
>Giving examples from a show that breaks the rules
Bajorans hearing allowed on Star Fleet officer date from TNG, moron.
>It starts to become about individual expression
Pretty sure this is something encouraged by the Federation. How is that an issue?
Federation =/= Starfleet
Starfleet is a military organization with a strict dress code.
Funny too, didn't they change Diana's outfit later? It wasn't regulation while on duty or something?
What the frick is this stupid-ass argument.
>religion doesn't exist in Star Trek!
Okay, then the scarf is secular
>but all headscarves are religious!
No they're not, they're just headscarves, there's nothing mystical about them, they keep the sun, wind, and sand out of your hair, and would be associated with traditional arid desert cultures
>but but but but
Did you know that headscarves are not an uncommon sight among non-Muslims living or travelling in the Middle East and North Africa, even in the more secular and westernized areas? It's because it keeps the fricking sun and wind out of your hair. You don't need to be religious to be practical.
The frick do you need a headscarf for on a starship?
It's a cultural garment, which Starfleet is know to allow.
>TNG in all its progressiveness didn’t feel the need to give officers religious headwear.
>need
What make you feel they did that out of need? You are not making sense.
>TNG S1 had a Hindu officer. Did you see him wearing a turban?
Doesn' mean it's forbidden. The Bajoran hearing establish that it's allowed.
Across 700 episodes, no Starfleet officer ever wore a cross. No Starfleet officer ever wore a hijab. No Starfleet officer ever wore a turban.
And?
It was not a mistake. If Gene wanted to emphasize religion, he would.
>If Gene wanted to emphasize religion, he would.
Someone happening to ear a hijab does not emphasize on religion, so you fail to make a point, there.
So, I guess you are a complete moron who failed to see the context of
>>the year is 2381
implying that the anon is saying that in the era of Star Trek, women still risk death for not wearing Hijab, which is a completely moronic thing to say.
Of course you aren't the anon.
The frick do you need an earring or sash for on a starship?
Star Fleet respect cultural diversity.
Because they are larpers
They claim to study culture yet they spend 90% of their time inside an sterile looking ship with no decorations, no plants, not even a kitchen which is fricking monotone so they don't even get pretty colors
>the same 5 people are still having this argument
Fill your pockets with rocks and walk into the ocean.
>shlomo
You glow.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Mark Twain
shills
the real reason is that californians think hijabs just grow out of arabs as if it was hair.
sure you could argue the religius denotation doesn't exist anymore.
but the california creators will not make any white , black or asian people were the hijab.
Not really. it's just something that simply exist and there is no reason to be upset by it being featured.
you how IRL even moderate Muslims turned away from progressive
Nope, you never did. Making stuff up won't help you make a point.
>Is not me, you've got a touch of israeli schizophrenia that needs to checked Chaim.
Stating objective rebutal is not what I would call schizophrenia
>Trying to claim the hijab as just some precious headdress
The actual argument is that it's not oppression when it's not forced to be worn. there is in no way denying that womenbeing forced to wear it still exist, but it make sense that in the future of Star trek, this obligation no longer exist and is simply a choice.
You have provided no actual reason for justifying your piss-eating tantrum.
>but it make sense that in the future of Star trek, this obligation no longer exist and is simply a choice.
And as a choice, it's a baffling inclusion that shows the writers don't understand Trek as much as they love to pretend they do.
>And as a choice, it's a baffling inclusion
Seeing there is freedom of religion and we have got mention of other religions existing before, not it really isn't.
there is no objective reason to be baffled by it. There is nothing in this that indicate they don't understand the trek universe.
By the time of Lower Decks, it has been 300 years since fundamentalist religion of any kind has been part of Earth society. People of that time associating a simple headscarf with religious fundamentalism makes as much sense as me associating tulips with Turkey.
This is a Catch-22. If you claim the headscarf no longer has any meaning in the future, then wearing it seems pointless and impractical. If it has meaning, that means the the show contradicts the areligious utopia of Roddenberry.
