Columnist can't mourn Nimoy "Because Spock Reminds him of Obama"


Television

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

source link

The editor in chief of the conservative Washington Free Beacon published a column today in which he outlined why he felt “apathetic” about the passing of Leonard Nimoy — his iconic character, Spock, reminds him too much of President Barack Obama.

Matthew Continetti opened his column by noting that the president himself drew the comparison, writing “I loved Spock. Cool, logical, big-eared, and level headed, the center of Star Trek‘s optimistic, inclusive vision of humanity’s future.”

“As I thought more about the president’s statement,” Continetti wrote, “I realized he identifies with the very aspects of the Spock character that most annoy me. I don’t love Spock at all.”

“Not only do Spock’s peacenik inclinations routinely land the Enterprise and the Federation into trouble, his ‘logic’ and ‘level head’ mask an arrogant emotional basket case…Spock spends most of his life as a freelancing diplomat eager to negotiate with the worst enemies of Starfleet. He’s the opposite of a role model: a cautionary tale.”

After outlining the many decisions made by Spock in the original series, the movies based on it, and The Next Generation, Continetti turned his attention to the new film franchise, which is “an enjoyable picture that is revealing of Spock’s awfulness.”

“It shows how Spock is tormented, physically and mentally, by the fact that his mother is human, how Mr. Logic is actually a boiling kettle of fury, resentment, passion, and ambition. Spock is a jerk to his girlfriend Uhura, who is way out of his league. He almost kills Kirk. He is so overcome with emotion he relieves himself from duty in the middle of a huge crisis. Spock is rude to his father.”

He then asks, “and Obama likes this selfish jerk? The coolness the president so appreciates in Spock is a thin veneer over a remarkably arrogant and off-putting detachment from human suffering.”

“What Leonard Nimoy’s death revealed,” Continetti wrote, “is that there is a sizable portion of Trek fans, and of nerds in general, that identifies with Spock’s neuroses, his hang-ups, his self-loathing, that are attracted to the cold soulless abstractions through which he views life, who believe in the naïve and ineffective diplomacy in which he so thoughtlessly and recklessly and harmfully engages.”

“It will take America some time to recover from the legacy of our Spock-loving president,” he concluded.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

ROTFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL


Uhhhh.....errr....

Really?

PS: At the original post, not at Freehold's response.

Well...if we are going to equate Presidents with Trek...

and Obama = Spock...

Then hmmmm....

Clinton = Kirk?

Reagan = Bones?

Bush Sr. = Sisko?

Bush jr. = Janeway?

Carter = Wesley or Data?

Nixon = Quark?

PPS: And for those who can't realize it...I am trying to be a tad humorous in my presidents = characters items.

Silver Crusade

13 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm reading words but all I'm seeing is crazy.


Why are you surprised? This is the Free Beacon we're taking about.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought Janeway was Margaret Thatcher.

Which one would Londo Mollari be? I don't really watch Star Wars.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Londo would be Napoleon. Brilliant, but darn did he mess things up for his people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am now dumber simply from having read that.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

He's right.

Intellectual peaceniks suck.

We should just kill everyone who stands against us.

Let's start with the folks at the Washington Free Beacon.

Seriously, was the whole 20th Century all for nothing?

Oh, and Jimmy Carter was totally Captain Pike, and every President and pseudo-President since then has been, at best, a Klingon (well, okay, Clinton was Kirk, sans the all-important spine).

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

I think the author tried to convey that he prefers warm and loving altruism (i.e. directly feeding the poor at a soup kitchen and talking/helping a homeless man) instead of the high level for the greater good elitist altruism that seeks to solve problems at the society level.

Both types of altruism have their place. Some people are social butterflies and some are shy. Everyone has unique skills and personalities that make them better suited at certain things.

While I may agree on a certain level that helping people directly requires a bold and courageous step, I do not agree that helping people indirectly is inherently inferior.

