Thoughts on Koss?

[Asso]

In all honesty, it's difficult for me to understand why we should find some right reason behind Koss' behaviour, when - very evidently - the Authors wanted to show on the screen the classical pain-in-the-ass-guy, made just in order to offer to the audience the angst they believed it was needed to capture the attention.

[aadarshinah]

I think it's because, in real life, people have more motivations beyond, "I think think I'll be a pain in the ass today." Or, at least, that's what I've been told....

[Asso]

Mh... I hope you don't get offended, but I think this is a very feminine thought.
Oh well, but, after all, I am a male.

[WarpGirl]

Why? They're still dead. The example I posted was actually flawed (which I later realized - it would have been more a case of manslaughter rather than murder), so why should a bigot be punished more harshly than a sociopath or even your run of the mill murderer? Just because one person is a white supremacist or hates homosexuals doesn't mean their actions are any less evil or reprehensible than the guy who robbed the convenience store and shot the gay, black, Jewish guy running it because said clerk mouthed off at him. This whole "punish someone more harshly because of what they think" makes no sense at all to me and goes directly to thought police. Who determines what is okay to think? The consequences should always be the same: if you do X, then Y happens to you. Period. No exceptions. Doesn't matter if you are a foaming at the mouth bigot/racist/homophobe or if you just hated that SOB because he dinged your car. End result should always be the same. When you focus on the why, you lose track of the what. Who cares why someone hates another person? Let's focus on what he or she did.

Well I would say that the odds of a person commiting a hate crime again, is higher than a "normal" murder, and therefore that merits a harsher punishment. You are right that manslaughter is a whole other matter entirely. However I just want to make clear that I DO believe that accidental manslaughter should have consequences as well. I am not advocating a no consequence system.

The ironic thing is you seem focused on motivation here but are willing to give Koss a pass for a plot twist that is never explained in terms of motivation. We don't know why he suddenly and abruptly dissolved the marriage apart from the fact that it had served its purpose in terms of a Trip/T'Pol delaying tactic for the writers.

OK I'm looking at possibilities. One of the reasons I do not like ENT as a series is that they did things like this without giving reasons way too often. The writing in this respect was more sloppy than other Treks, which were bad but at least had reasons. When I look at Koss the character there was nothing about his manner that said this man wanted to hurt anyone. But I have read many stories where Koss is pure evil and loved them.

How exactly was it a real choice? Marry me or your mother gets thoroughly screwed over. That's not a choice. That's an ultimatum. Sure, both of them can say that the choice was hers (and doing so totally tracks with T'Pol's apparent need for self-flagellation and taking the blame for the crap that is flung at her), but it isn't a real choice.

One problem with this... T'Les had been "screwed over" for quite a bit of time, and hadn't informed her daughter. So I don't see how it suddenly became more urgent. Another example of sloppy writing. Also as I said before when I watched the episode, I thought Koss looked confused that T'Pol believed her mother retired. Leading me to believe the offer to help was genuine, not intended to be blackmail. Although I admit that was what happened.

And as I have said several times, I consider T'Les to be slime for putting T'Pol in this situation. But that does not mitigate the fact that Koss put T'Pol through this crap in the first place.

How do you know Koss was behind it? Maybe T'Les and his parents planned to manipulate both of them.

And you totally missed the point of that remark. I was speaking about "Home" and the period of time then, not the sudden and inexplicable decision on his part to release her. While they were married, she was apparently obligated to satisfy his PF, despite loathing him, because of the fragile situation her mother was in. Failure to comply would lead to negative repercussions toward her mother (providing The Blackmailer survived somehow) which means he had all the power in the marriage.

I'm sorry I was having the conversation based on all the episodes Koss was in not just Home. Sorry for the miscommunication.