I'm not saying it has no meaning in the future, I'm saying the meaning it has in the future is not the same as the meaning it has today. Likely it's simply a cultural affect, like Scotty's kilt or the Picard family celebrating Christmas. Secular, but still tied to one's culture.
If it’s secular, then it’s impractical. If it’s not secular, then it’s a contradiction.
>If it’s not secular, then it’s a contradiction.
You have failed to establish how this is a contradiction.
It just means the character values their religion more then their commitment to Starfleet, because they’re showing it off.
Overt displays of religiousness are obnoxious.
>It just means the character values their religion more then their commitment to Starfleet
No, it doesn't mean that. It's the same situation as Bajorans wearing their Hearpiece. READ THE FRICKING THREAD, ASS!
>If it’s secular, then it’s impractical
It's just as impractical as Scotty wearing a kilt. Even in that were secular, you wold still not be making a point.
Scotty is not wearing a kilt on duty so you’ve failed miserably to make a point.
The point was about wearing culutral accessory despite their impracticability, it still a valid argument.
And Bajorans in starfleet are allowed to wear their hear-piece. Only a complete moron would not be aware of that after it has been mentioned many times in this thread.
Having some aliens with a space religion is very different to having a real life religion from a non-diegietic point of view. One is a sci-fi concept, and the other is a political statement. Star Trek doesn’t mess with real life religions for a reason.
Non-diegetic is irrelevant to the argument. Starfleet allows various cultures to have cultural significant items of clothing, it's as simple as that.
It’s absolutely relevant to the argument. Star Trek was smart about cultural and political things, because instead of pandering to one specific group, it would rather explore things through allegory.
But NuTrek doesn’t do allegory. So instead of an alien, you get a literal Muslim. It’s out of place in this universe, both for diegetic and nondiegetic reasons.
>t’s absolutely relevant to the argument
No, it's not. Seeing Star Trek is setin OUR future. it's 100% diegetic that religions like this still exist. You are not making a point with that.
>Star Trek was smart about cultural and political things, because instead of pandering to one specific group, it would rather explore things through allegory.
They didn't use her hijab to explore religious matter. it's just a normal thing to expect to encounter and therefore not something to be bothered by. it's as valid a being bothered with people wearing pants.
>Having some aliens with a space religion is very different to having a real life religion from a non-diegietic point of view.
Seeing Star Trek is set in the future of our world, no, it isn't.
You are just grasping at straw to justify your dislike of this character and what she is wearing existing. there is none. Get over it. It's 100% acceptable with zero valid reason to complain.
>Get over it. It's 100% acceptable with zero valid reason to complain.
It's always a hoot how you can tell when some intellectually disingenuous midwit has come to the extent of their ability to debate, because they'll try to end the argument or resort to ad baculum to end it on their own terms with their own delusions of victory.
Still seeing no actual argument. Can you actually tell us why it bother you?
>actual argument
You’ve been given plenty, but you either lack the mental capacity or good will to accept them. Perhaps this is just your job.
>You’ve been given plenty
Not a single one that hold, anon. All I have seen is different anon repeating the same ones that have been addressed repeatedly and showing alack of actual knowledge of the Star Trek universe.
Star Trek had avoided real life religious imagery for fifty years. You know this. Human characters don’t wear turbans, or crosses, or god forbid hajibs. They don’t wear cowboy hats.
Maybe it’s you who doesn’t understand and is projecting his own personal politics onto this franchise.
>Star Trek had avoided real life religious imagery for fifty years.
No, it hasn't.
It's still an outright representation of a religious tradition in a star Trek Media and this is still how Picard would imagine an happy familial celebration.
>No, it hasn't.
No is not a a rebuttal.
Next Generation literally represent a traditional Christmas celebration, anon.
Also, something that actually make sense to exist in-universe but is never shown is actually more breaking of the suspension of disbelief if it is never ever shown.
>but is never shown is actually more breaking of the suspension of disbelief
So you just hate old Star Trek and you find it unrealistic because it didn’t conform to your personal politics. Got it. Glad we got that out of the way.
