I don't think the message of Section 31 has EVER been that it was "good / necessary." It's always been cautionary. Like: Even in a Utopia, this thing can exist, people will support it, people will argue it's necessary. I've always thought the message was "Why do we tolerate this shit and you assholes who insist it's necessary?? Why do we let you get away with it? Why do we pull the wool over our own eyes and look the other way?" It continues to be a good story to make Americans talk about.

In DS9, Section 31's machinations badly backfired and stealing the cure from them and giving it freely to the Changlings is what ended the war.

In Picard, Section 31's bullshit literally created a terrorist who brought the Borg back and set them loose on Starfleet, again.

In Disco... IDK. I don't like Disco and I only half watched that season. They made um... an AI that tried to take over?? I guess, it was bad and Star Fleet was complicit.

One of the most important parts of the story, I think is how even in the Utopia of the Federation, we never see anyone being held accountable for Section 31's actions. My takeaway from this is "a call to action that perpetually goes unheeded and is never heard in numbers great enough to make a real difference" which is a VERY true and tragic lens for the modern world.

I don't think I've ever thought of S31 as being pushed as a GOOD thing. More like shown to us in the spirit of "Stop, children, what's that sound, everybody look what's goin' down."

The writeup on Section 31 is very good and was following along until you listed almost every couple on DS9 being in toxic relationships. Maybe you're confusing relationship conflicts with toxicity? Maybe I don't know what toxic means.

I'm pretty good at seeing different sides of an arguement, but you'll have to do a lot more convincing on Kira/Odo, Jadzia/Sorf, Sisko/Jennifer/Kassidy being in toxic relationships. These relationships work for me because they are trying to overcome cultural and professional challenges. One character might not budge on something but overall they try to work things out.

Edit for others: Looks like I fell for your troll ragebait account.

(Or rather, it looks like your type of account has followed its propaganda marching orders from reddit and other places to make Lemmy shitty too.)

(For those unaware, pop fandom spaces are infiltrated by people stirring shit to keep a cultural miasma of misery going on, even for people who disconnect from overtly political/news subs as an attempt to try to avoid it.)

Still, I think what I said is useful, so I'll leave it up for lurkers.

I've seen mindsets like yours coming into book fandom more and more as the years have gone on.

I'm going to say some things from a meta perspective that you might not like. And while I'm making assumptions, and they might even be wrong about you in particular, I think there's still worth in trying to see my perspective, and trying to understand WHY I am saying what I am saying, and why I'm saying it in response to your post at this particular point in time, even if I'm wildly off base with you as an individual. You'll probably learn more from doing that than by trying to get into a one-on-one argument with me over details. Like, even if I'm wrong with you--WHY did I choose to say this right now in response to your post? What details in your post made me react in this way?

So, as far as I can tell, looking in from the outside, it looks like takes like yours arise when someone is raised in a religious context, following a holy book of some sort (Bible, Book of Mormon, the Koran--any writing really that is supposed to be your highest moral guide), and then either has not left that religion, but is trying to understand other people's moralities through the same lens because everyone they personally know forms their morality from the bible or another holy book (so surely everyone else must too? And maybe other people use Star Trek?), or comes from someone who HAS left but hasn't yet examined old habits left over from that upbringing, and and thus brings them into new spaces, as you seem to be doing here with Star Trek.

Like, I see religious folks, or recently ex-religious folks who have not yet examined their inner drives to get over-involved with the media they consume. They interact with their show the same way they would interact with their church, or with the Bible or another holy book. Even if they claim they are no longer religious, they were still raised in a religious environment which has an effect on habits and thinking esp. re: the topic of morality, and emotionally fandom spaces and fandom drama can feel a lot like church from a socializing and discussion standpoint, so old habits of churchy stuff sometimes seep into fandom.

But not all people interact with stories in this way. In fact, when you look at how people actually interact with media, people often take bits and pieces here and there. They agree with some stuff, disagree or just ignore others, and transform things too. You can truth-check this by looking at your peers in school. How many times did a teacher say something, and someone next to you said it was bullshit? People take in, reject, and transform information all the time. Words are not a total telepathic mind-control, people have agency.

I'm a writer, and it's fairly common to see a reader interact with what I said and take a totally different insight from what I said, because all of their life experiences are getting tangled up with whatever story I was trying to tell, and that MIXTURE is showing them something new that I might never have realized or thought of. And this is normal--this is how humans interact with fiction.

The idea that a work of fiction has to demonstrate moral things perfectly or else be doomed as irredeemably flawed is really in my opinion more of a religious-brain thing. And no, maybe you didn't say that directly, but I question the drive behind why you posted this post, listing the things you did. I question your motivations and assumptions. Approaching Trek asking the questions you do doesn't align with how people actually interact with media in my experience, but it does align with how I've seen people utilize religion, and holy books in particular.

I'd encourage you to look up a community college and see if there's any ethics classes you can take. I had to take an ethics class for the degree I was working on. I didn't actually want to, as I'm in my 40s and comfortable with my sense of morality--but it ended up being shockingly useful, because it laid out different frameworks in which people can evaluate the morality of something, and the pros and cons of each. It kind of started with the "gut feeling" a lot of people use when they feel more than think, then progressed through religious frameworks, then a few philosophers, and then storytelling frameworks, and basically gave me a lot of different and new tools to evaluate things I hadn't explicitly had before. It was very useful, much to my own surprise, and I'd recommend the experience to everyone if they go to college.

its existence as a starfleet element was blurry.

The very first S31 episode had Starfleet Command actively stonewalling Sisko's inquiries, and Kira openly calling it a cover-up, so no, I don't think its status as part of Starfleet was ever under serious question.

I watched DS9 and learned a little about empathy, honor, duty, peaceful reconciliation, fitting in (Odo), friendship, etc.... It seems those messages didn't resonate with you at all.

Yep. The show was written by humans, humans are flawed, therefore the show is flawed. It's constantly undone by an unholy mix of things that seemed okay at the time, things that were written to try and correct the things that previously seemed okay at the time (but which made things worse), the personal flaws of the creators seeping into their works, and a pile of crappy tropes that TV can't help but lean on. It's weird that you think this is something that isn't a consideration of the show 'anymore'; this all goes back all the way to the 60s. Original Trek is occasionally misogynistic crap, and once went so far as to describe Nazism as the most efficient form of government. TNG had episodes that were straight up racist, and characters that are accidentally written as creeps. This is a problem the show has always had, and sometimes you just have to deal with that to get to the good stuff.

I really don't think this post deserves all the downvotes. I mean I get how you might feel differently about all or some of the topics the OP brings to the table, but it's not unfounded and certainly an interesting discussion.

For me, especially the part about sexism in Enterprise really resonated - I have always felt that this is among the worst aspects of the show. I also see points in mpst of the other criticism, although I think part of them can be interpreted differently. For example Section 31: Starfleet has not been a pure utopia since a long time, it's at least bureaucratic most of the time, with an even dimmer view on it in later series. Section 31 fits in there for me. I don't require stories to see the story through moral eyes, that can be a (sometimes painful) exercise left to the viewer. I don't know how much and when this is intended by the series, though.

In any case, I think it's well worth the discussion and ai'd like to thank the OP for the energy they spent in laying all this out.

trek is not here to teach morals though. It's here to entertain