I have a degree in History. I'm well aware of this fact. But it doesn't do anything to mitigate my general dislike of the Koss character in "Home" because of his actions (not his motivations, which are never properly explained so they actually make sense) or the utterly inane marriage subplot that was introduced solely for the purpose of avoiding an actual Trip/T'Pol relationship. Those same marriages you mentioned also had a common theme: both parties get something out of the marriage. In this case, we are never told what Koss or his family get (apart from their family suddenly being linked with that crazy, emotional, human-loving reprobate daughter of T'Les (who was responsible for that disaster at P'Jem, did you hear?), which has a negative impact on their reputation), so the whole thing rings false and feels exactly like the delaying tactic that it was.

To that I can only say that again I was playing with possibilities within my impressions of the character. I didn't write the episode so I can't change the fact that there are no rational reasons for what happened. Peace!

[Rigil Kent]

Well I would say that the odds of a person commiting a hate crime again, is higher than a "normal" murder, and therefore that merits a harsher punishment.

Do you have the numbers to back that up? Or is this just an assumption? For that matter, tell me exactly how murder isn't already a hate crime. If the punishment for murder is sufficiently harsh (as it should be), then frankly, it's utterly irrelevant why the person committed murder. And I notice that you are completely skirting my points by refusing to address the whole "thought police" which is what "hate crimes" (a ridiculous term if ever I've heard one) amount to. Again, why should the racist/bigot/homophobe who murders a gay, Jewish black guy just 'cause be punished more harshly than the sociopath who killed the same gay, Jewish black guy just so he (the sociopath) could watch him die? That's the part I don't get with this whole "hate crime" silliness. Because of some intangible that can never be 100% proven, the punishment differs.

I am not advocating a no consequence system.

No, but you are advocating a system where punishment is meted out according to an intangible like "was this crime racially motivated." Until we develop mind reader capability, no one is ever going to know.

OK I'm looking at possibilities. One of the reasons I do not like ENT as a series is that they did things like this without giving reasons way too often. The writing in this respect was more sloppy than other Treks, which were bad but at least had reasons. When I look at Koss the character there was nothing about his manner that said this man wanted to hurt anyone. But I have read many stories where Koss is pure evil and loved them.

Okay, first, I don't understand how someone can not like a show yet spend a lot of time on a board discussing it. I was fairly active with a number of NCIS boards until I realized I hated what the show turned into, so I simply stopped bothering, which is why I'm confused about that. Second, ENT writing was no more sloppy than any other Trek show. You want sloppy? Take a look at some of the colossal gems from VOY - the devolving one comes to mind. Examine the monumental plot holes in the new Trek movie. Only in your mind is it more sloppy with ENT because you are, as you point out, predisposed toward not liking it since you "don't like the show." As to Koss, your perceptions are yours and obviously don't match everyone elses - I didn't see a guy out to hurt anyone necessarily, but I did see a manipulative, condescending assclown who blackmailed T'Pol into marrying him. Regarding the evil Koss stories, I generally have difficulty accepting them as anything other than OOC because he didn't strike me as competent enough to be evil.

One problem with this... T'Les had been "screwed over" for quite a bit of time, and hadn't informed her daughter. So I don't see how it suddenly became more urgent.

And how does that remotely relate to my point about this not being a choice? It doesn't. You made the point several posts ago that T'Pol did a crappy job of telling either Koss or Trip what she was thinking/feeling/wanting ... yet seem to expect T'Les to do so? That doesn't track, not with the way Vulcans have been portrayed as ultra private about everything, even with their own family members. Was T'Les partially responsible for this mess? Quite possibly. But she wasn't the one who made the blackmail offer. Koss was. Frankly, until Koss showed up & floated the marriage stuff, T'Les seemed relatively okay with being forced into retirement (even if she did then push T'Pol toward the marriage which is a negative on her.)

Also as I said before when I watched the episode, I thought Koss looked confused that T'Pol believed her mother retired. Leading me to believe the offer to help was genuine, not intended to be blackmail. Although I admit that was what happened.

Again, for me, intentions are irrelevant. Actions are what matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

How do you know Koss was behind it? Maybe T'Les and his parents planned to manipulate both of them.

