Refuting one of Wong's SW-v-ST Essays

I stated on the "About Project Orion Renaissance" page that I will use this website to counter Michael Wong's hobby website called StarDestroyer.Net.  There are multiple Michael Wongs, but I am only against one Michael Wong, the one who leads  I am not making up anything that I am about to say on this page and what I am going to say on this page is 100% accurate.  Wong and his thugs censor their forums and ban anyone who dares to post a dissenting view from theirs even if it is mature and backed up by evidence, logic, or canon and will remove such remarks.  That's right Wong loves CENSORSHIP because contrary to what he claims he can do, he has no good argument and cannot argue his foolish position logically. is totally responsible for coining the hurtful word "Trektard" and there is a page on's ImperialWiki dedicated to the word and its usage!  Plus ImperialWiki has an "English to Trektard Dictionary" which in reality purposely misdefines certain words claiming to "translate Trekatrd to English".

Wong is the author of several "Star Wars vs Star trek Essays" which are biased against Star Trek and biased in favor of Star Wars despite Wong's desperate attempts to deny this.  These SW-v-ST Essays are one way how argues that Star Wars has greater firepower than Star Trek, that Star Wars is more realistic than Star Trek, and that Star Trek is better with other cultures than Star Trek is etc.  I cannot go into all the details on what is so wrong with StarDestroyer.Net.  However,l there are three SW-v-ST essays in particular that make me so furious.  In my opinion, the top three most offensive SW-v-ST essays are:

3) The Philosophy of Star Trek

2) The Economics of Star Trek

1) Racism in Star Wars and Star Trek

Those three Star Wars vs Star Trek essays that I listed above counting down to the #1 worst say that Star Trek promotes oppressions, communism, and racism.  As you might have guessed, it is the "Racism in Star Wars and Star Trek" essay that I find to be the one most upsetting and since I am going to dissect one of them, I will pick that one.  Those three essays that I listed are very similar to Confused Matthew's mind-numbing review of The Lion King since they run down Star Trek heroes and the United Federation of planets and vilify them for stupid reasons like Confused Matthew does to Simba as well as Timon and Pumbaa.

My Written Commentary On:

"Star Wars Vs Star Trek Essay:

Racism in Star Wars and Star Trek"

Now let's get started as I tackle Michael Wong's Star Wars Vs Star Trek Essay: Racism in Star Wars and Star Trek.  I have no problem with other people like Star Wars or dislike Star Trek, but the arguments that Wong uses and the claims that he makes are atrocious.  This is Fair Use and the quotes form the SW-v-ST essays in question are only here as criticism of a retarded essay in question.  All of the things that I quote form Wong will be in italics and in quote marks.

Wong says: "As a member of a visible minority, and one partner in an interracial marriage, I think I have some grounds on which to speak on the grounds of racism.  Just as you cannot understand love until you have experienced it, you cannot understand racism until you have experienced it first-hand.  Unfortunately, I understand racism all too well."

Wong, I am sorry that you went through hardships as a member of a visible minority and your partner in interracial marriage, but that is no excuse for the nonsense that you are about to spout out.

Wong says: "Just below my hairline on the left side, I still bear a scar from a vicious schoolyard racial attack I suffered as a child, at the hands of an adolescent.  He wasn't even suspended for trying to bludgeon a small child with a brick, because (as a white teacher explained)  he came from a "broken home", which somehow made his behavior acceptable.  The crime was swept under the carpet, but the scar remains.  Like an angry white line, it reminds me of the meaning of hate every time I look into a mirror.  And in my heart, I still bear scars from many other racist attacks I've suffered throughout my life, including racial slurs from all manner of people and repeated accusations from my wife's German Mennonite relatives that our interracial marriage was "against the will of God".  These scars are the reason that I am furious when people who have never suffered from racism try to downplay it. or redefine it to suit their purposes."

Wong, I see that you are starting to brew up a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misercordiam) by using your rough childhood to try and justify slandering Star Trek and accusing it of promoting racism despite the well-documented FACT that Gene Roddenberry was vehemently against racism.  Wong, what you do or encourage your followers to do to other people who have a different opinion form you such as myself like calling us "Trektards" is just as bad as what others did to you when you are a child which makes you a HYPOCRITE!  Now I will go onto where he talks about the definition of racism.

