72
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
72 points (97.4% liked)
The Democratic People's Republic of Tankiejerk
1118 readers
3 users here now
COMM HAS MOVED TO !tankiejerk@piefed.social
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How many of you folks are star trek fans?
What's your thoughts on the prime directive?
What's your thoughts on the federations alliance with klingons.
Why (besides the fact is fictional media) is that different from this?
Edit: guess y'all don't like star trek.
Maybe because afghans arent a fucking alien race unaware of the existence of other peoples
Interesting that that's how you interpret the prime directive. Uncontacted peoples are a case in which the prime directive would apply, but the prime directive applies also to contacted peoples.
Please reform your argument so that it makes sense as a response to what I said.
Sidenote: if you don't understand the prime directive and don't understand the question I am asking then you can also just not respond. You don't need to engage in an argument built on a premise that you don't know enough about to work within. That's okay. It doesn't make your argument less valid, just makes you unsuited for this specific conversation.
The interesting thing about a question is that while it asking you to think about the context of a fictional policy in a fictional world of aliens, the show was written by humans, for humans, about humans. If you also cannot wrap your head around that one then that is okay. You can choose not to engage with the question.
"Exceptions
Also,
“Ethical Considerations
The Prime Directive raises complex ethical questions about intervention and the consequences of non-interference. While it aims to prevent harm, it is often challenged by situations where intervention could save lives or prevent disasters. The directive is seen as a guideline rather than an absolute rule, allowing for flexibility based on the circumstances.”
It’s becoming clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Even if you watched the show, you’d know how often the crews interfered.
Contact is not intervention. Why are you interpreting what I am saying as cutting complete contact and forcing isolation? You and the person I originally replied to jumped to conclusions on questions I offered and assumed arguments I didn't make, wouldn't make, and wasn't implying.
I ain't continuing a discussion like that. But hey, wanna restart and try again? I'm open to it. But you'll have to listen to me and I'll promise to listen to you. Not the vague shapes in our head about each other filled with assumptions and guesswork from the I'm sure billion other online interactions we have had with similar people, but to listen to each other in the vacuum of this thread. Not assuming anything. You think I have an implication I am making, you can ask.
Your example of a national equivalent of a "Prime Directive" ignores the difference between global politics and extraterrestrial development. Global politics based around isolation inevitably falls due to an inability to deal with some crisis that comes along. They will be a source of short term refugees and long term trade opportunities as whatever nation rebuilds seeks contact with its neighbors.
A population that has no chance of leaving the planet will have to deal with the crisis or perish. Star Trek never talks about the planets that they watch fall into chaos or extinction. It also shows the
Isolationist policies never work. It always turns inward and aggressive, like feudal Japan or post-Tito Albania. Or North Korea now. All other nations will have to deal with the remains of a fallen country so it makes sense to get ahead of the problem and inject some responsibility.
Prime directive does not necessarily mean isolation, either imposed on the self or on the other (ignoring pre space civilizations, we ain't arguing about uncontacted tribal jungle folk are we?) you are making assumptions of my argument that I did not make and ran with that.
It's interesting that everyone who has replied to me about this wants to talk about the prime directive in relation to less advanced society when the subject at hand is Afghanistan. Despite me using Klingons, a peer to the federation, in my example.
Out of curiosity, why did you choose to ignore the framing I laid out and instead chose to focus on the concept of isolation and uncontacted peoples with relation to the prime directive?
Prime Directive only applies for first contact. For Earth today it means leaving uncontacted tribes alone.
The Federation alliance with the Klingon empire is against strong external enemies of both like the Romulans. Like the alliance during WW2 with the Soviet Union, it won’t last long. The Klingon empire can change direction radically under a new emperor and is prone to civil wars.
Prime directive does not just apply to first contact. The easiest example would be the entire show DS9 but also just the first episode where Picard is giving orders to sisko.
PICARD: <........ >I've come to know the Bajorans. I'm a strong proponents for their entry into the Federation.
SISKO: Is it going to happen?
PICARD: Not easily. The ruling parties are at each others throats. Factions that were united against the Cardassians have resumed old conflicts.
SISKO: Sounds like they're not ready.
PICARD: Your job is to do everything short of violating the Prime Directive to make sure that they are. <.......>
Here we can clearly see the prime directive being referenced in regards to a space age civilization that already has contact and awareness of the galaxy at large and who funnily enough consists of a bunch of religious terrorists. Honestly bajor was a better example but the Klingons are more disagreeable from a moral standpoint. What with their racism and misogyny