I don't. And honestly, I don't care. He made the blackmail offer despite the clear evidence he had on hand that T'Pol wasn't interested in marriage. As to T'Les manipulating them ... uh ... yeah. That's why she promptly excreted on this new life and ran off to the desert, right? It doesn't track.

To that I can only say that again I was playing with possibilities within my impressions of the character.

And I'm doing the same.

[enterprikayak]

I think WarpGirl and Rigil Kent should get married and have their own reality tv show.

I'd watch.

[aadarshinah]

I think WarpGirl and Rigil Kent should get married and have their own reality tv show.

I'd watch.

This post should have come with a warning, enterprikayak. I about choked on my drink...

[WarpGirl]

Ek who do you think would kill who? Frankly I wouldn't know who to bet on.

Rigil its obvious that we'll never agree about motives. That's OK. I'm also not trying to say you're wrong, or that my views are right. But correct me if I'm wrong but the point of discussing anything is that people can interchange different POV's, without either person changing their minds. To answer your question as to why I'm here, simple... I like Trip, T'Pol, Malcolm, Hoshi, Phlox, Shran, Soval, V'Lar... I think the concept and most of the characters of the Series had a lot of potential, and its fun playing with them. I like the basics of the TnT relationship, it had potential. I might not agree with some elements of the character development, and I might think most of the episodes were pretty bad. But I have a great love for certain characters.

PS. I know a lot of VOY episodes were terrible writing, I never denied that. But since ENT had 4 seasons, and VOY had 7, the ratio of good to bad IMO is greater in ENT.

And how does that remotely relate to my point about this not being a choice? It doesn't. You made the point several posts ago that T'Pol did a crappy job of telling either Koss or Trip what she was thinking/feeling/wanting ... yet seem to expect T'Les to do so? That doesn't track, not with the way Vulcans have been portrayed as ultra private about everything, even with their own family members. Was T'Les partially responsible for this mess? Quite possibly. But she wasn't the one who made the blackmail offer. Koss was. Frankly, until Koss showed up & floated the marriage stuff, T'Les seemed relatively okay with being forced into retirement (even if she did then push T'Pol toward the marriage which is a negative on her.)

OK You're right that was totally my mistake, I didn't make myself clear. My point was T'Les was already screwed possibly before T'Pol returned from the Expanse. If she's great with retirement and didn't need T'Pol to restore her position why push her to see Koss? Unless T'Les and the others wanted Koss to offer, knowing T'Pol is self-sacrificing. It makes no sense. Give me a stupid inane reason like VOY please. It might stink but its better than wondering WHY?

[enterprikayak]

Ek who do you think would kill who? Frankly I wouldn't know who to bet on.

I could totally see either of you killing the other one.

Cause of death? Unending logical debate. You both forgot to eat.

lol

[WarpGirl]

My brothers would say I'd nag so much any poor guy would jump off a bridge into a shallow river. I don't think I'll marry anyone quite frankly. Came close twice, with the same guy, not going to happen. But thanks for the laugh! See I can take a joke.

[Alelou]

I'd like to suggest a reason, Rigil, why hate crimes might be punished differently than your basic sociopathic murder: because hate crimes are designed to intimidate an entire group, and have been used throughout our history to do so, and therefore might justifiably be assigned a harsher penalty to make it clear that our society frowns on that. A hate crime isn't prosecuted on the basis of mind reading, but on other related actions of the perpetrator(s), such as racist vandalism, writings, speeches, general pattern of behavior, etc. (Though I do agree this can get kind of dicey and can be abused as just more charges to heap on somebody.)

I'm also with WarpGirl in noting that T'Les didn't tell T'Pol why she 'retired' until T'Pol asked about it. To my mind, T'Les was simply applying maternal pressure to get her daughter to do what a good Vulcan woman is supposed to do to be considered successful. This may not make a whole lot of sense if she's already privately disillusioned with Vulcan society, as we learn later -- but perhaps the marriage mores weren't the part she was disillusioned with. It was clear she had enjoyed an affectionate marriage herself. She might logically have hoped that T'Pol would ultimately have the same experience.

