What the Future Fiction of 2015 Revealed About Humans Today (vice.com)

An anonymous reader writes: There were a lot of stories told about the future in 2015. More than usual, maybe. Big budget blockbusters, hefty, idea-rich novels, and epic, dystopian video games—there was complex, stirring speculative fiction dripping from every media faucet we've got. And it spoke volumes about our anxieties about the present. In 2015, those anxieties are, apparently, concern the rise of science denial, climate change, total collapse.

Comments

Let me guess...

[penguinoid]

That humans today are still terrible at predicting the future?

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

That humans today will click on anything?

Re: Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's try it: http://goat.cx

Re:Let me guess...

[EmeraldBot]

That humans today are still terrible at predicting the future?

This one's a given. People overestimate what happens in 50 years, but underestimate what happens in 2. Personally, I would be quite interested to see what 2018 will be like, though I suppose in 24 months I'll find out. After all, just three years ago, we didn't even know about PRISM...

Re: Let me guess...

[Areyoukiddingme]

You mean http://goatse.cx.

Ordinarily I have no use for stupid fucking hashtags, but.... #kidstoday

The irony was irresistible. You couldn't even make it a live link...

Re:Let me guess...

[antifoidulus]

Are they though? There are a lot of SF writers that get the details wrong but get the overall state of society right. Go read "Player Piano" and tell me that Vonnegut did not nail the current economy. A small number of automation engineers making tons of money? check. Society scrambling to find "make work" jobs for the masses that include the army and pointless infra projects? Double check. Now granted he got a lot of the technological details wrong(obligatory 1950s sf reference to caverns filled with vacuum tubes etc.), but his description of what society, especially American society, has become.

Re:Let me guess...

[Eunuchswear]

No,humans today can't write a fucking gramatically correct sentence:

In 2015, those anxieties are, apparently, concern the rise of science denial, climate change, total collapse.

WTF.

Re:Let me guess...

[thinkwaitfast]

Society scrambling to find "make work" jobs for the masses that include the army and pointless infra projects?

This is not a new phenomenon.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

And that we can't write. FTFS:

"In 2015, those anxieties are, apparently, concern the rise of science denial, climate change, total collapse."

Re:Let me guess...

[silentcoder]

> and pointless infra projects
That simply isn't true, if anything the exact opposite is true. America's buildings, bridges and other critical infrastructure is crumbling and falling apart. You're risking millions of lives every day with unmaintained infrastructure.
If anything - you can't manage even the most basic infra projects required to prevent disasters !

Infrastructure projects are not sexy, they aren't politically appealing - and they don't attract donor money. What corporation is going to give you campaign finance because you "promised to patch the crumbling concrete of a bridge in your town" ?

Whatever the reason may be, despite the fact that infrastructure projects would not only have short-term employment benefits but the much more important benefit of actually keeping the stuff your entire economy depends on to function working past the end of the decade - they aren't being done.

I haven't read the book - so I can't say how accurate the rest of your description of it is, nor how much modern America really reflects that - but this claim was simply outright provably and factually incorrect.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most may not have known the name, but all the components had been in place since the Clinton administration.
NSA-Key, Calea,,,.

Re:Let me guess...

[JRV31]

So in Minnesota we build stadiums for any billionaire slacker that wants one, while bridges collapse. And they ran the hockey team out of town because the owner didn't want a new arena. And we pay the metropolitan sports facilities commission to lobby for them.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

David Brin must not be human?

Re:Let me guess...

[Crowd Computing]

Are they though? There are a lot of SF writers that get the details wrong but get the overall state of society right. Go read "Player Piano" and tell me that Vonnegut did not nail the current economy. A small number of automation engineers making tons of money? check.

A small number of an elite knowledge class making tons of money? This isn't new. In the past, it was the literate elite. Now, when everybody in the civilized world could read and write, it's the technical elite. Of course, above them, in any age, there's still the ruling class, which include not just the MPs and dictators of the world, but also the members of the sub-1%, the CEOs and plain filthy rich.

Society scrambling to find "make work" jobs for the masses that include the army and pointless infra projects? Double check.

How do you think Hitler got Germany back onto its feet after World War I? FDR had managed to stabilize things a bit, but the US only got out of the Great Depression thanks to the birth of the military-industrial complex.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call a sport stadium "infrastructure".

Infrastructure would be things like communications networks, roads, municipal plumbing etc.

Re:Let me guess...

[ultranova]

Whatever the reason may be, despite the fact that infrastructure projects would not only have short-term employment benefits but the much more important benefit of actually keeping the stuff your entire economy depends on to function working past the end of the decade - they aren't being done.

The reason they're not being done is precisely because they'd employ people. It's a lot easier to abuse your employees and the lower classes in general if they're desperate. McDonald's and Wal-Marts have every incentive to keep unemployment high; how else would they charge employees for receiving their pay yet still have employees? Heck, the entire payday loan industry depends on there being a steady supply of people who have to sacrifice tomorrow to survive today.

Our economy continues being horrible because people on top benefit from horrible economy in the form of greater relative power. They'll go too far eventually and spark a revolution, but until then, they'll resist any improvement - because improving your situation would make it harder for them to play your masters.

Just look at history: the Victorian-era hardcore capitalism was somewhat humanized to halt the spread of Communism, and neoconservatism rose as Soviet Union fell and the threat was perceived to have passed. And now society is starting to come apart at the seams again. The cycle will likely repeat as long as Capitalism exists, since to end it would require abolishing social classes entirely.

Re:Let me guess...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Ecological concerns
Financial concerns
Wanting to get the hell off Earth and spread concerns
End of world concerns, including but not limited to more zombies

I am not seeing much different from any other year going back through the 1960s at least. Trek and the cloud city and the lower class miners itself just reflected stuff going back to Charles Dickens and earlier.

Re:Let me guess...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Our economy is not horrible. People have more stuff than ever before, more food than ever before, and more inventions of medicine than ever before.

You live in a land of disproven class warfare rhetoric. "Income disparity" is an irrelevat measure. All that has meaning is the average health and wealth out there, and it is skyrocketting as China and India come online into modernity.

Re:Let me guess...

[sjbe]

Go read "Player Piano" and tell me that Vonnegut did not nail the current economy.

I have and he did not nail the current economy unless you are reading things so broadly as to be meaningless.

A small number of automation engineers making tons of money? check.

Since I actually work with a lot of this stuff I'm curious where you think automation engineers are making all this bank off of automation. Seriously, give me examples. The automation engineers I know do ok but they are hardly in danger doing a Scrooge McDuck dive into a pile of gold.

Society scrambling to find "make work" jobs for the masses that include the army and pointless infra projects?

"Pointless infrastructure projects"? Seriously? If anything we aren't spending enough money on infrastructure. In the US we've got tons of crumbling roads and bridges, a nearly non-existent passenger rail system, air traffic control systems that are in desperate need of upgrades, dams that are faulty, an electrical grid that collapses every time there is a stiff breeze, insufficient renewable energy sources, water and sewage systems, and the list goes on and on and on. If you want to see the effect of bad infrastructure go to India sometime. Their shitty infrastructure has a devastating effect on their economy.

While we do spend WAY too much money on the military in the US that is a choice, not a necessity. Certainly not an economic necessity.

Re:Let me guess...

[Algan]

Infrastructure projects are not sexy, they aren't politically appealing - and they don't attract donor money. What corporation is going to give you campaign finance because you "promised to patch the crumbling concrete of a bridge in your town" ?

Umm, the construction company that stands to get the contract to rebuild the bridge?

Re:Let me guess...

[Grishnakh]

Then you have your priorities screwed up.

A sports stadium is essential infrastructure, unlike the others. That's why the others are usually outsourced to utility monopolies, or left to the Free Market as in the case of communications networks, particularly last-mile internet (and phone and TV) service.

(/s)

Re:Let me guess...

[Grishnakh]

air traffic control systems that are in desperate need of upgrades

No, they're not. The Republicans in Congress are currently working on legislation to private air traffic control in the US, so this will be completely fixed very soon. /s

Re:Let me guess...

[LWATCDR]

"Infrastructure projects are not sexy, they aren't politically appealing - and they don't attract donor money. What corporation is going to give you campaign finance because you "promised to patch the crumbling concrete of a bridge in your town" ?"
Simple construction companies,
Infrastructure projects like highway bills are massive pork barrel job making bills.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Real wages have stagnated for the last 45 years and people have become professional unemployment recipients because the jobs they used to have don't exist. The economy is producing greater output thanks to automation but that wealth is not going to the people that produce it.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

What corporation is going to give you campaign finance because you "promised to patch the crumbling concrete of a bridge in your town" ?

The one you award the contract to patch the crumbling concrete of a bridge in your town, of course.

Re:Let me guess...

[Geoffrey.landis]

Society scrambling to find "make work" jobs for the masses that include the army and pointless infra projects? Double check.

How do you think Hitler got Germany back onto its feet after World War I? FDR had managed to stabilize things a bit, but the US only got out of the Great Depression thanks to the birth of the military-industrial complex.

That's a myth that keeps getting repeated. No. Wars do not bring a society out of depression. If you look at the actual standard of living, the second world war depressed it further by almost every measure, and most essential goods were actually rationed. What the war does, instead, is give people a good reason for their privation. They're not scrimping and getting by with less because the economy is bad: they're scrimping and getting by with less to support the war effort-- in Germany , as well as in America (not to mention England and the Soviet Union)..

What pulled he economy out of the Great Depression was the end of the war.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything we aren't spending enough money on infrastructure.

