PDA

View Full Version : What if Wray had use non violent passive resistance against Col Young?



ckwongau
April 13th, 2010, 04:26 AM
What if Wray had use non violent passive resistance against Col Young?

Wray's little speech about civilian authories over the military.

Most of the civilian crew join Wray's mutiny because Col Young abandon Dr Rush, and they believe civilian should have control over mlitary.

It got me thinking, about Gandhi's passive resistance against British.

Wray doesn't need a coup or mutiny against Col Young?

Wray can organised some sort of non-violent passive resistance.
Col Young violented Dr Rush's human right , and broke the military regulation ,and law.
Wray can openly move agisnt Col Young.

with action such as Strike , all civilian strike , let the military do the work .What could Col Young do ?
Force them to work or shoot them or abandon them on the next planet.

Hunger strike , Gandhi' did very well with huger strike .

Dr Lisa Park could close her book club (at least only open to civilian crew member) that probably affect Greer in some way.

Daro
April 13th, 2010, 04:29 AM
I'm sorry, I thought that's what she was trying to do. She didn't steal weapons. Besides, a sit in is hard to pull off when aliens or some other crisis make it necessary that the scientists get to work.

Puddle-Jumper
April 13th, 2010, 09:12 AM
Ya it was totally non violent, but a hunger strike or something wouldn't have done much good cos when hunger and dehydration sets in they aren't going to be much use fending off aliens are they... I think Dr. Rush should have locked down every single door on Col. Youngs side so they couldn't move from room to room even... it would have slowed him down enough to maybe give the civilians time to make young cave in

beafly
April 13th, 2010, 09:32 AM
Respectfully disagree. She and Rush threatened them with death by dehydration / starvation.

I believe she would have been far more successful bringing legitimate concerns about safety, responsibility, control of personnel and resources to the existing commander for negotiation. They have a pretty good position of strength due to the scientific expertise they control, but it was never used as a proper negotiating tool.

Instead she and Rush decided to use that expertise to change Col Young's best alternative to a negotiated agreement. They failed.

In the end, their failed attempt at coup, doesn't necessarily lower their position of strength, but they have definitely strained the interpersonal relationships significantly. That makes negotiating on the actual issues far more difficult.

Not smart in my opinion.

s09119
April 13th, 2010, 09:34 AM
What if Wray had use non violent passive resistance against Col Young?

Wray's little speech about civilian authories over the military.

Most of the civilian crew join Wray's mutiny because Col Young abandon Dr Rush, and they believe civilian should have control over mlitary.

It got me thinking, about Gandhi's passive resistance against British.

Wray doesn't need a coup or mutiny against Col Young?

Wray can organised some sort of non-violent passive resistance.
Col Young violented Dr Rush's human right , and broke the military regulation ,and law.
Wray can openly move agisnt Col Young.

with action such as Strike , all civilian strike , let the military do the work .What could Col Young do ?
Force them to work or shoot them or abandon them on the next planet.

Hunger strike , Gandhi' did very well with huger strike .

Dr Lisa Park could close her book club (at least only open to civilian crew member) that probably affect Greer in some way.

...you mean like she did use?

Fridgefiend
April 13th, 2010, 10:24 AM
...you mean like she did use?

cutting them off from food and water is completely different from passive resistance. Sure they may not have intended it to go far enough for anyone to get hurt but the threat of it is what is important.

Simply going on strike or something to that effect would've been passive but trying to stage a coup is not.

yanna
April 13th, 2010, 10:36 AM
I don't think that a more passive resistance would have been practical. All that the scientists do they do for the benefit of everybody on board. It would hurt them if they were to stop growing food or stop making repairs. As for resistance during a critical situation, that would be suicidal.

They should sabotage the showers of all the military personel and refuse to help them in small but significant ways. The intelligent person's response to bullies.

ladypredator
April 13th, 2010, 10:49 AM
I think the method she used was a non-violent protest. The military holds all the weapons and can use force - in fact, they were willing to use force. The only possible chance the civilians had was to barricade themselves in and try to hold out. It looked a lot to me like a typical sit-in protest. And her demands were extremely reasonable. Young was preventing her from contacting Earth to protest his behavior; there was no other choice.