I think the author is trying to express his fears and uncertainties in the face of a world that is becoming increasingly individualistic and detached, where personal contact is ultimately replaced by remote interaction. He somewhat equates scientific approach and calculated risks to a rejection of human nature, and our turning away from tradition, religion and other customs in favor of a theory of everything that can solve any problem imaginable... at which point, the human nature, and thus humans, are made irrelevant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I think the author tried to convey that he prefers warm and loving altruism (i.e. directly feeding the poor at a soup kitchen and talking/helping a homeless man) instead of the high level for the greater good elitist altruism that seeks to solve problems at the society level.

Interesting.

In many ways I see this being the problem with conservative vs. liberal thought.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find it interesting the way the author spouts out Spocks attributes like we are supposed to think Spock is 'right'...

Spock was always only PART of the equation. He had logic on his side, McCoy had Passion on his, and Kirk was in the middle making decisions.

Spock always pushed that Logic was the 'right' way to go, but Kirk rarely EVER followed his advice and the ship was better for it. More often then not it was his human half leaking through that showed how his emotions made him BETTER then the standard cold full-blooded Vulcans.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I think the author tried to convey that he prefers warm and loving altruism (i.e. directly feeding the poor at a soup kitchen and talking/helping a homeless man) instead of the high level for the greater good elitist altruism that seeks to solve problems at the society level.
Interesting.

Don't you mean...........fascinating?

(personally I think it's critical to keep both approaches to altruism in mind, but that just doesn't come across in the article to me)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:

I find it interesting the way the author spouts out Spocks attributes like we are supposed to think Spock is 'right'...

Spock was always only PART of the equation. He had logic on his side, McCoy had Passion on his, and Kirk was in the middle making decisions.

Yeah, my takeaway was that all three together worked better than any one alone.

Or it would be if I watched the show; I've never even seen a whole episode of Lost In Space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

He's right.

Intellectual peaceniks suck.

We should just kill everyone who stands against us.

Let's start with the folks at the Washington Free Beacon.

Seriously, was the whole 20th Century all for nothing?

Oh, and Jimmy Carter was totally Captain Pike, and every President and pseudo-President since then has been, at best, a Klingon (well, okay, Clinton was Kirk, sans the all-important spine).

Frankly I see Bush jr as Kirk. He was the one was in control, and did whatever he thought he should do, regardless of rules or regulations.

The 'cowboy' president. War on Terror

Shadow Lodge

Um, from the brief look at the other stories that website has up, it's obvious to me that it's something along the lines of a budget "The Onion". IE, not something to take even remotely seriously.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I think the author tried to convey that he prefers warm and loving altruism (i.e. directly feeding the poor at a soup kitchen and talking/helping a homeless man) instead of the high level for the greater good elitist altruism that seeks to solve problems at the society level.

Interesting.

In many ways I see this being the problem with conservative vs. liberal thought.

To say that one is somehow at odds with the other can only be termed "illogical" - this is just more Far Right crap trying to paint the world (and consequently, people in it) that they believe in onto the world that actually is. "Order! ORDER! There must be OOOOORRRDERRR...!"


Kthulhu wrote:
Um, from the brief look at the other stories that website has up, it's obvious to me that it's something along the lines of a budget "The Onion". IE, not something to take even remotely seriously.

Sadly, that's Poe's Law in reverse.

It's a serious right-wing "news" site. They believe the nonsense they spout. Or at least aren't deliberately being funny.

Scarab Sages

"Next Up: Our Hobbies & Entertainment Section, with Jack Chick!"

How on Earth is "Not Funny, LOL'd Anyway" NOT already an Internet meme?

Liberty's Edge

phantom1592 wrote:
Spock was always only PART of the equation. He had logic on his side, McCoy had Passion on his, and Kirk was in the middle making decisions.

So where does Scotty's constant scamming fit in?

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.

On the subject of 'individual versus state charity', a famous South American priest (not so famous that I can remember his name, unfortunately) said:-

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

On the subject of 'individual versus state charity', a famous South American priest (not so famous that I can remember his name, unfortunately) said:-

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Fascinating.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hélder Câmara, Archbishop of Olinda and Recife during Brazil's military rule.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

On the subject of 'individual versus state charity', a famous South American priest (not so famous that I can remember his name, unfortunately) said:-

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Which is perfectly fine and reasonable except for some reason they mean it as an insult. And sometimes start shooting.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Uhhhh.....errr....

