Sisko was kind of crazy... : risa

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 31 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Okay. I'ma do it. I'm going to say the most controversial thing I've ever said on here so far.

Sisko is my least favorite Captain by a significant margin. Him making a planet completely uninhabitable for humanoid life and forcing refugees to flee again is a seriously big reason as to why I don't like him. The whole assassination plot is another reason, although that's open for debate. Sterilizing a planet for centuries just so you can hunt down a single man? One that you have a personal connection with? One you clearly have feelings of vengeance over? I can't get with it.

"You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think it is connected to some higher purpose." ~ Jean-Luc Picard

[–] PurpleCat@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

As someone who has had this opinion "Sisko is a war criminal who destroyed a planet's biosphere" I encourage you to rewatch the episode.

the "refugees" are terrorists who developed the bomb Sisko used, he just returned it from cardassian DNA to human DNA
this is not about a personal vendetta, this is about the treaty with cardassia that will save lives.
These terrorists are jeopardizing peace just because they aren't willing to relocate, not because they have a spiritual connection with the land ("TNG:Journey's End") but because they "Already built a home here" . The settlers Picard was going to remove by force actually joined the cardassians because they didn't want to leave, but the Maqius are so racist they were willing to use said weapon to make the planet uninhabitable to cardassians
on racism: Eddington says "the Maqius are not killers" after blowing up a cardassian vessel.
yes they did have a vendetta but Sisko played that aspect of this conflict so Eddington would turn himself in.

It's not confirmed in the show or anything, but I doubt the Maqius were only going to use that weapon defensively.

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

maquis did nothing wrong cardassians deserved it

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

Agreed. They were an evil empire who forced a treaty to be signed that evicted people from their homes. They then wanted to resettle these homes. I'd have become a 'terrorist' too.

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've rewatched the episode fairly recently and I stand by my decision. Sisko had no reasonable justification to do what he did, in my opinion. Are there arguments? Sure, but none that I consider valid simply because of the quote that I ended that previous comment on. You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think it is connected to some higher purpose.

Terrorist is a point of opinion. They were still people fleeing occupation and reclaiming their world. On top of that, are you willing to say that every single Maquis member is a terrorist? Every man, woman and child? That they deserved to all go through that when they might not have any other options to turn to? That doesn't seem very Starfleet to me.

That being said, who they are makes literally no difference to me. There were other solutions. Sisko didn't need an immediate answer in that moment. He actively went to the planet and decided to gas it himself. The actions carried out by Sisko are the problem. Not who he takes them out on. But the personal vendetta plays a significant role and you cannot deny that it does. The majority of the episode is Sisko throwing a temper tantrum over Eddington. Eddington even successfully manages to tease Sisko into making rash decisions. Sisko actively endangered his own crew to hunt down Eddington. The Defiant was not remotely fit for service but he still brought her out, nearly smashing the hell out of it by colliding with the station itself.

Every single action taken by Sisko in that episode horrifies me. He allows himself to get played so easily and then says "Oh I'll play the villain" and attacks the planet. He's so utterly not Starfleet in that episode that it hurts. The fact he doesn't show any remorse, but actively enjoys the fact that he's managed to capture Eddington, really sickens me. If he had shown any iota of a problem with what he was doing then it would be a different conversation. Sisko didn't. He rarely shows remorse and it's why I don't like him. A good Captain should be willing to question the decisions he makes. When he doesn't the answer of what's right and what's wrong, he shouldn't be able to sleep well at night. The fact I have two episodes to point to and say "Look at Sisko commiting unspeakable acts. Now look at Sisko completely absolving himself of all responsibility and assuring himself that he's right" really sticks in my craw. I can't like the man.

[–] PurpleCat@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

About your quote: “You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think it is connected to some higher purpose.” ~ Jean-Luc Picard

I look at it in three ways,

Wantonly: We can either define as "(of a cruel or violent action) deliberate and unprovoked." or "in a reckless way" Reckless: without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.

I think we can agree that this was not a unprovoked or reckless action. It was provoked by the Marquis use of cloaked missiles armed with biogenic (Genocidal?) weapons, in addition to Eddington's betrayal, theft and sabotage. It was not reckless because this was all leading up to the dominion war. This is after the first adversarial conflict with the dominion, and getting the Cardassians as an ally would undoubtedly be more beneficial than an alliance with the ragtag Maquis. Though I am curious if you believe otherwise.