We may not be spending the amount that would be required to repair all of it, but I'm not sure that's the same as 'not spending enough'. When the bill to perform maintenance on a bridge is more than the inflation-adjusted cost of originally building it, it seems like that's spending much more than enough.

Re: Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

A +4 goatse link? What an age to live in!

Re:Let me guess...

[KGIII]

There's something to be said for Beer and Circuses. I imagine that, with some work, you could make a logically sound argument for doing things to keep the populace entertained. You'd have to be a pretty cold bastard to do so but, well, I don't think it would be philosophically inconsistent for certain people to reason their way to concluding that such is an essential piece of infrastructure.

Re:Let me guess...

[Grishnakh]

Honestly, there is a valid argument about cities subsidizing stadiums to bring in other businesses and get economic benefits that way. I don't agree with them, because I think if you look at the actual numbers for these projects in recent years it hasn't turned out well for the taxpayer, but the argument has some merit.

However, the big problem is the idea that local governments should be funding sports crap, but then neglecting or privatizing other, far more important infrastructure. If a city has all the other infrastructure well-maintained and well-run and then wants to build a stadium or arena and the taxpayers want it, then ok, but first thing's first. Instead, what we seem to see is cities pouring billions into stadiums that no one really wants, with a "build it and they will come" mentality, while other infrastructure like roads and bridges is decaying. And of course these days some infrastructure we could all really use is municipal internet service like they have in Chattanooga, but very few places have it.

Re:Let me guess...

[silentcoder]

Then *why* is America's infrastructure falling apart ?

Oh - that's right - because construction companies would much rather donate to the guy who promises to clear zoning rights for a new strip-mall because building a new private development is *much* more lucrative than maintaining or building infrastructure.

Re:Let me guess...

[silentcoder]

Not when that company would rather pay the politician who would massage their zoning application for a new highrise.

Re:Let me guess...

[KGIII]

See, if I were a monster then I'd argue that it's good to keep the plebs occupied with circuses and beer so that they don't notice when I'm robbing them blind and stealing from their future generations to enrich myself, my friends, and consolidate power. But your argument works. ;-)

For the record - I do not think that is a *good* thing, just that one can make a reasoned argument for such and still be logically consistent.

Re: Let me guess...

[tehcyder]

You mean http://goatse.cx.

Ordinarily I have no use for stupid fucking hashtags, but.... #kidstoday

The irony was irresistible. You couldn't even make it a live link...

I think it was supposed to be a joke.

Re:Let me guess...

[tehcyder]

"Income disparity" is an irrelevat measure.

No, it's a pretty good measure of unhappiness in a society. The countries with the highest over all happiness ratings tend to be places like the Scandinavian countries where the disparity is relatively low.

All that has meaning is the average health and wealth out there, and it is skyrocketting as China and India come online into modernity.

Even if true, that is meaningless to someone in the developed world. Why should I care if the average goes up elsewhere but my income slowly goes down in real terms?

Re:Let me guess...

[tehcyder]

A small number of automation engineers making tons of money? check.

Since I actually work with a lot of this stuff I'm curious where you think automation engineers are making all this bank off of automation. Seriously, give me examples. The automation engineers I know do ok but they are hardly in danger doing a Scrooge McDuck dive into a pile of gold.

You are being too literal. For the1950's "automation engineers" read 2016's "software developer".

Re:Let me guess...

[Crowd Computing]

Society scrambling to find "make work" jobs for the masses that include the army and pointless infra projects? Double check.

How do you think Hitler got Germany back onto its feet after World War I? FDR had managed to stabilize things a bit, but the US only got out of the Great Depression thanks to the birth of the military-industrial complex.

That's a myth that keeps getting repeated. No. Wars do not bring a society out of depression. If you look at the actual standard of living, the second world war depressed it further by almost every measure, and most essential goods were actually rationed. What the war does, instead, is give people a good reason for their privation. They're not scrimping and getting by with less because the economy is bad: they're scrimping and getting by with less to support the war effort-- in Germany , as well as in America (not to mention England and the Soviet Union)..

What pulled he economy out of the Great Depression was the end of the war.

Wars might bring countries, especially the losers, to ruin, but the preparation for war, before the first bombs are dropped or the first tanks roll in from across the border, results in an increase in production. This is no different from any pump priming scheme. Of course, a drawn-out war can bankrupt even a resource-rich country far from the theater of conflict. But this wasn't the case for US during WW2. Also, jingoistic nationalism, while ultimately destructive, also helps give people a sense of purpose, such that they see their "privation" as part of their noble duty to the motherland.

Re:Let me guess...

[david_thornley]

The rumor about the North Stars hockey team is that the owner wanted to move to a place with less stringently enforced sexual harassment laws.

Re:Let me guess...

[david_thornley]

Economic downturns can come from a variety of causes. If it's caused by people not wanting to spend money, so it's hard to make money, and then there's less money to spend anyway, spending on anything can stimulate the economy and have lasting effects. Lots of people in the US were very worried that, when WWII was over, the economy would return to what it had been. From an economic point of view, war materiel is almost pure consumption, and there was a lot of consumption. The USN built four Iowa-class battleships, and had two more building, at a hundred megabucks a pop, to start at the high end.

The other thing to consider is that, while the war was going on, everyone who could hold down a job did. There was privation, but far fewer people were actually destitute.

Re:Let me guess...

[david_thornley]

OK, and how many software developers make it into the 1%? I'm getting by very comfortably, thank you, but I'm far from rich.

Re:Let me guess...

[LWATCDR]

Because it is easier to get money for a new highway or bridge than to get money to fix one that is still working.
But even that gets money
http://www.usnews.com/news/pol...
305 billion is not exactly small change

Re: Let me guess...

[silentcoder]

Compared to what is needed it is.

Re: Let me guess...

[LWATCDR]

Not really.
305 billion! not million but Billion...
Their are other issues.
1. New projects are seen as a way to solve problem while repairs cause problems. Anyone that has had to deal with a road repair project when commuting knows the feeling.
2. Some feel that the wrong projects are getting the funding. Highways instead of commuter rail.
3. The USs infrastructure isn't that bad. While far from perfect it does work. You can find lots of studies that say if x is not done we could have issues and they are correct but that does not mean that x will not be done.
4. Most infrastructure in the US is not under the federal government it is under state and local government and is paid for out of fuel taxes. When it comes to fuel tax it is about a 30.3/18.4 cent per gallon split between the state and federal government depending on what state you live in. California for example takes over 40 cents while Alaska takes 12.25. So if your infrastructure is failing look at your state gov first.

Re: Let me guess...

[RespekMyAthorati]

Beside, since when did a politician get his picture taken as he cuts the ribbon for a bridge repair?

Re:Let me guess...

[JRV31]

I was saying we build stadiums instead of infrastructure.

Re: Let me guess...

[LWATCDR]

Or get's a repaired pothole named after them.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, that Africans simply did not let them and killed the most advanced ones or obstructed them into nothing, along with Indians, and Chinese keeping industry to serve only a few toys to masses without interest nor income from high tech industries anymore, so everything just remained the SAME.

Drama people

[Kohath]

tell dramatic stories about a dramatic future. Stories about a future where a guy goes to work and installs software on computers for an insurance company don't get made into movies.

And Hollywood continues to turn out lots of bland, unimaginative, formulaic movies that are less and less compelling relative to TV and video games.

Re:Drama people

[Anonymous Coward]

Stories about a future where a guy goes to work and installs software on computers for an insurance company don't get made into movies.

Yes, they do, and then that guy has an anxiety attack, and Morpheus comes and gives him a pill which sends him on a trip through a hallucination where the world is a computer simulation.

Re:Drama people

[serviscope_minor]

Stories about a future where a guy goes to work and installs software on computers for an insurance company don't get made into movies.

No, I disagree that this is insightful.

A large amount of spec fic, especially sci fi (not space opera though) is to examine the *present* and the human condition (literally the title, summary and text of TFA). What does your supposed story say about the present or human condition? Does it bring any new insights?

Re:Drama people

[Anonymous Coward]

The middle third of 2001 was ENTIRELY about a guy going to work, phoning his wife, having a shit and going to a meeting....

Re:Drama people

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a sec.

You stayed awake that long?

Re:Drama people

[Sir_Eptishous]

Stories about a future where a guy goes to work and installs software on computers for an insurance company don't get made into movies.

Yes, they do, and then that guy has an anxiety attack, and Morpheus comes and gives him a pill which sends him on a trip through a hallucination where the world is a computer simulation.

I thought we were done arguing about the new Star Wars film.

Re:Drama people

[Anonymous Coward]

You've missed the point. An idea as old as literature itself is that for any given time the themes tends to reflect the anxieties of the public.

Although the themes discussed aren't particularly new they certainly weren't prevalent a decade ago. It suggests something significant has changed about how people view the world.

Re: Drama people

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it speaks to what fiction sells - and I don't know many people who run out to watch a movie because they think it'll "speak to their anxieties"

Science Denial

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anyone actually surprised that this is not a declining phenomena in society? Science isn't easy, because you have to do your own thinking, do your own research and evaluate the facts if you want the least bit of certainty. For a lot of people this is an inconvenient and hard thing to do. They neither have the 'time' nor the motivation to think for themselves, especially if that thinking could result into realizing that they were wrong. It's so much more convenient to listen to arguments, that are crafted by other, more clever people, when they're supporting the own opinion. And this has not been a current thing. A tendency to value the opinions of those who you agree with in a better way, than those who you don't agree with, can be seen virtually everywhere in human society and throughout our history. I would not call this one a prediction at all, it's just extrapolation.

