Let me just say, I have a reason for my distaste of lionizing Roddenberry and his vision of the show: everyone who actually knew him talks about the man in
very different terms than fans do. They knew him, they knew his vision, but they also knew from working behind the scenes that he wasn't the only important figure in making Star Trek what we know today. In
this interview with Sir Patrick Stewart and Gates McFaddon, I think they say it best:
Patrick Stewart: Most of the fundamentals of Star Trek philosophy began with Gene. Now, we extended them. And after Gene had so sadly died in our third season I think and left us, the atmosphere as to what subjects we could use was relaxed a little bit. Gene didn't want politics. Well, politics doesn't just mean the Republican party and the Democratic party or Labor party or the Conservative party, it... it...
Gates McFaddon: Culture, society, everything.
Patrick Stewart: Yes, yes, all of that too, you know?
(also, earlier in the interview as well as after this bit, McFaddon implies that Gene was guilty of sexism which she's implied before is what caused her to leave the show in season 2. Stewart also talks about how much Gene disliked him, seemingly for no reason).
In other words, Gene's vision of the future has some unintentional dystopian implications when you stop to think about it: Stewart seems to be talking about the infamous "no conflict" rule, which he is basically implying to mean that there is serious groupthink in Gene's vision of the future. We know Stewart wanted to reintroduce politics into the mythology to make a point about our reality, and that point couldn't be made by making an analogy through an alien society, at least not without losing that which gives it its punch. That's why I don't give a shit about these criticisms. Like Stewart said, Roddenberry decided on the basic ideals for the show, but other people extended and expanded on those, and they deserve more credit for that.