Orville is classical liberal, but not SJW. There is a HUGE difference. Star Trek has always been classically liberal. But SJW-brand liberalism is a different beast entirely.

Let me illustrate with two simple sentences:

1) Women, gay people, and people of color are welcome here. Everyone will be treated fairly and equally. Liberal
1) Only women, gay people, and people of color are welcome here. They will be favored to ensure a fair and equal outcome. SJW-brand Liberal

To make it ever shorter: Liberalism is about inclusion and equality. SJW-brand liberalism is about exclusion and "equity."

Picard's woke.

This is Alex Kurtzman we're talking about. Did you expect any less? Get ready for big ole' heap of "Let's see how much we can humliate the old straight white guy hero."

Sad to see Patrick Stewart being cajoled into participating in this. It feels like disgustingly like elder abuse.

That trailer was pure fan service. But don't be fooled. The trailer and all the ComiCon promotion leads you to think that old cast-members like Data and Seven of Nine will be series regulars. But this is super-SJW Alex Kurtzman we're talking about here, running the show. So I guarantee you when the series actually premieres, those old cast-members will turn out to have just one-off cameos and the real focus will be on Mary Sue women and PoC's. Picard will just be there for them to have an old white guy to humiliate, show-up, and kick in the head. He and those other old cast-members are just there to get the old fans in the door (because they didn't show up to watch Discovery).

You should probably know that modern Star Trek under Alex Kurtzman is terminally infected with the SJW virus. So if they're bringing back a straight white male hero from the past, you can bet it will be just to humiliate him, drag him through the mud, and have him constantly be cucked and out-shined by his women and POC betters. So don't expect the decent, noble, heroic Picard of old. Expect a pathetic old guy who gets shit on at every turn (think Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi).

And even when they're not playing "Kick the Old White Guy," expect big ole' heaps of ORANGE MAN BAD politics too.

But if you're looking for a real Star Trek series, check out The Orville instead.

Here's another problem: When they say they're "fighting hate speech in Sri Lanka and Myanmar," what they actually mean (when you read the underlying article) is that they're "fighting hate speech against Muslims, and Muslims ONLY, in Sri Lanka and Myanmar." You know, because Facebook is more concerned about protecting Muslims from online criticism in Sri Lanka than the hundreds of innocent Christians murdered in recent church bombings and many other attacks there by Muslim terrorists in just the last few months.

So Facebook is just fine with hate--just as long as its directed towards killing Christians.

Discrimination for legitimate reasons, where it doesn't harm but actually makes things better for people, is okay.

Lol, and who exactly gets to decide what is "good discrimination" vs. "bad discrimination?" You? The government? A cabal of your SJW buddies?

But let's just cut to the chase here. What you're REALLY saying (but don't have the guts to acknowledge) is that you think it should be okay to discriminate against straight white males--but not anyone else. Because you hate them, and/or because you suffer from terminal self-hate born of White Guilt. Either way, it's really all about you, isn't it? You and your SJW friends want to impose your hatred/self-hatred and racism/sexism on the rest of us, by force. But you don't want anyone calling you out for it, so you're trying to change the language itself to make your hate okay.

No, racism is about doing harm.

Moving the goalposts yet again, are we? So, by your own definition, I guess it's not racist anymore to hate a specific race--as long as you don't do them any harm?

And, of course, who gets to define "harm?" Because that's a pretty important question to answer if that definition is going to mean anything beyond "It's whatever I say it is (at this moment, subject to change in the next moment)."

Generally speaking, I mostly side with the Right these days on free speech issues. But they really botched the Kath Griffin thing. You have to, above all else, stay consistent in your principles. She was a comedian clearly making a joke. And it was wrong to send the outrage mob after her for it.

There is plenty of hypocrisy on the Left these days without the Right following suite. And comedian should be able to say pretty much anything as long as it's clearly a joke, no matter who it offends.

Bad touch! Bad touch!

Not to mention the fact that I'd MUCH rather be shot by an AR-style semi-auto rifle any day than a .30-06 hunting rifle. An AR is built to pump multiple bullets into someone, generally on full-auto or burst (two settings which the civilian versions don't even have). By contrast, most .30-06 rifles are built to drop a large animal (incl. the human kind) with just one shot.

Or game engine developers specifying that their game development software can only be used for games sold through the Epic Games Store.

Well, at least the linked "story" doesn't feature an auto-play music video of Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing banjo with Zooey Deschanel on ukulele.

I don't mean to sound racist on this, but wheels should be round, dammit!

In this case, I think James Cameron just wants to make James Cameron more money, without James Cameron taking the risk of actually making James Cameron the writer or director.