Re:Science Denial

[thinkwaitfast]

The goals of of Enlightenment thinkers were liberty, progress, reason, tolerance, fraternity, and ending the abuses of the church and state. The Enlightenment was followed by the opposing intellectual movement Romanticism. Romanticism was social and political reaction to norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature. From wikipedia

In contrast to the usually very social art of the Enlightenment, Romantics were distrustful of the human world, and tended to believe that a close connection with nature was mentally and morally healthy.

Sounds like a lot of people around here.

Re:Science Denial

[NotDrWho]

I would write a story about a future taking place decades after science got hijacked and turned into a religion by liberals, who were determined to turn science into a religious/social instrument to promote their own anti-capitalist social agenda. The story would be set in a prison for the people who questioned this social agenda, and who were arrested and charged with social crimes. The protagonist is serving time for science denial and improper use of scientific data without government approval. He is serving his time alongside other social criminals charged with racism, misogyny, hate-thinking, harassment of protected classes, and carnivorism.

Re:Science Denial

[Anonymous Coward]

I would write a story....

Call it "The Footman's Tale" and see how it sells. Maybe you'll get your own crew to promote you for the Hugo since you won't have any kind of dreaded political agenda.

Re:Science Denial

[Sir_Eptishous]

Go ahead and write it. But don't expect any royalties from your tear jerker autobiography. The Son of Sam law took care of that(and it probably was those sciency liberals who did that!).

Oh, and don't forget to include the part where once upon a time you were a sweet little boy who loved his new-age-vegan-yogini-single-mommy who would dress you up in girls clothes while listening to Enya. Then this all changed when the girl you had a crush on in 7th grade(and who turned out to become a highly regarded professor of womyns studies) beat you up when you laughed at her lisp in the lunchroom and your reaction to this was to eventually join the high school Republicans, and go on to a brilliant career delivering pizza on K street.

Thats the part I want to read.

Re:Science Denial

[Anonymous Coward]

Science, like probably most things that exist, can be hijacked and turned into an instrument for ones own agenda. That is true. And that fact is another reason why it's so important to do these inconvenient things, like thinking for yourself in a rational way.

Re:Science Denial

[tehcyder]

I would write a story about a future taking place decades after science got hijacked and turned into a religion by liberals, who were determined to turn science into a religious/social instrument to promote their own anti-capitalist social agenda. The story would be set in a prison for the people who questioned this social agenda, and who were arrested and charged with social crimes. The protagonist is serving time for science denial and improper use of scientific data without government approval. He is serving his time alongside other social criminals charged with racism, misogyny, hate-thinking, harassment of protected classes, and carnivorism.

I don't quite see where you'd get any sympathy for your protagonist in this utopia?

Re:Science Denial

[david_thornley]

If you want it to be halfway good, drop the politics as much as possible. Writing about the other political team engineering a thoroughly improbable and evil social manipulation may give you a warm feeling, but bladder incontinence will do that also and be less embarrassing.

Alternate Title

[Kunedog]

"Watch Us Try to Spin as Many Science Fiction Works as Possible into Supporting All the Progressive Talking Points We Were Planning to Cram Down Your Throat Anyway"

Getting repeatedly called out on thinly-veiled, agenda-driven clickbait like this is exactly why Motherboard Vice censored its comment sections.

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

They are just upset that transportation didn't turn up to be the area that experienced exponential growth (colonies on the moon & mars, routine space travel), when it was communications which took off.

It's as if they'd be happier with solar powered flying cars, rather than the wireless handheld supercomputers we have today.

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, it isn't just Vice. Everything from the the AV Club to even Slasdot seem to have a certain narrative direction, and quite a few places have closed down their comments section, concceding a white flag to trolls.

That a piece has a certain point of view doesn't concern me, but accuracy does, especially coming from a pseudo-news source like Vice. You can't in one breath derride Aaron Clary for claiming Mad Max is a feminist film, and then reporpose it as a feminist film as it suits your needs (which I am unclear how having strong female roles qualifies as "feminist").

That bit of "fiction" tells you more about the landscape today as anything else.

Re:Alternate Title

[Cyberax]

So do you prefer regressive SF? Perhaps post-apocalyptic survivalist crap?

Re:Alternate Title

[WoOS]

I stopped reading after he claimed "Hard to be a god" was a call for "good" science (whatever good means in this context) when it is (at least in my opinion) nearly the opposite: A tale that even the best intentions do not guarantee favorable outcomes and that even scientist are not save from believing otherwise until their intentions fail.
So I take the rest of the article was similarly messed up?

Re:Alternate Title

[serviscope_minor]

Getting repeatedly called out on thinly-veiled, agenda-driven clickbait like this is exactly why Motherboard Vice censored its comment sections.

Wow "censored"! I can almost feel the butthurt.

Maybe, just maybe they comments were full of regressive shitheads and they didn't want to put in the time to moderate them/and or found that the nastiness in the comments was putting of readers.

Some website not allowing comments is not censorship. Get over yourself.

Re:Alternate Title

[TheNarrator]

Agreed, an alternate title: "How science fiction is or isn't meeting our goals as a propaganda tool for 2015's approved list of progressive causes". The writer obviously doesn't have any science background nor has he read much sci-fi. It's such a third rate article. Why is this even on Slashdot?

Re:Alternate Title

[DNS-and-BIND]

It IS feminist. They had feminists review the script and make changes. They VOLUNTARILY did this, of their own free will. Scary, isn't it? Even McCarthy didn't do things like this.

Re:Alternate Title

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's more like they were having their hypocrisy and double dealing pointed out repeatedly and got tired of the masses back-talking them. If there's one thing leftists can't stand it's a conversation where other people get to talk. Just slap a label on them (in this case "regressive" was chosen, whatever that means) and boom, instant cause to do what you wanted to do all along.

Re:Alternate Title

[Foobar of Borg]

It's such a third rate article. Why is this even on Slashdot?

Odd, I thought the question was supposed to come before the answer.

Re:Alternate Title

[stdarg]

You sound pretty angry about misuse of the term "censorship" -- and it turns out you don't even know what it means. A website that disables comments because they find them objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient is exactly what censorship is.

Kind of like if I stop myself from writing in my own journal something that I think future readers may find objectionable or might impugn my character, that is called "self-censorship" -- or do you not believe that concept exists either?

Re:Alternate Title

[dbIII]

Except reality was a guy handing a script to a woman who also works in the movie industry and asking her opinion - just like what happens with many scripts only this time you somehow think the woman was pushing a feminist agenda instead of doing a job. It's no more feminist than "Dukes of Hazard" and written by a guy that grew up in the country shooting huge wild pigs as a kid and has more balls than you will ever grow. You saw all those eye-candy girls and still thought it was feminist? Or are you just parroting some family court victim that hates women who pretended a road chase movie was somehow feminist?

Deliberate pretended stupidity to push some wacky party line is something that really pisses me off, hence the rant. Please don't mislead the kiddies just to push your very petty little crusade against women in IT or whatever the fuck has got you acting like a person ten times worse than you really are.

Re:Alternate Title

[serviscope_minor]

Censorship is not the same as not being able to speak your mind at any place, at any time for any reason. Locking you out of somewhere is not censorship. And frankly a website without a comment system is indistinguishable from one that never had one.

People like you do a real disservice to actual real censorship by cheapening it with incessant butthurt.

 

Re:Alternate Title

[serviscope_minor]

Wow the butthurt is strong in this one!

A few ranty blokes shitposting all over the comments is not the same as "the masses" no matter how much you want it to be. We saw that with the puppies who claimed to speak for the silent majority. When the actual votes came in, it turned out that they were actually a very noisy (and in the rabid case, particularly obnoxious) minority.

Volume and emotion are no the same as consensus.

If there's one thing leftists can't stand it's a conversation where other people get to talk.

Uh... I assume you think I'm a leftist, in which case your claim is trivially disproven. The fact I'm here engaging you proves I can stand it.

Nonetheless, I expect you to rationalize away your disproven claim since you seem angry and angry people tend to be illogical and impervious to evidence.

in this case "regressive" was chosen, whatever that means

Try going here: http://google.com/ and looking it up.

instant cause to do what you wanted to do all along

I always wanted to shut down a comments section on a website I almost never visit? News to me!

Re:Alternate Title

[epyT-R]

Except reality was a guy handing a script to a woman who also works in the movie industry and asking her opinion - just like what happens with many scripts only this time you somehow think the woman was pushing a feminist agenda instead of doing a job.

Uhh. yeah, that's kinda the definition of 'doing her job' in this particular case. In any movie made in the last 15 years or so, the men are either made into insecure, bumbling fools, killed off, or used as emotional tampons for the new heroines to take their places (eg: Transformers series, mad max:fr, Star Wars:TFA, Thor). Of course, unlike the strong male character leads of the past, this isn't considered sexist by feminists. When this bullshit is pointed out, feminists 'justify' their own sexism by spewing some neo-marxist claptrap about it being impossible for (their self-described) victim class to discriminate. How convenient.

Deliberate pretend-stupidity? That's what's in these movies: A deliberate attempt to propagate a social agenda at the expense of the story. With some of these movies, the grafting is so obvious it's painful to watch. What feminists don't understand (or just won't acknowledge out of insecurity and/or sense of entitlement) is that true empowerment doesn't come from forcing others to give you their stuff/attention. It comes from achieving on one's own. In the case of entertainment, the women in hollywood should come up with some new female characters with their own stories.

Re:Alternate Title

[epyT-R]

Yeah because anything that clashes with left wing narratives is 'regressive.'

