Didn’t these people just say that genocide is bad? So antigenocide is antisemitic, therefore genocide is Semitic. Or is all of this semantics?
Been that way since the beginning and most people where defending it. Somebody talks bad about Israel they where blackballed in Hollywood well another goes on a rant about exterminating the Palestine’s and nothing. Glad people are finally waking up to it.
No wonder South Park is trying to speedrun their contract with Paramount
What happened for those not in the know?
I would think they’d love being there as a giant fuck you to them.
Really how? The contract is for episode numbers not season. And they seem to be releasing episodes slowly.
Like they’re daring them to cancel the contract and prob pay out a shitload of money if they do. South Park wins either way.
And Mel Gibson is not on the list. That fact alone shows that this list has nothing to do with antisemitism.
Here is the twist, they don’t have the actually anti-semitist people there because definition of this word completely warped thanks to Netanyahu and zionist lobbies. Bask in the glory of your stupidity.
And by “antisemitic”, they are still going by the hilariously outdated notion that maybe last held sway in the 90s, and that means “not sufficiently subservient to just whatever the fuck Israel wants to do”?
Um, it’s holds quite a lot of sway all the way to 2025, sadly. It’s not outdated because things are getting worse. In the 90s nobody would have agreed with that definition. Yasser Arafat was an extremely popular dude in the 90s. He won the Nobel peace prize because of how popular his work was in the 90s. But he would have been considered hands down antisemetic by today’s modern BS definition.
Not everything that is bad is from the past. Some of these things are recent developments. The strangle hold of Israel on US politics is an increasing problem more than it is an outdated past problem.
Also support for Lebanon was very popular in the 90s. Just watch a Kids in The Hall sketch. The 90s doesn’t deserve to be maligned with the assumption that all views from then must be worse than the views we have now. You clearly never lived in the 90s.
Heh. I most definitely did live in the 90s. I’m talking about how until being able to talk directly to one another at scale, the old notion of “antisemitic” mostly held sway over us and it was a fantastic way to silence a lot of/most of dissent about Israel. Back when a handful of broadcast networks, cable networks, and newspapers were able to gatekeep nearly all discussions about Israel.
These days, that definition is openly mocked, even on corporate news, no less. Just witness the exchange between Stephen Miller’s wife and Cenk Uygur. Stephen Miller’s wife tried that nonsense and Cenk was able to rebuke her w/o having his mic cut off.
Not all aspects of being able to do an end-run around gatekeepers is necessarily a good thing, of course. So yeah, not everything from the 90s vs now is good or bad, it very much depends.
Boycott, divest, sanction. Paramount about to get the Disney treatment.
At some point you just have to boycott all media. Did you know if you torrent you basically achieve that and still get to enjoy movies? This is why it is a moral duty to torrent.
I wonder what they think of all the UFC fighters about to be under their umbrella. Particularly guys like Bryce Mitchel, an ACTUAL antisemitic person.
I could swear Ellison bought it to tank it
Oh man. Star Trek is the only tv show I watch. I guess it is time to sail the high seas.
Torrent.
Admirable tbh. Unfortunately Severance and The Bear still have me in their clutches haha
The seas can solve that problem in 15 minutes and then you have them forever.
I thought The Bear was Disney and Severance was Apple… At least that’s how they are in the UK.
Severance is Apple.
Good thing I’d rather blacklist paramount!
Blacklists are the hallmarks of fascism.
says the channel that literally had a Jewish coded Spock GOBBLE FUCKING BACON
Jews can eat pig. They are not allowed to mix dairy and meat tho. Muslims aren’t supposed to eat pig.
Zionists owning Hollywood turns out to be reality.
Israel has set back the push against actual bigotry and antisemitism by a century by literally leaning into every right-wing conspiracist talking point and wild notion about jewish conspiracies.
I sometimes wonder if this was intentional - fanning ridiculous theories such as “space lasers” - in order to make it easier to discredit other/future criticism. The Republicans have been using similar tactics for awhile now,.
Intentionally seeding radical and absurd social and political narratives on both sides of every issue is part of the KGB handbook for destabilizing nations. Russia has done it repeatedly, but it’s not isolated to them, basically it’s how politics is conducted entirely now by every actor.
When you stop trusting the narratives and stories you hear, you start tuning out all arguments on either side of an issue and either lose interest entirely, or you default to trusting the “official” channels like state media.
They’ve squandered any good will a sane person could have for Israel.
The monstrous acts against Palestine haven’t changed the way I view Jewish people as a whole, because I can separate religious beliefs from the actions of a nation state, but so,so many fucking idiots won’t.
Israel can go fuck itself, but I really feel for all the sane Jewish people outside (and inside, though I don’t think they’re super numerous) Israel that are going to be targeted by actual fucking antisemitism by nut jobs.