Wong says: "What is racism?  If we simply examine the structure of the word, it would appear obvious that the word "racism" should be interpreted just like all other "isms".  Just as humanism upholds the importance of human rights, nationalism upholds the importance of national differences, and theism upholds the importance of divine beings, racism upholds the importance of race."

Interesting, so let's move on.

Wong says: "Does race matter? In an ideal word, it wouldn't.  The fact that I am of Asian descent shouldn't mean anything to anyone, on nay grounds, except as a point of purely academic trivia.  But that's an ideal world.  In the real world, have we been moving towards this ideal, or away from it?  Does the "political correctness" movement, or hurt?"

Race does not matter to me and the fact that you are of Asian decent means nothing to me and this is coming form a white man.  But sadly it is obvious where you are going to go with this Wong and I don't like it.

Wong says: "I feel that modern political correctness, far form reducing racism, is actually increasing it.  One example is the politically correct terminology for visible minorities.  In America, people of African descent are referred to as "African-Americans".  People of Asian descent are referred to as "Asian-Americans".  People of Indian descent are referred to as "Indian-Americans".  Some of these terms are championed by members of those races, but I strongly object to them.  If a young black man traces his American lineage back for ten generations, grows up in Detroit and never sees Africa, why should he be referred to as an "African-American"?  Doesn't that imply that he's half-African, and half-American?  Why isn't he all-American?  Why aren't the descendents of European settlers referred to as "Anglo-Americans, or "Aryan-Americans"?  When I hear these hyphened race names, it implies to me that the person has recently immigrated from Africa, or India, or Asia.  Therefore, I see no justification whatsoever to apply such terms to people whose grandparents were born here.  It accentuates the differences, and implys that they are "imports", rather than a natural part of the local culture."

Congratulations Wong on erecting an elaborate straw man fallacy such as asking a loaded question if African-American means half- African and half-American or claiming that those terms for people of different skin colors should imply that they recently immigrated form Africa, India, or Asia.  Mike Wong, you are now totally distorting things and making stuff up just because you fear "political correctness".

Wong says: "The politically correct is constantly reminding us of the distinction between the alien cultures of non-Whites and the presumably domestic culture of whites.  The television is awash in documentaries and soundbites about "black culture" or "Asian culture" or "Latino culture", and people proudly demonstrate their "racial sensitivity" by "respecting" these various "cultures".  What a crock... this show of "respect" is completely racist, no matter that the politically correct brigade may say.  The even describe something called "Asian culture" is to subtly make two claims:

1) All people descended from Asian immigrants act the same.

2) People of Asian descent have different cultural values than "we" do.

The same is true whenever someone talks about "black culture" or Latino culture".  The none-too-subtle implication is that members of visible minorities have conflicted cultural and national loyalties torn between here and their "homelands".  To put it another way, why don't we ever hear about "white culture"?  No one talks about "white culture", because everyone knows two things:

1) There are many different types of "white" culture.  British, French, Irish, Italians, Germans, Russians, etc. are much different from one another.

2) Once people have been here for more than a generation or two, we should assume that they are adjusted to local cultural values.

Why don't we make the same assumptions about people who aren't white?   Are we supposed to perpetuate the notion that all Asians act the same, or all blacks act the same?  Are we supposed to promote the notion that members of visible minorities are incapable of accepting local cultural values, or that they have some unbreakable spiritual connection to the birthplace of their ancestors which will forever separate them from white people?"

Wow Wong, just wow, there you go acting like someone who believes in conspiracy theories and thinking that everyone is out to get you.  Plus there are some people who mention "white culture" and it is white supremacists such as the Ku Klux Klan and David Duke.  Great going with that straw man fallacy accusing society of portraying all Asians as acting the same as each other and the same thing with blacks and Latinos.  Wong, you are now starting to truly annoy me!

Wong says: "Oh, I know, the politically correct brigade might point out that white people aren't the only ones to talk about "black culture", or "Asian culture".  Well, that doesn't prove anything.  No one ever said that while people are the only racists in the world, so you can't prove that an act isn't racist by showing that a non-white person does it.  I've seen black people accuse other black people of "not acting black enough", and I've seen Asians accuse other Asians of "being yellow on the outside, and white on the inside".  It's truly disgusting to me that a member of a visible minority can actually be criticized for not conforming to racial stereotypes."