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

It IS feminist. They had feminists review the script and make changes. They VOLUNTARILY did this, of their own free will. Scary, isn't it? Even McCarthy didn't do things like this.

Speaking as somebody who is unfamiliar with the Hays Code and the Production Code Administration.

Try this:

Resolved, That those things which are included in the following list shall not appear in pictures produced by the members of this Association, irrespective of the manner in which they are treated:
Pointed profanity – by either title or lip – this includes the words "God," "Lord," "Jesus," "Christ" (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), "hell," "damn," "Gawd," and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled;
Any licentious or suggestive nudity – in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;
The illegal traffic in drugs;
Any inference of sex perversion;
White slavery;
Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races);
Sex hygiene and venereal diseases;
Scenes of actual childbirth – in fact or in silhouette;
Children's sex organs;
Ridicule of the clergy;
Willful offense to any nation, race or creed;
And be it further resolved, That special care be exercised in the manner in which the following subjects are treated, to the end that vulgarity and suggestiveness may be eliminated and that good taste may be emphasized:
The use of the flag;
International relations (avoiding picturizing in an unfavorable light another country's religion, history, institutions, prominent people, and citizenry);
Arson;
The use of firearms;
Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc. (having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron);
Brutality and possible gruesomeness;
Technique of committing murder by whatever method;
Methods of smuggling;
Third-degree methods;
Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishment for crime;
Sympathy for criminals;
Attitude toward public characters and institutions;
Sedition;
Apparent cruelty to children and animals;
Branding of people or animals;
The sale of women, or of a woman selling her virtue;
Rape or attempted rape;
First-night scenes;
Man and woman in bed together;
Deliberate seduction of girls;
The institution of marriage;
Surgical operations;
The use of drugs;
Titles or scenes having to do with law enforcement or law-enforcing officers;
Excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a "heavy".

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

So do you prefer regressive SF? Perhaps post-apocalyptic survivalist crap?

While most post-apocalyptic survivalist fiction is, as you said, crap, to be honest, that does seem like the most likely future for humanity.

I would love to see a scientifically accurate (a la The Martian) on what life for a lone survivor would be like and what techniques one would have to use when civilization collapses. Something along the lines of Alone in the Wilderness but for the long haul rather only a year and with supply drops.

Re:Alternate Title

[epyT-R]

Of course, siteops can do what they like with their own sites, but shutting down their comments when they're called out by readers send a message that they don't want their views challenged. Despite the usual sanctimonious statements made after such action, this is not a position of strength, it's one of weakness (butthurt). At that point such people have zero credibility. A good example would be creationists abusing the youtube copyright arbitration system a few years ago to get critical replies taken down. This is a favorite tactic of anyone, really, who wants to broadcast a strong opinion that lacks rational backing and doesn't want its holes exposed ("shut him up! facts trigger me!").

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

In any movie made in the last 15 years or so, the men are either made into insecure, bumbling fools, killed off, or used as emotional tampons for the new heroines to take their places (eg: Transformers series, mad max:fr, Star Wars:TFA, Thor).

Before I even begin giving examples of movies that I would say counter your premise, I'd like examples of this from Transformers and Thor. I have not seen the other two, so I can't speak with you on them in an engaged manner.

Because while I agree that there were bumbling male characters in Transformers, I can also remember the competence of some of the men, such as the special forces fellows, and the male hacker guy. And even the government Secretary was a decent authority figure, not a complete fool. What I remember about the girls is that they showed off their hooters and butts a lot. Yeah, Sam was a bit of a fool, but so were his parents. It was a deliberate "Everyman in a situation where he's somehow able to prevail" story, hardly what you contend.

Similarly, with Thor, well, certainly the Natalie Portman character is a bit of a departure from the norms of the Thor story in Marvel Comics, but she had a bumbling female sidekick, of sorts, and a male authority figure. And of course, Odin was angry at his son often enough in the source material. That's why he sent him to Earth. So you're complaining about something they did 50 odd years ago for the Comics, and centuries ago for the mythology.

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

>People like you do a real disservice to actual real censorship by cheapening it with incessant butthurt.

You don't actually expect the readers to believe you care about "real censorship" do you?

Re:Alternate Title

[Sir_Eptishous]

Maybe we should get some feminists to review the script for Birth of a Nation.

Re:Alternate Title

[serviscope_minor]

You're equating a group who closed comments on their own website to a group who uvexatiously abused an arbitration system to silence people on a third party website.

Because that's like totally the same.

mmm hmm.

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

>Mad Max is feminist
Let me set this straight.
The movie has two civilizations in it. One run by fat, white, greedy men that don't know anything. The other is run by strong women. Let's analyze them.

Water
Fat white men:
Clean, fresh, sustainable water supply. Enough for thousands as long as it's metered, so it is metered.
Women:
"The water in our huge lagoon gone dun poisoned itself!"

Industry
Fat white men:
Everyone has a job, from manufacturing to services, to government.
Women:
Highway banditry alone isn't working. Let's resort to trying naked highway banditry!

Agriculture
Fat white men:
Rows of crops, hydroponics
Women:
I keep all our plants in a dark sack!

Perpetuation
Fat white men:
Babies. Children. Pregnant women have their needs met.
Women:
How come everyone left so now there's only 5 of us? And there's no men, so the five of us will certainly be the LAST five?

Re:Alternate Title

[epyT-R]

It's obvious that Bay grafted Megan Fox's character into the story to be titillating to male audiences and 'empowering' to female ones: ie a feminist view of what men 'only' want and what women 'should' want (it backfired however, there's no pleasing feminists). In the opening scenes, it's clear she knows cars and understands tech while Spike/Sam can barely handle the car he just bought. Throughout the movie, he's relegated to clueless idiot status. Even when he's entrusted with important tasks, the implication is that he's incompetent without her. This contrasts with the character from the original cartoon series who, at various points, was entrusted with critical tasks and challenges, no privilege checking needed.

It is obvious Marvel grafted a female thor into the storyline for the new movie. There was no reason to retcon sex. There are plenty of female characters in the Marvel universe that stand on their own. These kinds of situations are why feminists are often accused of not wanting equality of any sort, but total cultural and legal dominance over men. In the movie, it's obvious Odin was made out to be the metaphor for the evils of 'patriarchy', not just a neutral male authority figure. The newer Thor comics make jabs at gamergate and ramble typical feminist mantras. In this context, it is very clear the new Thor movie was a case of grafted politics and not an honest attempt at building a new character or adding an unexpected plot twist to an old story.

reaxxion isn't exactly unbiased, but the comics' content speaks for itself.
http://www.reaxxion.com/wp-con...
http://www.reaxxion.com/wp-con...
http://www.reaxxion.com/wp-con...

(warning: spoilers follow)

As far as the other movies go, watch them. Watch the character interactions in the new star wars closely. She's right, Solo's an old, bumbling idiot, even with his own ship that he's flown for decades. She goes from drifter to a lightsaber pro within minutes after receiving luke's saber, learns to control her mind powers along the way without any guidance, and defeats the movie's nemesis, but of course not before Solo is senselessly killed off so she can take his place (she don't need no man to protect her, but a wookie is ok I guess). In contrast, force or not, Luke still had to train, both with the saber and mind-disciplines for many years. By the time she meets him at the end, there's little point in continuing the story because she's already 90% on the way to being a jedi. This plot clearly abused the story line for the sake of political correctness.

Re:Alternate Title

[epyT-R]

The motivation was exactly the same, yes: to silence criticism of their viewpoints.

Re:Alternate Title

[Cyberax]

Well, pretty much yes. So I guessed correctly, didn't I?

Re:Alternate Title

[epyT-R]

I guess.. if you buy into the required newspeak premises.

Re:Alternate Title

[serviscope_minor]

Ah so you are equating the shutting of their own message boards to people trying to force others to silence on a third party service. It's also a stretch to call shitposting and rampant trolling "criticism of viewpoints" but whatever.

And secondly, so what? People can have whatever silly views they want (e.g. you). The problem comes when they try to force those on other people. One half of the ones you're equating are doing that, the other half are not.

The silly thing is your completely over the top nutty views actually do a disservice to the real problems of censorship. No, those things are not remotely equivalent.

Re:Alternate Title

[epyT-R]

I'll quote myself just to be sure you read it.

The motivation was exactly the same, yes: to silence criticism of their viewpoints.

As in 'motivation', not as in 'method.' Both situations are examples of censorship because the intent was to silence opposition. Whether this or that group's methods are moral or legal is immaterial. It's still censorship. Speaking of 'forcing opinion', censorship is probably about as close as most can get to it. After all, the purpose of censorship is to control the narratives that shape opinion.

The terms 'trolling' and 'shitposting' are rampantly abused. Even around here, 'troll' is used to downmod people with different opinions regardless of merit. The real meaning of 'troll' implies intent to disrupt, but when used like this, it becomes ad hominem. Speaking of that, can you discuss without name calling?

Re:Alternate Title

[serviscope_minor]

Why do you care so much about censorship anyway? Could it be because it's a moral issue?

Whether this or that group's methods are moral ... is immaterial.

No, it makes all the difference. Because if morality is immaterial, then censorship is immaterial.

Speaking of 'forcing opinion', censorship is probably about as close as most can get to it.

Closing comments is not forcing anything on anyone morally or otherwise.

The terms 'trolling' and 'shitposting' are rampantly abused. Even around here, 'troll' is used to downmod people with different opinions regardless of merit.

You love false equivalences, it seems.