Actually, the plan was not Rush's at all. He goes along with Camile, helps her, for two reasons:
1 - he was scared to death of Young which he has every to be - Young's tried to kill him twice and the implant in his chest gives Young a very good excuse to do it again
2 - he and Chloe are hijacking Camile's plan so that they can attempt to save everyone from the aliens. They both know Young will do the absolutely wrong thing plus they need to buy time to deal with the implanted tracker in his chest.

I thought that was the most fascinating part of the episode - not Camile's plot itself - but Rush and Chloe coopting her plot into a private plan of their own. Plots within plots - that's what makes this drama so good.

jelgate
April 13th, 2010, 11:00 AM
The real one wasn't very violent to begin with. And from the end it seems highly unlikely for Young to issue severe actions for the civilians and their munity. So provided in the real munity and this hypothetical one ends with the military retaking the ship I see the end result of "finding a way to work together" being the same

beafly
April 13th, 2010, 11:04 AM
Non-violent protest would be refusal to take action.

They didn't do that. They took action.

They took control of the ship and threatened the other side with death by dehydration / starvation. They took a position of power, made demands and threatened death for non-compliance.

Gollumpus
April 13th, 2010, 11:52 AM
The whole coup/mutiny/insurrection (whatever you want to call it) was poorly timed and rushed, not by the civilians but (as has been pointed out elsewhere) by the writers/producers of SGU. It had to fit in with the introduction of the common threat which is to serve as the unifying force.

The civilian insurrection was doomed to failure from the start. They couldn't win regardless of what they did. Go ahead and starve them out, or cut off their air and render them unconscious. Heck, go all out and kill the military types outright. All that would happen is the civilian population would devolve into anarchy. Have an election and decide on some sort of civilian government. What would they do if a portion of the society don't like the decision? Guns would be brought out (which would be under control of whoever was in the "government"). You would have another insurrection with more deaths and the process would continue until there was a handful of folks sniping at each other in the halls until such time as they died.

Honestly, regardless of how the civilians went about it, what kind of objectives did they have and how were they looking to enforce them assuming they were able to achieve them?:

1.) Disarm the military and place it under the control of the civilian population - and after the military required to be re-armed to face an outside threat, just how were they planning on getting the weapons back if the military didn't want to surrender those weapons?

2.) Power sharing - and who was going to decide just how that would be done? By "power sharing" I think that what Wray and company were saying is, "We want the power to tell you what to do." Were they supposed to automatically install Wray on the throne or would there be some kind of committee? Was there going to be some sort election? Would the military be allowed a vote(s) or any kind of representation? And now let's assume that a portion of the civilian population decide they don't like a particular decision their elected representatives have made. Would not the military be called in to support the elected body and if necessary use force? And because it is military force which is being applied because some civilian is saying it is okay, does that make it okay?

regards,
G.

The Shrike
April 13th, 2010, 12:12 PM
Work to rule would have been the most logical course of action, but the three main protagonists (Young, Rush, Wray) have been anything but logical in their decision making.

The civilians have to think tactically, trying to overwhelm them militarily was playing to the soldiers strength and obviously the worst choice available. Denial of service though would eventually force Young to seek a compromise since he knows they're not going home without the scientists help.

xxxevilgrinxxx
April 13th, 2010, 12:13 PM
What if Wray had use non violent passive resistance against Col Young?

Wray's little speech about civilian authories over the military.

Most of the civilian crew join Wray's mutiny because Col Young abandon Dr Rush, and they believe civilian should have control over mlitary.

It got me thinking, about Gandhi's passive resistance against British.

Wray doesn't need a coup or mutiny against Col Young?

Wray can organised some sort of non-violent passive resistance.
Col Young violented Dr Rush's human right , and broke the military regulation ,and law.
Wray can openly move agisnt Col Young.

with action such as Strike , all civilian strike , let the military do the work .What could Col Young do ?
Force them to work or shoot them or abandon them on the next planet.

Hunger strike , Gandhi' did very well with huger strike .