>So you just hate old Star Trek
Nothing I have said can be constructed as such. Now you are just being desperate. How pathetic.
You’re saying that omitting real life religions, something that has been the core tenet of Star Trek’s worldbuilding, ruins your “suspension of disbelief.”
"more breaking" not "ruins" and none of that means I hate star trek, moron. You are really bad at this.
You clearly want Star Trek to be something it never was, and Lower Decks seems to be fulfilling your wishes.
>You clearly want Star Trek to be something it never was
Nope. i want Star trek to be what it has always been: diverse and inclusive. And Lower Decks is fully respecting of that Gene Spirit.
No Star Trek character ever said they’re Christian, or Muslim, or whatever. We never saw any character pray (except for Chakotay’s weird fictional religion). We never saw a character wear real life religious clothing or pendant. This was not a mistake or an omission, but a conscious decision.
But Lower Decks literally has a character with a hat that says “look at me, I’m Muslim.” This is not Star Trek, this is not progressive. It’s cheap pandering.
You want Star Trek to pander to your politics. You want Star Trek to reflect the world you live in today instead of being something better. You don’t care about anything else. Star Trek is not supposed to be our future, it’s Roddenberry’s vision of the future. You’re a self-righteous selfish motherfricker.
>No Star Trek character ever said they’re Christian, or Muslim, or whatever
She didn't said it either. And it's nomore a display of faith than The TNG movie showcasing a textbook Christmas scene.
You fail to make a point. Now that all the reason you have given have been invalidated, how abut you tell us the real reason it's bothering you to see a cartoon character wearing an hijab?
Ignoring the contents of my reply won’t do you any favors. It is now painfully clear what you’re playing at, and I think everyone present can see it.
>Ignoring the contents of my reply
I can dismiss the whole reply when even the premise doesn't hold. Your complain is invalid.
>Star Trek never pandered.
It has always pandered to progressive leftists. it pandered to people who wanted the end of segregation.
>Your complain is invalid
Complaint*
>it pandered to people who wanted the end of segregation
By the time Star Trek aired, segregation had already been abolished. You don’t really know what you’re talking about.
But this is sort of the thing with you. You’re selfish bastards, so you wish to see yourself represented on screen. When TOS talked about racism, it did so through allegory. But I’m NuTrek, all subtlety and nuance is gone.
>It has always pandered to progressive leftists
This is really the crux of your mindset. You identify as a progressive leftist, so you think Star Trek should pander to your personal politics. That’s why you feel so self-righteous and smug. But Star Trek never pandered to one particular group or one particular political affiliation.
What else is there to talk about, man? You don’t care about Star Trek, you don’t care about Roddenberry’s take on the future. You’re here to be pandered to. You’re a selfish self-righteous bastard. You may not like it, but it is the truth.
>By the time Star Trek aired, segregation had already been abolished.
So it is pandering to anti-segregation.
> You’re selfish bastards
There is nothing selfish about pointing out Star Trek has always pandered to leftist progressist.It's a simple fact.
>You identify as a progressive leftist, so you think Star Trek should pander to your personal politics
I don't think it should, I am simply stating that it already is. They still would be even if they hadn't shonw the character with the hijab.
>You don’t care about Star Trek
You are the one who barge in with complains, stating about how "Star Trek isn't like this" that clearly expose you as someone who doesn't actually know what the show has done in the past. You are theone here complaining that Star trek doesn't please you personally all the while failing to show objective reason as to how it is unpleasing in the first place.
>So it is pandering to anti-segregation.
By… having a Black woman on the bridge?
>Star Trek has always pandered to leftist progressist
If it pandered, you’d see a lot more politically-charged stories. You’d have Kirk condemn the Vietnam War, instead of doing so through allegory. You’d get stories about Earthly racism, not space racism.
But NuTrek literally had Pike complain about Trump, so I guess there’s no use trying to save Star Trek.