The real meaning of 'troll' implies intent to disrupt,

No, the real meaning of "troll" is getting a rise out of someone, i.e. baiting them. Except instead of bait, it draws the term from fly fishing instead.

but when used like this, it becomes ad hominem. Speaking of that, can you discuss without name calling?

No: you're an idiot.

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the titillation, though I think you're pressing close to blaming the feminists for that one, rather than Bay himself. I don't buy the rest, and I'm not surprised feminists wouldn't either. She was there to be Wittwicky's girl, anything else was ultimately meaningless. I mean really, she was a "mechanic" looking at a car that was really an advanced alien lifeform. Talk about being useless. But no, no, I think you haven't seen G1 lately, or you'd know that Spike was often the guy who managed to cause trouble to happen. Or who got involved in nonsense like Autobot-X where he was the trouble.

You may want to take off your clouded lenses, even if I concede that the Spike in S3 was a hero, his son...whatever his name was, became the new version. And I won't even talk about what Sparkplug would think about the movie father's behavior. But that kind of character has been around since James Dean at least. The father you don't respect, but treats you like crap? Old news there.

Tough to blame all this on today's world.

Now Thor, you seem to be bringing in the comic. I thought we were just talking about the movie. I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever of this material from the comics showing up in the movie series, any of them. Did I miss something in Age of Ultron? And I can't see any of this showing up in Thor: Ragnarok. Nor do I see Odin as a metaphor for the evils of patriarchy, either in the first movie, or the Dark World. You're going to have to give examples. And not the jocular bit with Sif and Thor about appreciating her warrior skills. So no, it not clear at all about any grafted politics or anything else in the movies.

So it looks most of your complaint seems to derive from the comics, not the film. If you wanted to talk about the comics, find, say that, but the problem I have is that you are wrong in your second sentence, Thor's gender was not retconned. Your accusation falls flat on its face when you can't even get the facts right enough to establish that what really happened was that Thor was told something by Nick Fury that caused him to lose his worthiness, but another person, a woman picked it up. The comics are, in context, making it very clear that they're ripping on the whole hysteria to it. But to realize that, you'd have to start reading the whole comic for yourself.

So why don't you?

https://comicstore.marvel.com/Thor-2014-1/digital-comic/34966

All the bits you shown? Nope. Not really saying what you think when you look at the big picture. Rather the opposite.

For the rest, I'm going to tell you right now, that I will not engage with you on the other two movies. I have not seen them. When I get around to seeing them, then I will see about discoursing with others on them. I've not done it yet, it will be some time. So whatever you have to say, I will pay no heed to it, since I can't examine your words until I see those movies.

But to me, it looks like you haven't even read the Thor comics. Needless to say, I question your representation of both of the movies which I have seen, so it applies to any others you use.

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have an interesting point to make about current trends but projecting an sinister agenda onto anything with a female lead comes across as a tad unhinged.

Are chicks getting more screen time? Sure.
Does that indicate Hollywood has been captured by misandrists? You must be off your meds.

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious that Bay grafted Megan Fox's character into the story to be titillating to male audiences and 'empowering' to female ones: ie a feminist view of what men 'only' want and what women 'should' want (it backfired however, there's no pleasing feminists). In the opening scenes, it's clear she knows cars and understands tech while Spike/Sam can barely handle the car he just bought. Throughout the movie, he's relegated to clueless idiot status. Even when he's entrusted with important tasks, the implication is that he's incompetent without her. This contrasts with the character from the original cartoon series who, at various points, was entrusted with critical tasks and challenges, no privilege checking needed.

I don't disagree with most of your points, but I would be wary about defending Megan Fox's character from Transformers. Some of what you said is certainly valid, but one of the biggest complaints feminists have with media is the objectification of women. And it's difficult to argue that's she's an empowered badass and not objectified at all when this is literally the first shot of her in the entire series.

I generally just try to take each complaint one at a time to assess if it's valid or not. Some feminists complaints about the industry, or media, or society, or fucking whatever are actually valid. Maybe even most, I don't know. But in my experience, there's roughly as many good arguments as bad from either side of these issues.

Re:Alternate Title

[KGIII]

As long as we're pointing out logical fallacies, your false dichotomy (above) was cute. Just because one doesn't want things to progress in the same way you do does not mean that they don't want things to progress in another way. People who disagree with you are not, necessarily, regressive. Seeing as we're on the subject of fallacies and all.

Re:Alternate Title

[dbIII]

the men are either made into insecure, bumbling fools

Like Max who saves the fucking day?
I know you got this shit from some guy who thinks the entire fucking world is out to get him because he lost his kids to a court decision, so he's willing to even blame some guy half way around the fucking world making a testosterone fuelled action movie despite how utterly fucking STUPID that is - but why are you letting his shit dribble out of your mouth? You have not been hurt enough for sanity to no longer matter so why expose us to such stupidity deliberately? What agenda do you think is so fucking important that you are lying to the kiddies to push it? What is making you sink so fucking low?

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

She's right, Solo's an old, bumbling idiot, even with his own ship that he's flown for decades. She goes from drifter to a lightsaber pro within minutes after receiving luke's saber, learns to control her mind powers along the way without any guidance, and defeats the movie's nemesis....

I know I turned off A New Hope when that random farm boy was the best X-Wing pilot the very first time he ever stepped in the thing, going on to blow up the Death Star. I wish the writers for Star Wars had included a way to easily hand-wave why their exceptional characters get to do all the rad shit they do. Something over-arching, that ties everything together. Some sort of 'force' to their universe, if you will.

Sadly, instead, we must put up with this clearly feminist propaganda nonsense, instead.

Re:Alternate Title

[goose-incarnated]

The easiest way to shut down criticism and/or discussion is by slinging mud. If there's ever a discussion you want to shut down because it offends your puritanical ideals, simply call the other party names until they get annoyed. *Then* you get to play the victim card using their annoyance as proof of their aggression.

This is basic lawyering - Seen it, done it, in multiple courts.

Re:Alternate Title

[serviscope_minor]

Are you referring to the previous post where I called people regressive? Other than that, I'm not sure what precisely you're referring to.

Re:Alternate Title

[serviscope_minor]

The easiest way to shut down criticism and/or discussion is by slinging mud.

Precisely! And that's why comment systems were removed from many websites. There was nothing but mud slinging, shit posting and trolling going on. Meaningful discussion had long since left. Flipping the off switch wasn't stopping any remotely meaningful discussion because those had long since been driven off.

*Then* you get to play the victim card using their annoyance as proof of their aggression.

That does indeed seem to be happening here. Comments got shat on. Comments got turned off. Comment-shitters play the victim card.

I think this is one of the are occasions we agree.

Re:Alternate Title

[tehcyder]

It IS feminist. They had feminists review the script and make changes. They VOLUNTARILY did this, of their own free will. Scary, isn't it? Even McCarthy didn't do things like this.

I think you need to see your doctor and get a new prescription, as the current pills obviously aren't strong enough.

Re:Alternate Title

[tehcyder]

It's obvious that Bay grafted Megan Fox's character into the story to be titillating to male audiences

In what bizarre alternative world is this an example of "feminists" taking over the movies?

Re:Alternate Title

[tehcyder]

A website that disables comments because they find them objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient is exactly what censorship is.

No, it's exactly what censorship is not. The internet is not some monolithic government publishing house.

Any privately owned/run website is perfectly entitled to refuse to publish things it doesn't want to. Do you really think you have a right to go to the Vatican website and flood it with "the Pope's the Anti-Christ" rants? Or to post feel-good inter-racial porn on Stormfront?

I think the slashdot way of down-modding crap but leaving it for people to find if they want is a good solution, but that's up to the site owners.

Re:Alternate Title

[KGIII]

Yup. I am referencing a comment earlier - and had read the ensuing discussion. :D

I'll even give you an example. You think it's okay to give young girls special opportunities that exclude young boys. I disagree. I think we should give those special opportunities to all disadvantaged people, regardless of gender, race, creed, or other innate traits. You think we need more females in tech (from your prior posts) and I disagree. I think we need more competent people in tech, without regard to their innate traits other than their aptitude. I think we should find more people with a high aptitude and encourage them - with egalitarianism being the method. If that means we end up with more females in tech then that matters not one iota to me except it will make me mildly emotionally happier to see a more equal distribution.

I want progress - just not progress in the same specific way you want it. Based on your comment, and not reading things into the post that you were replying to, I'd say that it's a false dichotomy. There's another choice. (The above example is used simply to provide an example and shouldn't be assumed to be anything more than one such example.)

Which, if you will, leads me to this... I find myself disliking the progressive moniker because the vast majority of those who self-identify as such *AND* that I have encountered, are convinced that there is only one type of progress to be made and in only a certain direction. I'm one of those people who would like society to be very different than it is but my failing to envision the same outcome gets me erroneously labeled a conservative by many of those people. You, of course, are quite likely to know that I'm hardly a conservative.

As for the above, you do not quite fall into that observation. That's why I was kind of surprised with the false dichotomy. You are usually more, for lack of a better word, observant and not quite so binary as some.

Re:Alternate Title

[serviscope_minor]

I want progress - just not progress in the same specific way you want it.

Yeah sure.

I'm not referring to that though.

I'm specifically referring to regressive as people who eant to regress and go back in time to a place where gender roles were rather more strictly adhered to than they are these days.

Have you read some of the regressive crap that gets posted to message boards, though? I'm not talking about people debating whether affirmative action is a good thing, I'm talking about people pretty much whining that women aren't stuck in the kitchen now. The regressive people want to take things back to the way they were, because they're basically annoyed that women don't de-facto require men. If you want to read more, there's a website called http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/ dedicated to digging up the insane things people say in this kind of regard.

