Au contraire--I'm actually a fan.
What I get annoyed with is the whole, "Star Trek explored all sorts of socially relevant topics." I don't deny this--but it did so fairly rarely. Hell, "Roseanne" and "Home Improvement" had the occasional "Very Special Episode" that explored socially relevant topics.
I don't hate those episodes listed. To me, they are examples of non-socially-relevant episodes--and I could list quite a few others. One of my favorite episodes is "A Piece of the Action." Short of "Don't leave a Chicago Gangs history book on another planet," there isn't much social relevance there. It's just a fun episode where Kirk out-mobsters the mobsters.
While "Spock's Brain" could be called a cautionary tale about society stagnating under the control of a machine intelligence, so could "Return of the Archons", "The Apple", and arguably "A Taste of Armageddon." Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt.
I may have been off-base regarding "Bread and Circuses," which I kind of looked at as a "Sliders" episode--"What if the Roman Empire hadn't fallen?" Fun concept, definitely, but not necessarily socially relevant. But you do make a good point.
Again, Star Trek had it's share of social relevance, and that's wonderful. But it also had it's share of episodes that were more character-driven than story-driven. That's not a bad thing. It also had a few really stupid episodes. I tend to look at televised science fiction in that light: If I can tune in and have a better than 50% chance of being entertained or enlightened, it's a good show. Star Trek definitely qualifies for me.
But let's not make it something that it was not.