The only issue is the vast majority of that group, even the “sane” ones you empathize with, still support these policies. Only pacifist Orthodox jews oppose these genocidal policies amongst Jewish people. There is, unfortunately, not many cases to separate Zionism and its consequences from Jews.
Case in point.
https://jewishcurrents.org/are-95-of-jews-really-zionists
No matter which way you look at it, 80-90% of Americans that identify as Jewish are generally Zionist in some shape, way, or form.
Substantial majorities of American Jews respond positively to these types of questions. Pew’s 2013 survey found that 69% of American Jews were somewhat (39%) or very (30%) emotionally attached to Israel, while 31% were not very (22%) or not at all (9%) attached. Eighty-seven percent of American Jews said that caring about Israel is either essential (43%) or at least important (44%) to what being Jewish means to them. (Elements that scored higher were remembering the Holocaust, at 97%, and leading an ethical and moral life, at 94%. Statistically tied with Israel were working for justice and equality in society, at 89%, and being intellectually curious, at 85%). In a similar question on AJC’s 2020 survey, 59% of American Jews reported that being connected to Israel was a very (29%) or somewhat (30%) important part of their Jewish identity.
RECENTLY, some polls of American Jews have bucked the trend of focusing only on “emotional attachment” and have directly asked more politically laden questions about “pro-Israel” identification, starting with a survey commissioned by the Jewish Electorate Institute (JEI, an affiliate of the Jewish Democratic Council of America) in the fall of 2018. Conducted by the Mellman Group, a polling firm run by Mark Mellman (now also the CEO of the Democratic Majority for Israel PAC), the poll of 800 American Jewish voters asked respondents which of the following best described them: “Generally pro-Israel and supportive of the current Israeli government’s policies” (32%); “Generally pro-Israel but also critical of some of the current Israeli government’s policies” (35%); Generally pro-Israel but also critical of many of the current Israeli government’s policies” (24%); or “Generally not pro-Israel” (3%).
In total, 92% of respondents chose one of the “generally pro-Israel” options. There was also a fifth option for a respondent having “no opinion,” which was not represented on the graph in the JEI’s report of the poll, but presumably numbers approximately 5%. The fact that the graph does not sum to 100% has led to mistakes when reporting on the poll, such as in a recent interview of Jewish Currents Editor-in-Chief Arielle Angel by JTA Opinion Editor Laura E. Adkins, in which Adkins claims that this poll reported that “97% of American Jews are pro-Israel.” Presumably Adkins arrived at that figure by subtracting the 3% “not pro-Israel” from 100%. (Mellman told Jewish Currents that the “no opinion” option was not presented in the results for the sake of “simplicity.”) Three later surveys commissioned by JEI, conducted by different polling firms, showed similar results, with 88% (2019), 91% (February 2020), and 88% (September 2020) of respondents choosing one of the “generally pro-Israel” options.
In December 2019, a Ruderman Family Foundation poll, also conducted by the Mellman Group, asked this same question to a larger sample of American Jews. Ruderman called it “the most comprehensive survey of the Jewish community in the United States in recent years, and one of the largest ever.” (The sample size was 2,500 and the margin of error was 1.96%, compared to a 3,475 sample size and 3.0% margin of error in the highly regarded Pew poll.) Unlike the JEI poll, this poll sampled all American Jews, rather than Jewish voters specifically, and the results showed a significant difference in the percentage of respondents who chose a pro-Israel option. In the Ruderman poll, about 80% of the general sample of American Jews chose pro-Israel options as opposed to the average of about 90% over the three JEI surveys of American Jewish voters.
The pro-Israel answers in the Ruderman poll included a relatively even split of those who were supportive (23%), critical of some (28%), and critical of many (29%) Israeli policies. Six percent were “generally not pro-Israel,” and 14% did not have a view. Mellman said that the differences in the sample of American Jewish voters versus American Jews more broadly likely accounts for this gap between the JEI results and Ruderman results: “As with all voters, Jewish voters skew a little bit older, a little bit better educated, and obviously, more politically interested than the average Jew.”
Man, I sure didn’t expect to see “Mel Gibson Was Right All Along” on my 2025 Bingo card, yet here we are.
It is morally correct to pirate Paramount content then complain about how shit it is anyway.
And to cancel your paramount+ subscription
Wait, people have that?
How else would the elderly watch their NCIS reruns?
My guess is Trekkie’s would
We have it for survivor
Thats what an arrs stack is for.
Please, expand on that for me. Not sure “aars stack” is enough for me to go on a research dive with. More than happy to do some sailing. I 100% has the infrastructure and technical ability.
Nevermind. Pretty sure this GitHub is doing the explaining I need: https://github.com/Ravencentric/awesome-arr
I’ve never seen a company who’s advertising goes so far the wrong way. It makes me want to cancel it and I don’t even subscribe.
