lol most normalfags are fantasy uyghurs
they don’t like either
the most popular genre films among normies are stuff like GoT and prequel Star Wars because all of the actual genre is denuded and replaced with generic Hollywood and HBO shit
shitty thread btw
what point are you even trying to make by mischaracterizing me like that?
>>23238>the actual genre
is shit and always was
Midwits are attracted to SciFi because it gives the clout of scientism and be 'smart' without understanding.
idk, fantasy is cool but it's heavily bound up with feudal aesthetics, I guess you could just assume they're monbols or anarcho-monarchists.
most fantasy characters are rogues and stuff like that. they don't really get into the socioeconomic aspects of the feudal mode of society too much
also they're more inspired by ancient, pre-feudal history than medieval
a lot of middle earth is basically primitive communism>>23245
yes, hollywood is formalist slop. glad you discovered this just today
Most fantasy is deeply reactionary. Just think of how many fantasy works feature idealist tropes like "Chosen Ones" (fantasy version of Great Man Theory) or racial essentialism with fantasy species like elves. The vast majority of fantasy heroes are also either ruling class / royalty or gifted with magic powers that elevate them above commoners socially and politically.
Modern sci-fi is plagued by the same problems unfortunately, but the genre itself is much less prone to reactionary bullshit overall.
Shallow, idealist takes by typical pseuds that have begun infesting this place>Muh HP liberulz
who the fuck cares? Harry Potter is surprisingly good in how non-formalist propagandistic it is. At best, all reactionary thing-noticers had to go with is muh demonic magic and making fun of the middle class Dursleys. The majority of young adults on nitter and whatnot today, are liberal leaning; and Harry Potter is an extremely popular book series, one that many many people read when they were kids, and has vague ideas that appeal to them and that they project onto everything. TL;DR: Read the fucking Harry Potter thread. >Muh fantasy isn't ideologically pro-gommunism
Again, who the fuck cares, literature and art isn't supposed to be beholden to your idealizations because it limits the scope of the story at best and at worst gives us unimaginative, samefaced hamfisted stories such the past decade of YA novels each about "le speshul grill" doing "le revolushun" (for example Hunger Games or Divergent) . >majority of fantasy heroes are also either ruling class / royalty or gifted with magic powers that elevate them above commoners socially and politically.
No shit, that's materially logical, do you think that magic wouldn't ease the domination of a class over the other classes? >deeply reactionary
No it isn't, stop using "reactionary" for everything. Fantasy settings tend to be medieval; times of feudal rule and the status quo and class settings make sense, that is how feudal systems were, they aren't reactionary because they're not reacting against anything or trying to oppose progressive change, the basic fucking definition of the word >racial essentialism with fantasy species like elves
Not this liberal bullshit again. Not only are you being generic as fuck and misrepresenting this by using the typically unimaginative concept of lumping all races into monoliths, but also ignoring the main point of there being good and bad aligned races (actual races and not some imagined allegory you brought over from /pol/)
In short, fuck off you pseudo-intellectual nutjobs, and take your shitty contrarian OP thread with you.
literally the other way around lol
there's nothing inherently reactionary about "chosen one" narratives, and i dont think you know what reactionary actually means
the concept of races can go in sus directions, but you can't call it essentialist too much of the time, especially not seriously
there's a ton of fantasy characters who are "commoners"
meanwhile most of sci fi essentially exists to reify liberal/fascist worldviews, see asimov's humanism and heinlein's lolbertarian chauvinism
You make a good point, my only disagreement is Heinlein, see my post on it >>2054
you agreeing with his support for militarism and "hard times create tough men" shtick is supposed to convince me?
His militarism in ONE(!) book doesn't make him a lolbert (if anything it directly argues againt that) or chauvinist, especially as he specifically emphasizes a lack of racial discrimination or discrimination based on being a man or woman. Moreover his other works do not focus or push militarism (Ex: The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress) and in fact the only militarism you find in his literature is that of military service as the test for readiness to have the right to make important social decisions, because they have a better understanding of their actions and importance of consequences. This is no different to the USSR or other socialist countries that have also had military service as a requirement. >"hard times create tough men" shtick
Because that 'shtick' is true, easily demonstrated in the USSR, as I explained, and has been a material reality in history numerous times in numerous societies. Obviously it isn't that simple, but Heinlein isn't making it that simple, that's merely the most succinct summary that can be made of one of the themes.
Don't confuse the film and the book, they are very different.
Heinlein was just a weirdo who got too into the 1960s. Its the horseshoe theory of hippie boomers and lolbertarianism aka "the californian ideology"
>>23302>Because that 'shtick' is true, easily demonstrated in the USSR
No it isn't. If it's true at all, it's only true for the leadership. And then, only in this way: "hard times" can, potentially, make the leadership more efficient, responsible and accountable to their people because their positions are not certain. Then, during "good times", the leadership falls into the trap of assuming their reign is a sure thing that will last a thousand years and becomes corrupt and decadent.
There's nothing to suggest that the general populace is made stronger or tougher by hardship.
>>23598>If it's true at all, it's only true for the leadership
Literally ask any former Soviet citizen that isn't ameri-cucked. Hell it's fairly well depicted in the film Зеркало для Героя that pointed out that a majority of the 2 generations born and raised in the relatively prosperous time from the 1950s onward took many things in their lives for granted - the stability, the available housing, the food and cheap rent. It's a very popular opinion among adults that lived through the USSR and the 1990s that the USSR fell in part because people grew indolent and didn't care enough about the government and the USSR to save it until it became too late. >"hard times" can, potentially, make the leadership more efficient, responsible and accountable to their people because their positions are not certain
True, but that's administrative. In hard times people get used to hard conditions of life. The things that people in the 1930s USSR dreamed of had ben taken for granted by people in the 1960s and the people endured the suffering and hardships that decades later people were aghast at. >during "good times", the leadership falls into the trap of assuming their reign is a sure thing that will last a thousand years and becomes corrupt and decadent.
Over simplistic, no leadership unless it is a deluded fanatical dictatorship a la Nazi Germany is going to be that cognitively dissonant.
>There's nothing to suggest that the general populace is made stronger or tougher by hardship.
False, visibly proven by the stark contrast of the modern generation and even the prior generation, let alone far older ones. Hell it's one of the oldest observable facts: Adversity leads to resilience. That is the reason dozens of seperate cultures have similar sayings like Per Aspera Ad Astra, or Через Огонь и Воду и Медные Трубы. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pressure-proof/202004/how-adversity-makes-you-stronger
The people of the past survived and pushed on because they had to, because they gained resilience through hardship and experience. There's a reason you don't over-coddle children - it makes them psychologically weak and vulnerable and the same applies to all people.
Too much fantasy is "rightful king" type of stuff and the setting is usually boring, forests and castles and grubby farmlands. Sometimes there will be caves too
But Scifi has col exotic planets and a greater diversity of narrative themes
Star Wars is fantasy lol. It's just set in space.
Why? Because of the Force? If speculative shit like psychic powers, hyperspace, pseudo-mysticism, etc automatically made everything fantasy, you wouldn't have much of a "science fiction" genre left.
Because of genre convention. It's fundamentally about cosmic good and evil, while science fiction is about what society would be like with advances in science and technology. The fact that it's fantasy is kind of given away by the very first words in the series: "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away"
Because Star Wars is quite literally a story about space wizards who fight for the forces of good and evil, because evil is a real, demonstrable, potent force, because fate and destiny are things in this story, because life after death exists
Almost nothing about the Force is portrayed in scientific terms other than that midichlorian garbage, pretty much all of the Force is highly mystical
Star Wars just uses the sci-fi setting to have a lot more depth than most fantasy, since the conditions of the Star Wars Galaxy allow it to simultaneously be a fantasy story while also relating to modern political forms, like liberal democracy, fascism, militarism, etc.
Star Wars is honestly pretty unique as far as fictional universes go>>23622
Based text and subtext understander
Uh no, the anon is correct. Star Wars had been, from the start, a retelling of classic fantasy stories and legends and fairy tails, but placed into a more technological, galactic setting. WarHammer 40K is also a space fantasy, it has "science" but more as a general concept and intertwined with utterly unscientific magic and mysticism in a story and setting that has little concern for science. It's about the story telling as much as the setting.
Moreover true Sci-Fi is like Star Trek, wherein fantastical abilities have scientific plausibility and explanation.
Actually it's not that bad TBH, people just didn't pay attention to the entire exchange about the midichlorians and just focused on one part - just because midichlorians are a determinate of the connection to the force, doesn't make the force any more ethereal and mystical. https://slate.com/culture/2017/12/in-defense-of-the-phantom-menace-s-midi-chlorians.html
>>23622>>23623>>23631>cosmic good and evil>mysticism
The Force is not inherently good or evil. Star Wars took a lot of themes from martial arts movies and was heavily influenced by a Japanese films about samurai in particular. The Jedi are the good martial artists who listen to their teacher about only fighting when you have to and serving your community and whatnot, the Sith are the arrogant kung fu guys that just want to learn martial arts to beat people up. Like if Cobra Kai from the Karate Kid was a whole religion. You may have noticed that there's a "dark side" of the force, but no actual "light side". It's all the Force, but there are essentially "forbidden techniques" and bad attitudes not befitting a a true Force user, like in a martial arts movie. Is the "Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique" supposed to be a physical manifestation of the cosmic force of evil? I don't think so.