Re:Alternate Title

[david_thornley]

Star Wars FTA has strong male characters. We don't see much of Poe, but Finn is a major character and quite competent, as is Han Solo. We only know what sex Chewbacca is by an offhand comment. What you're looking at there is an actual strong female character. She's not somebody's love interest or mother, and SHE HAS LINES, breaking with Star Wars tradition. Now, in my daily life, I encounter strong women who talk about a lot of subjects, so having one in the movie makes it not the mystically powered sausage fest of its predecessors but closer to what I'd expect that universe to be. (And she still doesn't show up in a lot of the merchandise, unfortunately.)

In the movies I saw with Thor in them, he was a strong male character who knew what he wanted to do and did it. With the exception of Black Widow (also barely merchandised) and his mother, there's no woman in his movies anywhere close. He does care deeply about one, but that's something lots of men do.

I haven't seen any Transformers or Mad Max movies, but you're batting .000 on everything I do know about.

Re:Alternate Title

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's difficult to argue that's she's an empowered badass and not objectified at all when this is literally the first shot [comingsoon.net] of her in the entire series.

I think that's from the second movie actually. Not that the actual first is necessarily better, but I think it is different.

Re:Alternate Title

[dbIII]

The recent Mad Max is pretty well Monster Trucks plus Guns - then fullon video game action starts and barely slows down at any time until the credits. That's why the comment by epyT-R calling it "feminist" was so utterly ridiculous - but he's really just parroting some blogger that lost his kids to his ex-wife in court, blames the world, and ranted about Mad Max.

Basically people are cowards.

[EzInKy]

Maintain the status quo, that is what people today and people of yesterday are all about.

Re:Basically people are cowards.

[DNS-and-BIND]

I love how you shit all over ordinary people for living ordinary lives. Yes, cowards, they deserve whatever abuse we can dish out. Did you know 50% of all people are below average?

Re:Basically people are cowards.

[houghi]

"Let us go to the moon, if there is a postitive ROI before the end of this century" Somehow that is less inspireing that what was actually said.

Also standing on the shoulders of giants is a LOT harder due to the legal minefield of copyright and patents.

Re:Basically people are cowards.

[dryeo]

Think of the case where you have 9 people 1% above average and one person 11% below average. 90% of people above average.
I'd suggest that you learn some critical thinking before ranting about others lack of thinking.

Re:Basically people are cowards.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how you shit all over ordinary people for living ordinary lives. Yes, cowards, they deserve whatever abuse we can dish out. Did you know 50% of all people are below average?

You say that like they aren't the ones voting Democrat and Republican, dragging the rest of us down like crabs in a bucket.

Re:Basically people are cowards.

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent said ALL people. Your example uses a subset of all people then compares it to the average of all people. For a fair comparison, you would need to calculate what average is based on only those 10 in your sample. Then you would find that 50 will be below and 50 percent will be above average for the group.

Re:Basically people are cowards.

[tnk1]

Human intelligence as determined by IQ is designed to generate a normal distribution. If you were talking about IQ tests, then your scenario will only hold if you're selecting a subset of a greater set, where the distribution of intelligence was calculated on the superset. If that is the case, you could take a random subset of values and have the odd scores you suggest. However, if IQ was calculated on the subset again, then the normal distribution would apply because new scores would be calculated to ensure a normal distribution.

Fucking Spare Me

[Anonymous Coward]

"concern the rise of science denial, climate change"

People don't deny any of this. They are skeptical of the Bullshit that activists spout while cloaking themselves in "science" to achieve their bullshit goals.

How long until the world bursts into flames according to Al Gore? Next week, isn't it?

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[Kohath]

On Jan 25th, 2016 "the world will reach a point of no return". It's not next week, it's 3 weeks from now.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[Anonymous Coward]

On Jan 25th, 2016 "the world will reach a point of no return". It's not next week, it's 3 weeks from now.

So you are saying that, in 22 more days, people will just finally shut the fuck up, because it's too late?

Outstanding!!!!!!!

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[fazig]

If that only was true.
The forms of scepticism that I've encountered most frequently is the refusal of any data that is presented by any sources but themselves. (Note that not all of the sceptics are like this. But many of those with a particularly loud voice are like this)
Then it doesn't matter whether there are rather reliable temperature records for the past 200 years. Since the chair of IPCC was accused of sexual harassment every single thing that is connected with the issue must be a lie.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[Kohath]

They've largely given up on the doomsday talk anyway. These days they just say the word "deniers" as a way to establish their tribal identity and then talk about something else, like how they just got back from another ski trip to Europe, or how they're going to start leaving the Land Rover at home and they'll be commuting to work in their new Tesla Model S.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[dbIII]

The most amusing thing there was a targeted advertisement for Walmart telling me to go to a local store that doesn't exist :)
The future is now and advertisers know too damn much about us.

Besides, I don't know enough about the topic to know if Gore is wrong, do you? Remember all those "future shock" predictions about world starvation? Those sort of numbers would have been correct if Mao hadn't died and China hadn't got their shit together, not to mention the "green revolution" in agriculture that gave us our current levels of production. Maybe Gore would have been correct without the reduction in pollution the economic hassles of 2008+ had not happened. Maybe he's still correct, the "experts" that make fun of him seem to be economists and nothing to do with anything even loosely connected to physics.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[thinkwaitfast]

The big thing that happened was natural gas replacing coal.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting points you use in your argument.

The forms of scepticism that I've encountered most frequently is the refusal of any data that is presented by any sources but themselves.

Then it doesn't matter whether there are rather reliable temperature records for the past 200 years.

Does it matter that the reliable temperature records that we do have are being systematically changed by the scientists in charge?

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[tburkhol]

On Jan 25th, 2016 "the world will reach a point of no return".

Of course, the world did not just continue on its pre-2006 path, but has been making changes. In the US and Europe, GHG emissions are down by 5-10%. Even globally, CO2 emissions seem to be leveling off and that before the recent global agreement. Nevermind that the "point of no return" was about conditions likely to produce a couple of degrees temperature rise in 2100, not the date when New York City would be taken back into the sea.

Sure, the activists tend to use worse-case predictions (in exactly the same way that the "deniers" use better-case predictions). But it's disingenuous to pick out some 10-year old predictions, ignore the corrective actions taken to prevent disaster, and claim that the predictors were idiots. Remember the Y2K problem and how it turned out to be no-big-deal? That's not an argument to ignore the Epoch bug.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[silentcoder]

It's a classic denier pattern of course, which is either a deliberately attempt at deception or a massive failure at understanding even the most basic premise of science.
Science makes a very specific kind of prediction: if X then Y.

Then, when we take steps to prevent X the result becomes: !X therefore !Y - and deniers declare that this somehow DISPROVES the original prediction (when, in fact, it confirms it).

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[silentcoder]

They are not skeptics. Skeptic has a specific definition - and they are literally the opposite of skeptics.
Skeptics are people who believe only that which has evidence, they embrace science and reject pseudo-science, religion and other ideologies not based on evidence.

Skeptics accept climate science as one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories in the world today (we have more evidence for this theory than we have for the link between tobacco and lung cancer and very nearly more than we have for evolution - and there isn't a shred of scientific evidence against it).

People who refuse to believe something *despite* all the evidence are not skeptics, by definition they are not. The proper term is "deniers" whether what they are denying is evolution, climate change or the holocaust - they are all the same movement intellectually.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[dbIII]

Very long way to go with that, but in some situations yes, probably into the double digits of percentage by now. As the coal power generation units age that replacement will increase. Steel production is down (economic hassles) so coal use is down in that area where natural gas does not work because the coal is needed for a chemical reaction as well as the heat.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[stdarg]

Skeptics accept climate science as one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories in the world today (we have more evidence for this theory than we have for the link between tobacco and lung cancer and very nearly more than we have for evolution - and there isn't a shred of scientific evidence against it).

Look, it doesn't make sense to say that there is evidence for or against "climate science" -- that just doesn't make sense. But is there evidence for or against a particular climate model? Absolutely. Every time they adjust a model or present a new one, that is evidence that the previous models were flawed.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[Anonymous Coward]

The Big Thing that happened is the reviled Fracking made gas cheaper than coal. Something the Envirowackos are working hard to reverse.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[Anonymous Coward]

not to mention the "green revolution" in agriculture that gave us our current levels of production

So your strategy for dealing with future problems is "we got lucky last time, we'll get lucky again"? What do you expect to do when our collective luck runs out? Other than most of the population, you and I included, dying miserably, I mean.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of crap.

There is no "science" in Climate Science. If you think otherwise, please provide the theory that can be falsified.

You can't, can you? You make assertions about a system in which they learn something new every day and relearn something nearly every day. You "adjust" data with any stated reasons, your reject accurate, objective measurements for the "adjusted" measurements, and outright throw out others.

Even if you had exact measurements, you are still like ants on a Giant Sequoia trying to discern the nature of the Forrest.

Climate Science is like a bunch of pre-schoolers playing in a sand box, eating cat shit.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[malditaenvidia]

Damn you, manbearpig!

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[dryeo]

Just because models get updated does not mean the premise is flawed. It may just mean that variables are known more accurately.
Consider other science where there is consensus like the theory that stars get their energy from nuclear fusion. The consensus is pretty high that the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion which leads to models showing the Sun is getting more dense due to an increasing ratio of helium to hydrogen and a more dense Sun burning hotter. Some models show that in 500 million years the oceans will boil and some models show it happening in a billion years. Just because both models disagree and keep getting adjusted does not mean that the basic premise that the Sun experiences nuclear fusion is wrong. It just means that there are variables that we're unsure of.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the world did not just continue on its pre-2006 path, but has been making changes. In the US and Europe, GHG emissions are down by 5-10%.

