The definition of Science Fiction is very, very wide. There's a lot of, "no true Scottsman" fallacy in the way people attempt to exclude works because they're not Campbellian enough or they don't mess with society's norms enough.
It's overwhelmingly the former on slashdot. Basically, if a story can't be summarised by a pulp cover featuring a shiny rocket and a chick in a bikini with big bazookas, it ain't Sci Fi.
Dune dystopic? You know they did end up following the "golden path". Sure there is drama, death, intrigue, war, etc. But there was also love, family, loyalty, duty, honor.
Dune is an epic history of future, not a dystopic story.
It's also incredibly depressing to think that a society with interstellar (well, I forget, interplanetary anyway) travel still has Lords and Swords.
Having read the book, I for one formed the opinion, that only the people able to:
Solve a randomly-generated quadratic equation;
Cite one of the Bill of Rights Amendments
on the date of the poll should be allowed to participate in it...
You seem unable to grasp how this sounds unremittingly bleak to most people.
Well, the author, at least, put forth a respectable argument against universal franchise. But you don't say anything in support of it. Prosecution wins.
OP also failed to explain why raping babies is not a good thing. Paedophile wins.
The fact that Barack Obama won election, and then REelection (not even really being close) should likewise dispense with racist folly about people's melanin levels and qualification for the presidency.
The argument that the election of Obama somehow ended racism overnight is a pretty absurd one, and assumes that racists are rational and uniformly had a "road to Damascus" moment.
And it's very likely that the reader judges the work, even irrespective of the author, based on their own experiences and an ability to relate to it. I suspect that East Asian Science Fiction or African Science Fiction would be a lot harder for me to relate to than American Science Fiction or even European Science Fiction. I also
expect that American or European authors that use socioeconomic backgrounds that differ greatly from what I'm accustimed to would be harder to relate to.
This would be a much more plausible excuse if you were talking about (say) contemporary romantic fiction, rather than science fiction, which surely by definition has a strong element of strangeness and novelty.
If you read how he defines "leftism", I think you will note that very few leftists would agree with his definition.
Well, I only skimmed that pile of bollocks, but it is self evident that someone who is right wing will describe the left wing in purely disparaging and negative ways, oh look, just like people do who use "SJW".
The telling bit is you are perfectly at ease with labeling others young earth creationists and viewing them as all zealots, and yet demand nuance for SJWs.
I think all most people demand is that you don't use stupid phrases like "SJW" in an adult debate. "Young earth creationist" means something specific, which you can argue about if you don't mind mocking the afflicted. But "SJW" is just name calling, like using "political correctness" to denote simple good manners.
Few people are as scary and dangerous as the ones who are convinced that theirs is a righteous battle, and are prepared to fight it, whether their belief flows from religion or from ideals
So anyone who believes in anything is wrong?
I bet you don't apply that logic to people you agree with.
I would consider taking money from someone who earned it through work, and giving that money to another (socialism) to be tyranny as per the #4 definition on the top section and all three under "British Dictionary definitions for tyranny"
So any taxation is tyranny? I suppose you think you live in a repressive police state because rape and murder are illegal?
In the UK, national supermarket chains like Tesco's let you have an online account with a "weekly shopping list" of items you always buy. Then you just arrange delivery. The only catch is that they would replace items that were out of stock with something completely different.
You are free to decline any substitute items, you know. They actually tell you that when they deliver.
So the Christian Right in America are terrorists then, plain and simple.
They seek to deny people access to things which don't match their religion, they expect to force their beliefs on everybody, and they feel god is on their side. And they seek to use their religion as an excuse to deny freedoms to other people.
But for the most part, they *aren't* currently going out and killing other people en masse.
A cynic might say that's because they don't need to in order to get their way.
Do you mean that when a huge undertaking involving actual, you know, human beings taking action in opposition to a monstrously violent totalitarian regime sometimes involves some of those human beings doing assholish things..
The "there's always one or two rotten apples in a barrel" argument is only reasonable when they are genuine exceptions, and they are genuinely punished.
When "freedom fighters" are fighting to institute totalitarian rule (like, say, Che Guevara and company did)
Or, depending on your viewpoint, when they fought to free their country from economic imperialism and foreeign corruption, and to introduce democracy instead of military dictatorship.
It really does depend which side you're looking from.
And the point about the Taliban is not that they want a medieval theocracy, but that they want a medieval theocracy in their own country. Do I want to live in a Taliban-run Afghanistan? No, but (a) I'm not an Afghan and (b) if I was, I'd probably prefer it to a massive foreign military presence.
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I suspect the majority of deaths in the Hindenburg accident were from falling or choosing to jump or poorly designed escape routes.
A quick look at Wikipedia shows that it was a mixture of these plus burns/smoke inhalation. What is interesting is how many people (relatively) survived:
" Of the 97 people on board (36 passengers and 61 crewmen), there were 35 fatalities (13 passengers and 22 crewmen). One worker on the ground was also killed, making a total of 36 dead."
Slashdot Mirror
The definition of Science Fiction is very, very wide. There's a lot of, "no true Scottsman" fallacy in the way people attempt to exclude works because they're not Campbellian enough or they don't mess with society's norms enough.
It's overwhelmingly the former on slashdot. Basically, if a story can't be summarised by a pulp cover featuring a shiny rocket and a chick in a bikini with big bazookas, it ain't Sci Fi.
Dune dystopic? You know they did end up following the "golden path". Sure there is drama, death, intrigue, war, etc. But there was also love, family, loyalty, duty, honor.
Dune is an epic history of future, not a dystopic story.
It's also incredibly depressing to think that a society with interstellar (well, I forget, interplanetary anyway) travel still has Lords and Swords.