Re: Immorality: I think my other comment has more to discuss on this point, so I wont repeat that here.
Higher Purpose: I can see this in a few ways The first is merrian-webster, and the least helpful: " a more meaningful reason to live, work, etc"
secondly is the top result on google for me
Which gives several points, but boils it down to "Higher purpose is just purpose beyond yourself, and you identify it when you find a goal that you really want and believe in." and lastly, I see it used often in a religious way.

What "Higher Purpose" do you believe Sisko uses, and why use this quote for this situation?

Eddington says he has a Higher cause/purpose , but I (as sisko does) argue he is the one acting recklessly in additionally to selfishly here, risking war with the Cardassians when there is a greater threat looming (The dominion) , a threat Eddington would know about as security officer.

EDDINGTON: Tell me, Captain. What is it that bothers you more? The fact that I left Starfleet to fight for a higher cause, or the fact that it happened on your watch?

SISKO: You didn't leave Starfleet. If you had, I wouldn't be here. You betrayed Starfleet. You used your position as security chief to feed the Maquis information about us. And at the same time, you misled us with false information about them. There is a word for that. Treason.

EDDINGTON: Look out there.

(Sisko looks out into the main cave again.)

EDDINGTON: Those people, They were colonists on Salva Two. They had farms, and shops, and homes, and schools, and then one day the Federation signed a treaty and handed their world over to the Cardassians. Just like that. They made these people refugees overnight.

SISKO: It's not that simple and you know it. These people don't have to live here like this. We've offered them resettlement.

EDDINGTON: They don't want to be resettled. They want to go home to the lives they built. How would you feel if the Federation gave your father's home to the Cardassians?

SISKO: I'm not here to debate Federation policy with-

EDDINGTON: I didn't tell you to turn around. Look at them, Captain. They're humans, just like you and me, and Starfleet took everything away from them. Remember that the next time you put on that uniform. There's a war out there and you're on the wrong side.

SISKO: You know what I see out there, Mister Eddington? I see victims, but not of Cardassia or the Federation. Victims of you, the Maquis. You sold these people on the dream that one day they could go back to those farms, and schools, and homes, but you know they never can. And the longer you keep that hope alive, the longer these people will suffer.

This conflict is morally grey, but I don't think its appropriate to just write off my arguments because of a quote from another morally compromised captain.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] PurpleCat@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because you said you rewatched it, how do you justify you use of the words "sterilized" and "humanoid" in your comment I originally replied to? Additionally, you use the word "Centuries" but the bomb will only "make the planet uninhabitable to all human life for the next fifty years."

What occupation are these Maqius humans fleeing from?

Why do you say they have no other options despite being offered to be resettled?

How are the Maqius "reclaiming" that world?

Is using a chemical method to make the planet uninhabitable to humans less moral than Picard teleporting everyone away against their will?

What do you think the cardassians would have done to the men women and children if Sisko did not solve this problem preemptively?

Edit: was it immoral for Kira to burn down the cottage in DS9: Progress?

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I still stand by my comment. While I misremembered it being over 50 years, and I typoed humanoid instead of human sterilized is still a correct word when it comes to human life. As for the rest of your comments

What occupation are these Maqius humans fleeing from?

What? The Maquis are literally an organized group of resistors who've had their homes, in the DMZ, occupied by Cardassia. That is literally their driving motivation. Their homes and worlds were signed over to the Cardassian Union and they were left to cope. They responded by creating the Maquis. This is also why I've used the word refugees. The people who settled on that planet were people who were forced out by Starfleet/Cardassia after they had their homes taken away from them.

Why do you say they have no other options despite being offered to be resettled?

Because resettlement isn't, and never was, an option. They weren't given the choice to stay or to leave. They were forced to leave. Forced out of their homes. Forced out of the place that they've put down roots and made memories. All to have their planets put in a DMZ and then resettled by an empire who does massively horrific shit on the daily.

How are the Maqius “reclaiming” that world?

Was literally their world.

Is using a chemical method to make the planet uninhabitable to humans less moral than Picard teleporting everyone away against their will?