Dr Lisa Park could close her book club (at least only open to civilian crew member) that probably affect Greer in some way.

I don't see Gandhi as scheming, conniving and being willing to overlook a plan to frame a man for murder in order to get him out of the way just to grab power, so I think the passive resistance bit is maybe a bit much :)

also, those so called peaceful civilians were more than willing to use weapons themselves, pulling a gun on Eli as he came in. They're not passive.

I don't see them (Rush/Wray) as being passive at all, it doesn't seem to fit with their characters

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 13th, 2010, 12:44 PM
evilgrin,


I don't see Gandhi as scheming, conniving and being willing to overlook a plan to frame a man for murder in order to get him out of the way just to grab power, so I think the passive resistance bit is maybe a bit much :)

also, those so called peaceful civilians were more than willing to use weapons themselves, pulling a gun on Eli as he came in. They're not passive.

I don't see them (Rush/Wray) as being passive at all, it doesn't seem to fit with their characters

You do recall that Col. Young framed Dr. Franklin for attacking Col. Telford, right?

xxxevilgrinxxx
April 13th, 2010, 12:53 PM
The question wasn't "how imperfect is Young", it was the civilians, under Rush/Wray using passive resistance. Gandhi was mentioned :) I don't believe that Rush/Wray are wired to use passive resistance, so no :)

Daro
April 13th, 2010, 02:27 PM
Non-violent protest would be refusal to take action.

They didn't do that. They took action.

They took control of the ship and threatened the other side with death by dehydration / starvation. They took a position of power, made demands and threatened death for non-compliance.

You keep saying this thing about Rush and Wray threatening death by dehydration/starvation. They absolutely did not do that. When Young says "Eli says we have control of the life support," Rush responds that "We have a greater volume of air, and the hydroponics lab producing oxygen." Young replies: "Not enough to matter."

That constitutes a threat, at which point Rush says the thing about food and water. Food and water was not denied to the military side, and there was no plan to do so mentioned by Rush or Wray. If air and heat had been cut off, isn't that more horrible than dying of starvation or dehydration? Even if all things were equal, Rush only pointed out that both sides had essentials that the other needed. Nothing more.

Non-violent does not mean inactive. It means that they did not resort to violence in any way.

I'm fine with the argument that the civilians were wrong, though I'll respectfully disagree. But to say they threatened to let the military die is a complete misrepresentation of what we saw in the show.

Tuvok
April 13th, 2010, 02:29 PM
Non-violent protest would be refusal to take action.

They didn't do that. They took action.

They took control of the ship and threatened the other side with death by dehydration / starvation. They took a position of power, made demands and threatened death for non-compliance.

Basically they sealed off the military. Demanded their guns and threatened them with starvation\ dehydration. Then they got their butts handed to them by a full blown battlehorse Young and acted surprised when the Military did what they where trained to do. Fight and win. And rearrange dental work if James if any indication. Helpful hint when the Military pacifies a room, get down. The plan is to go in fast, and clear it. No hesitation , no negotiation to limit threats from hostiles. If you still standing after they tell you to get down, prepare to loose teeth.

xxxevilgrinxxx
April 13th, 2010, 02:35 PM
Basically they sealed off the military. Demanded their guns and threatened them with starvation\ dehydration. Then they got their butts handed to them by a full blown battlehorse Young and acted surprised when the Military did what they where trained to do. Fight and win. And rearrange dental work if James if any indication. Helpful hint when the Military pacifies a room, get down. The plan is to go in fast, and clear it. No hesitation , no negotiation to limit threats from hostiles. If you still standing after they tell you to get down, prepare to loose teeth.I completely agree there. As TJ said, they declared war with that action and war is not something the civilians are adept at. I believe that if Rush/Wray had gone about it some other way, that Young et al would have backed that, as long as there was SOME sort of order that wouldn't result in them all getting killed. If Rush/Wray continue to try to essentially declare war on the military element, they shouldn't be surprised if they come up short.