Wong, there is no such thing as the "politically correct brigade" that you seem to be blathering on about in these hurtful essays of yours, it is a hyperbole that you made up!  I already know that whites are NOT the only ones who can be racists.

Wong says: "So if you want to be racially sensitive, don't bullshit me about your great respect and admiration for "Asian culture".  Asian culture does not exist.  I don't know of any such thing.  People from Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and China have markedly different cultural values, and people form different regions and different social groups within those countries also have markedly different cultural values.  As for me, I don't belong to any of these groups.  I love burgers and pizza.  I watch NFL football on TV.   I only speak English.  I drive a Mercury.  My dog is a family pet, not a snack.  I laugh at water er .. American Beer.  And when someone asks whether I'm Chinese or Japanese,  I tell him I'm neither.  I'm a Canadian. End of story!"

Wong, The public is not painting the image of people like you that you claim that they are doing, you are overreacting and now we will go onto to the Star Wars part of the one essay of his that I am dissecting.

Wong says: "It is a quiet movement afoot to brand George Lucas a racist because of "racist" stereotypes that are supposedly found in TPM.  The people leading this movement may feel that it's a huge burning issue, but I find it amusing that in spite of their aggressive publicity, most ordinary people have never given the idea a second thought.  If they've heard of it at all, the average person has dismissed it immediately as a joke."

Wong, what is any different about what you say about Star Trek in this rotten essay of yours?  NOTHING!

Wong says: "Were is this "controversy"?  It basically centers on two alien species in TPM: The Neimoidians and Gungans.  The same argument has been made in dozens of entertainment industry articles with virtually no variation, so I will paraphrase the argument here rather than quoting one of the articles verbatim:

If you watch TPM, you can clearly hear that the Jar-Jar Binks character (and for that matter, the entire Gungan species) speaks with a Caribbean accent., in an obvious 18th Century slave dialect.  It isn't just him-the entire Gungan species speaks this same broken dialect.  The broken dialect suggests to the viewer that the entire Gungan race is under-educated, and the imagery of them living in the sea, beneath the land-dwelling, well educated Naboo people is so racist that it is unbearable.  the Gungans (blacks) are uneducated and live in the dark depths, while the Naboo people (whites) are highly educated artisans who live in beautiful cities in the sun.  The characteristically lackadaisical gait and floppy ears of the Gungans merely reinforce the stereotype.  It doesn't really matter whether this horrific imagery is deliberate or intentional - the point is that it exists, and George Lucas should be ashamed.

The Gungans aren't the only racist stereotype in TPM - the Neimoidians are even worse!  Start with the accent - they all speak in an obviously Asian-accented broken dialect which sounds like Charlie Chan, in a not-so-nice homage to the common "Yellow Menace" motif of the 1930s era serials from which George Lucas drew his inspiration.  But the stereotype doesn't stop there - look at their appearance and behavior.  With their slitted eyes, flat faces, duplicitous nature, and economic aggression, they are clearly meant to represent one of the big Japanese corporations - Is it Toyota?  Sony? Toshiba?  Does it really matter which corporation it is?  The point is that TPM promoted horrific racist stereotypes of Asian-Americans.  What kind of message does this send to our children?  It teaches them that these slit-eyed, heavily accented, deceitful business thugs represent Asians - how much more harmful could a stereotype get?

I'll start with the second "stereotype", since my racial background gives me an unusual perspective on this issue.  First I would like to ask you, the reader, the question: did you see the Neimoidians as Asian? [No, I never saw the Neimoidians as patterned after or representing Asians.] If you did, then I think that you need to ask yourself some hard questions regarding your own racism.  Frankly, the instant that I hear a white person telling me that my race is being insulted by TPM, I get pretty damned suspicious.  Wouldn't I have noticed such an insult if it were there?  I am not known for blithely ignoring racist attacks upon myself.  Why then, did I fail to see that the Neimoidians were an "obvious" Asian stereotype?  Why did I need a white person to explain the insult to me?"

