š¹Early to RISA š§Anon wants to live on Super Earth
orgIs this helldivers? The game where half of a planetās population is forcibly turned into bug fuel every few years?
SanctusTheres a reoccuring problem with bigly brained thinkers where they omit all the terrible shit and look at only what the propaganda wants them to. Even in a game this remains true.
tomenzggMost clips from Starship Troopers on YouTube have filled commentsā sections with people waxing about how based the society is and itās actually a utopia (to your point).
Well the movie elimanted the entire opening sequence of the book where they are just being terrorists in their super space suits (which the movie also did not include). I think that was necessary to drive the point home.
Iāve heard that the book was sincere jingoism, which the director of the movie didnāt like one bit and turned it into clever satire of fascism instead? Havenāt read it, but the movie is great, even if thereās a bunch if idiots on both sides (fascist and antifascists) thinking that itās sincere.
Heinlein wasā¦rather directionless on his politics. I think it was Clarke that once remarked that Heinleinās politics depended on who he was sleeping with - which is why you get weird whiplash from the anti-governance free-love (and incest and racism) in Methuselahās Children and Farnhamās Freehold to a full throated defense of utopian fascism in Starship Troopers.
Having now looked through several comment sections, I found like 10 satire comments jokingly going along with fascist rhetoric and 3 genuinely mask off accounts. I donāt think itās very common, at least in default sorting. I donāt know or care to learn how to sort by new, on mobile.
SigntistA lot of people Iāve met would honestly happily take a 50% chance to be sacrificed to ensure that those who arenāt chosen live a happy life. I have no doubt that theyād think that right up until theyāre actually chosen, then theyād scream bloody murder about how unfair it is.
Werenāt they though? Like they were absolutely horrible but last I remember most everything else in WH was also somehow worse than them so they are the āgoodā-er guys.
CatLikeLemmingFirst of all, thereās a big difference between āthe good guysā and ānot quite as horrible as all the othersā. Second, Tāau, Aeldari, and the Leagues of Votann exist. They all have their own flaws, there are literally no good guys, but overall theyāre fine. If you compare the Imperium with the Drukhari or Chaos, yeah sure you canāt get much worse. But saying, even in the Warhammer 40k universe, that anyone whoās better than that are āthe good guysā is absurd.
The Tyrannids are totally the good guys, The Four-Armed God told me so!
archonetYea, when choosing a fictional world to aspire for, itās useful to consider how most citizens are treated.
Our current world is great too, for some.
Anon is probably the kind of person who also thinks Sparta was great, and just disregards that 90% of the population there were slaves.
letās use the veil of ignorance for this one - when choosing a model society to aspire for pretend you have no idea where youāll be placed in it. maybe 80% is doing decently, 5% is doing well, and 15% is doing really bad, are you ready to potentially become a part of the 15%? if not, letās find a different model
Given how many people are willing to bet their money on far worse odds, I think an 85% chance of winning is a bet a lot of people would be willing to take.
wouldnt a superearth have a much higher gravity, which humans cant survive anyways,
X
5ibelius9insterbergNonononono, it just produces superstrong superhumansā¦
InternetCitizen2This post is approved by the ministry of truth
They started a three front war ,prioritize citizens differently based on a state defined class system, got the earth blown up on at least one occasion, use their soldiers as disposable cannon fodder, and send everyone who disagree with them to reeducation camps. Other than that its a swell place.
Its tiring how bad general media literacy is that I canāt tell if the 4chan post above is a joke.
Where does this lore come from? Iāve never heard of super earth
PsaldornIāve seen one Lemmy bigbrain recently argue that even when artists are showing mafia or army to be terrible for people in them, they romanticize the mafia and army nonetheless, and that in general media glorifies its subject matter regardless of the authorās intent. This schmuck would probably say with a straight face that āHelldiversā, or whatever this post is about, actually advocates for its model of utopia even if it pretends not to.
The idea of there being no anti-war films is older than Lemmy. The problem is Poeās Law related. You can make a movie or a game that shows the horror of war or the tyranny of distopian totalitarian regimes, but regardless of the intended message, your creation is filtered through your audienceās lenses of perception, and some of that audience has been raised to be white supremacists, some have been through schooling that acts more as indoctrination than education, and some of that audience are just seriously fucking stupid.
Yeah, I think Iāve heard of the āno anti-war filmsā sentiment before, and vaguely heard that army recruiting increased after āFull Metal Jacketā, of all films. However, I donāt agree that idiocy of some part of the public is a reason to write off army, mafia, or any such quasi-satire media wholesale, as the aforementioned commenter did. That position essentially says that itās not allowed to do critique of institutions and practices as part of āentertainmentā art.