They don’t even have enough content to fill a billboard, let alone a whole streaming service.
check their upcoming movies…
Do I have to pirate them? I rather carry on pretending there isn’t another paw patrol movie
There are paw patrol movies now?
People can still sit through a whole movie??
i don’t mind watching that kind of stuff with the little ones. heck, even when they aren’t around and the tv is just ‘on’ for noise, it’s most likely tuned to or playing “their” shows and movies.
Not “people,” just toddlers.
Furthermore, Variety claims that Ellison’s goal is to turn Paramount into a MAGA-friendly environment, with content in the TV and movie divisions expected to be more “America-centric” and geared toward “the middle of the country.”
RIP any future Star Trek property.
Eh, it’s not like the current ones were all that good anyway
“OMG, when did Star Trek get so political?!”
Um… 1966.
So hilarious and so apt… I will absolutely laugh at the idea of, well what’s effectively been a socialist utopia for the vast majority of contexts in it, and the show that broke the interracial kiss barrier. (on top of inter species/galaxy ones… but obviously far more shocking at the time that a white guy kissed a black woman, than a white guy sleeping with a bunch of green aliens.
Political in the non-conservative sense, mind you.
About the only time they notice “activism”, too.
They can have activism like Project 2025 or the decades-long effort to overturn Roe, and none of that counts as “activism”.
RIP any future Star Trek property.
I’m sure they will find new ways to try to reboot it, completely stripped of any social commentary or social thought experiments, devoid of all optimism and inspiration for what our species can become. Probably like, another retelling of a plucky crew getting into space battles with generic, non-stereotyped-but-kinda alien terrorists who don’t have relatable reasons for being bad guys.
It won’t have heady concepts and wild ideas about how civilizations can develop and what humans can become, but that’s okay because it will have a roguish captain who likes to break the rules and a strict, by-the-book 1st officer that he has sexual tension with.
So it will be a cop show
Scientists predict that by the year 2120, the entire solar system will be nothing but cop shows.
😭
I remember having multiple discussions with a guy I knew who was adamant about various works of fiction, including the original Star Trek TV series, and how, in his view, if they have any kind of subtext to them, that it was not intentional and it’s entirely in the eye of the beholder, meaning, that people just make it up as they go.
These included, but were not limited to: OG Star Trek, Dune (book), LoTR (books), and even the NARNIA series. I mean, Narnia. I think I first read them around the age of 10 or 11, and the Christian parallels practically hit you between the eyes it is so obvious. Even to a kid…I mean, I’m pretty sure Lewis has gone on record with the clear intent on proselytizing his faith via that series.
I wish I was joking, and this guy read most everything when it came to old sci-fi stuff. If that is his take on reading all those classic sci-fi stuff, I was just gobsmacked as to what he was getting out of it.
I have the feeling that there might be more people like him, but I just don’t get it. Even things like WWE have the basic outline of the hero’s journey to them, FFS.
All of those series you mentioned have easily found interviews with their creators where they specifically say what subtext they were intending when they made them. You can disagree with the subtext, but was intentionally put there. That’s some willful ignorance.
Yeah. I’m pretty sure I asked him about that supposed wager between Tolkien and Lewis and how they kind of goaded one another to write fiction containing new myths that had, at root, the “true myth”, in their view which was related to Christ, since they were both Christians.
I also asked him about original myths themselves - do they contain allegory, etc? I think he may have conceded that, but for some reason, seemed to want to have some kind of arbitrary delineation between ancient myths and virtually everything else.
I don’t pretend to understand. I was utterly baffled by it. I remember asking about The Matrix, too - was that just a lot of cool FX and well-choreographed fight scenes? The answer was something I don’t remember, but I know I was baffled by it…
He’s not wrong that the reader/viewer can take what they will from a work and translate it through their own lens… but come on, that is some neutron-star density if you can’t read the deliberate social commentary in Star Trek. Roddenberry himself has spoken about it.
It makes me pretty convinced that person, and those who share his views, are people who feel called-out or attacked on some level by whatever social issues are being highlighted, or feel insecure that they don’t “get it.”
There is a really wild segment of the human population who seem totally incapable of working out abstract ideas like ethics and values on their own and rely on systems like government or religion or unfortunately, content creators to guide them. This is a bigger problem than we realize and we take for granted that just because we all grew up watching the Ninja Turtles beat Shredder that we can all discern that “good is better than bad.” Not everyone gets that, and this is everyone’s problem.
Yeah, I know the guy could be an intentional contrarian just because he thought that was the way to show his intelligence. And I think he is on the spectrum. But I don’t think he was kidding or merely being contrarian about this. Probably why I talked about it to him so much. Sure, many things have multiple interpretations, and I often thought that some pretty basic English lit teachers thought there were “rules” to how to interpret literature and that there were “correct” answers to what something like Old Man and the Sea “means”. I can understand rejecting that.