>Sci-fi is about society and the future
The best sci-fi is about that, but it's silly to think that there NEEDS to be some kind of social commentary or speculation about the future for it to be sci-fi? What social commentary or future predicting was Firefly doing? You gonna deny that Firefly was sci-fi?
>Star Wars had been, from the start, a retelling of classic fantasy stories and legends and fairy tails, but placed into a more technological, galactic setting.
Name one. If anything, it's a Kung Fu movie in space, what fantasy story is it adapting into space? What's the fantasy equivalent of Star Wars's Space Buddhism?
>Star Trek's space magic is more believable than Star Wars's space magic
This. The midichlorians were essentially a 'middleman' that allows living beings to commune with the force but the force itself is a mystical energy field that binds all things in the Galaxy.
>>23643>r. The Jedi are the good martial artists who listen to their teacher about only fighting when you have to and serving your community and whatnot, the Sith are the arrogant kung fu guys that just want to learn martial arts to beat people up.
That may be true to Japanese movies, but that is not the only motivation of the Jedi and Sith, it's a combination of Japanese samurai stories and traditional Western fairy tails and the story of a hero and their destiny (in the old 'doom' or 'salvation' sense). >Cobra Kai
You kinda tangented off. >Star Trek's space magic
Star Trek is based on science, either theoretical or conceptually experimental at the time. The "magic" in Star Trek is mostly along the lines "science we do not understand is indistinguishable to magic" a la Q, a godlike being of a race of beings that likely reached a level of development into the metaphysical. When space MAGIC literally started getting inserted, like DS-9, the series started to lose its cohesion. >it's silly to think that there NEEDS to be some kind of social commentary or speculation about the future for it to be sci-fi My point is that traditional Sci-Fi is that, and sci-fi that does not, is a hybrid genre, at least in my oldfag opinion. That said sci-fi does not necessarily need to be focused on telling a story about futurism, but rather using a realistic approach to the science fiction setting. >What social commentary or future predicting was Firefly doing
See the previous couple sentences of above. >What's the fantasy equivalent of Star Wars's Space Buddhism
1) George Lucas speaks of it himself as a combination of traditional fantasy, Japanese samurai stories and a western, you see all of that.
2) Luke emulates many classic heroes of traditional Western heroes and stories, most prominently - Jesus, for example his "son of the father" and being the "chosen one destined to save the galaxy". Other aspects include references to greek myths and the general knights taking a dark-lords castle to save a princess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_sources_and_analogues
>>23643>The Force is not inherently good or evil.
No but the people using it are good vs evil, and personal (family) battles between force users has consequences for the whole galaxy. This is very fantastical.
There are plenty of science fiction works that borrow themes from non-science fiction sources. In Star Trek, the Klingons are basically Space Orcs, the Vulcans are basically Space Elves, and the Romulans are the Roman Empire in Space. I haven't heard anyone claim that Star Trek is fantasy.
Dune also borrows heavily from myth and legend and centers around it's definitely-not-mystical, definitely-not-psychic powers in the form of mentat and Bene Gesserit training, the Voice, prescient visions, etc, and also obviously had a big influence on Star Wars, but I don't see people calling Dune a "fantasy" series. And it even has straight up sword fights and noble houses.>>23648
How is that different from a good chunk of science fiction?
>>23654>In Star Trek, the Klingons are basically Space Orcs
Utterly incorrect, you're just grasping at straws based on pure aesthetically appearance. >Vulcans are basically Space Elves
Not really, they're essentially distantly related to humans and are merely more advanced ones, Elves are meant to be ancient spirit peoples. >Romulans are the Roman Empire in Space
A gross oversimplification, not to mention the Roman empire is a historical civilization, not a fantasy one of legends. There's a reason the Galactic Empire is considered influenced by but not directly a parallel to the Roman Empire in Lucas' films. >Dune also borrows heavily from myth and legend
But its main plot and details are built around science. >not-mystical, definitely-not-psychic powers
Except there is some scientific basis to that unlike the force that has a lot more mysticism than ordinary psyker shit. >nd it even has straight up sword fights and noble houses
That have very grounded explanations, there are no narrative chosen ones or other such aspects, it's closest narrative counterpart might be something like the Illiad, but that is a legendification of real events, and so less a fantasy and more a touched up story
>>23643> The Force is not inherently good or evil
It isn’t, but the story is the fantasy framing of absolute moral good vs absolute moral evil> You may have noticed that there's a "dark side" of the force, but no actual "light side". It's all the Force, but there are essentially "forbidden techniques" and bad attitudes not befitting a a true Force user, like in a martial arts movie. Is the "Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique" supposed to be a physical manifestation of the cosmic force of evil? I don't think so.
I will say, I appreciate you actually understanding the story unlike most Star Wars fans these days
There is no real light side, Jedi are just balanced in the Force, dark siders aren’t truly tapping on a different aspect of it, they’re tapping on their own inner darkness to twist the Force to corrupted ends
But overall, Star Wars is a fantasy, the Force is explicitly portrayed as mystical and spiritual. The Force has its own conscious will, those who live in harmony with it are good, those who try to corrupt and control it are evil, the Force isn’t scientifically explained psychic abilities, it’s more or less explicitly magic and the Force is effectively a sort of godly presence
A good deal of contemporary science fiction is heavily influenced by Star Wars and can be fairly referred to as science fantasy
thank you. Star Wars is just Space Fantasy which is why it's so boring.
Oh shit son, look at all that cope.>>23669
Even without the midichlorians, the Force is basically just Space Chi, not fantasy-style magic you might see a wizard or an elf using. With the midichlorians, it's the same sort of space magic with a weak scientific explanation you see in a thousand soft sci-fi works. >>23670
Both Dune and Star Trek came before Star Wars. TSG came after Star Wars and had more overt space magic stuff, but even TOS had space elves and space orcs.>>23671
More cope. Star Wars isn't any more blatantly magical than a significant portion of "soft" sci-fi, the "science fantasy" meme was made up by sci-fi hipsters mad at Star Wars being the most popular and mainstream Sci-Fi series by a significant margin.
NTA but>Both Dune and Star Trek came before Star Wars
And? That doesn't invalidate the undeniable fact that out of all franchises in general Star Wars has had the largest impact. Dune and even Trek is not as well known or ripped off as Lucas' brainchild has been, literally any child can identify Star Wars, the same cannot be said of Dune, Starship Troopers and even Trek.
Science Fiction can have some fantastical elements but has stories, themes and basic mechanics firmly embedded in realistic and science-based ideas, Science Fantasy has little regard for science even if it may have advanced space tech or something. Technology and the science behind it plays next to NO role in Star Wars, anymore than it does 40K, you can easily replace it using medieval analogs and get the same story. You cannot do the same thing functionally to a hard sci-fi story, not unless you replace some elements using magic. >TOS had space elves and space orcs
Yeah, no. Next >the "science fantasy" meme was made up by sci-fi hipsters mad at Star Wars
No, not really, You forget that the OT came out before the internet and before people could form fandoms for anything other than mass-popular content. "soft" sci-fi is still different than traditional science fiction stories like War of the Worlds, because its not about science purely.
>>23675> Even without the midichlorians, the Force is basically just Space Chi, not fantasy-style magic you might see a wizard or an elf using. With the midichlorians, it's the same sort of space magic with a weak scientific explanation you see in a thousand soft sci-fi works. <It needs to be European for it to be fantasy
Giga low-I.Q.> Both Dune and Star Trek came before Star Wars. TSG came after Star Wars and had more overt space magic stuff, but even TOS had space elves and space orcs.
All of the “magic” in Dune is explained as the product of intensive study of the human mind and its ability, an intense breeding system to access genetic memory and predict many possible futures, and the usage of drugs to heighten human perception; in-Universe none of it is actually magical or spiritual unlike the Force in Star Wars
Regarding Star Trek, again, Vulcans are not space elves and Klingons are not space orcs; Vulcans and Klingons are both related to humans due to interstellar genetic seeding, Klingons are neither evil nor truly inherently war-like, Vulcans are not actually inherently logical; for each of these peoples their traits are explicitly cultural products; and out of universe the only reason they look like humans is due to special effects limitations when Star Trek was created as a television program in the fucking 60s
To add on to your argument, hard sci-fi is not only about science, but society
, the relationship humans have to technology, how technology changes our culture and frequently our psychology, how scientific discovery affects us on a cultural and psychological level, asking how humans as a society will counter future problems we encounter
I would argue Dune and Star Trek are both soft sci-fi, I wouldn’t even put Star Wars as soft sci-fi, it’s a fantasy story set in space, space fantasy. Star Wars is a great story, it’s fun, exciting, heartwarming, tragic, gripping, has amazing world building; Star Wars is my favorite fictional universe personally, it doesn’t need to be science-fiction to be good unless you contrive political nonsense to hate fantasy as a genre.
Yeah, thanks for putting into words some of my other thoughts and expanding on my posts' point.
>>23677>It needs to be European for it to be fantasy
The concept of Chi isn't "fantasy", nor is it exactly eastern. In the West, they had a very similar concept called "Vitalism". There are people who believe in Chi to this day, and can be found in most traditional Chinese medicine shit like acupuncture and any Buddhist or martial artist who claims to be able to levitate or do "no-touch takedowns". It's more like a living superstitious/religious belief, and it's a big part of the "Kung Fu" movies that inspired Star Wars.