Anyone who considers books published in the Twentieth Century as "ancient classics" is either an imbecile or a teenager. But I repeat myself.
What's "bleak" about Startship Troopers?
Mainly the fact that so many people here seem to think that (a) it is a good novel and (b) its fascist political ideas are just fine.
Having read the book, I for one formed the opinion, that only the people able to:
Solve a randomly-generated quadratic equation; Cite one of the Bill of Rights Amendments on the date of the poll should be allowed to participate in it...
You seem unable to grasp how this sounds unremittingly bleak to most people.
Well, the author, at least, put forth a respectable argument against universal franchise. But you don't say anything in support of it. Prosecution wins.
OP also failed to explain why raping babies is not a good thing. Paedophile wins.
Come on internet. You can be better than this.
Serves you right for getting your information about the world only from shitty blogs rather than a proper news site.
There's also been conservative writers, but ever since Dangerous Visions hit the market in the 70's, SF and Fantasy has trended leftward.
Only in the sense that there are few writers (outside the military-space-porn genre) who are actual Nazis.
The fact that Barack Obama won election, and then REelection (not even really being close) should likewise dispense with racist folly about people's melanin levels and qualification for the presidency.
The argument that the election of Obama somehow ended racism overnight is a pretty absurd one, and assumes that racists are rational and uniformly had a "road to Damascus" moment.
And it's very likely that the reader judges the work, even irrespective of the author, based on their own experiences and an ability to relate to it. I suspect that East Asian Science Fiction or African Science Fiction would be a lot harder for me to relate to than American Science Fiction or even European Science Fiction. I also expect that American or European authors that use socioeconomic backgrounds that differ greatly from what I'm accustimed to would be harder to relate to.
This would be a much more plausible excuse if you were talking about (say) contemporary romantic fiction, rather than science fiction, which surely by definition has a strong element of strangeness and novelty.
If you read how he defines "leftism", I think you will note that very few leftists would agree with his definition.
Well, I only skimmed that pile of bollocks, but it is self evident that someone who is right wing will describe the left wing in purely disparaging and negative ways, oh look, just like people do who use "SJW".
"Individual justice enthusiasts" is more to the point.
However, "Randian wank buckets" is perhaps more descriptive.
The telling bit is you are perfectly at ease with labeling others young earth creationists and viewing them as all zealots, and yet demand nuance for SJWs.
I think all most people demand is that you don't use stupid phrases like "SJW" in an adult debate. "Young earth creationist" means something specific, which you can argue about if you don't mind mocking the afflicted. But "SJW" is just name calling, like using "political correctness" to denote simple good manners.
I myself deeply appreciate people who have extremely divergent viewpoints to myself when they give me novel ways to think about a subject.
You can call me a bigot, but I find that one elitist, racist misogynist is much like another.
once you define yourself as a social justice warrior
Who's modding this sort of bollocks as insightful? Have they given the gamergate guys the keys to the asylum?
Few people are as scary and dangerous as the ones who are convinced that theirs is a righteous battle, and are prepared to fight it, whether their belief flows from religion or from ideals
So anyone who believes in anything is wrong?
I bet you don't apply that logic to people you agree with.
http://dictionary.reference.co...
I would consider taking money from someone who earned it through work, and giving that money to another (socialism) to be tyranny as per the #4 definition on the top section and all three under "British Dictionary definitions for tyranny"
So any taxation is tyranny? I suppose you think you live in a repressive police state because rape and murder are illegal?
My experience and opinion: Microsoft is the most EVIL software company.
Wow, that's a pretty bold statement to make here on slashdot. If you're really brave, you could say you quite like Star Wars.
In the UK, national supermarket chains like Tesco's let you have an online account with a "weekly shopping list" of items you always buy. Then you just arrange delivery. The only catch is that they would replace items that were out of stock with something completely different.
You are free to decline any substitute items, you know. They actually tell you that when they deliver.
For a /. April 1 post, this one is not bad.
As opposed to the rest of the stupidness.
As proof, there are some people who have already posted serious replies.
This is the first one that looked vaguely plausible, although anyone who didn't google the registration number before posting must feel a bit silly.
But for the most part, they *aren't* currently going out and killing other people en masse.
A cynic might say that's because they don't need to in order to get their way.
Do you mean that when a huge undertaking involving actual, you know, human beings taking action in opposition to a monstrously violent totalitarian regime sometimes involves some of those human beings doing assholish things ..
The "there's always one or two rotten apples in a barrel" argument is only reasonable when they are genuine exceptions, and they are genuinely punished.
When "freedom fighters" are fighting to institute totalitarian rule (like, say, Che Guevara and company did)
Or, depending on your viewpoint, when they fought to free their country from economic imperialism and foreeign corruption, and to introduce democracy instead of military dictatorship.
It really does depend which side you're looking from.
And the point about the Taliban is not that they want a medieval theocracy, but that they want a medieval theocracy in their own country. Do I want to live in a Taliban-run Afghanistan? No, but (a) I'm not an Afghan and (b) if I was, I'd probably prefer it to a massive foreign military presence.
I think this "story" is one of the most subversive things I have ever read on Slashdot.
True, but that doesn't make it a good April's Fool.
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I suspect the majority of deaths in the Hindenburg accident were from falling or choosing to jump or poorly designed escape routes.
A quick look at Wikipedia shows that it was a mixture of these plus burns/smoke inhalation. What is interesting is how many people (relatively) survived:
" Of the 97 people on board (36 passengers and 61 crewmen), there were 35 fatalities (13 passengers and 22 crewmen). One worker on the ground was also killed, making a total of 36 dead."