Here's a controversial thought: The worst Trek is at the absolute worst kinda decent, and it only goes up from there.

My Trek power rankings don't line up with most (Discovery is pretty great, DS9 is kind of annoying, all the Kelvin Treks are fun and the first one is pretty great), but even the parts I don't like I can watch and be chill about it.

Picard is bordering that line, honestly, but I can't be actively mad at Patrick Stewart and I actually would have watched a cheaper, longer show about the La Sirena crew without the TNG baggage.

You can reasonably disagree with a critical response to a TV show without it being a personal attack on your positivity or that of your post. What are you looking for here? An echo chamber makes for a boring discussion board.

I think it's fair enough to expect writers to understand and respect the media they're working with, and I'd argue that the writing in all those previous shows was leagues more intelligent and considered than the stuff on Kurtzman shows. I get very frustrated at how what was a show about professional and considered officers dealing with clever sci fi scenarios is turned into an action slog "fuck yeah science" show. It's not smart or interesting like that.

EDIT: noticed your post above about the difficulties you're going through. We can disagree about a telly show and still respect each other, I don't think discussion spaces like this might be healthy if you're struggling with positivity. It's totally okay to like the new trek shows and there's nothing wrong with wanting to be positive.