>All of the “magic” in Dune is explained as the product of intensive study of the human mind and its ability, an intense breeding system to access genetic memory and predict many possible futures, and the usage of drugs to heighten human perception; in-Universe none of it is actually magical or spiritual unlike the Force in Star Wars
Oh yeah, it's totally no psychic abilities, man. It's just anime protagonist powers where you can control your entire body right down to the molecular level and have mastered the use of special vibrations that have mind control powers. Alia didn't psychically read the mind of the Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam, her perfect understanding of her own genetic code gave her to reverse engineer her own bloodline in order to reconstruct the Reverend Mother's DNA and surmise her role within the greater "race consciousness" of humanity and consequently what she would be thinking at that very moment. Makes total scientific sense and isn't psychic powers at all.
>Klingons aren't space orcs and Vulcans aren't space elves because genetic seeding and also their characterization in the series isn't necessarily inherent to them.
We're hitting cope levels that shouldn't even be possible. Is a fantasy series where the orcs aren't evil or war-like or the elves aren't wise sci-fi now?>>23679
I'm not saying that Star Wars is bad, just that it's ridiculous to claim that it isn't sci-fi. It's a soft sci-fi series.
NTA but >acupuncture and any Buddhist or martial artist who claims to be able to levitate or do "no-touch takedowns"
There is a mass of difference between Acupuncture and "no touch" combat shit
You're also deliberately misrepresenting the persons argument. >anime protagonist poers
lmao>her perfect understanding of her own genetic code gave her to reverse engineer her own bloodline
Because it's an understanding she acquired through and executes using scientific technologies that are actually in the realm of possibility. >Makes total scientific sense and isn't psychic powers at all.<totally ignores the specific part about it being the product of intensive study of the human mind and its ability, an intense breeding system to access genetic memory and predict many possible futures, and the usage of drugs to heighten human perception
Genetic memory a la epigenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_memory_(psychology) >Is a fantasy series where the orcs aren't evil or war-like or the elves aren't wise sci-fi now
No, but that's because they are still physical and named representations of them. Klingons are not any more Orcs than "le Russkie mongol hordz" or Stormtroopers are. They may share SOME story impacts but that's because of trope similarities, not because they're the same thing. >It's a soft sci-fi series<It's not space fantasy it's soft sci-fi!
>>23682>There is a mass of difference between Acupuncture and "no touch" combat shit
No there isn't. They're both based on the manipulation of Chi. Maybe most believers in Chi don't claim to be able to project it outside of their bodies, but that's not some kind of huge difference.>You're also deliberately misrepresenting the persons argument.
How?>Because it's an understanding she acquired through and executes using scientific technologies that are actually in the realm of possibility.
No it isn't. Barring some new scientific discovery, the powers described in Dune are not within the realm of possibility. But that's okay, because science fiction is a naturally speculative genre. The problem arises when you claim that the weird speculative space magic stuff in Star Wars is totally different from the weird speculative space magic stuff in many other sci-fi series and special space mitochondria that let you manipulate an energy field basically puts your series into the same genre as Shadowrun and Warhammer 40k.>Genetic memory a la epigenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_memory_(psychology) <genetic memory is a theorized phenomenon
That, children, is what we call "speculative".>No, but that's because they are still physical and named representations of them.
Okay, and the Force isn't magic, it's the Force. A hitherto undiscovered energy field revealed to people who have enough space mitochondria in their bodies.>It's not space fantasy it's soft sci-fi!
Space Fantasy is an actual thing, like Shadowrun and Warhammer 40k. You gonna tell me Star Wars is just like Shadowrun or 40k because of the Force? I don't see it. Star Wars is just on the softer edge of soft sci-fi.
>>23684>No there isn't. They're both based on the manipulation of Chi.
Even taking this blatant oversimplification at face value that's like saying Eugenics and Genetics are both based on genes so they're totally really similar… except they're not. >How?
You state Chi to be different because of "IRL" stuff, except that anon literally points out that this exists in European lore and culture too, so again your "muh space-chi" shit is just an excuse to not admit that the Force is an aspect of clear fantasy elements - telepathy, telekinesis and more based on an ethereal energy. In Dune and other Sci-Fi this isn't some ethereal energy, it is explained in scientific terms as much as possible. The Force remains unexplained to this day and has literal physical manifestations of itself. >the powers described in Dune are not within the realm of possibility
They are, just not in the near future and perhaps not the extent that Dune has them. >when you claim that the weird speculative space magic stuff in Star Wars is totally different from the weird speculative space magic stuff
You're running a tangent and trying to make a false claim. The point is that Trek, Dune, etc. has material scientific speculation on any special abilities or tech. Star Wars does NOT. The Midichlorians are just conduits for the amount of the living force in a being… but that doesn't tell us anything about the functionality, origin or anything else about the force, it remains are ethereal as magic, unlike enhanced psychic abilities that are based on speculations and studies that go on even today. >genetic memory is a theorized phenomenon
Everything is technically theorized because in science nothing is proven absolute. Moreover it remains "theorized" because it is a recent rediscovery. >the Force isn't magic, it's the Force. A hitherto undiscovered energy field revealed to people who have enough space mitochondria in their bodies
You're being a nonce and blatantly incorrect. The force is described to flow through EVERYTHING, not just the living. It is not an energy field, it literally is a metaphysical 'energy' in everything, living or inanimate. There is no explanation beyond what permits some living beings to manipulate the force, but that's no different to a mana pool. >Space Fantasy is an actual thing, like Shadowrun and Warhammer 40k. You gonna tell me Star Wars is just like Shadowrun or 40k because of the Force
No it's not "just like" those franchises, you're being manipulative. There are different levels of fantasy in the genre.
>>23685>Even taking this blatant oversimplification at face value that's like saying Eugenics and Genetics are both based on genes so they're totally really similar… except they're not.
Acupuncture claims to be able to cure disease or promote good health by redirecting the flow of chi through your meridians by puncturing them with needles. People who claim to be able to do "no-touch takedowns" claim to have mastered the flow of chi in their bodies to the extent that they can project their chi outside of their bodies to some extent. There isn't some massive gulf between these two beliefs.>You state Chi to be different because of "IRL" stuff, except that anon literally points out that this exists in European lore and culture too
That anon was me, dumbass. Read the thread again. That anon was saying that I was denying that the Force was magic because it was eastern inspired and I pointed out that there was a similar concept in the West. It's called Vitalism. Vitalism is bullshit, but it isn't fantasy style magic. I'd compare it to humorism or homeopathy. >They are, just not in the near future and perhaps not the extent that Dune has them.
If you think that modern science supports the idea that you can know and control every atom in your body quite literally on the atomic level, or that there are special vibration frequencies that have mind-control effects, you're wrong. It exists purely within the realm of speculation.
>The point is that Trek, Dune, etc. has material scientific speculation on any special abilities or tech. Star Wars does NOT.
Okay, Warhammer 40k has a "material scientific" explanations for all it's shit. Specifically, that all the magic is actually the special properties of a parallel "hyperspace" style dimension where the Chaos Gods and their daemons reside called "The Warp". You gonna claim that Warhammer 40k ISN'T Science Fantasy because it provides explanations for everything? Do you think Q from Star Trek is better explained than the Force?>Everything is technically theorized
No, this isn't something like "The Theory of Gravity", the existence of genetic memory hasn't been proven to an appreciable degree and remains within the realm of speculation. Even the article you linked says that it currently has little scientific credibility. It exists purely within the realm of speculation.>You're being a nonce
lmao>The force is described to flow through EVERYTHING, not just the living. It is not an energy field, it literally is a metaphysical 'energy' in everything, living or inanimate.
Yes. It's space chi with a bare-bones scientific explanation. But that puts it on the softer side of soft sci-fi.>There are different levels of fantasy in the genre.
No, this a weird cope. Star Wars is clearly not an attempt to blend science fiction and fantasy, it's a science fiction story with a mystical element at play, and is far from the only science fiction work to have mystical, semi-mystical or pseudo-mystical elements within it. You could say that mystical elements are generally bad in science fiction and not in the spirit of the genre, but you're treading on thin ice claiming that it somehow has moved to a different genre.
Lots of fantasy worlds have taken on modern science, and you rarely see this sort of consternation among its fanbases. I've yet to hear of the fantasy community denouncing a work as "science fiction" because it's worlds are stated to be planets, stars are burning balls of gas instead of gods and there's mention of things like DNA and molecules.
>>23623>Star Wars is honestly pretty unique as far as fictional universes go
It lifted half of it's aesthetic from Dune
I've got too much shit to do right now, I'll cover this later.
You’re literally a soy faggot
>>23599>Literally ask any former Soviet citizen that isn't ameri-cucked.
That's just your typical grumpy old man shit. Every Roman writer from every generation said that the youngest Roman generation had abandoned the proud Roman traditions and fallen to weakness and decadence. For like a thousand years. At the end of the day, it was the Roman leadership that fucked up, the Roman citizens were basically the same Roman citizens that always existed, except that fewer and fewer could be bothered to do anything to maintain the empire, not because of weak decadence or whatever, but because the Roman government had gotten so corrupt that there was no good reason to uphold their shitty empire. In the early Republic, a full term of service in the legions would be rewarded with multiple legal privileges, a parcel of land and the possibility of entering the senate if you did particularly well. By the late empire, risking your neck in the Roman legions would secure some wealthy senators a few thousand more captive slaves and whatever might have been promised to you would probably just be handed to those same senators. Might as well eat bread and pea soup and watch the gladiators instead.