The Shrike
April 13th, 2010, 07:38 PM
The question wasn't "how imperfect is Young", it was the civilians, under Rush/Wray using passive resistance. Gandhi was mentioned :) I don't believe that Rush/Wray are wired to use passive resistance, so no :)I'll admit, sometimes it backfires too, Gandhi, Jesus, and Martin Luther King didn't exactly die of natural causes.

Shpinxinator
April 13th, 2010, 07:44 PM
I started out writing a very in depth response...then I asked my self "what's the point" and went off to watch Walking with Dinosaurs....all in all...a good day

Lahela
April 13th, 2010, 10:28 PM
You keep saying this thing about Rush and Wray threatening death by dehydration/starvation. They absolutely did not do that. When Young says "Eli says we have control of the life support," Rush responds that "We have a greater volume of air, and the hydroponics lab producing oxygen." Young replies: "Not enough to matter."

That constitutes a threat, at which point Rush says the thing about food and water. Food and water was not denied to the military side, and there was no plan to do so mentioned by Rush or Wray. If air and heat had been cut off, isn't that more horrible than dying of starvation or dehydration? Even if all things were equal, Rush only pointed out that both sides had essentials that the other needed. Nothing more.

Non-violent does not mean inactive. It means that they did not resort to violence in any way.

I'm fine with the argument that the civilians were wrong, though I'll respectfully disagree. But to say they threatened to let the military die is a complete misrepresentation of what we saw in the show.

Apparently it's okay for the military to threaten to cut off life support, but not for the civilians to threaten to withhold food and water and then not withhold it. ;)

Cory Holmes
April 14th, 2010, 02:58 AM
Discussions like this are why episodes like Divided are so awesome. Both sides were right, both sides were wrong. Teams Wray and Rush (or should that be Wrush?) did things wrong, Team Young did things wrong, all are guilty of scheming, politicking, and conniving. All have the skills to contribute to the survival of the ship and crew, all are lacking areas the others excel at.

At no point did the PTBs take their usual preachy stance on The Goodie Two-Shoes Good Guys always being right, something they did way too often on Atlantis. This bodes well for the future and interesting forum discussions.

PS: Team Young FTW! :)

pipi
April 14th, 2010, 04:08 AM
If Wray was hotter and not lez maybe she could seduce him. It's the oldest trick in the book. All (straight) men fall to beauty. Damn you hot gurls! :P

Wayston
April 14th, 2010, 04:18 AM
it was not passive resistance, the plan was to lock out the military (AND innocent civilians not part of the coup mind you) and starve them into submission. the fact that the military side was able to keep control over life support was entirely accidental... the civilian side only provided what is described as a "limited amount of food and water" in return for eli. They didn't care about the rest of the civilians apparantly.

They did not use guns because their plan didn't really require them and they didn't have access to any guns anyway (except the one that was put down)

xxxevilgrinxxx
April 14th, 2010, 08:21 AM
Discussions like this are why episodes like Divided are so awesome.
...
At no point did the PTBs take their usual preachy stance on The Goodie Two-Shoes Good Guys always being right
...yep, there's nobody that's a moral authority, nobody;s intentions are that pure. It's one of the things I've been enjoying about this show; that 'the other', the enemy, is themselves, rather than projecting all negative qualities onto an alien race while retaining all "good" with the team.


it was not passive resistance, the plan was to lock out the military (AND innocent civilians not part of the coup mind you) and starve them into submission. the fact that the military side was able to keep control over life support was entirely accidental... the civilian side only provided what is described as a "limited amount of food and water" in return for eli. They didn't care about the rest of the civilians apparantly.

They did not use guns because their plan didn't really require them and they didn't have access to any guns anyway (except the one that was put down)Rush/Wray had no idea that Young could find a way to get to their side. I think Rush/Wray severely underestimated Young and his abilities. So yes, I think it's possible that they intended to starve out the military, it just never got a chance to develop

Daro
April 15th, 2010, 01:48 AM
You honestly think that Chloe would have let Rush starve Eli (well, ok, he'd be fine for a while) and Scott? No way. Even if Rush and Wray would do that, did you see how much influence Chloe has on Rush, holding him to his promise not to let anyone get hurt? Not even hurt by accident. No way she would ever consent to being on Rush and Wray's side if they denied food and water to the military. And neither would a lot of other people.

beafly
April 15th, 2010, 05:08 AM
Then what was the point? If they weren't willing to kill them over it, they should have called a meeting, not a mutiny.

