A person who is a fan of Star Trek but came into the fan base after 2009, never watched the earlier shows and believes Star Trek Discovery is an example of a good TV show.
These fans are often found calling anyone who disagrees with them or is even slightly critical of a fictional TV show: racists, homophobes and gatekeepers and then tell people to "stop watching" if they don't like it, all the while not realizing that they are the actual gatekeepers.
Often, Drekkies engage in cancel culture and virtue signaling or refer to all other fans as "toxic" believing that their simple enjoyment of a poorly written TV show makes them "woke" or "activists."
Drekkies also claim that poor reviews are caused by "review bombing" and otherwise find any way to claim they are part of a majority that doesn't actually exist.
I said Discovery is "poorly written" and some dumb drekkie got personally offended and claimed I was a homophobe.
Gatekeepingpeople who latch on to attacking a new fanbase of Star Trek on the premise that they are not true fans, specifically in regards to the streaming show Star Trek Discovery (DSC). All while claiming to be fans of the Star Trek franchise yet completely rejecting anything Star Trek that does not confirm to their rigid ideal of what Trek should be. Can be frequently found harassing both Star Trek fans and former Star Trek actors/writers on social media, especially on posts specifically about new Star Trek shows that in no way impact them.
Don't engage that drekkie in conversation, they don't care about Star Trek representing the best of humanity, so there's no convincing them they are narrow minded/misogynistic/exhausting.
A Star Trek fan or Trekkie who enjoys content produced in the franchise since 2009.
First coined by right-wing YouTubers campaigning against racial minorities and LGBTQ people being represented in comics and films, the term has been adopted as an insult against fans of new Trek content and progressives alike.
"Why aren't there more white men in Star Trek? Only Drekkies will watch this."
A meaningless, unimpressive, self-serving introduction. An indicator that the story about to be shared will be pointless and dumb.
Back when I lived in upstate new york, I also had to park on the street - on two occasions, we got enough snow, mixed with just the right plowing, that my car was lifted off the ground from so much snow being jammed underneath it.
Sister: This meeting was to discuss the rough draft of my essay, where we discussed the subsidiary questions I added in my rough draft. We also discussed the relationship between my main title and the real-life situations I chose to use in my essay. We discussed the structure of my essay as well, specifically the Math AOK section and how it relates to the contradiction of the title. This second meeting was particularly helpful in discussing the implications of my essay claims and how to apply the title across various areas of knowledge. There were many sections of the essay that could have been cut down in wordiness and the ways of knowing required further and more in-depth analysis.
An absolutely foolproof way to keep minors from viewing content deemed "too mature" for them to watch.
Billy: "So I was trying to watch some videos for an M rated game, and I ran into an age gate, so I put in my real birthday. SOMEHOW it managed to figure out that I am 12. CURSE YOU AGE GATE!!!"
Bill: "Fucking age gate! *quick scroll* THERE! I was born on January 1, 1904. Fuck you age gate."