But rejecting that even things as blatant as Narnia and Star Trek are not intentionally conveying a message? Mind-blowing. I don’t even understand why you’d be all that interested in fiction of any kind at that point.
And yeah, as you point out, this kind of obvious intelligence in one way, but a glaring of lack of intelligence in others is highly problematic in the moral sense.
I was going to suggest that he might be on the spectrum, as it’s pretty stereotyped that autistic spectrum disorder can make it hard for some people to pick up subtext, nuance, overtones and other forms of communication that aren’t direct. (I was diagnosed recently as an adult but I’ve never had problems dismantling all the layers of media or reading emotions so it’s probably a different part of the spectrum.)
But this is also exactly why so many people on the spectrum identify with science fiction and fantasy, because in many of these franchises the social narrative or analogy isn’t exactly subtle.
And it opens up so many questions - like, what DOES communicate social messages and life lessons? What kinds of media DO convey ideas about society? Only documentaries about politics? What about non-fiction movies? What about fiction stories and movies that aren’t sci-fi or fantasy? Does he even watch stories about human emotion or abstract works of fiction that are STRICTLY social commentary? I would immediately start asking him so many questions LOL.
Honestly though, I would take this. I would prefer someone who says openly that they’re disconnected from social narratives than the people who pretend that they understand ethics and values communicated to them, but are actually just horrible sociopaths trying to act human.
Yeah, I found it weird for sure and I did have so many questions. I don’t see him any more. I still think about it even now, even though these conversations were maybe 10 years ago, LOL.
I think part of it was his stubbornness to admit being even a little bit wrong in a prior statement?
I mean, as you point out, OG Star Trek is something that even as a relatively young and sheltered kid who didn’t see much TV, I’d watch them at relatives houses in syndication and even I could “get it”. It fairly smacks you over the head now that I’m an adult. How some of this got past the censors still looking for any kind of subversive content is beyond me. I’m assuming the network censors just saw aliens and checked out mentally, or maybe were the type that cannot really handle abstractions of any sort…
As to that last paragraph, absolutely right. It’s one thing if people struggle with social cues and so on and it’s quite another for people just faking human emotions in order to exploit others.
Narnia and Dune are so up-front about their messages that after a couple books it stops being subtext and just becomes text, so they’re technically correct there.
Well, Narnia hits one like a 2x4 square between the eyes. 🤣
I remember reading the first Dune book during the first invasion of Iraq and the parallels between the two were very interesting I have to say. Not sure how much the author meant, but it was sure weird…
I mean the Author meant nothing to parallel a war that happened 25 ish years after the book was released. Dune 1965 first Iraq war 1990. Any similarities are all on you.
Ha, yeah, of course it was not about the particulars of the first Iraq war which happened decades after the book was written. I’m talking more about the struggle in a desert planet with a people that are being oppressed by colonizers while there is a struggle for a resource that the planet has a lock on that virtually everyone needs. Not to mention all the Islamic references and influences…I had not read the book before 1990 and had only seen Lynch’s Dune prior to that.
America-centric?
Mother fucker it’s already America-centric, just look at the space Christian angels episodes of discovery to see how American it is.
Oh well, more Americans shooting themselves in the foot for foreign media to step in and replace them. Guess this is the century of China if America is giving up.
Wasn’t that supposed to be her mom?
The first Red Angel was Burnham’s mom. The second Red Angel was Burnham, because of-fucking-course it was.
Ok so definitely no Christianity stuff, just star trek being like … temporarily mysterious-ish
Good luck with South Park and painting Matt Stone as Anti-Semitic. Fucking pieces of shit.
Zionists call Jewish people antisemitic all the time, so yeah they will have great luck with that.
I’m willing to bet that a significant portion of that list is Jewish.
why do you say that
I reckon we could get 4 seasons into a Terran Empire based series before the MAGAs figure out they’re being made fun of.
You could get away with a Starship Troopers Star Trek Terran Empire series literally forever, The Colbert Report ran 11 seasons and people still think it existed to balance out the liberal bias of The Daily Show.
Star Trek: Ferenginar will probably be on the list to be made and the pilot episode will be called Make Fereginar Great Again.
MAGA would see the Ferengi aversion to war, xenophobia, and genocide as “too woke”.
The Ferengi actually know how to run a functioning economy.
“Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, Nephew. They’re a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people…will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon.”
They would like the idea of permanently unclothed women though. Those on the younger side especially.
Followed by Star Trek: Lobes
Star Trek: The Final Front Ear
My first thought when reading that as well.
There’s already an Angel Studios. We don’t need another one.


