Lahela
April 15th, 2010, 10:35 AM
Then what was the point? If they weren't willing to kill them over it, they should have called a meeting, not a mutiny.

I had the impression that Wray had tried to talk with Young on numerous occasions. He always brushed her off.

jelgate
April 15th, 2010, 10:58 AM
I had the impression that Wray had tried to talk with Young on numerous occasions. He always brushed her off.

You know what happens to those who assume?

Because I see no canon evidence to find a common ground. Just two people bickering

Replicator Todd
April 15th, 2010, 11:30 AM
I think a better question would be what if Wray had used violence?

jelgate
April 15th, 2010, 11:32 AM
I think a better question would be what if Wray had used violence?
She would be just as bad as Young. Although if Wray used violence or not is a controversal subject

Gollumpus
April 15th, 2010, 11:48 AM
I think Young could have been won over by discussion. It might have taken a few meetings, but I think it could have been done.

I tend to view Young as playing the bull-headed officer role who shows signs of being able to alter his position if presented with a strong enough case against, and that case is presented forcefully. I use as an example of my meaning that scene in SG-1 where Siler reports to Hammond that the broken gate can be repaired in 24 hours. Hammond responds, "You've got 12." Siler replies, "No Sir, it doesn't work that way!" and gives a concise report as to why he can not do as Hammond wishes.

We've seen a couple of instances where Young has pulled back from a course of action once he has received additional information, most recently in "Space", where he goes along with Rush's view (after Eli stresses it) that not firing the weapons was the better alternative.

What we will likely see over the next few episodes is the diplomatic course. There will be town hall meetings where arguments will be put forward and eventually a resolution will be achieved.

regards,
G.

garhkal
April 15th, 2010, 04:39 PM
While i think them doing the sit-in/work stoppage thing might have been a better way i also don't see young lettimg them get away with it for long before forcing them with might/threat of force...

nx01a
April 15th, 2010, 04:49 PM
Her people certainly were willing to use violence. The one who had the gun on Eli, for example. ;)

Gollumpus
April 15th, 2010, 06:35 PM
While i think them doing the sit-in/work stoppage thing might have been a better way i also don't see young lettimg them get away with it for long before forcing them with might/threat of force...

But forcing them to do what? If they sat there in the main dining hall refusing to do anything how would that have an adverse effect on Young? What would it force him to do? Eli may or may not join them. Rush might do it, provided it fit in with some plan he was hatching, but after a while he would lose patience with it and go do something interesting.

If ship's systems started to malfunction then Young might take notice. Assuming Riley hasn't been killed off he would be forced to mention the problems to the resisters and point out how their butts were on the line as much as his and the military types.

Young: "There's no air! Well, I guess we all suffocate. BTW, the hydroponic garden you were putting together has dried up and died. Oh, and the power systems are failing, but that shouldn't be a problem as the Smurfs are about to board. I guess I'm licked. You guys are so smart..."
regards,
G.

Tuvok
April 15th, 2010, 08:56 PM
I think a better question would be what if Wray had used violence?

A lot more dead Civies . If you seek a poodle at a pissed off Rockwieler , prepare for one dead Poodle.

Daro
April 16th, 2010, 03:04 AM
I agree that the civilian faction might have organized and tried diplomacy as a group first. Up until then, it's just Wray, sometimes Rush, and the other scientists. To be fair, I can't blame Wray for believing that diplomacy wouldn't work; not only does Young often ignore her attempts to talk to him about civilian concerns, but he has threatened her once at least.

As for Rush, he once again did not think his clever plan all the way through by thinking the aliens would give up. But what he did do, other than help the rebellion, was create a situation where he neither had to face certain death by telling Young about the implant, nor did he have to let the aliens destroy Destiny. If Rush had not locked Eli and Young out in this episode, the aliens would have breached the shields most likely. Rush's concerns for civilian authority are there, but he had another motive. Young probably wouldn't have killed Rush over the implant if he'd told him before, but that's just speculation. I imagine the fact that Rush didn't let Young and Scott die when he easily could have helped temper Young's anger.