Wong, I see that you are now discussing the anti-TPM allegations of promoting racism which are NO DIFFERENT than your anti-Star Trek allegations that I will point out later.  Let me tell you that even as a white man, I NEVER EVER saw any Asian stereotypes in the Neimoidians or black stereotypes in the Gungans.

Wong says: "The answer is simple: I didn't see the Neimoidians as an Asian stereotype because they bear no resemblance whatsoever to Asians.  Let's examine all of the imaginary Asian stereotypes in the Neimoidian species:

1. Accent: They claim the Neimoidians have an Asian accent.  Well, many of my relatives come from Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc., and none of then sound remotely like the Neimoidians.  In my opinion, the Neimoidians have a bizarre accent but it is not Asian.  But what would I know about Asian accents - I'm just the son of Asian immigrants, and not a white Hollywood film critic.

2. Appearance: My eyes aren't "slitted".  My children's eyes aren't "slitted".  My parents' eyes aren't "slitted".  Asian eyes do not bear the signs of reptilian horizontal "slits"- Our pupils are round just like everyone else's.  And the last time I checked, I do in fact possess a nose, as do all of my relatives.  We Asians are not flat-faced, slit-eyed freaks!  If you think that we are, and that the Neimoidians represent us, then you are a racist.

3. Behavior: Frankly, I find it utterly abominable for anyone would even think of associating the Neimoidians behavior with Asians.  Are we to believe that anytime we see a duplicitous alien species, it must represent Asians?  Are we to believe every time we see economic aggressors, they must be Asians?  Anyone who instinctively associates duplicitous and economically aggressive behavior with Asians is a racist, just as bad as the sort of scum who thinks that we're all slit-eyed freaks."

For the record, I never saw Asians as slit-eyed or flat faced and saw Asians with noses and round pupils just like everyone else including me.  I never saw Asians as economic aggressors or duplicitous.  No Asian accent that I heard even sound remotely similar to the Neimoidian accent.

Wong says: "As for the Gungans supposedly being a "black stereotype", I can only speak for myself as a human being, and not as a member of the race that is supposedly being slighted (although my informed perspective on the supposedly Asian stereotype of the Neimoidians leaves me doubtful of the anti-Gungan allegations, to say the least).  But I will point out the following:

1. Accent: I have known only a half-dozen people in my life that grew up in the Caribbean, but none of these people sounded like Jar-Jar Binks to me.  The young actor who portrayed jar-Jar Binks happened to be from the Caribbean - are the thought police using this fact in their allegations? From the Salem witch hunt-style of their attacks, I wouldn't be surprised.

2. Dialect: I have never met a black person who spoke in Jar-Jar's dialect.  I don't understand where this stereotype comes from - if it exists, I can only assume that it comes from a very obscure source.  If people have to explain the Stepin' Fetchit stereotype (and to be honest, I'm still not sure who Stepin' Fechit is, or what obscure piece of literature he came from), then is it really a stereotype?  How can a stereotype be a stereotype if no one knows about it?

3. Education: I don't know whether the Gungans are meant to be uneducated, or whether their native language is simply such that it affects the way in which they intend to speak Basic (the fictional language of the Star Wars universe).  Frankly the former sounds implausible to me, but regardless, the entire education angle is yet another product of racism.  If you instinctively associate poor education levels with black people, then what does this reveal about you?

4. Gait: I had not idea that the Gungans walked like black people until I read one of these articles "explaining" the resemblance.  it may sound like I'm beating a dead horse, but if someone has to explain to you that the resemblance exists, then maybe it doesn't exist.  In my experience, black people don't walk anymore "lackadaisically" than anyone else.  I don't wish to be presumptuous speaking on behalf of another visible minority, but I can only imagine that if I were a black person, I would be rather offended at the notion that lackadaisical movement is an intrinsic characteristic of black people.

5. Floppy Ears: It is a testament to the rabid intensity of the politically correct thought police that they would somehow find a way of making Jar-Jar's floppy creature ears into a stereotype of black people (by associating them with a Caribbean hairstyle).  How ridiculous is this?  Shall we institute a moratorium of all floppy-eared children's toys?  From the sounds of it, there are an awful lot of stuffed animals and children's toys out there which have no become "racist".

