Shatner Slams E.U. Censors Proposal to Ban Star Trek’s “To Boldly Go Where No MAN Has Gone Before "

[Cpt. MAGA Man]

William Shatner just hit the European Union gender equality censors with a maximum phaser strike and a full spread of photon torpedoes. These leftist E.U. censors are out of their minds.


William Shatner Levels Government Censors Trying to Ban Iconic 'Star Trek' Line

https://www.westernjournal.com/will...ent-censors-trying-ban-iconic-star-trek-line/

The European Union has just run crosswise with Captain James T. Kirk, and by any measure the Captain is right to blast Europe’s left-wing, nanny state, cancel culture, loons for their latest “diversity” move.

This week, news broke that the EU — which apparently stands for Entirely Useless — is looking to make the world safe from evil “gendered” words, like man, male, guys, and anything testosterone related, The Telegraph reported.

This impinges directly on one of Captain Kirk’s most famous lines, the one that serves as the opening monologue to the famed 1966 series, “Star Trek.”

.............


William Shatner Slams European Union Gender Equality Proposal to Ban Star Trek’s Iconic, “To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...lams-european-union-gender-equality-proposal/

 

[BillJ]

I guess this is one way one can spend the day.

 

[Tallguy]

Well, the Shatner part is true, anyway.

https://twitter.com/WilliamShatner/status/1751999415215141282

 

[M'Sharak]

Ohhhhhh! Western Journal AND The Gateway Pundit, good.

I'm sure this will be both truthful and accurate.

Well, the Shatner part is true, anyway.

https://twitter.com/WilliamShatner/status/1751999415215141282

And his response is to something which appeared in The Sun, and we know how reliable they are.

In Shatner's own words:

" If people are offended by 6 seconds of dialogue recorded in 1966 without a modicum of understanding of the social issues at the time there’s bigger issues that they need to deal with first - like educating themselves."​

 

[Nerys Myk]

Hasn't it been "no one" since the 80s?

 

[Tallguy]

Ohhhhhh! Western Journal AND The Gateway Pundit, good.

I'm sure this will be both truthful and accurate.

Well the document is real. Is this "the EU" proper?

Here is the document:
https://eige.europa.eu/publications...tive-communication?language_content_entity=en

X To boldly go where no man has gone before.
Remove the gendered noun, Use no-one.
√ To boldly go where no-one has gone before

So.. Literally the difference between TOS and TNG. To say nothing of the line that Shatner himself spoke in The Undiscovered Country. Oy.

 

[Oddish]

You go, Bill. While I'm perfectly happy that Star Trek now uses "no one", I don't feel that it's necessary for them to retroactively ban older Trek because it doesn't. There's a line between respect and wokeness, and I think this crosses it.

 

[Tallguy]

You go, Bill. While I'm perfectly happy that Star Trek now uses "no one", I don't feel that it's necessary for them to retroactively ban older Trek because it doesn't. There's a line between respect and wokeness, and I think this crosses it.

Is there any talk of banning? As far as I can tell this is a very long winded style guide. That uses an example that official Star Trek adopted 37 years ago. Even 23rd century Trek being made since 2009 uses "no-one". Forget the EU banning "no MAN". What about PARAMOUNT?

There is no mention of Star Trek by name. It's a quote. And then a newer quote.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

 

[NCC-73515]

You go, Bill. While I'm perfectly happy that Star Trek now uses "no one", I don't feel that it's necessary for them to retroactively ban older Trek because it doesn't. There's a line between respect and wokeness, and I think this crosses it.

no one bans anything, including older trek
there is a much bigger line between guidelines for new stuff and banning old stuff
...obviously.

trek also only got it right with archer, when they made it "no human"

 

[M'Sharak]

Is there any talk of banning?

In the title of this thread, there is.

The Gateway Pundit's piece also refers to it as a ban, as does The Western Journal's. The Torygraph article cited in the OP calls it only "an example".

As far as I can tell this is a very long winded style guide. That uses an example that official Star Trek adopted 37 years ago. Even 23rd century Trek being made since 2009 uses "no-one". Forget the EU banning "no MAN". What about PARAMOUNT?

There is no mention of Star Trek by name. It's a quote. And then a newer quote.

I haven't taken the dive into examining the document, but I suspect you're correct, and that this is being used only as an example. Because enacting a rule to "fix" a line which was already "corrected" nearly four decades ago would be silly.

EDIT:
the pertinent part of the document:

(click image to enlarge)

This is really no different than what's been found in any of hundreds of corporate communication recommendation memos over the last 30-some years.

 

[1001001]

 

[Avro Arrow]

This is such a huge pile of nothing, but I guess outrage gotta outrage.

The document in question, the Toolkit on Gender-sensitive Communication, was published by the European Institute for Gender Equality in 2019. (I guess that means there's nothing current to be outraged about if we've got to dig back in the archives like that.) It is a document containing tips and advice for anyone looking to use more gender-sensitive language. That's all. It is not some kind of government mandate upon the citizenry, and it is definitely not attempting to "ban" words.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the Star Trek quote was simply used as an example of gendered language. EU shock troops are not coming to confiscate your TOS blu-rays.

@Cpt. MAGA Man , I did see that you posted this here because you were directed here from GTD, but it was framed as discussing EU politics. There doesn't seem to be too much discussion in the OP about politics, so it looks like you maybe just wanted to post the... I will be generous and call them "articles". If so, in the future, you may want to consider the "Random Thoughts" thread, as it's ideal for sharing little snippets that may not warrant a whole thread. Of course, if there is something you wanted to discuss, beyond those fictitious "leftist EU censors", please feel free to clarify. (I am extending to you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't just post this to start an argument.)

I will leave this open for now, perhaps against my better judgment. (Typically when the OP poisons the well of potential discussion, we close the thread, and the linked articles do meet that threshold.) Please feel free to discuss, but I would just like to remind everyone about the post not poster guidelines, and please keep it civil.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So.. Literally the difference between TOS and TNG. To say nothing of the line that Shatner himself spoke in The Undiscovered Country. Oy.

Maybe the overpaid assistant who handles Shat's social media is unaware.

 

[Oddish]

View attachment 38409

Sure. As long as they're Muslim or have a disability, anyway.

 

[Tallguy]

Sure. As long as they're Muslim or have a disability, anyway.

Annnnnd SCENE.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Sure. As long as they're Muslim or have a disability, anyway.

 

[JD]

So basically, it's just a guidebook saying people should say using saying "no one" instead of "no man" as the more appropriate way to talk?
And

on the part of people who have completely misunderstood what it is?

 

[M'Sharak]

So basically, it's just a guidebook saying people should say using saying "no one" instead of "no man" as the more appropriate way to talk?
And

on the part of people who have completely misunderstood what it is?

Oh, I suspect they may understand for themselves what it actually is, but they'd never admit it openly. Their brand is locked into misrepresenting and sensationalizing and adding spin to produce a desired reaction from their regular audience. They could simply report news, but factual accuracy just isn't their purpose.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Sure. As long as they're Muslim or have a disability, anyway.

And

on the part of people who have completely misunderstood what it is?

I would assume it's not so much "misunderstanding", as deliberate misrepresentation.

The perpetual outrage machine must be fed.

ETA: In other words, what @M'Sharak said. I guess that's what happens when I sit in the reply box too long.