Has zero relevance to the conversation at hand. They were two different circumstances and they're not comparable.

What do you think the cardassians would have done to the men women and children if Sisko did not solve this problem preemptively?

Completely hypothetical and also irrelevant. My issue is HOW Sisko 'solved' the problem. Not that he did.

Your entire comment has been predicated on looking at individual actions, alone, and in no vacuum. This is untenable to the point that I've made. That point being that my main issue with Sisko is him allowing his judgment to cloud his feelings. You aren't bringing that up. You aren't ever touching on that fact despite me saying that was my biggest issue.

[–] pancakes@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're correct objectively, however I think one of the things people (myself included) like about Sisko is that he's flawed. He's (imo) the most complex and developed captain and does let his emotions cloud his judgement from time to time but always means well. While Picard is my #2 fave, he's more an ideal that casts such a massive shadow that nobody can live up to him. Picard perfectly encapsulates humanities ideals, whereas Sisko portays how flawed humanity truly is.

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's fair. I can see how it can be appealing. Makes for good storytelling at the very least.

I do want to make clear here that I wasn't trying to shame other people or say they're wrong for liking Sisko. It's totally just my personal preference.

[–] pancakes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

For sure, one thing I love about ST is how diverse the main characters are between shows. I wouldn't want every captain to just just be a rehash of Sisko, Picard, Kirk or any of the others. Each captain's uniqueness is that makes them interesting and captivating.

[–] RoundSparrow@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

I can see how it can be appealing. Makes for good storytelling at the very least.

That's what I really like. It's fiction and people can get their good storytelling. I wish they would stop electing leaders who behave against the future of humanity.

[–] blargerer@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Archer and Janeway have done some batshit stuff too.

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Batshit? Sure. Going on a revenge mission that displaces thousands of people, changes the entire atmosphere of a planet, and forces your officers to commit warcrimes? Not really. Closest I can think of is:

Janeway hunting down the Equinox. This is pretty close in comparison but the difference is that Janeway had a strong reason for pursuing the Equinox. The lifeforms were attacking the ship and the Equinox had taken both EMH and Seven of Nine. More over, she didn't doom civilians to further strife. She punished the surviving officers and folded them into the crew of Voyager itself. On top of that, she had serious regret about her actions and showed remorse during the conversation with Chakotay.
I know less about Enterprise but I remember Archer stealing the Warp Core of a crew and leaving them stranded in deep space. However that was an extreme 'needs of the many' situation so I'm on Archers side there.

[–] blargerer@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Archer withheld a cure for an entire species because Phlox convinced him it was the natural course of things. (Valakians) Janeway goes back in time to get her ship home with more crew alive, altering history in who knows what ways for the entire galaxy.

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was the natural course of things though. It's a tough choice with no clear answer one way or the other. I wouldn't call that one of Archers screw ups when there wasn't a correct answer.
I have less of an answer for this one. It was pretty fucking brazen and bold on Janeways part. However I don't classify 'altering a future event you have no awareness of' equal with 'gassing the planet so you and your entire collective group of refugees have to go flee to yet another planet'.

[–] Disgustoid@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we consider Sisko's personal vendetta a bad thing that makes us question his authority to lead, I don't understand how we excuse Janeway and the time travel stuff she pulled to get Voyager home--her actions had exponentially more butterfly effect consequences than Sisko could ever dream of.

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because the Janeway we follow in Voyager didn't go back in time. Admiral Janeway did.

People are shaped by their experiences and their choices. Admiral Janeway had many experiences and made many decisions that we know nothing about. It led to her becoming who she is but she wasn't the main character of the show. The character we followed was Captain Janeway who was immediately opposed to the idea. Actively fought against it. She was eventually broken down but honestly by that point the damage had already been done. There was little that Captain Janeway could have done to prevent the Admiral from doing what she was doing.

Also Admiral Janeway effectively eliminated the Borg. I give her brownie points for that.

[–] halloween_spookster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It also fits with what we know about her. Janeway was always second guessing her decision to ultimately strand her crew in the Delta quadrant. She felt extremely guilty about all of the people on her ship that got killed through those 20 years (especially Seven of Nine) and wanted to do something about it.