6. Ahmed Best: The young black actor who played Jar-Jar Binks is in an uncomfortable position his portrayal against the politically correct thought police who claimed that he portrayed a racist stereotype directed against his won race.  He claims that he was given wide latitude to control the character's physical mannerisms and speech patterns - his detractors retort that he is simply spouting the Lucasfilm party line and lying to everyone else.  Supposedly he si part of a widespread conspiracy ... yeah, sure.

This manufactured "controversy" is based not on an attempt to combat racial stereotypes, but rather, a wholesale surrender to those racial stereotypes.    Think about it - one has to accept these stereotypes in order to see the resemblance."

I never thought of any black person or Caribbean person having an accent remotely similar to Gungans.  I never seen black people speak in Gungan dialect.  I saw zero humans, including zero black people walking with the gait of a Gungan.  I never saw floppy ears as racist stereotypes or any group of people.  Wong, there is no such thing as the "politically correct thought police" and that too is another hyperbole that you created which I will have to bring up again since you are using it so much.

Wong says: "Some racists believe that all black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid, and slovenly.  Some racists believe that Asians are flat-faced, slit-eyed, dishonest economic predators.  What have the politically correct thought police done here?  They have taken these stereotypes, accepted them, and then used this acceptance to declare that the reverse connection is true!  If black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid, slovenly, then an illiterate, lazy, stupid, and slovenly sci-fi creature must therefore be a black person!  If Asians are flat-faced, slit-eyed business predators, then a flat-faced, slit-eyed business predator sci-fi creature must therefore be an Asian!  TPM doesn't offend me - these critics offend me."

Wong, I see that you are erecting a straw man fallacy to oversimplify your opponents position.  This straw man is built on the foundation of your made-up "politically correct thought police" which really do not exist in reality.  TPM does have one part that offends me, its underwater scene which glorified the killing of a Colo Claw Fish by a Sando Aqua Monster as a HEROIC ACT that saved Quin-Gon Jinn, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Jar Jar Binks in the Bongo.  And another thing along those lines that offends me about Star Wars is that Colo Claw Fish are listed as an actual Star Wars villain along with Palpatine based on their species, SICK!  Plus you totally offend me Mike Wong!

Wong says: "If someone portrays an Asian human being or a black human being in a negative light, then that might be offensive, depending on how it is handled.  But when someone makes a fictional creature which is totally non-human in appearance, and someone decides to anthropomorphize its physical and behavioral characteristics in order to associate it with a particular human race, then he or she is simply demonstrating acceptance and reversal of the very racial stereotypes what he or she is supposedly trying to fight."

There is some truth to what you just said Wong, but what you will say about Star Trek shortly in this putrid essay of yours is no different since you will be using the exact same types of flawed arguments against Star Trek.

Wong says: "I recently say a comedian on television who was joking about this very issue.  He said that Jar-Jar Binks was obviously a terrible racial stereotype directed at Jamaicans, but he was curious as to why Germans never complained about the robots, or why Italians never complained about Chewbacca.  He got a big laugh, but he subtly made the same point that I'm trying to make: such tenuous reverse racial associations reveal more about your won racism than they do about the subject matter."

Wong, what you just said is a perfect description of the anti-Star Trek nonsense that you will start to spout out next.  I never saw any of the alien Star Wars characters as stereotypes of any group of real humans.  I quoted and wrote my thoughts on the intro, the Definition of Racism, and Star Wars sections of this essay so I will be able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Mike Wong is a hypocrite.  So now we go to the very reasons as to exactly why I am writing this full critique which is the Star Trek section and the last chunk of this particular essay.

Wong says: "It is a source of constant amusement to me that Star Trek is seemingly immune to charges of racism.  With critics rabidly attacking the ridiculously ephemeral suggestions of racial stereotyping in TPM, Star Trek's "state of grace" is even more jarring to behold.  Is the entire series supposed to be given a karmic "get out of jail free" card for its progressive efforts in the 1960's?  TOS was progressive in its time, but TNG, DS9, and Voyager all promote racial separatism at every turn.  Even if we ignore the white-supremacist messages buried in Star Trek Insurrection, we can still find far more evidence for racism in Star Trek that there has ever been in Star Wars.  So why the critical silence?"

