3 ms·

> that violence and illegal activities may be both legitimate and necessary to pursue justice. Dystopian fiction appears to subtly expand the political imagina

> that violence and illegal activities may be both legitimate and necessary to pursue justice. Dystopian fiction appears to subtly expand the political imagination of viewers and readers to encompass a range of scenarios outside the normal realm of democratic politics, and what people then consider reasonable and thinkable appears to expand accordingly. America was founded on a revolution, and often changing the system from within for anything other than the most trivial issues is seen to the cynics seems impossible. The fact is that in the present mode of existence the only revolutions that do happen can only happen in fiction. Like for instance see the movie They Live! The protagonist finds himself completely alienated by his newly perceived reality and decides to chew gum and kick ass to get to the bottom of it, only to find that he's in a much deeper hole than something he can do anything about, the aliens run a galactic economic empire of which earth is just a small part -- which could be a pretty apt metaphor for individual existence or maybe the human condition -- even the most powerful can do little about the system. Who controls us? Maybe it's money or technology or a conspiracy, or God, or bacteria and viruses? So the message is one of revolution because those who are unhappy with reality as it is, can only rebel against it on the screen or in books... and do so idealistically without any sort of heavy handed intellectual exercise which might cause revolution in a hundred years -- like for instance Communism. The truth is that these days revolution can only be televised. And that is itself cathartic for both the author and for the audience.

opwieurposiu 8y ago
It seems kind of silly to argue that the democratic politics is legitimate and violence is not, when the whole point of the democratic state is to create a monopoly on violence. What fiction fails to teach you is that being good at violence is a lot of work! To be good at it you need to take krav or bjj or mma classes at least 3 times a week and go to the gun range at least once a week. I personally think society would gain vast benefits from making dueling legal again. Sadly the lawyers would never allow it because they would lose half their business!
- devoply 8y ago
  Poe's law. Fact is a lot of the political propaganda in the media (including movies) is used by the State to manufacture consent to use violence... usually as State intervention to liberate people and to recruit soldiers to protect freedom and train them so that they become good at violence. For instance see this, https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/9ztk4l/cant_wait_for_the_beta/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/9ztk4l/can... Regardless the political imagination of individuals as to what is right or wrong has very little impact on their ability to actually do much and hurt many people as individuals or even as political fringe groups, as the control mechanisms and technology to disrupt such individuals and groups is highly effective. However, when those groups become large movements perhaps they could possibly lead to some sort of uncontrollable and undesirable violence. Does that mean we should be weary of fiction writers promoting such themes, yes we should, if we're a country like China. It seems there is a movement to control all forms of speech these days as it's all starting to be considered dangerous... so you don't even have fiction as a refuge to express your revolution.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    > However, when those group become large movements they perhaps they could possibly lead to some sort of uncontrollable and undesirable violence. There is a lot of news about the US police doing exactly that, and not just violence per se, also things like NSA...
- TomMarius 8y ago
  I've seen development of a defense field similar to the one they had in Dune. Maybe soon.
- barrow-rider 8y ago
  > when the whole point of the democratic state is to create a monopoly on violence. The definition of a state, democratic or otherwise, is the monopoly of violence. Doesn't matter if it's absolutist monarchy, Scandinavian-style Social Democracy, or Al-Shabab-style Somali tribal rule -- if you have the ability to compel action then you can create a state. ISIS was issuing passports, IDs, and currency, for example. You don't have to play by their rules... but then again they don't have to keep .45 rounds from going into the back of your head. Monopoly of Force is entirely separate from issues of authority or legitimacy; everyone can hate your illegitimate rule but if they can't do shit about it then you still win. You hate the Tsar for having too much authority, but he's got secret police and an army so you stfu and keep your head down. Meanwhile, US citizens hate Trump but concede he won a legitimate election and, in spite of having like 40% of the world's guns, don't revolt in the street. > What fiction fails to teach you is that being good at violence is a lot of work! To be good at it you need to take krav or bjj or mma classes at least 3 times a week and go to the gun range at least once a week. I disagree with all of those minimums. Even in the Marines I didn't go to the range once a week, and I was a 'POG' supporting an infantry unit. We only PT'd 3 times a week, though some of us did more. > I personally think society would gain vast benefits from making dueling legal again. Sadly the lawyers would never allow it because they would lose half their business! History would disagree, and dueling was plainly outlawed for a reason. The appeal-ad-lawyeram is also not an argument; there were plenty of rich lawyers when dueling was a thing (several US Founding Fathers come to mind), and the legal business is currently incredibly competitive in terms of jobs right now -- without dueling.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
> The truth is that these days revolution can only be televised. And that is itself cathartic for both the author and for the audience. One thing I notice, apart from all the stuff that outright glorifies militarism and sadism, or makes serious concerns seem ridiculous: even when it's "good guys in a bad situation", even if they end up "winning", so often what's displayed thoroughly and realistically, with great attention to detail is the violence, the abuse, the pain, the mechanisms of control, all the negative stuff... but the hero usually wins via some silly thing that is not realistic, or even just luck. On average, you often see realistic horrible things, and that's either unsolved altogether, with an unhappy ending -- or it gets solved by means that are not realistic. Like drawing bad things with permanent marker and nice things with water color, then washing the surface with water.. the realistic stuff sticks, the rest fades. At the end of the day, a person got used to seeing more people getting hurt, more arguments resolved with witty one-liners, more people getting murdered -- but they didn't get anything useful for themselves, just some numbing and conditioning, maybe even a bit of fear to take home with them. I have to think of The Last Days of Sophie Scholl, that movie certainly isn't "happy". I was sad and upset after seeing it. But it still gave me more than it took, if you know what I mean. Most writers and actors should simply be ashamed, consider manual labor and never speak again. But that's just my actually unpopular, but earnest opinion.
- devoply 8y ago
  Part of the problem is the fact that writing in general follows certain patterns and people want to see those same patterns repeated over and over again, like for instance the hero's myth or man in a hole. People don't want to see reality, because reality can be banal, depressing, ambiguous, complicated, or incomprehensible, they want to see certain myths repeated over and over again. http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180525-every-story-in-the-world-has-one-of-these-six-basic-plots http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180525-every-story-in-the...