Since 2006, China went from 5 billion to 8 billion tons of CO2 emissions. That 3 billion tons more than makes up for the TINY decrease that the US (from 5 billion to 4.8 billion!) and Europe experienced. Your argument is invalid.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[fazig]

I agree with you. Those people are in fact deniers.
But in most conversations I've been, they were adamant on being labelled as "sceptics. Many of them state that they'll believe reliable evidence and then ask for such evidence. But in the end virtually everything will be shot down in many cases. Most commonly by ad hominem, nitpicking, strawmen, false dichotomies and similar things.

The most fruitful conversations I've had in these cases where, when people simply admitted that they they are mostly sceptical of the agendas of politicians and other powerful people/organisations. And again, I don't want to argue a strawman here myself. This is just an anecdote on my part.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[silentcoder]

Oh you're right - they are very adamant about that, which is exactly why I refuse to go along with it. The sceptic movement cannot afford to be associated with these people who stand for exactly the opposite of what the sceptic movement does.

Getting them to admit it's really a political motivation for their opposition is, perhaps, a positive step (I've had that a few times) but unfortunately that it still an appeal-to-consequences fallacy, the truth of a theory is not dependent on whether you like what we have to do about it.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[david_thornley]

All models are flawed. Ask any scientist about the models he or she uses. In this case, the newer models are probably less flawed than the older ones, and they don't disagree in the broad strokes. There is very strong evidence that we are warming things up, for example.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[david_thornley]

A few years ago on Slashdot, there was a submission about a climate scientist who was a skeptic getting the funding to study the evidence, and concluded that, yes, there is AGW. One commenter found one comment of his saying AGW was possible, and claimed he therefore wasn't a skeptic. Sigh.

Re:Fucking Spare Me

[dbIII]

So your strategy for discussion is to attribute the opinions of people to the things they describe?
You must really hate journalists that report on murders.

The 1% can suck my dick

[Anonymous Coward]

"If only they [men] saw us for the filthy creatures we really are." Daisy, 27, told me. "Take me for example" as she lifted up her right pant leg, "I haven't shaved my legs or my pits in 5 years."

How did she get dates, I wonder. Was she married to a blind man?

"I love to live as I really am! In fact, if every feminist were true to themselves they would live as I do. No razor, even if your upper lip sprouts hair." She leaned forward towards me and whispered as if the whole world were listening, "no waxing, not even for my private parts!"

Truly this woman was honest. More honest than any feminist I had ever met. I wondered what she did when she went swimming somewhere.

"Oh I get a lot of looks, a lot!" she laughed. "Mostly curious but it sure does keep the men away." She reached for a coffee mug and pointed to her hairy legs. "This is what we really are! This is how we really should appear. Why hide it?"

Why, indeed. I excused myself and thanked Daisy for her time and honesty.

Finally, I had met a woman. A real woman. "Well, back to the world of lies and perfume on a pig" I told myself, walking out to the street where I hailed a taxi. I looked back at Daisy as she stroked her leg hair. "A reeeeal woman" I blew out through my smiling lips.

Re:The 1% can suck my dick

[Areyoukiddingme]

She reached for a coffee mug and pointed to her hairy legs. "This is what we really are! This is how we really should appear. Why hide it?"

And yet "neckbeard" remains a major pejorative here on Slashdot, both in usage and in negative connotation index.

Somehow, I suspect both sexes will continue shaving things for the foreseeable future.

Re:The 1% can suck my dick

[serviscope_minor]

Is this "letters to slashdot", some weird funhouse mirror image of "letters to penthouse"?

Funny thing about 'cautionary tales'

[kheldan]

They sometimes end up being self-fulfilling prophecies.

Re:Funny thing about 'cautionary tales'

[wkwilley2]

1984 and Idiocricy come to mind immediately.

Re:Funny thing about 'cautionary tales'

[kheldan]

Those come to mind immediately because our World is becoming an unsavory blend of both of those dystopian futures. :-(

Re:Funny thing about 'cautionary tales'

[Yergle143]

That mashup of "1984" and "Idiocracy" is Gilliam's brilliant "Brazil" (1985)

Re:Funny thing about 'cautionary tales'

[kheldan]

Sort of, except this Earth isn't quite as goth.

Re:Funny thing about 'cautionary tales'

[tehcyder]

1984 and Idiocricy come to mind immediately.

Good work on spelling "Idiocracy" wrong.

Analysis of Star Wars: The Force Awakens

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans today are easily influenced by marketing.

Re:Analysis of Star Wars: The Force Awakens

[sexconker]

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens was basically a demake of the original Star Wars.
It's not a shot-for-shot remake, obviously, and it's not a reboot. But it is basically the same fucking story and it's got tons of scenes and settings that are found almost identically in the original. Just like Jurassic World, Terminator Genisys, the new Star Trek films, and to a lesser extent Rocky Balboa.

It's like a restaurant selling you a "deconstructed" burger. It's main selling point is that it's a burger, but they've gone and taken the burger you liked, separated the pieces, dressed them differently, and served them up in a manner that's foreign and undesired. It's neither the burger you're familiar with nor something worthy of being on the menu in its own right.

Demakes are a fucking trend now, unfortunately. They have nothing in the tank to do a creative sequel but they know people are sick of remakes and reboots.

Re:Analysis of Star Wars: The Force Awakens

[tburkhol]

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens was basically a demake of the original Star Wars. It's not a shot-for-shot remake, obviously, and it's not a reboot. But it is basically the same fucking story and it's got tons of scenes and settings that are found almost identically in the original.

Hardly surprising. If you look closely enough, most stories are the same. They used to teach the basic plots in grade school English, because the formulas for "good" stories have not really changed since Euripides.

Re:Analysis of Star Wars: The Force Awakens

[dbIII]

After what Abrams did to Trek I suppose we should not expect different with the current effort.
Replace "Wars" with "Trek" and your comment works, I'll soon see if it applies to both, preferably on a day when the cinema airconditioning will make it worth it whether the movie is worth seeing or not.

Re:Analysis of Star Wars: The Force Awakens

[mark-t]

I'm not sure why Star Wars was even in the article.... I thought this was about *future* fiction. Star Wars is a story that takes place "a long time ago".

Re:Analysis of Star Wars: The Force Awakens

[Muad'Dave]

Euripides

His name has always evoked in my mind the image of an Italian tailor saying (after mending a portly gentleman's pants for the nth time) "You rippa dees, I break-a your face!"

Re:Analysis of Star Wars: The Force Awakens

[KGIII]

The Force that Awakens appears to be referencing the Marketing Force. It turns out to be pretty strong.

Re:Analysis of Star Wars: The Force Awakens

[david_thornley]

In other words, it's in the Star Wars tradition.

Re:Analysis of Star Wars: The Force Awakens

[KGIII]

LOL Pretty much. I saw the first three (only now they're not the first three) and made it through most of the first one of the new ones (which would be the fourth one but is now the new first one - I think) and then made it part way into the second one before giving up. I've never seen the end of the first one nor the last 3/4 of the second one (which are fourth and fifth respectively).

I just couldn't get into them. Then again, I was kind of old when the first few came out so they've never been a huge attraction to me. I like some science in my science fiction and I don't think Star Wars qualifies as science fiction. Yes, I'm aware that such beliefs make me the spawn of Satan. I accept the label. I don't hate them but they're just not that important to me and I really just couldn't get into the prequels even though I bought the set on either DVD or Blu-Ray. (No, I have no idea which ones I bought.)

I mostly only watch documentaries or read books - if I'm not reading something online. I've never really been into television much - we didn't have it on much when I was growing up. Sometime in the mid or late 1980s they changed the format and there started being so many commercials that I simply stopped viewing entirely. I don't have anything against it - I have cable in the house here where I am until spring. (I did not know this and I have no idea how long I've been paying for this.)

I'm not one of the folks that hates TV. I just don't watch it enough to worry about it. I don't even have OTA hooked up and I took the satellite dish down years ago back home - I'd only had it turned on for a year or so and it wasn't getting used. I've gone from being a "freak" to a "hipster" to a "cord-cutter" and now I'm the "new normal." All because I don't really watch television.

In some regards, the 'net has been awesome for me. I've vast stores of documentaries at Hulu+ and Netflix. I've countless documentaries at YouTube. I'm not bashful, I'll even go pirate some if I am interested and can't find it available legally. I do, on occasion, watch regular movies but not that often. It probably sounds odd to some but I'm really entertained with documentaries. I don't watch them as a scholarly pursuit, just as passive entertainment.

Also, I'd not really call Coal House a documentary? It's a bit of a re-enactment or it might get classified as a reality television show except there aren't any real games and nobody is getting kicked out or any of those things. It's a bit like a historical recreation but less technical. I really think you might enjoy it and the Farms series that are in that same playlist. I'd guess you'd find both the Edwardian Farm and Wartime Farm to be of interest but they're all *very* good. Quite surprisingly so as that's just not my cup of tea normally.

Ah well, I've babbled long enough. ;-) Give the Coal House a try. I think you'll really like it. I still find it a bit odd that I do but it's surprisingly good.