First of all Wong, you are grossly misinterpreting TNG, DS9, and Voyager and accusing them of promoting things that they are in reality against, especially TNG.  Secondly, you are completely missing the point of Star Trek: Insurrection and saying that the movie teaches the exact opposite of what it teaches in reality.  Insurrection is anti-racist with the idea that the Son'a and the Ba'ku are the same species with identical DNA and this can be proven in the bonus features on a Star Trek: Insurrection Blu-Ray in a Star Trek TNG movie Blu-Ray set which I have!  This is proof that despite your desperate attempts to deny it that you are biased against Star Trek and push for ruining the reputation of Star Trek  via smear campaigning.  This is not fair to me!

Wong says: "I suppose Star Trek fans might take offense at any casual declaration that Star Trek has been promoting racial separatism ever since the inception of TNG.  Fair enough - I haven't provided any evidence yet.  But I can rectify that omission quite easily, and will do so now.  First, I must ash the question: what is racism?  Narrow-minded definitions of racism abound, often carefully disguised for the purpose of excoriating others exonerating the author."

And you will only provide crummy evidence for your claims Mike Wong.  I NEVER EVER saw Star Trek promote racial separatism, not even in TNG, DS9, or Voyager, you are just finding false flaws just like Confused Matthew often does with the movies that he reviews as is the case with The Lion King.  Plus you are using straw man logic against Star Trek which is fallacious.  I am definitely highly offending by you saying that Star Trek promotes racism because it is slander, it vilifies something that I love, and tries to foist something that I dislike onto me.

Wong says: "A common definition of racism is "attempts to discriminate against members of other races".  Well, that sounds great (and indeed, it's the definition found in many dictionaries).  But it only covers actions, not statements or beliefs.  According to that definition, it's perfectly acceptable to loudly proclaim that "black people are violent" or "Asians are dishonest".  I think that anyone with a smidgen of intelligence can recognize no matter what the Webster's Dictionary may say, someone who makes either of those statements is definitely a racist."

You have a good point that statements or beliefs that people of different races are inferior in any way, shape, or form, is also racism.  But there are various other forms of bigotry besides racism such as homophobia and the bigotry that you and your thugs dish out against Star Trek fans and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Wong says: "So if the dictionary's definition of racism stupidly covers behavior but not words or beliefs, then what is racism?  Well, I think the answer should be obvious: if you think that you can make assumptions about someone's personality based on his or her race, then you are a racist.  For example, if you look at a black person and assume that he's prone to criminal behavior, then you're a racist.  If you look at an Asian and assume that he's obsessed with money, then you're a racist.  Any actions based on such assumptions are therefore racist, which takes us back to our overly narrow dictionary definition.  Racial slurs, which categorize human beings as nameless members of their respective races rather than individuals, are also racist.  The underlying problem is the belief that cultural values are inherited, rather than taught.

Does Trek suffer form this problem?  Yes, in spades, For example:"

Yes racial slurs are also racist and racist actions are inspired by racist words and beliefs.  Mike Wong, I never assumed that every black person I met was prone to criminal behavior or that any Asians are obsessed with money, but I am angry at you for attacking a big part of my childhood.  And the answer to your question on does Star Trek suffers form racism is NO and I will dismantle your "Star Trek is Racist" bollocks in sections.  Plus we will see your hypocrisy in its full glory Wong so beware!

Wong says: "The Ferengi: "In DS9, Sisko once chastised his son Jake, for failing to respect Nog's cultural values.  "Ferengi cultural values aren't better or worse than ours, just different", he explained.   Classic example of racism - assuming that all Ferengi (including one that grew up on a Cardassian space station) are somehow compelled to act a certain way, and our values and ideals are therefore inapplicable to them.  If a white man cautioned his son not to expect black people to respect the law because "they have different cultural values than we do", would you be offended?  I hope so."

Wong, here is your hypocrisy that I was warning about, what you are saying about the Ferengi and that weak analogy to white people vs black people is NO DIFFERENT than those who say that Gungans are stereotyping black people.  You are using the exact brand of bad argumentation here that you accuse the imaginary "politically correct thought police" of doing.  Wong, you are clearly not understanding or comprehending the complex plots of Star Trek which I totally understand.