The whole point of Poeās Law is that you canāt get away from it even if you ham it to eleven, or even 38.7 gigahams/second. Unless you explicitly state āThis is satire. That stuff is bad,ā there is little to no way to tell if itās satire or extremism, and even if you do make it explicit, there are always the idiots who wonāt notice that part and assume itās sincere, (see naive interpretations of Starship Troopers) and those who willfully block out that part because they sincerely hold an opposing view. (See white nationalists opinions on American History X)
No one is saying itās ānot allowedā for people to make those things. Theyāre saying itās literally impossible because of how the media work. The kind of people who are saying āyou canātā would love it to be possible. If we could movie our way to a utopia, itād be awesome, but it seems we canāt.
You seem to agree with my position in the first paragraph.
No one is saying itās ānot allowedā for people to make those things.
Itās remarkable how you apparently listened in on my comment exchange with the aforementioned other person. Truly impressive capability. Could you please cite the exact argument they presented, since you know it so dearly?
Why are you talking as if their argument is completely nonsensical or novel? Itās kind of a known thing that even if you portray something as ābadā as possible, there will be a number of people that look past/ donāt see the criticism of the subject and take the creation of work as a sign that the subject is to be praised. Look at the music industry with gang violence, misogyny and drug use; lots of more modern artists make music that shows how these things harm society, yet casual listeners will put on a song about alcohol abuse to get drunk at a party.
It isnāt necessarily that the artist is advocating for it, so much as theyāve produced a work that can be misinterpreted (unintentionally or otherwise) to do so.
Why are you talking as if this argument doesnāt generalize an interpretation on some section of the audience to general treatment of any and all such media wholesale? Did you miss the part where it says that the media in question romanticizes the depicted practices regardless of any intent of the author, or interpretation by the generally intelligent audience? Youāre saying that the stupidest possible understanding of the media is what all media should aim for, otherwise by that commenterās argument it shouldnāt exist. I donāt think you seriously realize how deranged this take is. Itās straight up advocating for the āIdiocracyā society.
Good art doesnāt pander to the common denominator, it lifts the audience above it.
I genuinely have zero idea how you came to any of the conclusions you did based on what I said. Maybe thereās more context to the comment you were originally talking about, but nowhere did I ever even imply that artists should āaim forā or pander to the common denominator. Iām saying that, no matter the artists intentions, no matter how obvious or on the nose the messaging is, there are going to be cops with Punisher tattoos, and teenagers with stolen cars and guns listening to Kendrick Lamar. If you make a movie about how the Nazis were psychopathic fascists who eventually get destroyed, there will be people who canāt get over how cool their aesthetic was. None of this is to say that this art should not exist, Iām not detracting from the artists. Iām pointing out a flaw in society. Messaging in art, no matter how well crafted, will never say the same thing to everyone, for better or worse.
Ah, so youāre saying that some portion, perhaps very minuscule, of the audience, would be enamoured with the bad guys as role models.
But, you see, thatās quite different from what I quoted originally as: ā[these artists] romanticize the mafia and army nonetheless, and in general media glorifies its subject matter regardless of the authorās intentā.
You seem to agree with me that a small share of especially stupid people would derive their own messaging from the art. This doesnāt change the fact that this media, in general, does the critique quite alright, as opposed to what the above quote says.
RamenJunkieThe 4chan post probably is a joke.
The problem is, with a lot of their jokes, other users canāt tell, so it becomes reality. See also, basically everything wrong with the US and MAGA idiots today.
Zozano
vaultdweller013Isnāt the one character who greets you when you return from a mission black? Or am I misremembering.
Helldivers. A game which applies over the top levels of sarcastic propaganda for the managed democracy of Super Earth. In the game, you play as a footsoldier (helldiver) for Super Earth. Hence, the whole culture around the game is soaked with sarcastic propaganda.
You donāt play as A helldiver. You play as as many helldivers as it takes to complete the mission. They literally throw people at the problem until it stops being a problem.
Thatās exactly the attitude that makes the Helldivers the best of the best, Son. Have you ever considered signing up to do your part to protect Super Earth?
/s (as is required to really emulate this gameās feel)
More specifically shock soldiers. The SEAF are the actual grunts, Helldivers are more akin to the Trench Raiders or Stormtroopers of WW1.
It perfectly captures the parody vibes in the game.
Over the top propaganda is oozing out of every hole of this game. Itās great
Havenāt played in about a year, and the intro really makes me want to fire it up again
INTRO CINEMATIC - HELLDIVERSā¢ 2
Its Helldivers 2 apparrntly, if people donāt want a link.
Canāt have racism if there is only one race.
Rollsafe.gif
Coincidentally, that is the cure for Racism that racists prescribe too. Huh, neat.
I get the feeling that this anon would read A Brave New World and have an issue with it being labeled dystopian fiction.
I once had a multiple hour long discussion with someone who claimed itās clearly a utopiaā¦ Free drugs, sex without consequences, guaranteed job,ā¦
Freedom is for suckers apparently.