>You are the one who barge in with complains, stating about how "Star Trek isn't like this" that clearly expose you as someone who doesn't actually know what the show has done in the past.
The difference between you and me is that I like Star Trek for what it is, and you only like it for what it can give you. I don’t demand to be represented on screen, I’m perfectly content with Star Trek characters not belong to any earthly religions, because that’s simply not part of this fictional world. But you’re one of those people who think Star Trek is literally our future, so they demand it represent the world they live in today.
>literally had Pike complain about Trump,
Lmao no way
Even tng never complained about shitty presidents like Nixon
>no way
Yes way. Pike shows aliens footage of January riots (MAGA signs and everything) as a warning.
>it's real
Bruh
I mean wasn't it a warning? Set aside your political views for a moment and consider that a bunch of yokels stormed the US capital building and smeared poop on the walls. Not much of anything to be proud of on that day.
If you want Star Trek to be Democrat propaganda, be my fricking guest.
>cast a running democratic candidate as President of Earth in an attempt to influence her election
Oh wait… to already is.
Okay, so you're incapable of setting aside your political views. Gotcha.
What's the point if he'll just poison any other threads?
>Okay, so you're incapable of setting aside your political views. Gotcha.
It seems to me you aren’t.
Schizos only have two kinds of posts; spam and schizobabble.
The former is bannable and what they resort to when they don't get their way (IE (you)s)
Ignore them.
>What's the point if he'll just poison any other threads?
I was talking about you
>schizo is pretending to be the guy who called him a moron
>posts for 9 hours straight
>has multiple anons argue against him
>assumes it’s all the same person
>not a schizo
>If you want Star Trek to be Democrat propaganda
Dude, it always was.
Probably better to say progressive? But yeah that anon is like the people who complain, without any sense of irony, that modern trek is too woke because of diversity.
>t. never watched Star Trek and just believes everyone when they say it’s the space communist show
Only people who haven't watched star trek doesn't think it's not a progressive piece, anon.
Progressive in the classical sense, not in the 2020s woke sense.
Nope. Always been that progressive.
Riker actually fall in love and date a trans-person who want to transition from non-binary to woman.
>By… having a Black woman on the bridge?
And having interracial kissing, yes.
>If it pandered, you’d see a lot more politically-charged stories.
There is literally an episode where Kirk call out the leader of a planet for refusing to allow Birth control and abortion to manage the over-population of a planet and instead rely on contracting a virus to reduce it because it's more "natural". Gene was a fricking visionary on that one.
>You’d have Kirk condemn the Vietnam War, instead of doing so through allegory
That they use alegroy change in no way that they pander to the left. You are not making a point by mentioning alegory. it does not invalidate that there is nothing wrong with showcasing that character wearing a hijab.
>The difference between you and me is that I like Star Trek for what it is
No, you don't. Because if you did, you would simply acknowledge the hijab as a normal earth stuff and accept it the same way you accepted a movie showing a Christmas tree.
Instead you go against the spirit of Star trek, you go agistment its spirit of acceptance of other cultures. You are not a real fan.
You claim I’m not a real fan, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that Star Trek characters worshipped real life religions, which brings us back to
.
never worshiped*
see
>In your hallucinations, maybe.
Nope, see
You are really bad at this. You getting upset at seeing a character wearing an hijab in Star Trek HAS NEVER BEEN because it's in "disrespect of the spirit of the show". It's fully fitting an there is nothing wrong with it. How about you tell us the real reason it's upsetting you.
You’re pretending to be a moron again. The argument was that no Star Trek character was ever confirmed to belonging to one specific religion.
>You’re pretending to be a moron again.
No anon, just telling it how it is.
>The argument was that no Star Trek character was ever confirmed to belonging to one specific religion.
Chakotay has his religion clearly confirmed.
Sisko's girlfriend talk about being married with a minister. Also, the girl wearing the hijab could just be doing so for traditional reason and not actually be Muslim. That was never a valid argument.
>so for traditional reason
She was dancing. DANCING! ON A TABLETOP! IN PUBLIC!
