191
Sisko was kind of crazy...
(startrek.website)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
191 points (97.5% liked)
Risa
6881 readers
331 users here now
Star Trek memes and shitposts
Come on'n get your jamaharon on! There are no real rules—just don't break the weather control network.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I've rewatched the episode fairly recently and I stand by my decision. Sisko had no reasonable justification to do what he did, in my opinion. Are there arguments? Sure, but none that I consider valid simply because of the quote that I ended that previous comment on. You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think it is connected to some higher purpose.
Terrorist is a point of opinion. They were still people fleeing occupation and reclaiming their world. On top of that, are you willing to say that every single Maquis member is a terrorist? Every man, woman and child? That they deserved to all go through that when they might not have any other options to turn to? That doesn't seem very Starfleet to me.
That being said, who they are makes literally no difference to me. There were other solutions. Sisko didn't need an immediate answer in that moment. He actively went to the planet and decided to gas it himself. The actions carried out by Sisko are the problem. Not who he takes them out on. But the personal vendetta plays a significant role and you cannot deny that it does. The majority of the episode is Sisko throwing a temper tantrum over Eddington. Eddington even successfully manages to tease Sisko into making rash decisions. Sisko actively endangered his own crew to hunt down Eddington. The Defiant was not remotely fit for service but he still brought her out, nearly smashing the hell out of it by colliding with the station itself.
Every single action taken by Sisko in that episode horrifies me. He allows himself to get played so easily and then says "Oh I'll play the villain" and attacks the planet. He's so utterly not Starfleet in that episode that it hurts. The fact he doesn't show any remorse, but actively enjoys the fact that he's managed to capture Eddington, really sickens me. If he had shown any iota of a problem with what he was doing then it would be a different conversation. Sisko didn't. He rarely shows remorse and it's why I don't like him. A good Captain should be willing to question the decisions he makes. When he doesn't the answer of what's right and what's wrong, he shouldn't be able to sleep well at night. The fact I have two episodes to point to and say "Look at Sisko commiting unspeakable acts. Now look at Sisko completely absolving himself of all responsibility and assuring himself that he's right" really sticks in my craw. I can't like the man.
About your quote: “You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think it is connected to some higher purpose.” ~ Jean-Luc Picard
I look at it in three ways,
I think we can agree that this was not a unprovoked or reckless action. It was provoked by the Marquis use of cloaked missiles armed with biogenic (Genocidal?) weapons, in addition to Eddington's betrayal, theft and sabotage. It was not reckless because this was all leading up to the dominion war. This is after the first adversarial conflict with the dominion, and getting the Cardassians as an ally would undoubtedly be more beneficial than an alliance with the ragtag Maquis. Though I am curious if you believe otherwise.
Re: Immorality: I think my other comment has more to discuss on this point, so I wont repeat that here.
Higher Purpose: I can see this in a few ways The first is merrian-webster, and the least helpful: " a more meaningful reason to live, work, etc"
secondly is the top result on google for me
Which gives several points, but boils it down to "Higher purpose is just purpose beyond yourself, and you identify it when you find a goal that you really want and believe in." and lastly, I see it used often in a religious way.
What "Higher Purpose" do you believe Sisko uses, and why use this quote for this situation?
Eddington says he has a Higher cause/purpose , but I (as sisko does) argue he is the one acting recklessly in additionally to selfishly here, risking war with the Cardassians when there is a greater threat looming (The dominion) , a threat Eddington would know about as security officer.
EDDINGTON: Tell me, Captain. What is it that bothers you more? The fact that I left Starfleet to fight for a higher cause, or the fact that it happened on your watch?
SISKO: You didn't leave Starfleet. If you had, I wouldn't be here. You betrayed Starfleet. You used your position as security chief to feed the Maquis information about us. And at the same time, you misled us with false information about them. There is a word for that. Treason.
EDDINGTON: Look out there.
(Sisko looks out into the main cave again.)
EDDINGTON: Those people, They were colonists on Salva Two. They had farms, and shops, and homes, and schools, and then one day the Federation signed a treaty and handed their world over to the Cardassians. Just like that. They made these people refugees overnight.
SISKO: It's not that simple and you know it. These people don't have to live here like this. We've offered them resettlement.