>Over simplistic, no leadership unless it is a deluded fanatical dictatorship a la Nazi Germany is going to be that cognitively dissonant.
That's literally the American leadership right now, my guy. Hell, some parts of the American leadership make Hitler look modest, not only did they declare the 21st century to the the "American Century", the Fukuyamaists had basically declared the American world order to be the end of history, a literal eternal empire. This attitude is way more common than you give it credit for. The French nobility were all very certain that they had ruled since time immemorial and would rule until the last of days right up until their heads were getting shoved into guillotines.
>Hell it's one of the oldest observable facts: Adversity leads to resilience.
No, not necessarily. All adversity does is make you more resilient to that specific form of adversity. A child raised in a war zone is going to be very adept at surviving in a war zone, but will almost certainly struggle in a normal peacetime environment, and is more likely to suffer from bad school performance and more likely to get involved in petty crime, as has been documented multiple times.
There is no redeeming or strengthening value to hardship. More often than not, it destroys a person, at least in their capacity to do anything except survive the hardship.
>Sci-Fi isnt fantasy
You absolute peabrain, you actual idiot.
Don't you see? Sci-Fi is just as much a made up setting meant to stand in as an enlargement and emphasis of certain real life topics as fantasy. In fact, sci-fi is probably more class concious than most fantasy.
Where most sci-fi explores concepts of poverty and class, of racism and genocide, fantasy is often a reactionary battle between good and evil aristocrats, taking their race realist world of knights and kings at face value. Fantasy excuses its reactionary views with
>Well yes the king is actually chosen by actual god
>Yes, races are fundamentally different, see, its basic biology
>Yes, these creatures want to be slaves, its in their nature
In sci-fi and before-time forms of media that are arguably forms of sci-fi, like steampunk and other -punk forms, are almost always narrative explorations of the effects of technology on class society and the human condition. The divine right of kings cannot be excused in a society clearly based on our own, with stories focussing on enlarged forms of unaccaptable inequality.
so in short, youre a fucking moron. Sci fi is a form of fantasy, and arguably a much better form of fantasy, because you cannot use magic mumbo jumbo to justify the class societies of the past.
>>23920>All fiction is fantasy
No.>Fantasy is about how society ought to be run
No.>Fantasy is about literal interpretations of modern politics or countries
No.>Fantasy is set in the past
>>23917>Every Roman writer from every generation said that the youngest Roman generation had abandoned the proud Roman traditions and fallen to weakness and decadence.
False equivalency (especially on that "le tradishunz" part) and ignoring the facts of the issue. There is a reason the USSR had hard downturns after Khruschev's "reforms" in trade with the West and Gorbachev's Glasnost. >At the end of the day, it was the Roman leadership that fucked up, the Roman citizens were basically the same Roman citizens that always existed
Again, false equivalency. Unlike the USSR Rome did not have each generation live in significantly different conditions. The first and Second generations matured and lived under poverty and the hardship of the growth period, or even under the Czar's rule. The generation born after the 1940s and growing up in the 50s and 60s did not experience the constant conventional military threat, the lack of infrastructure or products that their parents did. And the generation after them of the 70s and 80s had been even more distant to that.
And as a side note, MOST of those born in the 70s and 80s are adults today and THEY are the ones talking about their generations betrayal of the USSR. >That's literally the American leadership right now
Incorrect, American leadership is so arrogant because they have repeatedly proven that there is little threat to them from the people. America is a mess, but its a mess that dominates a major portion of the globe and manages this through more than just brute force. >Fukuyamaists had basically declared the American world order to be the end of history
That's burger ideologues, not the American 'leadership' >The French nobility
Monarchism of centuries past or Empires of millenia past are not a close comparison to modern day capitalist systems. >No…All adversity does is make you more resilient to that specific form of adversity <No it doesn't, except it does, but let me nitpick a detail uncertainly >A child raised in a war zone is going to be very adept at surviving in a war zone, but will almost certainly struggle in a normal peacetime environment
Survey says you're wrong, given that most people in the USSR born the decade before or during the 40s had been raised in war zones, as did countless Vietnamese children and others. They turned out fine in peace time. My Grandfather is among those that grew up under war, he had no trouble becoming a stable productive person and living and continuing to live a full life, and his experiences as a child only solidified his resolve and hard work. The soldiers that fought in the war also, for the most part did not struggle in normal peacetime environments either. >more likely to suffer from bad school performance and more likely to get involved in petty crime, as has been documented multiple times.
1) The opposite has been documented many times also
2) The USSR's schools and universities had some of the best education on the globe and the USA played catch up for decades and never caught up to the Soviet level and since the USSR is gone has let standards drop again. Many of the best students had been those that lived during the war, because education is a commodity that, like food, or housing or anything really, becomes far more valuable to those that understand the feeling of material lacking and loss. There's a reason poor people have more realistic and balanced views on things, because they understand struggle far better and the value of things. >There is no redeeming or strengthening value to hardship. More often than not, it destroys a person, at least in their capacity to do anything except survive the hardship
Utter fucking nonsense.
All media contrains implicit political themes, especially stories about heroes in fantasy worlds.
No it isn't. The conditions of the average Soviet citizen means nothing because the average Soviet citizen didn't dissolve the USSR. It was an internal coup of the CPSU, the average Soviet citizen wanted to keep the Soviet Union together. The average Soviet citizen didn't support liberalization and Perestroika, the bureaucracy did that. The dissolution of the USSR was not this "weak men make hard times" bullshit.
>Incorrect, American leadership is so arrogant because they have repeatedly proven that there is little threat to them from the people.<Incorrect, except you're exactly correct, but, uh they're right so it doesn't count
>That's burger ideologues, not the American 'leadership'
And you figure the American leadership doesn't follow American ideologies?
>Monarchism of centuries past or Empires of millenia past are not a close comparison to modern day capitalist systems.
While that is true, this is supposed to be some universal truth stretch back to time immemorial, not a facet of modern industrial capitalism.
>Playing a lot of League of Legends doesn't make you smarter or stronger or tougher in general, it just makes you better at League of Legends<Th-that's the same thing! You're nitpicking details!
If I grow up in a desert, I'll learn to adapt to the hardships of the desert. This doesn't mean I'll be tougher in general. If I then go to the swamp, I might not take the hardships of the swamp on the chin, I might get bitten by a few mosquitoes, say "fuck that noise" and go back to the desert.
>people in the USSR born the decade before or during the 40s
I'm not talking about living in a country during a war. I'm talking about living in an active war zone. You may have noticed that many Somalis whose country has been in a state of civil war and chaos for the past few decades aren't all Übermensch.
And it's ridiculous to attribute the successes of the Soviet Union to the fact that they were at war or that they were poor during rapid industrialization.
>Utter fucking nonsense.
It's poetic to think that hardship makes people stronger and more noble, but it isn't necessarily true. A child that grows up in an abusive household may grow up to right the wrongs of their parents and foster a loving household. More often than not, though, they create an abusive household of their own. Some can rise above the darkness, sure, but for most, those that stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back.
Unironically, these all convey political ideas the authors probably considered. This is most true of Rembrandt's explicitly religious portrait and the Duchamp piece that blends cubism and futurism, but there are also political implications in displaying the fractal nature of the Mandelbrot set and the fractal-like compositions of Pollock. Escher calls attention to the fact that water cannot go uphill – our economy is not an infinite loop, our energy comes from somewhere. I am not making the claiming what the poster you replied to claimed, that *all* art is necessarily political, but I do think you picked bad examples. The mandelbrot set came closest to being politically neutral, IMO, but nobody who spends time rendering a Mandelbrot set hasn't considered the implications of fractal structures in human organizations.
>>23938>but nobody who spends time rendering a Mandelbrot set hasn't considered the implications of fractal structures in human organizations.
I haven't, but that's an interesting thought. I've mainly pondered the fractal nature of being and consciousness.
As neuron is to brain, brain is to Twitter.
>>23938>Rembrandt's explicitly religious portrait
You're just making shit up at this point >Duchamp piece that blends cubism and futurism
Those aren't POLITICAL ideas FFS. >political implications in displaying the fractal nature of the Mandelbrot set and the fractal-like compositions of Pollock
Post-modernism is a a fucking blight.
>>23929>No it isn't
Yes it is. The Ancient Roman Empire has little to no comparison to the USSR outside of being a nation, by that metric, Nazi Germany and the USSR are comparable. >conditions of the average Soviet citizen means nothing because the average Soviet citizen didn't dissolve the USSR
This is a step from /pol/shit about the labour-value theory being "le rong" and "le Great Man". The USSR did not get built and living conditions improved by politicians, but by proletarians. Politicians merely handled the administrative labour of this. For an internal coup of the CPSU to occur and for the people to stand back and not do anything requires at least some level of social indolence to permit it. Hell the CIA focusing a ton of its propaganda on subversion, is literally proof of this. >he dissolution of the USSR was not this "weak men make hard times"
Except it did because Perestroika and Glasnost had the effect they did because of the ground laid out - people had grown comfortable and weak in their convictions and so susceptible to the sudden floodgate of anti-Soviet propaganda that glasnost opened up, people lost unity and many outer republics soon had nationalists infesting them, leading to the 90s ethno-national conflicts. >ncorrect, except you're exactly correct, but, uh they're right so it doesn't count<Incorrect but correct because I can't read
The point of delusion is that its delusional if in fact the overthrowal is increasing. The USA has balanced this "delusion" for a century and a half and is going strong despite its schizophrenic nature, this is markedly different to deluded Roman Emperors or any other delusional leaders that did not last more than a couple decades. >figure the American leadership doesn't follow American ideologies
The American leadership plays the political game and for all the supposedly obvious idiocy, is successful in duping people into engage in. in that rigged game, the NPC reaction over Ukraine is proof enough of this. >this is supposed to be some universal truth stretch back to time immemorial, not a facet of modern industrial capitalism<Said nobody ITT
The idea is an ideal of the distant past, but in the modern past century and a half has gained some traction in real-life as feudal serfs and laborers gained enough to make an impact as a united group.