Yes and?
Pretty sure you get stoned harder than a Jem'Hadar gargling Ketracel-White.
>and yet you refuse to acknowledge that Star Trek characters worshipped real life religions
No, I fully acknowledge it. Star Trek characters have worshipped real life religion. Your whole argument fall apart.
>which brings us back to "And yet, Star Trek has omitted real life religious imagery for fifty years."
Already proven false, anon.
>Star Trek characters have worshipped real life religion
Name one.
>Already proven false
In your hallucinations, maybe.
>You’d get stories about Earthly racism
Sorry, anon, but you are a moron who do not understand the show. that Racism no longer exist on earth in Star Trek doesn't mean hijab will never appear. The opposite actually, as this setting means people are more accepting of each others.
Holy cope. Apartheid existed till the 90s and startrek has always been spiritual communism.
>It is now painfully clear what you’re playing at, and I think everyone present can see it.
Everyone here can see you are having a complete tantrum meltdown because you saw a cartoon character wearing a hijab and failing to find a valid reason as to why it shouldn't be there.
>Ignoring the contents of my reply
Pointing out the Christmas scene in the TNG movie IS a direct address of your reply. Look like you are the one ignoring the arguments given to you.
How do you figure it’s Christmas? Do they read the Lord’s Prayer, so they sing Christmas carols?
The Japanese celebrate Christmas and they sure as hell don’t do it because they’re Christians. A hajib here, however, is nothing more than a political statement. “We’re progressive and inclusive.”
>How do you figure it’s Christmas?
The big Christmas tree is a big give-away.
>The Japanese celebrate Christmas and they sure as hell don’t do it because they’re Christians
So it could be the Hijab it just worn for traditional reason, and thus not forcibly "screaming" Islam to the audience?
Well, I ma glad we have settle there is no valid reason to complain about this character and what she is wearing, then.
The Japanese get Christmas Trees, too.
Also, please stop replying multiple times to the same post. Read your posts before posting them instead of replying multiple times to the same thing. It makes replying to you easier, and it makes the thread last longer.
>A hajib here, however, is nothing more than a political statement.
you have failed to establish that. It can simply be a showcase of something normal and you are being a weirdo obsessing over it.
>something normal
In the real world, maybe. Not in Star Trek.
>In the real world, maybe. Not in Star Trek.
Why would it not be normal, in a world that has freedom of religion to have people wearing hijab?
Because in the fifty years, Star Trek characters simply didn’t do that. NuTrek is changing the basics of the setting, and you’re okay with it because it’s line with your personal politics.
>You want Star Trek to pander to your politics.
Dude, it always has. If you are a lefty progressive, Star trek has always been the show you have been pandered by.
>Star trek has always been the show you have been pandered by
Star Trek never pandered. It gave you something to think about, it never offered one way to look at things, it never resorted to cheap representation for the sake of representation.
>You’ve been given plenty
Show m a single one that don't get a rebuttal.
>You know exactly what I mean when I say that it purposefully avoided religious imagery.
Except there has been mention of religion existing on earth before. There is ZERO difference with the mention of a minister on Earth and and Hijab existing on screen.
>Seeing Star Trek is set in the future of our world, no, it isn't.
And yet, Star Trek has omitted real life religious imagery for fifty years. Who is Mike McMahan to “correct” his much more accomplished predecessors on that front? Doesn’t he know this was done does for a good reason? Or perhaps he just doesn’t care and is trying to insert his personal progressive politics into the franchise?
>And yet, Star Trek has omitted real life religious imagery for fifty years. There has been no "correction" in the first place
Not exactly, mention of religion on earth has been made before. Try again.
You know exactly what I mean when I say that it purposefully avoided religious imagery. You know what it means in this context.
Stop trying to dumbfound your opponents into submission by pretending to be a moron.
>mention of religion on earth has been made before
Give some examples, then. You don't get to say, "Nope, it happened. The end," and walk away.
