"...where no MAN has gone before!"

So, with the upcoming movie, isn't it time?

Wouldn't now be a great time to tell political correctness to go fuck iteself?

Fuck that 'no ONE' pussyfest. Picard was French. Wouldn't you like to hear 'where no man has gone before' again?



:

 

And with Shatner saying it too!

 

Oh. I thought this was going to be about your first gay experience.

 

For a moment there I thought that this would be a discussion of Rosie O'Donnell's snatch.

 

Time for your :coldshower: instead...

 

Huh?! Please explain further.

 

What's to fucking explain?

 

Are you saying that for the new movie they will say..'where no ONE has gone before' rather than 'where no MAN has gone before'?

 

To be absolutely accurate, it should be "where no human has gone before."

But that doesn't scan.

 

"No man" is correct. People are trying to change the plain meaning of the language.

 

Man as in MANKIND.

They shouldn't change it.

 

Only if you assume that only members of the human race are "men," i.e. male.

If you're exploring an area of space where other species live, and those species are divided into male and female, then "men" have already gone there. See?

It's like "Columbus discovered America," as if there were nobody there until he got there.

 

Forget all that. It should remain the same as the original from TOS.

I mean, they are starting at the beginning right?! Its just a bunch of bullshit. The same speech was used in TNG.

This movie represents TOS/TNG.

They already fucked up with Enterprise and that goofy song.

 

Bollocks. In English, man means male. The only neuter in English is 'one'. The alternatives? Use human or mankind (still a bit neglectful of 52% of us, but that's thousands of years of patriarchy for you )
'Where no one' was one of those minor changes that acknowledged the different times while, in all probability, sailing over the heads of 99.9% of those watching.

Says an awful lot that some still get bent out of shape over it...

 

'Course, that's an awfully big stretch...

 

I agree that "no one" is a more accurate description of the whole of humanity, even if it makes Sokar hold onto his dick so it won't fall off.

However, unless the area of space being explored has never been explored by any other spacefaring species, other "ones" have, in fact, been there before.

So unless you say "human" - which really doesn't scan - it's poetic, but not accurate. Just sayin'.

 

*deleted because head in ass*

 

Huh??? This is the red room.

 

Bollocks to you. More educated men than us have used "man" as generic for mankind for centuries.

Changing it now is just PC revisionism.

 

It can also mean humans in general.

You can see the word's Saxon pedigree in modern German, where there is a distinction between 'Mann' (husband, man) and 'man' (one): 'Man soll das nicht' = 'One shouldn't do that' or 'People shouldn't do that.'

I'm not bent out of shape one way or the other, but I do prefer 'man' in this instance, sexist though it may be, simply because it has a more 'poetic' sound to it. 'One' always sounds a little, I dunno, clinical.

It isn't going to make or break the movie for me.

 

It may not even be in the movie at all.

 

But we haven't spoken German for an awful long time. 'One' is the nearest modern English has to the German 'man' (strictly lower case m, IIRC). But, as garamet pointed out, that's speciesist.
Now, maybe some of you that are comfortable with insulting those that have historically been physically and economically weaker than you are equally comfortable with insulting those that could blast the planet into smithereens to create an interstellar highway, but speaking from the point of view of one of the historically oppressed, I'd counsel against that approach...

 

I wouldn't say that. I mean, that may have been the reason Roddenberry (et al) changed it in the first place, but I think changing it says quite abit about where we were, on an evolutionary scale, in the '60s as opposed to where we were in the '80s.

In the 60s, women were still fairly dependant on men for financial reasons. By the 80s, many women were self-sufficiant. Now, most women only choose to marry for love.

 

Except that it *was* changed, in 1987, for Star Trek Lite, a.k.a. TNG.

 

And if TNG is not the ultimate expression of PC then there's no convincing you.

But now you've changed the terms of the argument by saying that my use of the word, "now" is incorrect. You're right. I should've said that the whole movement to redefine words to make them politically acceptable is wrong.

 

And I'm all for it. My wife makes a good living and could easily make it on her own. That she chooses to stay with me obviously shows a mental defect that I'm more than willing to not treat.

Maybe we can evolve to the point where people don't so easily take offense and strive for understanding rather than confrontation. I'm reminded of Sisko from DS9 at first refusing to go to a holosuite program based on 50's America. He was reminded that there were a lot of good things happening as well and that the bad was gone.

 

I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing. Just that it's ... a bit cliche, but a sign of the times.

Is there too much PC? yea, sometimes.

Is it wrong to try to take into account how others might feel? I don't think so.

 

There is a vast difference between taking those feelings into account, and being ruled by them.

 

Yep.

And that's why I mentioned the DS9 thing. Sisko was missing out because of HIS feelings when others weren't trying to be offensive. He loosened up and was the better for it.