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 16th, 2010, 05:22 AM
Tuvok,


A lot more dead Civies . If you seek a poodle at a pissed off Rockwieler , prepare for one dead Poodle.

Not necessarily. Standard Poodles are hunting dogs. They're about the size of dalmations.

Tuvok
April 16th, 2010, 08:17 AM
Tuvok,



Not necessarily. Standard Poodles are hunting dogs. They're about the size of dalmations.

Yeah , but a pissed off Rockwieler? Bye bye hunting dog. Rottwielers tear and rent. Vicious.

Cory Holmes
April 16th, 2010, 09:02 AM
To be fair, I can't blame Wray for believing that diplomacy wouldn't work; not only does Young often ignore her attempts to talk to him about civilian concerns, but he has threatened her once at least.
You can't really blame Young for not giving Wray much of his time, everything she does is a conniving attempt to get herself more personal and political power. Just look at her behaviour in Darkness, when she attempted to get Young to cancel the lottery and hand-pick the shuttle crew (with herself in mind). Or what she did during Young's "trial" when she set her sights squarely on him and wouldn't let up for any reason until Chloe told her to shove it.

We all talk about how Rush has a Machieavellian power-play thing going on, but Wray has it just as bad.

carmencatalina
April 16th, 2010, 01:09 PM
Yeah , but a pissed off Rockwieler? Bye bye hunting dog. Rottwielers tear and rent. Vicious.

As someone who has had 4 Rotties over the years, please, they are not "vicious". Mine were very well behaved, loving animals. I can't stand dog stereotyping!

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

beafly
April 19th, 2010, 07:42 AM
As someone who has had 4 Rotties over the years, please, they are not "vicious". Mine were very well behaved, loving animals. I can't stand dog stereotyping!

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Agreed!

Maybe we should stereotype Rottweiler owners though.

JustAnotherVoice
April 19th, 2010, 10:27 AM
Work to rule would have been the most logical course of action, but the three main protagonists (Young, Rush, Wray) have been anything but logical in their decision making.

Although late to the party, I would like to contend that Rush and Young have been the most logical characters within certain remits, whereas Wray has been the overly emotional one in just about every decision she makes, dealing in moral and societal absolutes.

Admittedly, Young is only logical when it comes to the long term survival of the crew, and getting as many people home as he can (after the initial attempt to dial home, but I'll let that slide because of the head injury and not seeing the big picture yet); Rush's logic stems from his scientific curiosity and personal survival - willing to do whatever it takes to satisfy his obsession with the caveat that he doesn't get hurt or suffer direct (and immediate?) consequences. Getting either to make decisions about anything else seems to be a complete crapshoot.

Wray, on the other hand, played the fearmonger, and played the part admirably. Everything about the plan, for me, reeks of Wray (except the timetable) and I don't think it could have happened any other way with her pulling the strings. Rush's methods are subtle and manipulative; but the coup was blunt, designed to break morale and panic the soldiers into doing something stupid, right down to the possibility of starvation/dehydration.

If Wray had thought more logically, then a denial of service would have been the best option, and it could have started long ago, since everyone seemed to know that something big would go down. If she had started a civilian work slowdown around the time of Earth (when she was ordered to take control), she could have taken Young's job a while ago.

Daro
April 19th, 2010, 08:03 PM
Although late to the party, I would like to contend that Rush and Young have been the most logical characters within certain remits, whereas Wray has been the overly emotional one in just about every decision she makes, dealing in moral and societal absolutes.

Admittedly, Young is only logical when it comes to the long term survival of the crew, and getting as many people home as he can (after the initial attempt to dial home, but I'll let that slide because of the head injury and not seeing the big picture yet); Rush's logic stems from his scientific curiosity and personal survival - willing to do whatever it takes to satisfy his obsession with the caveat that he doesn't get hurt or suffer direct (and immediate?) consequences. Getting either to make decisions about anything else seems to be a complete crapshoot.