>Give some examples, then.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Religion
>Kasidy Yates mentioned that her mother would want her daughter to be married by a minister. (DS9: "Penumbra")
>In 2370, Alixus wondered if new truths could be found in man's ancient religions. (DS9: "Paradise")
>In 2372, Kira Nerys attributed Miles O'Brien and Jadzia Dax's ability to converse at ease with Benjamin Sisko to the fact that unlike in hers, he was not a significant figure in either of their religions. (DS9: "Starship Down")
>Upon hearing Odo lament the lack of a shared faith between himself and Kira in 2375, Julian Bashir reminded him that there were other faiths. (DS9: "Covenant")
What a colossal way to sabotage your entire argument lol
You know you can just admit you have been proven wrong, right?
>Human characters don’t wear turbans, or crosses, or god forbid hajibs.
Mhm, nah.
you know the actual request was this
of religion on earth has been made before
>Give some examples
right?
Try to follow the conversation.
Thats a different argument anon
Practicality is irrelevant. It's a cultural affect.
You can say the same thing about christmas
What about it? Star Trek characters don’t celebrate Christmas. Not a single episode is set during Christmas. Not a single character mentions celebrating Christmas.
I think you just saw a screencap of that Nexus scene from Generations and you assume it’s Picard literally celebrating Christmas.
>. If you claim the headscarf no longer has any meaning in the future
This is not what he said. Try again.
>. If it has meaning, that means the the show contradicts the areligious utopia
So you are an absolute moron who barge in stating "fact" when you actually know nothing about Star Trek.
Star Trek is not areligious. At least now, you know you have no valid reason to complain.
>Star Trek is not areligious
It’s one of the most fundamental tenets of the franchise. I wonder if you’d be this dedicated to defending having a fundamentalist Christian character in Starfleet
>It’s one of the most fundamental tenets of the franchise
No, it's not. Many episodes have established religion still exist. Don't barge in and pretend to be a fan.
So what? Religion is very purposefully omitted.
I will ask you again: would you defend a fundamentalist Christian character so vehemently?
Another question: do you have nothing better to do with your life than obsessively defend this show for 8 hours?
>So what? Religion is very purposefully omitted.
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>would you defend a fundamentalist Christian
Seeing the character we see in not a fundie, this isn't a valid comparison.
>do you have nothing better to do with your life than obsessively defend this show for 8 hours?
see pic. At least I don't wet my pant with andry-piss when I see a cartoon character wearing an hijab
Seeing the star Trek universe as freedom of religion this rule likely doesn't apply there. It certainly isn't pushed or believed to be good by many Muslim already nowadays.
>is not a fundie
She overtly displays her religion, so no.
If there was a random irrelevant background extra wearing a cross or clerical collar or other obviously Christian piece of clothing then yes I'd defend that too, because that's actually comparable.
You probably shouldn’t, because Star Trek doesn’t do that. Even the chapel aboard the TOS Enterprise omits specific religious imagery.
And a cross is obviously more akin to a crescent moon or other religious israeliteelry, than a freaking Islamist fundamentalist garment.
If it's not religious wear, then it's against Starfleet regulation for it to be worn with the uniform. Simple as.
If it is religious, then it is paying respect to the oppressive version of the Islamic religion where "modesty" is enforced through violence and has no place in Star Trek's quasi-utopian future. Modesty is preserved quite easily with many of the starfleet uniforms and their variants. Simple as.
>If it's not religious wear, then it's against Starfleet regulation
Starfleet also allow wear of cultural garment, not just specifically religious. You fail to make a point, there.
what a poor use of reaction image.
>If it is religious, then it is paying respect to the oppressive version of the Islamic
Again, there are women who wear hijab by choice, which invalidate your point.
If they're wearing it by choice, it's still not part of their religion and thus against starfleet regulation. Again, the hijab is not like a crucifix or a priests roman collar or a hindu bindi. It's either a piece of clothing or it's something they are being forced to wear, and in both cases, no place in Star Trek.