A common complaint about unions and union leadership is their compromising habits and lack of fighting hard for labour rights currently and are often compared to the union that formed during the times of Pinkertons and strike-breakers and the much harsher reality of that time. It is a demonstration of good times creating weak men and so weak groups that cannot fight like their predecessors. >Playing a lot of League of Legends doesn't make you smarter or stronger or tougher in general, it just makes you better at League of Legends
The fuck does this mean? Your analogy is retarded as fuck anon, literal bait. But I'll bite this once
1) The actual analogy that follows your attempt at a point is "Playing a lot of League of Legends doesn't make you better at games general, it just makes you better at League of Legends
2) Putting aside the idiotic false equivalency of gaming and IRL survival, on a theoretical level playing a lot of X game makes you better at games IN GENERAL, even if it doesn't help in some games it still gives experience in them. >Th-that's the same thing! You're nitpicking details!
Yes, faggot. >If I grow up in a desert, I'll learn to adapt to the hardships of the desert <This doesn't mean I'll be tougher in general
Yes it does, nimrod. Physiologically one is going to be more resistant to the effects of heat and lack of fluids and have tougher limbs and skin. More importantly PSYCHOLOGICALLY one is going to be used to the feeling of hunger, thirst and the general feeling of hardship and so value these simple provisions, even if one ends up living in better conditions, the experience of survival is going to lead to an overall more resilient person. Tolerance is built through experience. You become more tolerant to pain by experiencing it, you become more tolerant to hardship, by experiencing it. Yes there are different hardships, but at the end of the day they are hardships nonetheless and nitpicking the minor details is meaningless. >If I then go to the swamp, I might not take the hardships of the swamp on the chin, I might get bitten by a few mosquitoes, say "fuck that noise" and go back to the desert.
That's just your speculation, by your logic humanity'd never leave North Africa and the Middle East because the biomes of other areas are so radically different, as if that has ever stopped humanity before. >I'm not talking about living in a country during a war.
I AM. I literally brought it up because it is directly relevant to my point about Heinleins idea of military service in relevance to the USSR. >I'm talking about living in an active war zone
Same applies, do you think that missiles and bombs and lack of food are significantly different on the frontline than they are behind the lines? >ou may have noticed that many Somalis whose country has been in a state of civil war and chaos for the past few decades aren't all Übermensch.
Imagine being such a fucking nonce that you use literal /pol/ rhetoric just to try and push your "point". Somalia is like that because of the geopolitical activities in the area for the past 3 decades. If you take a single Somali from that country and give them an opportunity to get educated in another country, they'd thrive, because they are willing to bear hardship, because they have experienced it before or worse. >it's ridiculous to attribute the successes of the Soviet Union to the fact that they were at war or that they were poor during rapid industrialization.
Imagine being so ill-faith as to simplify my statement that PART of the success and unity of the people in the early USSR is due to their hardship creating driven, and ideologically convicted people, and backhandedly implying that I said this is the end-all-be-all of Soviet Success. >A child that grows up in an abusive household may grow up to right the wrongs of their parents and foster a loving household. More often than not, though, they create an abusive household of their own.
It depends on the situation, it depends on the person and the abuse. >It's poetic to think that hardship makes people stronger and more noble, but it isn't necessarily true.
It is largely true in the over-all sense. There are always going to be outside factors and exceptions, but I never stated otherwise.
>>23963>making shit up
The title of that Rembrandt painting is "Self Portrait as the Apostle Paul." It's explicitly religious, I'm not making anything up.>[cubism and futurism] aren't POLITICAL ideas
Yes they are. Here's Wikipedia's summary of Futurism:<Futurism (Italian: Futurismo) was an artistic and social movement that originated in Italy in the early 20th century and to a lesser extent in other countries. It emphasized dynamism, speed, technology, youth, violence, and objects such as the car, the airplane, and the industrial city. Its key figures included the Italians Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Umberto Boccioni, Carlo Carrà, Fortunato Depero, Gino Severini, Giacomo Balla, and Luigi Russolo. Italian Futurism glorified modernity and according to its doctrine, aimed to liberate Italy from the weight of its past. Important Futurist works included Marinetti's 1909 Manifesto of Futurism, Boccioni's 1913 sculpture Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, Balla's 1913–1914 painting Abstract Speed + Sound, and Russolo's The Art of Noises (1913).
So either a movement glorifying modernity, technological progress, and liberation from the past isn't political… or, perhaps, you don't appreciate the relationship between art and politics.
twitter is absolute garbage
Leftypol needs to create the shiposting guild.
>>23983>It's explicitly religious, I'm not making anything up
1) It having a religious reference in its name is not ideological - there is nothing ideological you can make out from the face or clothes or technique
2) Many contemporary artists of Rmbrant used their visages in depictions of religious holy-men and saints of the bible, it has nothing to do with actual religion and is just a method of the artist leaving their mark >Futurism<vikipedia
Besides the fact that you're just copy-pasting. My point is that they are not political ideas, it's just vaguery given physical form, same as most other abstract art. It's "aim to liberate from the past" is just an excuse for randomness that does not conform to the normal standards. It's telling that the CIA encouraged modern "art" and abstract crap and slapped on ideology of "freedom from X conformity". >you don't appreciate the relationship between art and politics
Art can BE political, but art and media is not political by default.
>>24020>having a religious reference in its name is not ideological
How could a religious reference not be ideological? Is religion a subset of ideology? Can an ideological reference be not ideological? If you follow me this far, you should arrive at a self-contradiction.>It's "aim to liberate from the past" is just an excuse for randomness that does not conform to the normal standards.
Nah, it's about robots and airplanes and shit. Technology radically changing society is always political, as the Luddites were well aware. There are factions in favor and factions opposed. You don't get to walk into a world that is already arguing about a subject, publish art about that subject, claim that said art is unrelated to the prior argument, *and* have me believe you. When you make art about politicized subjects like technological change, that art is political.>Art can BE political, but art and media is not political by default.
I actually agree with this (and previously voiced something similar, albeit poorly), I just seem to think a much wider subset of art is political than you do.
>>24021>How could a religious reference not be ideological
The same way ANY reference is not necessarily ideological. It's a REFERENCE, sometimes the references are just that, no attachments implied other than the direct reference, Whe the Space Alien dancing scene comes up in Space Balls, it' a reference to Alien and the famous scene, but the movie and even the reference in-story is simply calling back to a famous film. In the case of Rembrant's portrait it's a reference to the famous Apostle. >Can an ideological reference be not ideological
Yes. You see hammer-and-sickles and other shit slapped onto everything meant to represent Russia into media, but the reference to communism has almost nothing to do with the ideology of communism outside of being the icon of it. >When you make art about politicized subjects like technological change, that art is political
Anon… people made art like that before futurism as a concept existed. It's a petty excuse to justify said "art" as being art and giving some ideological excuse for it. That's how this shit functions half the time - people make something different because they feel like it, but to justify it to wider society create vague ideological reasons for it. >I just seem to think a much wider subset of art is political than you do
Agree to disagree then.
the elder scrolls waffles on this, probably for gameplay reasons. some cultures hate it, some don't care, but no one reacts to watching you run around with their murdered and resurrected spouse in-game. except in ESO where the spells are mostly illegal
no more brother wars! ✊💩✊💩✊💩✊
in pathfinder it's correlated with negative energy,which makes you a dick that murder more and more people,it's also impossible to not become a mass murderer if you become a lich,as your existence is linked to making sapient life suffer.
For the same reason the Geneva convention exists.
Most evil magic is supposed to be fucked up in one sense or another. Necromancy centers around binding the souls of the deceased to you will, very often profanes the earth in a manner similar to real life environmental destruction, and very often requires highly morally dubious practices to even practice it to begin with. The problem is that many works don't portray why evil magic is evil. Video games especially just treat necromancers as fun, spooky Halloween summoner wizards and their undead minions as soulless meat puppets.
Weirdly enough, though, vanilla World of Warcraft actually gave it's warlock class a magic system which highlighted the morally questionable nature of using fel magic. Most of your more powerful abilities are powered by the souls of your enemies, collected from enemies you slew while you were casting drain soul on them. Their mana mechanic revolved around sacrificing their health for mana and then draining the health from their target. They also had a ritual to summon a greater demon that required the sacrifice of one of the ritual members. And then Blizzard walked it back and turned warlocks into spooky Halloween mages in their efforts to gut the game so it could better serve as an addiction simulator casino where you only lose money.
to be more specific, warlock's fel magic required making demonic pacts and using magic which would corrupt your spirit if you weren't careful, enslaving you to the will of the burning legion. this form of magic was contrasted with the arcane magic of the mages, who would study their entire lives in order to understand the scientific aspect of magic. it was much slower to learn, generally weaker, and took a long time to master, but without the risk of becoming possessed by an evil demonic intergalactic empire.
the wow class balancing system becomes much more bullshit when you understand this, because of things like kil'jaeden's cunning being nerfed just to make warlocks remain turret caster cucks like mages, and oftentimes mages were simply more powerful than locks. but locks had the aesthetic of being badass i guess. i mained lock since wrath and even had dragonwrath (the staff) on my retail main so thats why i know this stuff haha
Where is the fantasy setting that treats Charm and Love Potion types of magic the way you would treat date rape?