Really?

PS: At the original post, not at Freehold's response.

Well...if we are going to equate Presidents with Trek...

and Obama = Spock...

Then hmmmm....

Clinton = Kirk?

Reagan = Bones?

Bush Sr. = Sisko?

Bush jr. = Janeway?

Carter = Wesley or Data?

Nixon = Quark?

PPS: And for those who can't realize it...I am trying to be a tad humorous in my presidents = characters items.

I laughed at this almost as much as at the original post. Bravo!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to remember to read these boards with the lights on-- my eyes rolled so hard that one of them popped out, bounced off the bed, and slipped under some piece of furniture. Now I'm wandering around a cyclops; probably for life.

What's new about this anyway? Vulcans have always been in the White House...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:

I find it interesting the way the author spouts out Spocks attributes like we are supposed to think Spock is 'right'...

Spock was always only PART of the equation. He had logic on his side, McCoy had Passion on his, and Kirk was in the middle making decisions.

Spock always pushed that Logic was the 'right' way to go, but Kirk rarely EVER followed his advice and the ship was better for it. More often then not it was his human half leaking through that showed how his emotions made him BETTER then the standard cold full-blooded Vulcans.

"Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end." - Captain Spock


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I think the author tried to convey that he prefers warm and loving altruism (i.e. directly feeding the poor at a soup kitchen and talking/helping a homeless man) instead of the high level for the greater good elitist altruism that seeks to solve problems at the society level.

Nah... You're giving him waaaaaay too much credit.

I'm pretty sure what he's actually saying is "Obama said he likes Spock, therefoere I hate Spock. It's better to spill irrational hatred againat a beloved character famously portrayed by a beloved actor than to say I have anything in common with Obama (who is the devil, BTW)."

It scared me that people are willing to adopt (and publish) can be so obsessed with their blind hatred for the opposition that they decide to instantly dislike something just because their political opponents said they enjoy it.

And I don't say this to defend Obama or accuse republicans. This would be just as awful if it went the other way around... And I'm sure it happens. No one political party has monopoly over ignorance, lunacy and blind hatred.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I came because I thought I saw 'Free Bacon.'

But it was only Free Beacon. Now I am disappoint.

Also hungry.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:

I came because I thought I saw 'Free Bacon.'

But it was only Free Beacon. Now I am disappoint.

Oh God, what did Kevin do?!

worried Tremors fan

Sovereign Court

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I think the author tried to convey that he prefers warm and loving altruism (i.e. directly feeding the poor at a soup kitchen and talking/helping a homeless man) instead of the high level for the greater good elitist altruism that seeks to solve problems at the society level.

And the second kind is far better than slopping soup in plates once a week.


Hama wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I think the author tried to convey that he prefers warm and loving altruism (i.e. directly feeding the poor at a soup kitchen and talking/helping a homeless man) instead of the high level for the greater good elitist altruism that seeks to solve problems at the society level.

And the second kind is far better than slopping soup in plates once a week.

there are some people who truly feel that that is the be all end all of altruism, save perhaps for if they are in a position to give them a job.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
Set wrote:

I came because I thought I saw 'Free Bacon.'

But it was only Free Beacon. Now I am disappoint.

Oh God, what did Kevin do?!

worried Tremors fan

you're a tremors fan? That's awesome! I loved the diy approach to saving yourself in that series.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Set wrote:

I came because I thought I saw 'Free Bacon.'

But it was only Free Beacon. Now I am disappoint.

Oh God, what did Kevin do?!

worried Tremors fan

you're a tremors fan? That's awesome! I loved the diy approach to saving yourself in that series.

God, that was one of the reasons they're close to my heart too. I grew up on B-movies, and finally seeing one where the everyday people that would usually be designated victims actually did the smart things just won me over at an early age.

I would probably feel differently if I lived in the desert. That was probably the most convincing case ever for agoraphobia for young!me.

I did however hurt myself trying to pole vault because of that movie.


