I finally finished the podcast and I want to thank Glenn and Valerie for their insightful and entertaining show. The wrap-up got me thinking weighty thoughts about Discovery, some of which may be controversial. Nevertheless, it's on my heart to comment, so I'll do so in full knowledge it isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea. "Yum yum" doesn't happen in a vacuum. It wasn't an isolated goof or overreach by the writers. I'm gonna take this all the way back to the first episode of the season. I'm a victim of reading too much internet junk and I'm the first one to admit it, but I try to subscribe to a spectrum of ideas and follow the conventional wisdom in various sectors, even if I don't agree with what they have to say. I was surprised when I found a certain sector of the 'net was highly interested in the takedown of barely known and not mourned science officer Connolly. He, they informed me, was an avatar of white maleness - complete with the associated arrogance and "mansplaining." I would never have made that connection on my own (I try not to group people into buckets of expected characteristics depending on race or gender), but it wasn't an uncommon conclusion among viewers. As I considered this, a few things fell into place for me. If the writers did write the character to be intentionally unlikable and to look a certain way, what's wrong with that? It's done all the time, for better or worse. Where they lose me is if they write the character to be unlikable and to look a certain way - and expect us to enjoy the bad things that ultimately happen to them. I do think that's the case in this episode. Linus notably blew snot on the guy and drew no apologetic reaction from his crewmates. In fact, it was played for yuks. Did that strike anyone else as weird? Then, of course, they smash him to atoms mid-tirade and as far as we can tell, nobody ever misses him. Hey, he wasn't walking around espousing "love" and "math" like our hero characters do, but who knows. Maybe he has highly functional Asperger's or something else. Maybe he had an inferiority complex and overcompensated as a result. We've seen characters of all kinds who had similar social difficulties in other Treks and they were never depicted as a joke or thematic punching bag . Yet, due purely to his less than enlightened behavior and his appearance, a subset of viewers *enjoyed* his demise. Seriously, I gotta let that sink in for a second. Those people are out there, it happened and it's not good. As another data point, we could look at the New Eden stuff that was discussed so brilliantly on Lower Decks. Here, we find out that the writers want us to understand that there is a dividing line between rational people who believe in science and crazy weirdos who do not. They're driving a wedge here and making a point, with Burnham as their avatar this time. They seem to be saying, "Our side owns science." If you're not with us, you're against us. I thought such binary thinking was eschewed by folks who espouse open-mindedness, but apparently not. No, instead of embracing IDIC, the show and Burnham go down the path of political groups who claim if you don't share their version of science, you're a scientific heretic and a "denier." Isn't that exactly the kind of dogmatic thinking Trek used to be against? Discovery seems to embrace diversity in identity groups, but to be downright hostile to it in the arena of ideas. That's a major fail and a significant break from other Treks. In no way do I believe they intended an arc of eventual understanding for Burnham here. She shot their faith down and we were supposed to enjoy the dressing down of the science non-believers. Given these examples, "yum yum" isn't that surprising. It's in keeping with the show's philosophy of taking the enemy down a peg and feeling glee in their humiliation. That was the approach of both Georgiou and Naan during the entire confrontation. It's telling that we never find out, apart from speculation, what makes Georgiou hate human Leland. It's supposed to be good enough for us that Leland is Leland. So, being a jerky boss and employing dastardly methods (that are pretty much included in his job description) make him a good candidate for mockery as he dies. Both Georgiou and Naan apparently thought so. This indicates to me the writers thought we would agree and I speculate it's partly because Leland is who he is - that torture is bad, unless it's used against certain people. Okay, maybe it's a stretch. However, when I ask myself if the writers would have written "yum yum" if Leland was played by (the excellent) Sonja Sohn, my gut tells me no. So, again, somebody's identity mattered more than the content of their character. As far as aspirations go, this approach is a far cry from the egalitarian ideals of past Treks. It's hypocritical and hateful. These and other reasons are why I say that Discovery is less about embracing differences and more about settling scores. This contemporary approach I often hear has given up on stressing our commonality. The focus is now on what sets us apart, tallying points to right past wrongs and mocking anyone who doesn't believe. If that's the path embraced by Discovery and other future Trek shows, it flies in the face of actually seeking out the "other" and learning to appreciate their unique perspective, no matter how strange it may seem.