>>24584>the fantasy setting that treats Charm and Love Potion types of magic the way you would treat date rape<ignoring the past 2-3 decades of stories and fanfiction that constantly go nuts about love-potion date-rape even basic shit like Harry Potter or Louise the Zero
This isn't new a take at all
Clarke fan here, I don't get that impression at all in most of his books. If anything Heinlein was a bigger pusher of unlimited sex.
Imagine liking fiction about a bold bright future for mankind striving upwards yet being upset at the idea that human relations might not be exactly the same in that future
Tell me how explaining that humanity was polyamorous and had regular orgies was a necessary narrative element of Rendezvous with Rama
I honestly don't even remember that aspect of Rendezvous with Rama. You seem awfully fixated on this.
>>24695>You seem awfully fixated on this
NTA but you're shifting goalposts
I don't think I've read that but again, sci-fi is supposed to be about looking out into the future, is it really that weird if it includes weird social concepts to us
Rendezvous with Rama isn't really about future society. It's about the exploration of a huge and and almost unfathomably ancient spaceship making its way through the solar system. While the book does discuss future society, it doesn't really say much beyond things that pertain to the spaceship itself, Rama, such as the early solar space system humanity has going and its space program. So, the information we get about human society at this point all pertains to the plot of exploring Rama. Except also humanity is polyamorous now and it's normal for people to take multiple spouses. Also orgies are a common form of celebration and people just have casual sex everywhere.
Unless you consider the captain having to send messages to two separate wives at once or the slightly odd fact that he shares one of those wives with a crew member, or that they celebrate a successful mission in the end with an orgy to be very important plot points in a book generally about exploring the many strange things on an ancient alien spaceship, I would consider it an extraneous detail in a book that otherwise does not contain extraneous details.
I didn't read all of Heinlein but from what I remember he at least tried to put in some material explanations of how relationships came to be a certain way. Like in "The moon is a harsh mistress" with the "line marriages" for example.
Anyways making up stuff about polyamorous rowdy relationships is a simple and easily understandable device to show how a fictional society is far removed from our own.
Like I said I haven't read it, but I would object to the idea that 'if the book is about exploring this ship, it has to be only about that', you can introduce interesting details like universal polyamory without detracting from the main narrative.
Btw if y'all want a real good book about the relationship/sexuality chasm between the most "liberated" sci fi and 50' white suburban US, Glasshouse by Charles Stross is the one to read
Bzzzt wrongo. SciFi includes the most thematically complex works that genre fiction has to offer. By following in the tradition of utopian/dystopianism, it allows the reader to explore societal concepts through a possible future.>>23280
The liberalism/fascism found in science fiction is because it is mature enough to capably push a political worldview at all. Writers like Stephenson or Le Guin offer leftist (although not quite communist) perspectives through sci-fi.>>23679
Solidly agree with this. Star Wars doesn't explore social themes any more than Harry Potter. I enjoy fantasy as much as anyone else but saying that SciFi sucks because Star Wars is 'soy' fundamentally misunderstands what science fiction is
>>25067>Star Wars doesn't explore social themes any more than Harry Potter
Absolute fucking midwit nonsense. Enjoy the fun parts and don't think about it if you want, but to claim that there are no social themes is nonsense. See the Star Wars thread. >>2737>saying that SciFi sucks because Star Wars is 'soy' fundamentally misunderstands what science fiction is
>>25074>to claim that there are no social themes is nonsense
Nobody said that. Harry Potter has social themes too.
>>25075>Harry Potter has social themes
True, but as the Harry Potter thread points out, it doesn't explore them very much at all, just has them there as background. Star Wars does more than just make social themes the background, it's the plot.
The plot of a group of super powered people fighting against a super powered tyrant? Damn I forgot which series I was talking about. Anyways that's not what a social theme is.
>>25081>plot of a group of super powered people fighting against a super powered tyrant<I oversimplified the base of a story to be generic and called it plot because everything is 'le MCU' to me
Anyways get a fucking brain. You're actively denying integral parts of the most iconic and globally known cultural zeitgeists in film history, and if you think that it could do so by being generic and have no social themes or whatever, then you need to get off the internet and touch grass.
Bro take your own advice about grass, you're the one pretending star wars and harry potter have deep social themes by vaguely pointing to their threads using fancy words like Zeitgest or whatever.
>>25100>you're the one pretending star wars and harry potter have deep social themes
1) No I'm not, I know they do and numerous people have discussed them
2) I only claimed that to compare Harry Potter and Star Wars about Social themes is retarded. Harry Potter does not have deep Social themes that are heavily related to the plot, Star Wars does. Stop speedreading >by vaguely pointing to their threads
Because it is clear you either haven't read or watched shit about either or are too incompetent to analyze either, so I direct you to those places that discuss them at length and explain these things in detail. >using fancy words like Zeitgest or whatever
Read a book faggot, is that unfancy enough for you?
Your responses are slowly becoming a wall of cope, so I'll keep this brief so it doesn't become bloated.
Bullshit. Saying that leadership makes decisions and those decisions effect the organization isn't "great man theory", that's just a cope so you can continue licking Heinlein's ballsack even though he was an explicit anti-communist.
Early liberalism also fluctuated between republicanism and reverting back into monarchy, and it had nothing to do with this idiotic cycle of empires bullshit. The Commonwealth of England did not go through some imperial cycle of hard times making strong men, strong men making good times, good times making weak men and weak men making hard times over the 11 years of its existence, nor did the First French Republic over its 12 years of existence. That is bullshit mythologizing, trying to provide an idealist explanation to a fundamentally material historical process, an explicitly reactionary ideology that centers around bemoaning social and technological progress and saying that life should be made harder for everyone (except themselves) because that will make them "strong".
And, yes, this nonsense is specifically applied to pre-capitalist societies, though promoted by people who generally don't recognize that capitalism as a dominant economic system is only around 250 years old.
I’d say the ideas of Star Wars are pretty deep actually, as a consequence of it having sooooo much Expanded Universe content it really can’t not have a deeper exploration for why the universe is the way it is
For instance, in Star Wars, the Sith play a role in how fucked the Republic is, but really they just took advantage of a bad situation
The planets that join the Separatists, most of them, are Outer Rim, non-human worlds (the Republic always had some level of bias against non-humans, at its worse it committed ethnic pogroms against them) that were abandoned by the Republic except for the purposes of tax collection and left to be exploited as hard as they possibly could be by either mega-corporations or criminal enterprises; meanwhile these poor people have no idea they are being manipulated by said mega corporations who secretly lead the CIS; now some planets in the CIS are wealthy as well, such as Count Dooku’s planet Cereno, which desire greater prominence and influence in the CIS than they enjoyed in the Republic, however the majority are poorer worlds; and once the war begins you just get conquered by either side
Meanwhile the Republic consists of mainly the wealthy and politically powerful core worlds who practiced political and economic domination over the majority of the Galaxy and is also ultimately controlled by different capitalist factions (in the case of the Intergalactic Banking Clan and Trade Federation the exact same capitalists) as well as the Sith; the worlds that align with them later in the world that are not Core planets tended to be neutral worlds that were in the process of being conquered by the CIS and then liberated by the GR, or neutral planets that got to have a garrison just for “protection”
Regarding just the Clone Wars alone, it’s a lot more complicated than anything in Harry Potter, and actually does have a lot of political and economic factors contributing to the conflict that are even explored in the prequel films (just not as extensively as the EU)
Harry Potter is extremely surface-level compared to Star Wars, as the other poster says, HP sort of just hints at the social conditions of the wizard world and says nothing about the economy of it, Star Wars ended up going pretty extensively into the history of the Galaxy, the histories of various human and non-human societies within the Galaxy, the economics and politics of the Galaxy, and many of the social dynamics of the Galaxy at large (for instance, why bigotry against non-humans was such a problem so many times, the hatred non-humans felt in return and towards each other, the history species such as Wookies and Trandoshans had to each other, cultures with no relation to the Sith that tried conquering the Galaxy such as the Mandalorians)
I’d say the concepts and philosophies surrounding the Force are also far more intriguing, thought out, and complex than magic in HP. Like, what even is magic in HP, where does it come from, is it anything other than a plot device? Arguably the Force is something of a plot device, but it is also heavily explored as its own thing. It’s explained to be an energy field encompassing the entire Universe that both flows into life and out of life. It forms a symbiotic relationship with all living things, it has a will, that will is generally just the perpetuation of living things and the natural cycle. It strives to exist as a partner of Force users and fight alongside them, those that follow its will sometimes are called light siders, but it also has Force sensitives (I even like the term Force sensitives, implies everyone interacts with the Force in some way but few can directly perceive it) that manipulate the Force against its will, enslave it to their own desires, and directly wound the Force by taking more from it than they give back in return. The emotions associated with the light side are serenity and compassion since they allow one to feel the will of the Force and connect with the lives and needs of other beings, the emotions associated with the dark side are fear, rage, hatred, and antipathy since they allow one to override the will of the Force and disregard the needs of others.