Maybe it was the same guy xD
Pretty scary, though. Impressive that you had the energy and care to talk to someone like that. I think my brain would have shrunk to a peanut and turned me into a clapping monkey. You are made of stronger stuff than I, my friend.
JoeBigelowI feel like that just highlights the beauty of the work itself, and how accurate a reflection it is on our society. How many of us have NEVER felt so burned out by the struggle that A Brave New World doesnāt seem like a relief? I think a personās response to the concept has a lot to do with how they view the world, and also how the world shapes people differently.
To be fair, I always considered Brave New World a much less dire dystopy than 1984. I mean you have a really hard time arguing otherwise. People are not free in either but if you could choose, donāt tell me youād choose 1984.
But this debate is moot anyway, what we are heading towards is a combination of the worst of 1984 and Brave New World combined.
I have always liked that 1984 and A Brave New World are sort of dystopian companion pieces because they explore opposite sides of the spectrum of societies where free will is being suppressed. It has been a minute since I read both, but to me itās a mistake to compare them in terms of which version is worse to live in because yeah, 1984 would win that competition on the surface.
For me, when it comes to A Brave New World, the scary part is the idea of pleasure being used as a weapon to make people apathetic to the world around them and to thinking. There is something so incredibly sinister about this level of pleasure based compliance because there will be people who look at it on the surface and go: itās not so bad. Could be worse.
And it could. It can always be worse. Iām pretty sure that everybody would agree that 1984 is a better world to live in than the world of The Road. Itās all relative.
But itās the idea that someone could read A Brave New World or a similar dystopia that disguises itself as a utopia, and ignore the warning signs and think itās fine. Because that, to me, means that such a world would be easier to implement. If people comply willingly, get lulled into that life and just let it happen because it feels good, is conventient and makes their dopamine go bzzt, then there is no need to use force. Itās also why several aspects of A Brave New World has become more real in todayās world than 1984 has. We have all walked right into it and we stay there because apathy and the nature of convenience and pleasure is something we donāt want to give up. In 1984, they want to change the system, but fail. In A Brave New World they behold the outsider who tries to scream sense into them like heās an exotic animal and they do not care to understand his points because to do so would demand effort and hard work for the reward of a free life.
In my country we recently banned smart phones in all schools because the signs of longterm apathy towards learning has started to show in younger generations. Why should they put effort into their homework and assignments when they can get their dopamine hit on tiktok and snapchat with the snap of a finger? In adults in my country, the sense of community and togetherness has dwindled partially because we spend out free time on the phone and donāt get bored enough to get together with our neighbors. Thereās a bit more to it than that, among other things that we outsourced child and eldercare to the state, so we donāt really need each other like we used to.
In the world we currently live in, I think it is very important that we keep in mind that if we make everything easy and we waste our time on distractions that doesnāt challenge or build us up, we will become apathetic and easier to control. Iām not talking about the state either. Those who control us are the tech giants and everyone who support them in order to steal our attention and time to waste it on additive, shallow nonsense all so companies can sell you stupid shit through ads.
Brave New World is sinister but it is more of a āhell is paved with good intentionsā story, while 1984 is straight hell with no good good intentions anywhere, the only aim is to secure a regime, from which no one is even really benefitting a lot. I mean the elite does have a materialistically better life but hardly a lavish one while being actually the least free. It is not clear but I always liked to think that there is no real ābig brotherā, no real, guy at the top. The system is just kept up by some double thinkers at the top. Fully exchangeable, with as little freedom as anyone else.
The thing in Brave New World is, that those rejecting the regime are actually free to go. I always found that the world outside was portrayed in a pretty exaggerated way, but one can also believe that this was possible mainly propaganda by the regime itself. Either way, people could leave if they wanted forsake the comfy life and experience struggle and freedom. Even then, when choosing that, their lives would have been materially probably still better than those in 1984.
Like I said, I believe we are heading towards a combination of Brave New World and 1984. The latter was too harsh, there is a benefit in letting people enjoy some things, give them something they can use to forget things. The Third Reich for example figured out along the way. That indoctrination movies were counter productive and rejected by the population. However, harmless entertainment movies, with no or maybe only a mild propagandistic twist helped them much more. People rejected the former but welcomed the latter, so that they donāt have to think about the unpleasant stuff. In our modern world, 1984 type surveillance and the death of democracy will be sold by Brave New World style convenience.
We are heading towards a future that will see marks of both dystopias but we would wish to be in a pure Brave New World instead.
š²ššššššš š¼ššš Even the author of BNW wasnāt sure of the world really was a dystopia or not. A lot of people do seem to have a lot of freedom, and most seem happy (or at least, not unhappy). Sure, a lot of questionable things have been done to achieve that goal, but if 99% is happy with their life; can it really be a dystopia?
no racism white af family is the only visible race
Yeahhhh no fucking thanks.