Wray, on the other hand, played the fearmonger, and played the part admirably. Everything about the plan, for me, reeks of Wray (except the timetable) and I don't think it could have happened any other way with her pulling the strings. Rush's methods are subtle and manipulative; but the coup was blunt, designed to break morale and panic the soldiers into doing something stupid, right down to the possibility of starvation/dehydration.

If Wray had thought more logically, then a denial of service would have been the best option, and it could have started long ago, since everyone seemed to know that something big would go down. If she had started a civilian work slowdown around the time of Earth (when she was ordered to take control), she could have taken Young's job a while ago.

I disagree that Young focuses more on long term survival. He is starting to now, but in the past, it's been short term thinking that dominated his decision making. "Water" is the perfect example of that. I think Young, before the mid-season, still had it in his mind that they would find a way home to Earth soon. He realizes now that Rush can't (and perhaps won't) make that happen any time soon. And if Rush can't make it happen, no one else can either at this point.
Rush is in it for the long haul, though. Every decision or position he undertakes is aimed at the long term survival of Destiny. It's been their main point of contention. I am not convinced that he won't do something if it risks his health or life, it's just that he isn't going to do so lightly.
I completely agree that Wray SEEMS to be motivated mostly by her emotions, but her focus is on people, and so that's pretty natural, I think. While Rush and Young are making tough choices and viewing the crew as a group in a survival situation, Wray is focused on individuals to a much greater degree.

JustAnotherVoice
April 19th, 2010, 09:27 PM
I disagree that Young focuses more on long term survival. He is starting to now, but in the past, it's been short term thinking that dominated his decision making. "Water" is the perfect example of that. I think Young, before the mid-season, still had it in his mind that they would find a way home to Earth soon. He realizes now that Rush can't (and perhaps won't) make that happen any time soon. And if Rush can't make it happen, no one else can either at this point.
Rush is in it for the long haul, though. Every decision or position he undertakes is aimed at the long term survival of Destiny. It's been their main point of contention. I am not convinced that he won't do something if it risks his health or life, it's just that he isn't going to do so lightly.
I completely agree that Wray SEEMS to be motivated mostly by her emotions, but her focus is on people, and so that's pretty natural, I think. While Rush and Young are making tough choices and viewing the crew as a group in a survival situation, Wray is focused on individuals to a much greater degree.

Both Young and Rush play very different games with very different endgame scenarios, I think. Young uses a Xanatos gambit, where his endgame, we can agree, is to get home. Young's decisions to settle down, ration food and water, the decisions he's been lambasted for (by both his crew and fans of the show) are the ones that scream "long term" for me. I get the sense that he's more concerned with getting as many people home as possible, without compromising their safety, which is why his orders can seem self-contradictory within a single breath (study the chair without getting near it; do it as fast as possible, but take your time). Settling down for the long haul while making sure their very limited supplies last the duration is what I meant by long term survival. Afterall, a slightly hungry, but unpanicked scientist working slowly and steadily is worth more than a near starving one being hurried into tackling something they don't fully understand.

But with the addition of Rush, Young's forced to play Xanatos speed chess, which he doesn't do all that well apparently, probably because he's never had someone actively undermine him at every step. The overall goal is the same, but he isn't quite the same master manipulator or people person that either Wray or Rush seem to be.

Rush definately employs the Batman gambit. His endgame is, IMO, to manipulate people for his own scientific curiosity, which is often in direct odds with Young's "slow and safe" approach.

Wray is the only one of the power trio who's endgame is a mystery to me. She takes elements from both camps, but doesn't come off as having any direction, almost like an Indy ploy without the guarantee of a happy ending. She wants to grab the trophy, but she's wearing 4inch stilettos when that big boulder comes rolling down that ramp. She wants to get home, but she follows orders to take power by working with the one man who is exactly where he wants to be. She defends the freedom to choose, which could cost her the ability to go home (wrong people choose to leave the ship etc). She lurches from one decision to another with only her absolute moral compass to guide her, which could end up hurting her in the long run.