Yea I’d say Star Wars is way deeper than Harry Potter
>>23251>a lot of middle earth is basically primitive communism
Lol what. Where?
>>25390>responding over a month later
LMAO, and I'm the one coping huh?> Saying that leadership makes decisions and those decisions effect the organization isn't "great man theory"
Yet you fail to explain yourself>Muh Heinlein anti-communist
Not relevant and ignoring my point, Also Heinlein considered his political views to have stayed the same he had anti-soviet sentiments over the media hysteria about Hungary, but that has no relevance to this conversation or his literature. >Early liberalism also fluctuated between republicanism and reverting back into monarchy, and it had nothing to do with this idiotic cycle of empires bullshit
No, anon you faggot, you're shifting goalposts and examples again. >Commonwealth of England did not go through some imperial cycle of hard times making strong men, strong men making good times, good times making weak men
Yes it did, kings and queens that did not rule with strength led to disgruntled nobles and subjects, but that's besides the point. >this nonsense is specifically applied to pre-capitalist societies
No anon.>though promoted by people who generally don't recognize that capitalism as a dominant economic system is only around 250 years old. <ignores that capitalism is a development of feudalism<making claims based on nothing but your projected boogiemen
You're boring and extremely poorly read, just spouting liberal university talking points that revisionist PoMo obsessed burger lecturers love to spout.
oh my sweet summer child
DCDR, Here's your (you)
you clearly read my post to have replied with that
green arrows arent an argument either
>>25423>Pop Team Epic>moe blob>defending fucking Heinlein
You are dumb as hell my guy, for real, for real.
>>26557 >Not muh Heinlein strawman>N-not muh heckin animu
You're a retard, cope and seethe.
Still smarter than you, since I don't double type "for real," in a single sentence response. Also no argument
You do understand that this is from the point of view of one of the characters yes? As I have stated before, if one read "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" there are very much different ideals being presented and spoken. Sholohov did not hate communism, but he had characters that, in his literature sided against them and having generalist anti-communist views, just as he had characters that did the opposite.
hypocrite that you are.
Also Already made one, not addressed at the time of my response, therefore, no further argument got made.
>>26557>Pop Team Epic
Unpopular opinion I know but they boring shite, and crappy as a meme.
Also how the fuck isn't capitalism a development of feudalism, it's literally the progression of the material dialectics. The entire reason the petit bourgs revolted against the French Monarchy in France, had been the centuries of capital/merchant growth that soon began to be cramped by the Nobility and Royalty.
>>27452>Also how the fuck isn't capitalism a development of feudalism
Because they operate on two very distinct modes of production. If capitalism was just a development of feudalism, you would expect that it would just naturally and peacefully transition as the feudal system evolved instead of needing revolutions and massive land and political reforms that effectively abolished the feudal order even in the countries where the aristocracy was kept around in a largely vestigial state.
If you're suggesting that the heroes are supposed to be villain protagonists, there's literally nothing to suggest this, and everything to suggest that Heinlein wanted to you sympathize with his characters and agree with the Federation's point of view.
>>27453> they operate on two very distinct modes of production
Yeah no shit, but that doesn't change the fact that capitalism arose from feudalism as the inevitable change of the economy through material dialectics, Late Imperial Russia is a perfect example of this, nimrod. This isn't hard to understand. Capitalism didn't suddenly radically change a massive portion of the economy, it gradually developed and superceded feudalism, and retained some economic features. >you would expect that it would just naturally and peacefully transition as the feudal system evolved
And it generally did, the only revolts arose in some places like France, England did not have this, nor did most other monarchies of Europe, that became capitalist in the decades after the Napoleonic Era.
>>27454>suggesting that the heroes are supposed to be villain protagonists
I am not, neither are the bugs, if you missed the memo. Heinlein is presenting it from the human POV, but as a reader you (should) be interpreting this as a third party, as both sides are not society as we know it. The problem in the interpretation lies in the environment that Heinlein published this in - Cold War America - and the mass of anti-communist hysteria forever on the horizon, brainwashing burger kids. Thus many people interpreted that citation as Heinlein proclaiming this to be his political view. The reality is that Heinlein had 2 concepts of politics that he considered, on one hand a strong government is needed to manage economies and keep peace, but alternatively individual freedom had importance to him. You can see this in both his real life political statements and actions and in his literature. His supposed anti-communism, is literally meme related; as an American he'd been raised to believe the shticks of communist evil, at the same time support many ideals intrinsic to communism and/or the USSR. >everything to suggest that Heinlein wanted to you sympathize with his characters and agree with the Federation's point of view.
Yes, because in that book he is presenting one idea, just as in "Moon" he presents an opposing and different idea… because people can be multifaceted. Today's obsessive conception of "liberal-conservative" binaries in regards to beliefs, society and politics are truly a poison to critical thinking.
Heinlein was an active member of the Libertarian Party, there was nothing ambiguous about his anti-communism.
It's also incorrect to think that Libertarians like the concept of communism, but are somehow allergic to the word. Most Libertarians actually have a decent concept of what communism is, it's just that the apparent populist sentiments that they espouse that make people think that they'd be open towards the idea of communism is a faux populism. They might say that they think society ought to be run by the common people, but what you need to understand is that by "the common people" they mean "the petty bourgeoisie". There is nothing more distasteful to a lolbert than the idea of workers' power, a workers' state and an economy run by the workers. They aren't so dissimilar to the "populists" you may have seen in the Greek city-states, people who, if they claimed they wanted greater power and freedom for the "people", what they meant was the lesser slaveholders, not the slaves. That's essentially the viewpoint of the vast bulk of self-described "Libertarians."
>>28931>Most Libertarians actually have a decent concept of what communism is >by "the common people" they mean "the petty bourgeoisie". There is nothing more distasteful to a lolbert than the idea of workers' power, a workers' state and an economy run by the workers.
You're using the /pol/ and reddit conception of libertarians/classical liberals, yet if you have read Hayek or other non-ancapistan libertarians you'll see many, MANY aspects that reflect marxist ideology. Similarly Adam Smith's main points also match many marxist ideas. >They aren't so dissimilar to the "populists" you may have seen in the Greek city-states, people who, if they claimed they wanted greater power and freedom for the "people", what they meant was the lesser slaveholders, not the slaves. That's essentially the viewpoint of the vast bulk of self-described "Libertarians."
In parentheses I'd say so, but my point is Heinlein did not adhere to these ideas. Otherwise his meritocratic, authoritarian Starship Troopers cannot be considered a pro-militarist novel, since it directly goes against common "libertarian" beliefs. Not to mention (again) The Moon is a Cruel Mistress's plot. Heinlein's concept of libertarianism is very much the old school "reject oppression" similar to the unaligned anarchist movements of the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
I'm by no means a libertarian, I've read Losurdo enough to reject idealistic concepts of "reject authority reeeee" but I also do not lose sight of the importance of balance, something that Stalin and Lenin also understood; control, but not constriction.
For one thing, as much as I loath Mises, it'd do you good to actually read the entire quote in context, as he further goes on to speak of fascism's failure. >N-no<proceeds to talk about the ideology an ignore my main point.
Anon, if you're just looking to grind your dick on your hatred of libertarians then go to /leftypol/ because this is just derailing the conversation. > where the petty bourgeoisie sees the state as more constricting them than protecting them and is jealous of the cozier relationship the higher echelons of the bourgeoisie enjoy with the state.
And in stating this you're confirming my prior points on the French Revolution, but I digress.
Source? Also, technically he isn't incorrect, though the beneficial aspects of his predictions are very arguable. Chile came under the control of Pinochet, the liberal dictator (fascist) and became a liberal government after he lost power.
PS, by ancapistan libertarians I very much refer to people such as Mises, Rothbard, Friedman and Rand.
>>28931>Most Libertarians actually have a decent concept of what communism is
No, Mr Wolff, it's not when the gubbmint does things
It's not when the government does things, and most Libertarians know this somewhere deep down. Many Libertarians are fully aware that communism is about workers' power and equality, but they see that as an affront to nature. The expansion of the state and the war, violence, corruption, etc, are just the tragic consequences of this attempt to overturn the "natural order of things".
It's extremely naive to think they don't see things this way. The vast bulk of "Libertarians" are right-wingers right down to the core and have far more in common with fascists than they do communists.
>>29064>The vast bulk of "Libertarians" are right-wingers right down to the core and have far more in common with fascists than they do communists.
True, but I merely postulate that from my understanding of certain angles and certain individuals, I get the impression of
A) Objective portrayal despite ideology
B) Ideological coincidence.
back to the original topic, is there any modern scifi that isn't campy and takes the medium seriously and draws from contemporary and historical politics?
Interstellar is a brilliant sci-fi that takes itself very seriously and focuses on accurately depicting space/space travel
The Expanse is very popular and a lot about imperialism but it's nothing ground breaking.
I don't know if you can consider this "modern" but the Culture from Banks is really good and it's kind of that, in his words:>I’d had enough of the right-wing US science fiction, so I decided to take it to the left.
Interstellar as a film is terrible. Yes a lot of the science is correct in many aspects… but as a film it's mediocrely written. People were just in awe at the concepts and visuals at release.
He was joking, traversable wormhole, stable star system featuring a black hole, a shuttle with seemingly infinite delta-v, travelling in the black hole, time travel, anti gravity… Very soft science fiction.
lmaoJonathan Nolan is one of the worst screenwriters working today.