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

True. Every camel has it's limit of straw and somewhere in those 20 years something broke her. God knows what it was specifically, or even if it was something specific, but it shattered her. I feel for her, I do, but she was objectively wrong. She gets brownie points but she did done goofed.

In tough moments like with the Caretaker, it's a little fucked up if the Captain doesn't second guess themselves. But there is a limit. Admiral Janeway crossed it.

[–] Disgustoid@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Good points. I haven't rewatched Voyager since the finale aired so I may have been conflating the two Janeways. I'm just going to ignore the obvious time travel issues this raises because they make zero sense.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 year ago

I hate that Enterprise episode because it is such an edge case for the Prime Directive, and humanity hasn't even adopted it yet.

Even if the species didn't develop warp drive, they have had contact with other species that did. This isn't a pure, uncontaminated species that needs to be protected. Hell, I think that this species even contacts the Enterprise.

And this seems to be a trivial enough cure that this species is going to find another species to cure them. If Phlox can develop a cure in weeks on a spaceship, this seems to be trivial work for space faring civilizations.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like Janeway was justified if just due to the fact that the Equinox was a Starfleet crew that were breaking major Federation law. If any ship in the Delta Quadrant had the right to punish the crew of the Equinox, it was Voyager.

[–] Stamets@startrek.website 5 points 1 year ago

Oh it definitely factors into my overall opinion. I've always looked at Janeway at being the Captain who puts Starfleet above all else, typically, to a fault. That episode really shows the fault.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] RunningSpaces@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I'm a normies with Star Trek but I remember watching with a homie a thing with Sisko saying he was a war criminal and hoped that people could learn from him.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was fun, having a leading character that was a lil unstable.

Janeway arguably went off the deep end a couple times, too.

[–] Madrigal@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve never forgiven her for murdering Tuvix.

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sisko is my favorite. I don't think it was going off the deep end as much as using the same strategy the US used by nuking Japan. Japan had no chance at that point and continuing conventional war would have been more costly in terms of lives lost and property damage. Using nukes crushed any hope they had of continuing the war and have their prideful government an out that preserves their ego.

In DS9, it sent the message that the federation is can and will annihilate the dominion to defend themselves and the god complex of the changelings was pure delusion.

[–] ClericalBlunt@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Blowing up two cities to save a theoretical number of people is evil. There is no excuse for the atomic bombing of Japan.

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't like the phrase "no excuse". I'm a particularist. E.g. There is no excuse for shooting someone. Shooting a person actively shooting up an elementary school is fine in my book.

[–] ClericalBlunt@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not saying there is no excuse to ever bomb someone. I'm saying there is no excuse for this specific bombing. The bombs killed between 150,000 to 220,000 people, mostly civilians.

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You may be right in that using nukes was the wrong call. IMO, it seems like it was the best of bad options.

Saying there is no excuse and you disagree with something are two different things. The phrase "no excuse" is saying you think it is objectively wrong in a way that sounds like it isn't just your opinion. I don't think you mean it that way, I'm just explaining why I really don't like that phrase.

As bad as the nukes were, the conventional bombing of Tokyo was probably worse. Over 100k civilians were killed with 1,000,000+ left homeless.

[–] halloween_spookster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The Intel Report on YouTube digs into this subject pretty well. I recommend giving it a listen/watch: https://youtu.be/xG4ks5f31Wg?si=iAv_tLpkgsE5WA9f

[–] Japan@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

@ClericalBlunt Yes. Japan so polite so clean. Dindu nuffing.

@GaiusGornicusCaesar @neanderthal

[–] Disgustoid@startrek.website 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm in the middle of my DS9 rewatch and totally forgot about the stark difference between Sisko hair and Sisko bald. I just watched the Homefront/Paradise Lost episodes and the episode where Eddington defects to the Maquis and watching Sisko go all badass and lose his shit was fantastic.

[–] FancyLad@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Bald Sisko's appearance is where the fun begins.

[–] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sisko shaving his head was the DS9 version of growing the beard.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] xusontha@ls.buckodr.ink 7 points 1 year ago

You got so many memes coming out right now it's crazy!

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do you think Worf was a little scared of Sisko?

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Man was clearly delusional.

Risa