ISB vs Section 31 & Ship Counselors

[Junghalli]

Edited for redundancy:

It was an extrapolation based off the fact that they do that to any person that feels troubled at all about anything.

You went beyond that though, you claimed that they "[approach] those that are troubled with the system and talks to them, befriends them and eventually shows them just how wrong they were to ever doubt the glory and progress of the federation ... just how misguided their unhappiness was, how perfect the system is and how wrong all those doubters are." This is a claim independent of "they talk to people who are troubled and try to make them not troubled anymore", which is sort of a psychiatrist's job IIRC. You're implicitly claiming they treat disagreement with the system as a kind of psychological pathology. What evidence do you have for this?

[Purple]

Perhaps you failed to read my post to it's ending. If I may quote:

And since the federation is actually described like an utopian society those two are often to little apart to tell. I mean, in the world of holodecs and replicators who can say that the ones who do dislike the system are not simply loonies starved for attention.

In other words, I am saying that most people who are unhappy with the federation (those border terrorists whose name eludes me right now excluded) seem to actual just be loonies. Like for example that guy in DS9 who wanted to ruin Risa or that Engineer in voyager that became so obsessed about not being appreciated by his superiors that he started living in a holodec fantasy world. Since the way the federation is described to us there is nothing really to complain about.

So yes I am actually saying that disagreement with a system designed by authors intent to be an utopian society is indeed a psychological pathology.


And we have seen that for those that do have a valid reason to complain about (those terrorist guys), they have prisons and not counselors.

[Junghalli]

<snip>

Perhaps I misunderstood, it sounded like the usual "hurr hurr Federation is actually some kind of oppressive dystopia" crap, perhaps I was too quick to jump on you as I've come to find that extremely tiresome. At this point I have to admit I'm somewhat confused as to what exactly you're trying to say.

[Purple]

I am saying that since the Federation is described as an Utopian society anyone disagreeing with it can be categorized into two groups. A) The terrorists who hate the federation because it has wronged them directly and B) the raving nut cases like those guys in DS9 I mentioned who do it because they are raving nut cases.

Now we know that for group A they have prisons. But what of group B? If we assume those get rehabilitation via Counselor than the Counselor is de facto rehabilitating people for being insubordinate. But they are most likely just doing it for their own good and not the greater good of the federation. However it might seem otherwise.


In other words, my entire point is that Political Officers in the sense we refer to them can only exist in a society that is fundamentally flawed. Since that kind of society is one that will incite people to rebel with good reason and thus require Political Officers to control them.

If we have a society that is utopian as in perfect, and the federation is supposed to be rather good as far societies go (at least if what the show tells us is right, and they keep rambling about the beautiful and high and mighty federation) than there is no need for such officers because there is no need to be insubordinate in the first place. And anyone that is must be (well, not must but at least is liable to be) insane, starved for attention etc. (the stuff that psychiatrists help with)

So by relation any person that is tasked with tending for such people might look like a political officer when looked at from the outside by a person that is already hell bent on finding signs of Stalinism.

[Junghalli]

Ah. I don't necessarily agree with that (for one thing, I think people can legitimately disagree on whether a given society is a utopia or not) but it is an interesting perspective.

[Purple]

In hindsight, change the "(well, not must but at least is liable to be)" part to "(well, not must but since it is the authors intent to show the society as perfectly perfect he is going to be if he is going to be given screen time)".

I think that fits better with what I am trying to say.