>WaPo is making stuff up now
Here's PBS saying the same thing but I guess they're false flagging alt-right nazis too?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/detroit-area-city-bans-pride-flags-on-public-property-after-debate-on-lgbtq-discrimination-and-religion
>Objective Rebuttal
No you've just been kvetching, going nuh uh like a schlemiel after a botched bris. That's schizophenia shlomo, not objective facts.
>It's a choice
Only if religion was abolished but no one can prove that either. At best that's just being fashionably muslim whichonly makes sense if the writers took the Cerritos being a California Class literally.
>TL;DR
Again shlomo, stop the fake woke pilpul before it's too late and it blows up in your face like it did in Michigan.
>Here's PBS saying the same thing
None of that is saying that moderate Muslim are doomed to turn fundies more than any other religions. And none of that establish a reason as to why Islam wouldn't exist in the Star trek setting. You are not making any point showing this. You have zero valid reason to complain about an Hijab in Star Trek.
>No you've just been kvetching, going nuh uh like a schlemiel after a botched bris.
Pointing out that not all Muslim women wear Hijab and many Muslim families don't impost it is nothing close to schizophrenia. But saying how hijab inexorably mean oppression and failing to prove yet still insist is still a fact definitely is.
>Only if religion was abolished
It make no sense for a setting such a Star trek to have religion forbidden. It goes against the first directive.
>fake woke pilpul
There is nothing "fake woke" here in the first place. Only you pulling a tantrum after having seen an hijab in a cartoon.
>Moderate muslims run a "campaign of peace"
>As soon as they get a majority tgey frick over the gays, one of the most pandered to useful idiot groups for the corps.
>The best rebuttal that leftists have us being sad and disspointed, nlt the same hatred & vitriol they'd have for muh alt-right chuds yov've been kvetching about this entire thread.
Even you can't call then out you'll face the same bad end the aliens did in Picard by the same Muslims you keep pilpuling for. The hijab represents you and everyone else's ineptitude to pracrice what you preach about protecting the fights of women & minorities.
>The ones that don't impose it & don't wear it
Then she wouldn't be wearing it in the first place unless forced to by a fundie as you've implied.
>Against the first directive to abolish religion
Which even Lower Decks laughs at the directives and treats them like garbage too. Even by your logic thus means she's being forced to by a fundie yet again.
>Fake Woke Pilpul
Shlomo, you just admitted to simping for a hijab being forced onto a woman by fundie muslims, the same ones that'll get you too. That's fake woke pilpul in a nutshell and we're calling it out befkre you make a mess of both Star Trek & the world with your nonsense.
>Didn't all religions die out after WW3
Yeah, but fashion is cyclical. Lets be honest, half these women wouldnt wear a hijab if it didnt look sexy as frick
Thats technically not even hijab, just a headscarf.
A hijab is just a headscarf, anon. There is no patented and trademarked official religious hijab design.
Hijab can refer to the headscarf but 9 times out of 10 youll see it being used to mean a whole body covering, not just the hair.
Anyone who uses it that way is using the wrong word.
A burka covers the entire body. Niqab covers everything else except the eyes. Hijab is a regular headscarf that covers the hair but not one's facial features. There are a couple of other variants too, but those three are the commonly known ones.
What if their men were right and hijab are literally power dampeners?
Then women will be set back in the Ferengi trade confederation millenia, now that they have to compete with men for profit. Giga prostitution. Birthing services. They're going to have a terrible time. It's going to be great.
Jellico demanded she wear a normal uniform.
Funnily enough, the actress prefered the normal uniform.
Don't question the future.
Star Trek has never been consistent with religion been dead.
Like the native Americans guy in Voyager still believes in all kinds of bullshit.
Torrent for the episode, now that all the morons are gone?
>when all human religions were gone by the time of the Federation?
A coochie Moya. You little b***h.
To be fair, that's an entirely new made up religion. Just shows that humans are still as inventive as always. Also that the people living on the frontier were top tier freaks the Cardassians were right to oppress.
