The stupidity, it burns. Really.
Hispanics are uninterested in the hows and why of writing and filming, because they're all incredibly shallow and emotional people? Really? But let's break this down into bite-size chunks.
Remember Khan? Why is his vision of 'supermen' eugenics that of hulked up monsters constantly out thought by the scrappy little Captain?
Slightly unclear, does he mean that Khan wanted his men to be physically impressive but they weren't mentally superior, or is he complaining because Kirk can win against them occasionally? For that matter, isn't Kirk beating them the Iowa farmboy David taking down the Indian superman Goliath?
I'm trying, but I can only really remember one time Kirk outwitted Khan or any of the supermen, in the movie where he taunts Khan into following him into the one environment where they can fight as equals. Other than that, it was Khan's not knowing about things he reasonably couldn't in the movie (prefix codes, the realities of 3D space combat) and events beyond either man's control in the show.
Why is Kodos The Executioner shown as being a tyrant when it is admitted that he didn't know about the oncoming relief ships and his actions, 'if the ships had not arrived' been seen by historians as the brave decision of a horrible necessity?
Well, that's Kodos' take on how history would have remembered him, if only events hadn't conspired to render his mass murder completely unnecessary. Why is a ruler seen as a tyrant for murdering half his people to stretch out food supplies during a famine? And then choosing to do so using his ideas of eugenics and jettisoning the genetically (racially) inferior half? It's a great mystery if you have no sense of morals whatsoever.
Is he actually objecting to the show peddling the idea that mass murder is a bad thing?
Why is it that Lokai and Bele are represented so shallowly as 'skin deep' color variations when the reality of race is _very much_ more complex than that as a function of genetics of behavior and culture?
Can't help much here, I have no idea what episode he's talking about. If I may hazard a guess as to why people of different races would be portrayed as people like any others who happen to look different, I think because it may just represent reality. There can be cultural differences tied up in race, I do not contest this, but the differences tend to be minimal, compared to what racists imagine they are and really, it works as a message that people (bigots) need to hear, even if it isn't totally accurate in every minuscule detail that can be picked apart over the internet.
As an side, these seem like pretty odd examples for anyone trying to demonstrate socialism or anti-white messages of "equality" (loathsome word that it is) in Trek.
So much of ST:TOS was a social engineering 'teachable moment' of FALSE moral impetus that it doesn't deserve repetition. Yet Jar Jar Abrams chose that era to relaunch the ST universe and he did it by basically rendering every white male as a drunkard, or sex predator or gay-in-denial dupe. While all the /women/ are strong and self reliant.
Wait, wait, what? Excluding Spock for being an alien, (damn aliens, Starfleet should tighten immigration laws. WHERE IS OUR GIANT SPACE-FENCE!!) that leaves FOUR white males in the TOS/new movie crew: Kirk, Bones, Scotty and Chekov. Can he not count, even using fingers?
Leaving that aside, I'll guess Kirk is a sexual predator for... having sex. Or is it unintentionally groping a woman and liking it? Or taking an opportunity to watch an attractive woman change? I admit the last is creepy as all get-out, but in context it's easy to see as part of normal college shenanigans.
So, of Scotty, Bones and Chekov, which is a drunk and which is a gay dupe? I'm going to guess Scotty's the drunk for being a Scot (not that the author is prejudiced or anything) but none of them really struck me as being gay. Or maybe he does mean Spock who is still... not gay. As an aside, it may be a truly horrible thing to be a gay Vulcan, and have to reproduce with a gender you aren't attracted to every seven years or die. Or Pike, who also didn't seem queer. Or Nero who... okay, maybe you could make a case, but it'd be a convoluted and strange one. And now I need brain bleach to remove the mental images of over a decade in Klingon prison.
Also, there was exactly ONE woman of relevance in the whole damn movie, so by definition anything she is or does applies to all women in the movie (unless you count her slutty roomate, who seems neither strong nor self-reliant) and while I'll give strong, I'm a lot less sure about self-reliance given her scenes with Spock. Star Trek [2009] is not exactly a strong feminist film, which I think he's objecting to also, else why complain.
For that matter, even if everything he said was 100% valid (it isn't) he's just described how almost ALL of the cast were portrayed, because the only cast members who aren't white males are Uhura and Sulu. Oh yes, clearly a film designed to undermine the White Man with BOTH of it's token minority characters.
i.e. The libtards have done NOTHING to fix what was wrong with the original series in their relaunch but simply polarized the story to one of 'all white males are baaaaad' equivalent, sexist, shallowness.
How did I guess this guy was conservative, and how sad is it that my sarcastically predicting it based purely on his objections that Star Trek isn't racist enough turned out true?
I certainly agree the movie was shallow, and kept so much of what didn't work in TOS (Chekov's accent, for instance) but is he really complaining about sexism a minute after whinging that the film's single woman was shown in a positive light?
). I decided to poke a little further, since I thought I remembered there being an episode with Bashir's parents, and there is. His father was played by Brian George (half-Indian, half-Lebanese), while his mother was played by Fadwa El Guindi (Egyptian). El Guindi was specifically picked because they wanted a Middle Eastern actress to portray Bashir's mother.