Wong says: "The Klingons: In TNG, Worf once suffered a severe back injury and it was thought that hew would be paralyzed for life.  He asked Riker to kill him, and Riker refused.  The Picard chastised Riker for not being sensitive to Worf's Klingon cultural values.  When the doctor insisted that Worf learn to live with his disability just as any human would be expected to do, Picard chastised here as well, for expecting Worf to make a cultural leap that was "too far, dammit, too far!"  Classic example of racism - assuming that all Klingons (even one that was raised by adoptive human parents, on a Federation colony) are compelled to hold Klingon cultural values, and are incapable of understanding human cultural values.  Very similar to the previous example."

Wong, you are still saying that totally non-human sci-fi aliens are stereotypes of real types of humans, which is exactly like those critics of TPM who say that Gungans and Neimoidians are stereotypes of actual groups of humans based on color and descent which you say offend you.  But you are clearly demonstrating as I warned before that you are acting just like them!

Wong says: "Worf: Worf himself is a never-ending source of racist statements.  How many times do we have to hear his tiresome "heart of a warrior" or "Klingon blood" or "Klingon's warrior courage" speeches?  Isn't anyone else tired of haring him compliment anyone with fighting skills that he has the "heart of a Klingon?"  Doesn't anyone get annoyed when he congratulates Roga Dinar for his tactical skills by saying "you must have some Klingon blood?"  Suppose a white school teacher saw a black student who excelled in math, and congratulated him by saying "your math skills are excellent - you must have some white blood in you."  Wouldn't you be outraged?"

I see that you ended your remarks on Worf himself with a straw man-flavored analogy which has no basis in reality, Wong.  

Wong says: "Mixed-race children: Every single mixed-race child in the history of Star Trek "entertains" with the same endless, repetitive, oh-so emotional speeches about how "I am torn between my Klingon half and my human half", or "I am torn between my Vulcan half and my human half".  Torn between worlds, two cultures at war with one another, yadda yadda yadda.  What's the message?  Mixed-race children are currently confused.  Hidden message?  Don't have mixed-race children.  Well, I have a pair of mixed-race children.  Does this mean that my sons will someday complain that "I am torn between my Asian half and my European half"?  Will they be maladjusted?  Will their lives be full of hardship and inner turmoil?  Was I wrong to have mixed-race children?  Was my interracial marriage a mistake?  I don't think so.  And I think that Star Trek is sending some pretty damned offensive messaegs about mixed-race children."

Wong, you are a LIAR!  All you managed to do in your entire "Mixed-race children" paragraph was to construct a straw man fallacy claiming that Star Trek says that interracial marriage and having mixed-race children is wrong and this has zero basis in reality.  Star Trek never said anything against interracial marriage or against having mixed-race children, especially since diversity is a key cornerstone of Star Trek and you refuse to accept that fact of life!

Wong says: "The Star Trek definition of "species": The evolutionary definition of a species is that species are considered truly different if they cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring.  But in Star Trek, Klingons and humans are described as different "species" even though they can breed to produce fertile offspring.  In "Emissary", K'ehleyr (a daughter of mixed marriage) fooled around with Worf, and became pregnant by accident, thus proving that she is quite fertile.  There are many other "cross-species" characters in Star Trek (starting with Spock), and it doesn't seem that difficult, since it can happen by accident (eg. K'ehleyr and Worf) or in primitive conditions (eg. Worf's brother Nikoli and a Boraalan woman in "Homeward"). So, what does this mean?It means that the various humanoid races of the Star Trek galaxy are not different species, even though the Federation claims that they are.  The historical parallels are quite disturbing; during the height of African slavery, the slave traders' apologists claimed that blacks were a sub-human "species", so there was no need to treat them as humans (read: whites).  Biologically and genetically, this position was pure nonsense; they were taking a few superficial differences and exaggerating them into a biological wall of separation where non existed.  They even ignored the fact that blacks and whites could easily produce children.  Does this sound familiar to you?  Captain Picard was stunned when Beverly said that the DNA of the various "species" might be "chemically compatible" in "The Chase", even though there is a long and distinguished list of "cross-species" matings in Federation history."