I'm not as inclined to defend Koss. I believe he thought he was acting in T'Pol's and T'Les's best interest as well as his own (or at least his parents'), but I agree that to keep pushing in the face of such obvious reluctance from T'Pol is definitely slimy by our standards. If nothing else, you can conclude that as a husband he's probably going to be an obnoxious prig who thinks he always knows better than she does.

But then, that also fits with the general Vulcan character we are introduced to in Enterprise, at least until they each have their consciousnesses raised by those messy, imperfect Humans. This is an annoyingly common storyline on ENT, often making it seem like the series is really just one long, self-congratulatory paen to the general superiority of Humanity.

(This still leaves it a hell of a lot better than, say, The Bachelorette. )

[WarpGirl]

Or Jersey Shore! But about the hate crimes there's also the fact that a person in the KKK in would probably not stop supporting the lynching of minorities (or even do it himself) if given the opportunity just because he spent 25 years in prison.

[Alelou]

There's punishment to try to stop the crimes and/or extract some sort of revenge upon the perpetrators, and there's punishment to try to deter others from pursuing the same action, and there's also punishment to send a signal to the society at large about what your standards are.

If you ask me, the worst offenses of the Civil Rights era were not the yahoos murdering and lynching and terrorizing (though God knows that was awful), but the fact that white police and witnesses and juries routinely allowed it to go unpunished, probably because they quietly supported the goal of the perpetrators: scare the blacks to keep them from claiming their rights.

Hate crime legislation wouldn't have made the slightest difference if the people in the system weren't willing to uphold their responsibilities. To that extent, it's true that it's fairly absurd. Mostly it just sends a political signal that this sort of thing is really frowned upon. If such a thing had had the political support to pass in those days, which it didn't, it would have provided some additional moral/political support to any individuals who wanted to do the right thing.

[Rigil Kent]

And you've made my entire point, I think. Social mores and judgments always come out to play, so trying to tailor laws intended to cover everyone so they are harsher against this group of people, or that group of people, is always going to end up messing things up. Isn't it a "hate crime" to stone a woman to death for having sex with a guy who she isn't married to? Well I think so, but there are certain cultures out there who think its totally justified and, unfortunately, some of them are right here in the States. I also think that rape is a "hate crime" regardless of what ethnicity is involved in either side, but these inconsistent laws don't agree with me. Look at how utterly screwed up the American tax code is - its riddled with exceptions and addendums and caveats, which is basically what "hate crimes" would end up being. Rather than saying "if you do X, then Y happens," we're saying "if you do X against a person in this protected category, then Z happens. If the victim is in that category, which apparently isn't "protected", then X happens." I say screw that. Let's go back to basics and say "if you do X, then Y happens. Period." All people should be in that protected category (except rapists, child molesters, and people who talk in the theater. OK, maybe not that last one. Maybe.) Murder should be murder.

But I'm an obsolete dinosaur who sees political correctness as nothing more than soft tyranny, so take that as you will.

I'd like to suggest a reason, Rigil, why hate crimes might be punished differently than your basic sociopathic murder: because hate crimes are designed to intimidate an entire group, and have been used throughout our history to do so, and therefore might justifiably be assigned a harsher penalty to make it clear that our society frowns on that. A hate crime isn't prosecuted on the basis of mind reading, but on other related actions of the perpetrator(s), such as racist vandalism, writings, speeches, general pattern of behavior, etc. (Though I do agree this can get kind of dicey and can be abused as just more charges to heap on somebody.)