EDDINGTON: They don't want to be resettled. They want to go home to the lives they built. How would you feel if the Federation gave your father's home to the Cardassians?
SISKO: I'm not here to debate Federation policy with-
EDDINGTON: I didn't tell you to turn around. Look at them, Captain. They're humans, just like you and me, and Starfleet took everything away from them. Remember that the next time you put on that uniform. There's a war out there and you're on the wrong side.
SISKO: You know what I see out there, Mister Eddington? I see victims, but not of Cardassia or the Federation. Victims of you, the Maquis. You sold these people on the dream that one day they could go back to those farms, and schools, and homes, but you know they never can. And the longer you keep that hope alive, the longer these people will suffer.
This conflict is morally grey, but I don't think its appropriate to just write off my arguments because of a quote from another morally compromised captain.
This conversation is exhausting. You keep ignoring half of what I'm saying and then making points that you assume I'll just agree with. I'll respond to this comment and then I'm done with this discussion.
First off, a weapon that is designed to kill an entire group of people? That's genocidal. The people were given time to leave, sure, but if they didn't? They're all dead. That's genocide.
This is what I mean by you making assumptions I'll disagree with. "I think we can agree this was not an unproved or reckless action." Dude, my entire comment chain so far has been me saying that Sisko has been so wildly influenced by his emotions that he couldn't think straight. You're then going to say that I am not going to agree it was provoked or reckless? Unprovoked, maybe not, but reckless? Absolutely. Again, Sisko endangered his crew by putting them in a vessel that was not fit for service. It was damaged and beyond repair in a short time frame. They had to resort to literally yelling down the hall at each other, using a Ferengi, to make sure that departments could hear each other. That is the definition of reckless.
The rest of your comment is just predicated on you making an assumption of what I'll agree with. All of is wrong. I've stated my point here numerous times and I'd be glad to have a conversation about it. However I would also like to have a conversation where the other person in it is listening to me and not ignoring half of what I'm saying.
Take care and I wish you the best but I'm out and not continuing this any further.
Sorry this was exhausting, I was just trying to have a fun argument about one of my favorite controversial episodes.
You say you've done, but kept arguing as well so it's not exactly clear what you want.
If there is something I ignored and you want to continue, we can. If not, live long and prosper 🖖
Because you said you rewatched it, how do you justify you use of the words "sterilized" and "humanoid" in your comment I originally replied to? Additionally, you use the word "Centuries" but the bomb will only "make the planet uninhabitable to all human life for the next fifty years."
What occupation are these Maqius humans fleeing from?
Why do you say they have no other options despite being offered to be resettled?
How are the Maqius "reclaiming" that world?
Is using a chemical method to make the planet uninhabitable to humans less moral than Picard teleporting everyone away against their will?
What do you think the cardassians would have done to the men women and children if Sisko did not solve this problem preemptively?
Edit: was it immoral for Kira to burn down the cottage in DS9: Progress?
I still stand by my comment. While I misremembered it being over 50 years, and I typoed humanoid instead of human sterilized is still a correct word when it comes to human life. As for the rest of your comments
What? The Maquis are literally an organized group of resistors who've had their homes, in the DMZ, occupied by Cardassia. That is literally their driving motivation. Their homes and worlds were signed over to the Cardassian Union and they were left to cope. They responded by creating the Maquis. This is also why I've used the word refugees. The people who settled on that planet were people who were forced out by Starfleet/Cardassia after they had their homes taken away from them.
Because resettlement isn't, and never was, an option. They weren't given the choice to stay or to leave. They were forced to leave. Forced out of their homes. Forced out of the place that they've put down roots and made memories. All to have their planets put in a DMZ and then resettled by an empire who does massively horrific shit on the daily.
Was literally their world.
Has zero relevance to the conversation at hand. They were two different circumstances and they're not comparable.
Completely hypothetical and also irrelevant. My issue is HOW Sisko 'solved' the problem. Not that he did.
Your entire comment has been predicated on looking at individual actions, alone, and in no vacuum. This is untenable to the point that I've made. That point being that my main issue with Sisko is him allowing his judgment to cloud his feelings. You aren't bringing that up. You aren't ever touching on that fact despite me saying that was my biggest issue.