Why did science fiction stop moving forward? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#81

Post by occultist_throw » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:41 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #71

occultist_throw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truthfully, these days if I see SJW buzzwords, I just skip over the rest of the text. It's not worth subjecting oneself in that sort of groupthink - lest you eat babies. Because if you don't agree with them, you must assuredly agree with rape, sex crimes, and eating babies. There is no middle ground. There is no discussion. Only fuming mouths. Are there wrongs? Absolutely. But we can tackle those when we have clear e…

> I just skip over the rest of the text. You could also skip over the step of posting in comment threads.

You're indeed right. I could. But this stuff is everywhere, whether you want to read it or be part of it, or not.

1. Donglegate. Told a dongle joke, got fired.

2. Meritocracy Rug, Github.

3. "CodeOfConduct.md"

4. GamerGate

5. Throwing fits about pronouns: https://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate...

6. NodeJS leadership splitting at the seams https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/72dff4/nodejs_...

7. Demonization if you are a "White male in tech" - regardless if you are for equality or not

8. Google Memo/"Anti-diversity Screed"

So you're right. I could stay quiet about this. But these problems aren't going to go away with silence. And they aren't going to go away by shaming people into submission or silence under threat of job loss. These things are affecting the whole industry, and it's about high time to confront these issues head-on, without fear of losing your house, your food, and your livelihood. (Why do you think I run under a pseudonym?)

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#82

Post by eesmith » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:42 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #45

krisdol wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you rephrase what you said? Whenever I see "SJW" or "virtue signaling" in a post, I immediately stop reading and move on. Those terms are meaningless to those who don't subscribe to the groupthink of a devout cult of sheltered sexists.

There is no other word to describe the groups behind the wave of petty but vicious activism in the last decade or so. The people calling for "safe spaces" and trigger warnings, literally shaking from micro-aggressions, trying to ruin people's careers for holding common opinions, and always claiming to be the victims of some -ism. What would you call them?

Calling for a safe spaces? "Trump demands safe space for Mike Pence after he was booed at Hamilton" - https://news.avclub.com/trump-demands-safe-space-for-mike-pe... ("The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!")

Trying to ruin someone's career? "Donald Trump Casually Threatens To ‘Destroy’ The Career Of State Lawmaker" who promoted asset forfeiture reform. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-destroy-state-lawm... . I believe most people are for forfeiture reform.

Or more recently, "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a b---- off the field right now. Out," Trump said amid applause. "He's fired. He's fired!" - https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-protests-donald-trump... . This form of silent protest against discrimination is increasingly common.

Always claiming to be a victim (though not from some -ism)?

"Trump claims to be victim of ‘witch hunt’ following appointment of special counsel in Russia case" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05...

"Trump on sex assault allegations: 'I am a victim'" - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/donald-trump-sexu... ("As you have seen, I am a victim of one of the great political smear campaigns in the history of our country")

"Trump paints himself as the real victim of Charlottesville in angry speech" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/donald-trump...

"Trump: IRS audits me because I’m a “strong Christian”" - https://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/26/trump-irs-audits-me-b...

Is Trump an SJW?

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#83

Post by cicero » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:44 PM UTC

> deeply racist portrayal of its Klingons

This struck me as strange. The Klingons started off as the violent bad guys in TOS. Then in TNG and DS9 there was an attempt to make them more admirable. In Discovery, I got the impression that the Klingons will be made more sympathetic in that we will be given more of a picture of their perception of the Federation, and why they perceive the Federation as a threat. Yes, Burnham is prejudiced against the Klingon race (or culture), but I don't think the message of the show will be anti-Klingon.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#84

Post by metaphorm » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #52

eesmith wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is completely counter to the thesis in the article. For example: > Looking back from two decades later, Next Generation (1987–94), Deep Space Nine (1993–99), and Voyager (1995–2001) feel like a single continuous 1990’s moment, a moment that began in a renewed liberal optimism for multiculturalism and progress and the general advancement of humanity. Where is the SJWism and PC culture which saddles the latest ST…

I never really agreed with this tacit assumption everyone makes that ST was this super-progressive show. If you're really paying attention, and with the exception of DS-9, almost all of the heroes are white and educated (or their sidekicks) and all the villains are dark and barbaric. Seems straight up racist to me.