Mostly a joke based on how Voyager's creative team actually hired a dude as a cultural expert who completely made up absolutely everything. Bonus points for him being a known scammer even BEFORE they hired him.
>To be fair, that's an entirely new made up religion.
It still means that religion still exist by this time.
I'd say that's a given, though I can see why some people might say you're looking at it the wrong way, what it means is that DEVIANCY still exists within the Federation. Like those weird ass luddite people whose leader sabotaged all tech in the area even though it got several of her followers killed over time and when the truth was revealed the others were like, "Yeah, we might just keep being backwards idiots, we love it."
My personal view? Star Trek has evolved beyond Roddenberry's original vision, and I don't really mind. Like they are supposed to be beyond racism, but when a cast member made an unscripted racist remark against Cardassians the crew kept it because even if it's against Roddenberry's vision it was still a very real, very raw response. But then DS9 spent a lot of time exploring the fragility of the Federation's ideals and the darker side of human nature. I actually think Roddenberry would have approved, after a fashion. It's just a larger scale version of A Taste of Armageddon where Kirk admits that people are savages, killers even, but that the instinct can be fought. DS9 basically admits (and it isn't the only part of Trek to do so) that humanity didn't evolve beyond any of their bad habits, including wearing habits, as if they are no longer capable of this. They didn't Skin of Evil their bad nature. It's still something that has to be struggled against. Eternal vigilance is as necessary in the 24th century as it is in the 21st.
This guy is so fricking moronic
Can you guys just let this thread die you know he isn't going to change his mind
Canonically, only Christianity is dead for some weird reason. Every other religion is fine.
>says you have lost the argument for the sixth time in the row despite getting btfo
hes really that desperate huh
>despite getting btfo
Anon, you have come to a point where you tried to argue that the Christmas Tree is not a Christian symbol at all. you have btfo yourself.
This thread is shit
Never make it again
What else do you expect from this show? Quality Star Trek discussion? This is still far better than your endless waifuposting and shipping shit.
>it's better than waifuposting
It literally isn't. This is just worthless argument about something nobody even cares about
All these words are left and right repackaged and sold over and over and over
It's just more politics
When will it end
When's the last time we had a Lower Decks thread that was actually about the show? I genuinely can't remember.
October 13th, the day before “First First Contact.”
Could have been a great episode to discuss if moronic bigots hadn't ruined it.
>moronic bigots
go back
Could have been a great episode if it weren’t ruined by the surprise lesbian reveal and the subsequent interviews which only polarized the threads further.
>by the surprise lesbian reveal
You have failed to establish how it ruined the episode, anon.
We had this dicussion before, there is zero valid reason tocomplain about it.
Do you know how many people Riker dated before getting with Troy?
>which only polarized the threads further.
A few moron spamming the thread is not "polarising".
You suffer from a terminal case of “head up my own arse” syndrome
You’ve spent your day on this, hope it was worth it
>You’ve spent your day on this, hope it was worth it
At least I am not the one who has decided to waste his time shitting on a show for "daring" to feature something completely normal.
>surprise lesbian reveal
Mariner fricks men
She fricks anyone she want. With their consent.
>Why would they have hijabs in the 24th century when all human religions were gone by the time of the Federation?
Same reason why white dudes have pagan tattoo even though they dont worship Thor.
Stop mentioning the Christmas tree until he explains why Hijabs are uniquely religious and impossible to secularize
Hes obviously wrong and a homosexual but the Christmas tree is a shitty argument
Star Trek people are SUPER into their cultural traditions for whatever reason
Chekov was SUPER into Russian stuff
Scotty was SUPER into Scottish stuff
O'Brien was super irish
his Jap wife was into Japanese stuff
Even Worf was into Klingon stuff
My guess since it Trek was a post-Scarcity society that there was no reason for large groups of various ethnic groups to go all live in huge cities for work
people got to live with their own people living a fairly traditional life style
And we're in autosage by 75 posts. I know you trolls are just going to jump headfirst into it again, but I'm going to ask anon to restrain yourself and not take stupid bait.