The dad from family ties really attached himself to that series, didn't he.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This entire "article" can be summarized as follows:

"I hates me some Obama!"

Move along, nothing to see here. Let's not do that site the favor of any more hits.


Every time someone reads an article like this, it makes the site money.

The best thing we can do about looney b#@*%~%# of any kind is to just ignore it completely and tell other s to do the same.

Let them shout their insanity into the digital void. It only way it matters is if we pay attention.


I want to mourn Matthew Continetti, but I can't, because he reminds me of Matthew Continetti.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
It scared me that people are willing to adopt (and publish) can be so obsessed with their blind hatred for the opposition that they decide to instantly dislike something just because their political opponents said they enjoy it.

I've said it before- if Obama wants the Democrats to sweep the next election, he just needs to declare "National Not Setting Yourself On Fire Week" right before the election. The Republicans will have a hard time voting from the burn ward.

Lemmy wrote:
And I don't say this to defend Obama or accuse republicans. This would be just as awful if it went the other way around... And I'm sure it happens. No one political party has monopoly over ignorance, lunacy and blind hatred.

I keep hearing this ("Booooth sides dooo iiiiiit!"), but I'm having a hard time remembering any time in my lifetime the Libruls got HALF as insane as the rightwingers currently are.

Hama wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I think the author tried to convey that he prefers warm and loving altruism (i.e. directly feeding the poor at a soup kitchen and talking/helping a homeless man) instead of the high level for the greater good elitist altruism that seeks to solve problems at the society level.

And the second kind is far better than slopping soup in plates once a week.

[strawman]

Well, maybe, but so what? The purpose of charity isn't to help those filthy Poors, it's to demonstrate what a Good person the charity-giver is.[/strawman]

And I concur. Tremors was a very fun movie.

Sovereign Court

If you're doing it to demonstrate how good you are, you're not really good, now, are you? :D

Both are good. But improving the overall conditions of the poor is far better in the long run.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Summation of article: Obama's a nerd, nerds suck.

He even provides that same summation near the end:

Quote:
a sizable portion of Trek fans, and of nerds in general, that identifies with Spock’s neuroses, his hang-ups, his self-loathing, that are attracted to the cold soulless abstractions through which he views life

To top it off, it's poorly written. This editor needs an editor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please don't start the right vs left flame I've almost got the SLA early entry fires to a controls level. Also Tremors is awesome and anyone who says otherwise shall be fed to Graboids.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am a right wing conservative extremist and I loved the character Mr. Spock.

And it wasn't just Star Trek that impressed me with Mr. Nimoy's work - his narration of In Search of.. put him on par with such TV greats as Rod Serling (who hosted the original show/feature). The man was good at his trade and helped to create a character that is both iconic in fiction and in gaming. His impact on me and several of my friends was profound.

To me Spock transcends the Left v Right paradigm. He espoused aspects of both (the better parts) and I find it strange that a conservative - who should value logic vs. emotion (a conservative mantra) would rail against a character based in reason vs. emotion in his decision making process (which was flawed at times).

Spock was the best of both sides while being neither. Even his hippy aspects that this joker is railing against - the individual vs. the group - I just don't see it as leftist preaching. Spock, if anything was his own person - I can't remember an incarnation where he asked someone else to sacrifice themselves for the greater good - if it was ever proposed it was always his own neck on the line. So I don't see this as a leftist position.

I refrained for a few days getting in on this one - but I do feel that the writer of this piece waited a week (for the body to get cold) and then used it as a hit job on the current POTUS (who I dislike). Just a cheap shot with minimal consequence or risk. Aka Chicken s$%&.


^ Yeah, nailed it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

If you're doing it to demonstrate how good you are, you're not really good, now, are you? :D

Both are good. But improving the overall conditions of the poor is far better in the long run.

I think Jesus said something interesting about this in the bible, where the former was nothing short of hypocrisy of the worst sort. I could be wrong though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that obama, spock, or Nimoy have ever gotten a better compliment.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Television / Columnist can't mourn Nimoy "Because Spock Reminds him of Obama" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.