Wong, I see that you are making a severely weak analogy by comparing the "cross species matings" to how supporters of slavery saw blacks as a different species form whites.  The right answer is that Vulcans, Klingons, and humans cannot interbreed with fertile offspring since they are DIFFERENT species that arose on THREE SEPARATE PLANETS.  So different sentient species form different planets of origin cannot produce fertile offspring, Star Trek got that one thing wrong.  The Federation that you hate is RIGHT that those races are different species. And you are just doing confirmation bias with your discussion on African slavery.

Wong says: "Race and culture are treated as synonymous and interchangeable in Star Trek.  The above examples are merely smattering, and you could compile many pages of examples by watching enough Star Trek episodes.  In fact, you can take each and every occurrence of the word "culture" in Trek dialogue, replace it with "race",and it would still be completely appropriate in context (it's an interesting experiment - try it)."

There you go again Wong and now you are telling your reader to use your exact same confirmation bias against Star Trek and to watch it with only a closed mind.  See what I mean when I say that you are acting just like Confused Matthew when he reviewed The Lion King, you are using the same brand of nitpicking and jumping to conclusions that he does!

Wong says: "It's the worst sort of racism - while the PC thought police are rabidly attacking TPM for superficial nonsense such as verbal nuances and Jar-Jar's floppy ears, Star Trek is promoting genetic determinism ( the philosophy that genetics control your destiny) for all the world to see, and one of the politically correct thought police notice or care.  But of course they don't notice or care - all of the politically correct thought police share this brand of racism!  Every time they blather about being "sensitive" to "black culture" or "Asian culture" or "Latino culture", they demonstrate their racism for the world to see."

There you go again labeling other people with your hyperbole.  I know that the "PC" in "PC thought police" obviously stands for "politically correct" and you continue to blather on about these make-believe "politically correct thought police" that only exist in your fearful imagination.  The controversy surrounding TPM and the two following Star Wars prequels is real, but the "politically correct thought police" are totally pretend!  The controversy over the Star Wars prequels is fueled in part by people nitpicking and jumping to conclusion but more so by massive disappointment in the Star Wars fan base, not at all by some made-up conspiracy such as the concept of the "politically correct thought police".  Star Trek is strongly against racism because it was founded by a staunch anti-racist named Gene Roddenberry, so how can an anti-racist like Roddenberry make his creation promote racism, that makes no sense whatsoever!  Now I will go onto the last paragraph of this essay.

Wong says: "Unfortunately, since "they" are the media, they have an enormous mouthpiece with which to sell their value system, and the lemminglike public seems all to eager to go along with it.  So the public gets used to hearing about how we must "respect" the cultural values of blacks, or Asians, or Latinos, and doesn't even question the underlying assumption that blacks all have the same cultural values, Asians all have the same cultural values, etc.  It may be politically correct, but it's still totally racist."

Wong, Wong, Wong, what am I going to do with you.  Nothing that you said about Star Trek in this essay of yours makes any sense at all.  No rational person will believe you when you blather on about how the "politically correct thought police" are all part of some sort of conspiracy that is out to get people like you.  Plus no one in their right mind will believe that Star Trek promotes racism especially if they know anything about Gene Roddenberry himself.

This essay I have tediously dissected and critiqued is only the tip of the iceberg of what is so obnoxious about StarDestroyer.Net and it is also the tip of the iceberg of what bad things that avid Star Wars fans can do when they are vocal.  Star Trek is by for not the only target of outrage by bad apple Star Wars fans, one prime non-Star Trek target for the Star Wars extremist wrath is James Cameron's Avatar all because it overtook any one Star Wars movie by itself in the box office and space genre and some Star Wars fans got jealous and that too is the tip of the iceberg.  Wong, I fear that your website will open the door to Star Wars-inspired smear campaigns against other things that I like such as Avatar.  I know that some LGBT extremists accuse Avatar of promoting homophobia and heterosexism by having no LGBT characters and a heterosexual love story, but they don't mention Star Wars so far.  But my fear is that bad apple Star Wars fans like Mike Wong will capitalize on this and accuse Avatar of being homophobic and say that Star Wars is way better with LGBT rights.

The Keyhole Nebula flips off Michael Wong!