opwieurposiu 8y ago

It seems kind of silly to argue that the democratic politics is legitimate and violence is not, when the whole point of the democratic state is to create a monopoly on violence. What fiction fails to teach you is that being good at violence is a lot of work! To be good at it you need to take krav or bjj or mma classes at least 3 times a week and go to the gun range at least once a week. I personally think society would gain vast benefits from making dueling legal again. Sadly the lawyers would never allow it because they would lose half their business!

devoply 8y ago
Poe's law. Fact is a lot of the political propaganda in the media (including movies) is used by the State to manufacture consent to use violence... usually as State intervention to liberate people and to recruit soldiers to protect freedom and train them so that they become good at violence. For instance see this, https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/9ztk4l/cant_wait_for_the_beta/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/9ztk4l/can... Regardless the political imagination of individuals as to what is right or wrong has very little impact on their ability to actually do much and hurt many people as individuals or even as political fringe groups, as the control mechanisms and technology to disrupt such individuals and groups is highly effective. However, when those groups become large movements perhaps they could possibly lead to some sort of uncontrollable and undesirable violence. Does that mean we should be weary of fiction writers promoting such themes, yes we should, if we're a country like China. It seems there is a movement to control all forms of speech these days as it's all starting to be considered dangerous... so you don't even have fiction as a refuge to express your revolution.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  > However, when those group become large movements they perhaps they could possibly lead to some sort of uncontrollable and undesirable violence. There is a lot of news about the US police doing exactly that, and not just violence per se, also things like NSA...
TomMarius 8y ago
I've seen development of a defense field similar to the one they had in Dune. Maybe soon.
barrow-rider 8y ago
> when the whole point of the democratic state is to create a monopoly on violence. The definition of a state, democratic or otherwise, is the monopoly of violence. Doesn't matter if it's absolutist monarchy, Scandinavian-style Social Democracy, or Al-Shabab-style Somali tribal rule -- if you have the ability to compel action then you can create a state. ISIS was issuing passports, IDs, and currency, for example. You don't have to play by their rules... but then again they don't have to keep .45 rounds from going into the back of your head. Monopoly of Force is entirely separate from issues of authority or legitimacy; everyone can hate your illegitimate rule but if they can't do shit about it then you still win. You hate the Tsar for having too much authority, but he's got secret police and an army so you stfu and keep your head down. Meanwhile, US citizens hate Trump but concede he won a legitimate election and, in spite of having like 40% of the world's guns, don't revolt in the street. > What fiction fails to teach you is that being good at violence is a lot of work! To be good at it you need to take krav or bjj or mma classes at least 3 times a week and go to the gun range at least once a week. I disagree with all of those minimums. Even in the Marines I didn't go to the range once a week, and I was a 'POG' supporting an infantry unit. We only PT'd 3 times a week, though some of us did more. > I personally think society would gain vast benefits from making dueling legal again. Sadly the lawyers would never allow it because they would lose half their business! History would disagree, and dueling was plainly outlawed for a reason. The appeal-ad-lawyeram is also not an argument; there were plenty of rich lawyers when dueling was a thing (several US Founding Fathers come to mind), and the legal business is currently incredibly competitive in terms of jobs right now -- without dueling.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

> The truth is that these days revolution can only be televised. And that is itself cathartic for both the author and for the audience. One thing I notice, apart from all the stuff that outright glorifies militarism and sadism, or makes serious concerns seem ridiculous: even when it's "good guys in a bad situation", even if they end up "winning", so often what's displayed thoroughly and realistically, with great attention to detail is the violence, the abuse, the pain, the mechanisms of control, all the negative stuff... but the hero usually wins via some silly thing that is not realistic, or even just luck. On average, you often see realistic horrible things, and that's either unsolved altogether, with an unhappy ending -- or it gets solved by means that are not realistic. Like drawing bad things with permanent marker and nice things with water color, then washing the surface with water.. the realistic stuff sticks, the rest fades. At the end of the day, a person got used to seeing more people getting hurt, more arguments resolved with witty one-liners, more people getting murdered -- but they didn't get anything useful for themselves, just some numbing and conditioning, maybe even a bit of fear to take home with them. I have to think of The Last Days of Sophie Scholl, that movie certainly isn't "happy". I was sad and upset after seeing it. But it still gave me more than it took, if you know what I mean. Most writers and actors should simply be ashamed, consider manual labor and never speak again. But that's just my actually unpopular, but earnest opinion.

devoply 8y ago
Part of the problem is the fact that writing in general follows certain patterns and people want to see those same patterns repeated over and over again, like for instance the hero's myth or man in a hole. People don't want to see reality, because reality can be banal, depressing, ambiguous, complicated, or incomprehensible, they want to see certain myths repeated over and over again. http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180525-every-story-in-the-world-has-one-of-these-six-basic-plots http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180525-every-story-in-the...