And it is solely this latter point that causes me to react in this way. It isn't difficult to see grandstanding lawyers injecting imaginary "hate crimes" into a trial so it will be sexier or more likely to get a conviction - what juror wants to explain why they voted against sending that racist/bigot/homophobe to the chair? Murder itself is a "hate crime" which is why I reject the notion that the Law should be focused toward intimidating an entire group; to the more extreme characters in such a group, being singled out for committing such a crime isn't seen as a negative. Do you think a truly devoted white supremacist or a Jihadist is going to be bothered by an additional charge of committing a "hate crime"? They've already accomplished what they wanted to and, if nothing else, being singled out thus is going to be seen by their peers as a badge of honor. Hence, I see the whole notion as being self-fulfilling and frankly counterproductive. Treat them as murderers, punish them to the extent of the law (up to and including execution), and just move on.

I'm also with WarpGirl in noting that T'Les didn't tell T'Pol why she 'retired' until T'Pol asked about it.

And I didn't contest that point. In fact, I rather agreed with it and acknowledged that T'Les acted pretty slimy in "Home," up to the point where she realized the extent of the connection between Trip and her daughter. When she urged Tucker to say something, I got the feeling she suddenly realized just how badly she'd screwed the sehlat. I never got the feeling, even with the Vulcan arc, that Koss realized anything more than "this woman (T'Pol) is insane and nothing good will come of this union." (Which, honestly, was probably true.)

I'm not as inclined to defend Koss. I believe he thought he was acting in T'Pol's and T'Les's best interest as well as his own (or at least his parents'), but I agree that to keep pushing in the face of such obvious reluctance from T'Pol is definitely slimy by our standards. If nothing else, you can conclude that as a husband he's probably going to be an obnoxious prig who thinks he always knows better than she does.

And that too tracks (mostly) with my opinion on him, although I think he was acting more in his own (and his family's) interests than T'Pol's or T'Les'. He has all of the power in this marriage and, if the events of the Vulcan civil war (which was very civil from what I saw) don't transpire, one can easily extrapolate just how unhappy T'Pol's future is going to be since all Koss needs to do to get her to fall in line is level another threat at her mother. Would he do this? We have no way of knowing that, but given how condescending he was in terms of Trip (my interpretation), I can totally see him starting to resent the role humans play in T'Pol's life, especially when his peers begin discussing that weirdo wife of his.

But then, that also fits with the general Vulcan character we are introduced to in Enterprise, at least until they each have their consciousnesses raised by those messy, imperfect Humans. This is an annoyingly common storyline on ENT, often making it seem like the series is really just one long, self-congratulatory paen to the general superiority of Humanity.

I'd go so far as to say its an annoyingly common storyline in the Trek franchise in general, not just ENT, which is why I very much longed to see an inverse of that for once with Trip/T'Pol - just to be different, I would have loved to have seen a human "go native" and embrace an alien culture wholeheartedly (in this case, Vulcan) to show that it can go both ways.

[WarpGirl]

I'd go so far as to say its an annoyingly common storyline in the Trek franchise in general, not just ENT, which is why I very much longed to see an inverse of that for once with Trip/T'Pol - just to be different, I would have loved to have seen a human "go native" and embrace an alien culture wholeheartedly (in this case, Vulcan) to show that it can go both ways.

HoT Kevin's "New World Man" series. It's cool. Although you've probably read it.

And that too tracks (mostly) with my opinion on him, although I think he was acting more in his own (and his family's) interests than T'Pol's or T'Les'. He has all of the power in this marriage and, if the events of the Vulcan civil war (which was very civil from what I saw) don't transpire, one can easily extrapolate just how unhappy T'Pol's future is going to be since all Koss needs to do to get her to fall in line is level another threat at her mother. Would he do this? We have no way of knowing that, but given how condescending he was in terms of Trip (my interpretation), I can totally see him starting to resent the role humans play in T'Pol's life, especially when his peers begin discussing that weirdo wife of his.

One problem... I don't get how that is consistent with the character given the fact that... He was willing to let her go back to the humans, (and Trip) and gave up the first year of living together rule when T'Pol negotiated with the family. Since you assert he has "all the power" in this mess, why should he offer to do any of this?