Yes, there are legitimate bigoted Star Trek fans. It's the Internet. You can find an abundance of any extreme niche. I'm honestly willing to bet I could find an abundance of furry star Trek fans fairly easily also, despite furries as a whole being vanishingly rare in real life.
However it's a lot more common to see legitimate criticism of Star Trek painted as bigotry, often by people who clearly aren't really that big fans of the series.
You couldn't criticize Discovery for the first year it came out without being called a bigot, and a lot of the people doing so would clearly have 0 idea about the greater Star Trek universe. I remember reading a multitude of comments calling Burnham the first female Captain or first black captain, saying how female senior officers were quiet and unassuming until Tilly came along, and a bunch of other shit that was objectively wrong.
I feel like most implied accusations of bigotry these days are low faith effort attempts to stifle criticism by newer fans who just can't handle criticism. It's exhausting and super toxic.
Finally Lower Decks is a grabbag of woke tropes but was met with widespread and is the most popular NuTrek among hardcore fans. That should tell you something more is going on.
See it's shit like this. For years hypoxia was touted as a humane solution. Now that states are switching to it all of a sudden the argument shifts to how there isn't any humane solution.
Every single time the death penalty was brought up, nitrogen asphyxiation was touted as a humane alternative. There were always claims that it would be painless, and that the process itself was extremely well understood. It was usually further implied that the reason states don't do this was because death penalty advocates wanted the prisoner to suffer as long as possible.
Yet the second nitrogen asphyxiation became a viable option, the very same people touting it lined up against it. Suddenly it was completely unproven. Suddenly it was wholly inhumane and inflicted suffering.
It's so incredibly obvious that the push for nitrogen asphyxiation was at least in part a bad faith argument by people who are philosophically opposed to the death penalty.
Being philosophically opposed to the death penalty is a valid opinion, but the dishonesty makes me much less inclined for me to take these people seriously.
I don't think I'm unique in that regard. Nobody likes being deceived or lied to.
I would absolutely love for this to be true, but I don't really have faith in a project that has had so many issues. I think there will end up being more cost overruns, more finger pointing, and more failures. I half expect Brightline to both start and finish their LA to Vegas rail before this project comes to its final conclusion.
To everyone implying that Elon leveraged the concept of hyperloop to kill high speed rail in California:
California killed high speed rail in California. The project is like 3x over budget with no real end in sight. If Elon dedicated his entire net worth in 2013 to the project it would still be over budget.
I can talk about Star Wars and basically everyone I know has a lot of context. Most people have watched a good amount of it. Even people who are explicitly not nerds know about it. Same with most comic stuff.
Meanwhile Star Trek is still a lot more niche. People know the bare basics of what it is, but that's about it. With the exception of my SO, I've met a grand total of two people who watch it.
Also if someone knows a lot about Star Wars or Marvel they don't necessarily know a lot about other nerd IPs. Meanwhile the people who knew about Star Trek also knew about shit like Farscape, Dark Matter, and other IP that just gets confused looks from most people.
Hyundai/Kia owners have, in large numbers, told Kia Group about quality issues their cars have. Their usual response is to gaslight everyone until some government agency sues.
It's interesting. If I were a teenager today I would read this and think Microsoft ruined what would have been an amazing game by corporate greed.
I was a teenager when Fable III came out though, so I know better.
First game reviews from that era are completely whack. You had a ton of big name game blogs that were basically giving everything a 9/10 if it was from the right publisher. The smaller blogs weren't really in the internet zeitgeist until Fable III, so you could compare their scores of Fable I and II for reference.
That being said, there was a lot of discussion about how Fable II was a bit of a disappointment. People felt that the system was a lot shallower than promised, and the game itself felt extremely on rails at times. None of the endings really change the world, which wouldn't be that insulting if two of them didn't involve your dog dying. I think saying that Fable II was amazingly well received is kinda bs.
I can say for sure that putting the blame on Microsoft for Fable III over promising and under delivering is absolute horeshit. The guy behind Fable, Molyneux, was famous for pulling that crap. This was an era where basically virtually every single game trailer could have been an FTC violation of anyone was paying attention, and Molyneux somehow stood out beyond anyone else for how full of shit he was. At one point he implied that he developed AGI and implemented it in a video game.
While Boomers got a lot of things wrong, as I get older I sort of understand where they are coming from. This article paints a narrative so incorrect it's almost fictional, and it's being propagated because most people interacting are too young to remember but somehow extremely self assured.
Capitalist is a nebulous term. While I guess you could use it to describe freelance journalists pushing out low effort schlock because they get paid on quantity and rent is due, I think that's kinda ridiculous.
I think the term "Capitalist" would apply to employees determining how to profit off changing consumer interests.
Does that mean it's okay to douse me in accelerant too?