Fiction is Fiction and nothing more

[badramalik08]

Fiction is Fiction and nothing more than that. Chris Hadfield has a new song release I want to share with my fellow geek-sters! Aug 6, 2015 Chris Hadfield – Feet Up – Official Lyric Video Pre-order the album in any format from either of these outlets and receive downloads of three songs from the album in advance of the October 9th release date. The first of those songs, “Feet Up” will be delivered immediately, with two more to follow in September. Produced by Shut Up & Colour Pictures / Key Animation: Seb Harder This was made with the fine help of launch*pad. Badra Malik | http://www.t20worldcup-2016.co...

seven eves...?

[serviscope_minor]

Anyone else read seven eves?

I did and I quite enjoyed it but well, ehhh.

First it was waaay too long. Dude needs an editor. Second, boy does he really REALLY like orbital mechanics. That seems to be a theme across his books, but a times kinda becomes a bit like reading about someone playing KSP. Also, I find his long desciptions where he's describing the relative spatial layout of things (space or ground) to be really hard to follow. I find I don't get a clear picture of what's going on often which makes action scenes really rather confusing. Oh yeah and did I mention too long? I also find some of the descriptions of stuff a bit patronising, too.

I thought the first half was better, and the speculation mostly seemed plausible.

On the plus side, it was pretty typical Stevenson, and it was an easy read, bowled along at a fast pace without heaps of implausibility. I did enjoy reading it.

Spoiler Alert if you read on.

The evil president (politician) is evil and politicians are eeeeeevil and 1 dimensional and did I mention stupid and eeeeeevil was way too obvious. As obvious as John Ringo's[*] "liberals are stupid and evil and deserve to die because they're liberals (and stupid because they're liberals)" characters. Kinda of lazy, silly, flat and it was telegraphed a mile off (a mile is about 1/5th of the thickness of the book by the way). So a key character was basically a 1D parody matching the fantasy stereotype that we techies love and that spawned the key chain of events. Trouble is while the stereotype is appealing (who here doesn't have a lot of contempt for politicians?) it was just too flat and too obvious. That for me made one of the key parts of the book just a bit less believable which is a shame.

I think in the second half, the speculative stuff was a bit full of holes. In no particular order (and I read it a while back so it's random what stands out) here's my nitpicking:
- For the people that survived on earth, where did all their heat go? How did they not cook from the heat generated by their plant growing machinery?
- Why did the pingers get sea-creature colouration. The sea had only been usable for 500 years. Not remotely long enough.
- The spacers had been post industrial for 3000 years (minimum), had a high population, vast industrial capacity, fabrication tech beyond what we have, high reliance on intelligent robots and hadn't/didn't want to figure out dense IC fab tech? I don't buy it. If he's said "couldn't because it all had to be rad hard" that would have worked. The rest was too much of a stretch.
- Small chunks of metal aren't great at shileding cosmic rays (especially galactic ones): the atmosphere (which is good) has 10 tons of stuff between you and space per meter squared, more or less equivalent to 10m of water or 3m of ion. Composition does matter, but 1cm of nickel iron won't do much.
- Was really unclear why, if the moon stayed more or less together initially, why it's orbit was changed so much. The moon is very far outside the Roche limit so would naturally coalesce under its own gravity (as it did originally) not turn into rings.

In the second half, given the society had been heavily industial for 3000-4000 years and had vastly surpassed

[*]actually Stevenson is really like a left wing mirror of John Ringo, or Ringo is a right wing mirror of Stevenson. [Stevenson]/[Ringo] is kind of man builds stuff and the [right wing nuts]/[liberal sissies] get it in the neck. I find Ringo awful.

Re:seven eves...?

[dbIII]

First it was waaay too long

That's what publishers want at the moment.

I thought the first half was better, and the speculation mostly seemed plausible.

Agree. It's like two different books, almost two different genres.

I find I don't get a clear picture of what's going on often which makes action scenes really rather confusing

Greg Egan suggests pencil and scratch paper to follow some of his stuff and Stevenson is getting close to that at times :)

How did they not cook from the heat generated by their plant growing machinery?

Rock still conducts even though it doesn't do it well. So long as there was somewhere colder it's not impossible if they have enough surface area to spread it around. With vast resources I'd do it by dumping the heat into a huge underground lake in contact with a LOT of cool rock so the heat can conduct out of the water. No cool rock? Not even a bit above 30C? You die unless you can radiate it out on the surface or something.

Why did the pingers get sea-creature colouration. The sea had only been usable for 500 years. Not remotely long enough

Unless I mis-remember the sea was only at pre-impact depths for 500 years but didn't entirely vanish, hence the pingers and deep sea stuff living - so "usable" just not covering enough ground as desired for terraforming.

Re:seven eves...?

[Applehu Akbar]

"- For the people that survived on earth, where did all their heat go? How did they not cook from the heat generated by their plant growing machinery?"

Finally - SOMEONE got this point! I liked Seveneves a lot but the power source for the tribe that survived in a deep mine was a science hole that really bothered me. Their power source was handwaved as being "geothermal" but when we make use of geothermal energy, we are exploiting the Carnot differential between hot rock underground and the much cooler surface. In Stephenson's scenario the surface was just as hot as the deep rock, so no usable temperature differential. And of course, no sink for any locally created heat to go.

I also noted a culture hole: why does the spacefaring tribe, after going to the trouble of establishing a sustainable presence off Earth, waste thousands of years clinging to the dangerous vicinity of an uninhabitable planet? Because the disaster zone was limited to the immediate vicinity of earth, logically they would have colonized asteroids, far from the danger zone, after getting their initial colony going.

I thought the Hillary Clinton character was well done, though. As US president in this scenario, she almost succeeds in putting an end to the spacefaring tribe not by exercising any specific ideology, but by introducing political division itself, splitting the survivors and leading to the loss of all the men.

it showed

[Anonymous Coward]

that merkins are still incredibly able to get stupider and fatter.

If you don't tow the party line

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called science denial, regardless of evidence.
Don't get sucked in.

Comic Book Man says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst.....Rubbish....Ever....

Gee... are "science denial" and "climate change"..

[Anonymous Coward]

... related?

I presume that "science denial" means "questioning somebody's 'scientific' conclusions", which is, of course, the basis of science itself - questioning. And we can't have that, can we!

Most people aren't remotely concerned about 'catastrophic man-made global warming', which is why they renamed it 'climate change'.

www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climatedepot.com

In America our top anxieties are...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

From Gallup (Dec 2015 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/187...) American's top anxieties are:

#1: Terrorism (16%)
#2: Government (13%)
#3: Economy (9%)
#4: Guns (7%)

>> In 2015, those anxieties are, apparently, concern the rise of science denial, climate change, total collapse

None of those seem to be top-of-mind here.

Re:In America our top anxieties are...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Well, even allowing for the author's wish bias that his concerns are sci fi writer brains pushing it to the forefront, it's nothing new. Ecological issues have been pushed through science fiction, as well as class warfare, since longer than most here have been alive.

What has come up repeatedly is they are non-issues with respect to impact on human life, as humanity will adapt and keep advancing technology...as long as they remain free to do so. Lives keep getting measurably better in this context.

Do Not Listen

[Applehu Akbar]

The podcast is a total waste of time, mostly devoted to noodling about comics and the reappearance in 2015 of a certain major movie franchise. The subject of books comes up in minute 47, immediately before it's time to wrap.

Re:Gee... are "science denial" and "climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

There is "questioning" climate change as in when you're doing research and experiments that challenge the status quo. This is science. This is ok, even if probably misguided because it will likely be fruitless.

Then there is "questioning" climate change where you assert that it's false because you don't believe it, or don't want to. Ignoring the evidence, presenting no viable evidence of your own, muddying the waters, arguments consisting of fallacies, conflating climate and weather, that sort of thing. That is willful ignorance, not science, and it is not okay.

Star Wars?

[myth24601]

One prominent picture is from starwars? That is about 2015? It is set a long time ago in a far away galaxy. Makes the title of the article seem pretty stupid.

You're being pedantic.

[Anonymous Coward]

He obviously meant median, not mean.

We here at DHI love to miss it..

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is not necessarily news for nerdy types,, it does spark some conversation..
Moving past that, lets look at George Orwell's 1984, 2001 a space odyssey, 2015 a space odyssey, the purge, red dawn, and or most of all Cool World..
They are all fiction, once digested and the Weight of their prepositions removed..

Are we anywhere close to those predictions? Nope.. Is this a ploy to advertise Star wars without the commercialism that normally comes with it?
"looking to Slashdot editor"(rather lack thereof)

your transparent attempts to be cool here are puny, weak, and lack any real credible thought..

If this website it now jus there to stir up controversy, or conversation of hyperbole just to show some level of stimulation, then the war is over, and another TOOL emerges..

A sense of purpose makes it right [Re:Let me g...]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Also, jingoistic nationalism, while ultimately destructive, also helps give people a sense of purpose, such that they see their "privation" as part of their noble duty to the motherland.

Exactly.

The economy is no better in any real terms, but now people have a reason for the privation.

The Salamander vs. Dr. Who

[tmjva]

The first episode of Dr. Who's "Enemy of the World" (one of the recovered "Lost" episodes of Dr. Who 1964?) had a ride in a helicopter. The license plaque behind the pilot's seat said 2018.

The arch-enemy of that film was a guy nicknamed "The Salamander". His plan to take over the earth involved dicking with the weather, including earthquakes. Whenever a region suffered from one of his manufactured disasters, he would take over with a corporate bailout.

Get it right

[dbIII]

Get it right - try instead "Something the Saudis are working hard to reverse by bringing the oil price down low enough to drive the US producers out of the market". Fracking costs more than a shallow well in a desert.