It's sci-fi but its based on real concepts for all those things listed, and grounded in them in fact. Considering physicists had been major consultants that makes sense, so it's not very soft. BUT that doesn't make the plot and use of said science very good. >>30957
Yeah this became a big meme in Russia.
Interstellar is the definition of soft science fiction, there's very little internal consistency and most things make no sense, it's a father/daughter movie with pop science and space stuff.
The only thing scientific they did is the representation of the accretion disk of the black hole, not exactly a major feat since it was done in 1979.
I think most modern sci-fi has been hamstrung by the CIA.
That might sound like a schizo-post, but starting in the 50s the CIA got heavily involved in the arts, including writing and one of the major "creative writing" organizations was literally a CIA front. They set down most of what are now almost universally considered to be the rules of "good writing," such as write what you know, show don't tell, etc. The thrust of this movement was to promote character-driven personal stories as "good writing" while writing centered around ideas or concepts is bad writing.
This is why nowadays you'll often hear that the all the 20th century sci-fi greats were "bad writers." In fact, it might have been partially targeted at the sci-fi greats. The FBI recently released that they had suspected Asimov of being a pinko.
The Expanse is one of the worst pop scifi out there. Even Star Trek is more realistic than that show and is more sci than Fi.
I think you might be literally retarded anon.
Are there terms to differentiate science fiction where the science is part of the plot from science fiction where it is just the backdrop?
Fantasy predates LotR and that's like saying all sci-fi is either rehashing Star Trek or Star Wars.
>>32225>Fantasy predates LotR
Oh really? You know what the fuck I'm talking about(or maybe you don't because you're too autistic.)
Let me help you, because you don't understand hyperbole
MOST fantasy today is just plagiarisms on plagiarisms of LOTR.
>that's like saying all sci-fi is either rehashing Star Trek or Star Wars.
Name me like one Sci Fi with laser swords and death stars.
>>32226>Name me like one Sci Fi with laser swords and death stars
Halo (energy swords and the halo arrays) and Mass Effect (omni blades and the catalyst/citadel)
LotR is just a really long Robert E. Howard story but written by a guy with a degree in medieval Scandinavian linguistics
Fantasy is the popcultural version of rehashed themes from old sagas and classical literature transformed in a digestible format. With regards to that, Tolkien was the first fantasy writer.
>>23276> The vast majority of fantasy heroes are also either ruling class / royalty
liberals consume media about the bullshit political intrigue of Nancy Pelosi and then read about the bullshit political intrigue of characters in some fantasyland, but with extra racist colonial essentialism. Honestly fuck Game of Thrones and all that bullshit, I read to get away from ruling class political drama!>>23279>who the fuck cares?
Denny from The Room: (crying) "IT DOESN'T MATTER…it doesn't matter!!!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOJQPi9q8aE>all reactionary thing-noticers<reactionary thing-noticers
imagine calling other people "reactionary" when you deploy the most NPC meme imaginable: gaslighting people that what they see with their eyes isn't real and they should stop critique the precious consumer products of radlibs.> all they had to go with is making fun of the middle class Dursleys
"you think you're so smart for noticing dictatorship of bourgeoisie leading to petite bourgeois moralism and child abuse, your Marxist historical materialism is actually idealist" Sorry child but your content is so trivially easy to critique that random liberals can do it. Please stop protecting your autism idols from "reactionary" workers lol>who the fuck cares, literature and art isn't supposed to be beholden to your idealizations
(crying soy consumers) "IT DOESN'T MATTER, YOU'RE AN IDEALIST FOR THINKING I'M A DOMESTICATED RADLIB" Actually my artistic literature about a stacked dark elf is revolutionary praxis, fucking fascist.>"le speshul grill" doing "le revolushun"
"fantasy isn't reactionary, but I have a knee jerk reaction to even the slightest hint of revolutionary working class movements" You proved OP's point better than I ever could. You scoff at women because you're a redditor class traitor who consumes fascist reactionary narratives.>No shit, that's materially logical,
"It's logical to write stories about capitalists and not the working class, you're an idealist who doesn't understand Marxism" Ben Shapiro has found leftypol>>23963>Post-modernism is a a fucking blight.
modern art isn't POLITICAL, it's a total mystery why the CIA funded those magazines
>>32236>gaslighting people that what they see with their eyes isn't real and they should stop critique the precious consumer products of radlibs <N-noooo you can't enjoy something that isn't ideologically aligned with me!!!
The only gaslight here is yours.
You are reactionaries, liberal reactionaries pretending to be better than other libs. >noticing dictatorship of bourgeoisie leading to petite bourgeois moralism and child abuse
The fuck is this supposed to mean? How is this at all relevant to the argument being made? >Sorry child
The only people using this online in an anonymous forum are barely of age teens trying to sound smarter and older than they really are. >Please stop protecting your autism idols from "reactionary" workers
How ass-backwards is your comprehension, to come to this completely opposite understanding of the post? The point is that Harry Potter is NOT reactionary, its vaguely liberal, because it comes from a liberal author in a liberal society, it reflects the material conditions the story is placed in. It also appeals to proletarians of said societies, since they can associate with it, and this reflects it being the largest media fandom in the Western hemisphere for 2 decades. >(crying soy consumers) <using memes in text-format
Touch grass you actual autist. >IT DOESN'T MATTER, YOU'RE AN IDEALIST FOR THINKING I'M A DOMESTICATED RADLIB
Nah, you're an idealist for being a faggot getting mad at literature for not catering to your specific fake-communist LARP taste, because you seek to live it out in a fantasy. >my artistic literature about a stacked dark elf
Nice projection there Baalbud >I have a knee jerk reaction to even the slightest hint of revolutionary working class movements <"I'm so desperate to be a contrarian that I'll back lazy liberal YA novel series, even as I seethe about HP being liberal"
The fucking IRONY>You scoff at women
HAHAHAHAHA No. I scoff at poorly executed mary sue fics that promote ideologically nonsensical dystopia literature only appeals as "revolutionary" to the privileged teens of First World countries that think that oppression is their parents telling them not to do stupid shit for immature reasons. you are one of those teenagers, further proven by your tossing around of "marxist" like you actually read anything past the Kommunist Manifesto.
Read Капитан Сорви-голова, read Красные дьяволята or Сказка о Военной тайне, о Мальчише-Кибальчише и его твёрдом слове
Those are REAL revolutionary literary works. Some of my favorite books and films are about a female main character, because they actually are well written books, not hackjob dime-a-dozen YA crap. >ou're a redditor class traitor who consumes fascist reactionary narratives
Nah, I'm just not a hypocritical, virtue-signaling ideologue like you. >It's logical to write stories about capitalists and not the working class
You don't even understand the meaning of capitalist or proletariat or even basic base-structure relations, a cornerstone of Marxism… You are as ignorant as Ben Shapiro, stop projecting. Also learn grammar, you phone-posting moron.
You outright ignore the material reasoning that, in fact, yes, in a feudal setting the upper class is the ones that are going to get the best education and likely the best arms, training and resources, something that reflects actual class-based societies. That's materially logical and consistent. For fucks sake read The Prince and the Pauper, you ignoramus. Hell a lot of fantasy setting literature involves a country-nobody facing such a harsh setting head on and fighting adversity.
TL;DR: Go back to nitter you confused, projecting liberal.
Han Solo is a roguish captain, a trope so old that it goes back centuries. Mal Reynolds is not a Han Solo. >carting around a person with space magic powers
Telepathy, is theoretically possible. It's barely even comparable to the force.
It's not like straight up movie shit, but a similar potential is there. Some of the studies and such go back to the early 20th century. Most of it runs on the transmission of electromagnetic fields, through bio-electricity of the body and neurons (in very basic layman terms). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105225 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7937662/
Actually one of the better forms of "black magic" is in the Mistborn series.
The two normal forms of magic, allomancy and feruchemy, both require you to be born with the ability to use them and require something out of the user, like ingesting metal or storing up your own physical attributes, and more often than not there are strong limitations on what a person can do with these forms of magic even when they're born with the ability to use them.
Then there's the black magic of the setting, hemalurgy. With hemalurgy, you can have all the powers of allomancy and feruchemy and using both at once will allow both to reach heights just one or the other could never achieve. Not only that, but anyone can potentially become a hemalurgist, you don't need to be born with it. However, hemalurgy involves driving a spike through the heart of an allomancer or feruchemist to essentially pin their soul to it, and then directly into yourself. The hemalurgic spike will then be implanted in you forever. It won't kill you (in fact, it will give you a sort of seeming immortality so long as your hemalurgic spikes aren't removed), but they will constantly ache. Oh, also it creates a wound in your soul that allows the voice of an evil god to constantly whisper in your ear and manipulate your emotions. And that IF said evil god remains trapped in his prison. If that evil god were to ever escape and you were unwise enough to have put more than one hemalurgic spike in yourself, you become that evil god's meat puppet for the rest of your potentially eternal existence.
That's not telepathy, they were linked by machines.
SF and fantasy are both fine, you're all just being a bunch of larpers yelling at people for enjoying shit you don't, shut up and stop being a tryhard
t. guy who enjoys both popcorn slop and arthouse
you know when you are a kid reading about the byzantine empire on the encarta and you get to the iconoclasts, and then you find that some religions in the past had opposed many forms of art, and you tell yourself; that's dumb, why would they do this? what's the problem with arts?
I think I'm beginning to understand
Unique IPs: 67