Romulans are emphatically not dark and barbaric, they're "evil" Vulcans, and aesthetically modeled on various European Imperial iconographies with lots of Eagle/raptor symbolism. Ancient Roman (it's in the name already) or even 20th century Fascist seems like the reference points.

The Cardashians seem to be based on Totalitarian Communist regimes. They have grey skin, which isn't dark, but is also not a human skintone anyway, but they seem to map most closely to Russian/Stalinist. Not dark or barbaric by any means.

The Borg seem to be a comment on Western technocracy run-amok. I have trouble seeing the Borg as anything besides a cautionary warning against tech singularity ideology. If you submit your culture to the logic of machines don't be surprised when it becomes mechanical and inhumane.

There are dark and barbaric trek villains too, of course. The Jem'Hadar shock troopers seem like a particularly charged take on the trope, being essentially militarized slaves. Interesting, though, that the Jem'Hadar were controlled by a very white technocratic Vorta. Maybe a reference to historical practices like the Ottoman Jannisaries. What should we make of the non-humanoid shapeshifter "founders" though? Pure scifi or allegory for the formless, faceless, secretive domination of neoliberal capitalist interests acting in the shadows?

The Ferengi are dark skinned and despicable, with more than a hint of "Shylock" flavored bigotry incorporated into the trope. Kinda unfortunate. They did significantly redeem this trope in later DS9 episodes when they focused more on Quark and showed some of the more nuanced and interesting aspects of Ferengi culture.

And then there's the Klingons. This one is hard to put a finger on. They were originally introduced as space barbarians with a swarthy (but not black) complexion. I think the original model there was intended to be something like Barbary Corsairs, which is kind of a racist trope I guess. The Klingons were updated a lot though. The more mature portrayals of Klingons had them as an honor society that resembles Samurai culture in a lot of ways, while also incorporating a kind of hedonistic body culture that is very un-Japanese. It's not so simple really. What about now? Klingons made less human-seeming and more cartoon villain seeming? Not sure where they're going with this.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#85

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #76

mamon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> that's supposed to be orders of magnitude cheaper than what people did in the XX century. I think it's the opposite. In 1970s you would just create plastic models of spaceships and film them with normal camera. That's as cheap as creating plastic models can get. Of course end result wasn't that great, but it was enough to get by. Now you can create pretty much anything you can imagine, and generate it as CG so it…

"In 1970s you would just create plastic models of spaceships and film them with normal camera" Are you sure? For example, from the ILM history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Light_%26_Magic we see: 1975: Resurrected the use of VistaVision; first use of a motion control camera (Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) Following the link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_control_photography gives us: > The…

Babylon 5 was unfortunately made at the very point where CG was still pretty bad, and because of that it didn't age well. If only it was shot a few years later...

On the other hand, B5 had an absolutely amazing storyline. I wish someone would remaster it, replacing the exterior CG shots with new renders, and release it in full HD. It would beat the crap out of most of the things that are on TV today.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#86

Post by Yetanfou » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:46 PM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #24

ashark wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nod-ignore-and-keep-reading Lit Crit academese filler thing, then? I guess it stood out to me because the review doesn't have much of that, otherwise, and because the paragraph it's in seemed to be making some kind of point, though I couldn't decipher what it was in such a way that that sentence contributed anything.

I've not read Lit Crit. I have read history. The European colonial period was justified using logic very similar to the argument described in this article. British colonialism specifically argued for Anglo-Saxon superiority, and the Kipling's "The White Man's Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands" used a similar logic to argue that the US should take over the Philippines.

A far better way to describe this phenomenon is to generalise it to the behaviour of a conquering culture or nation instead of one specific 'race'. Whether it be Mohammedans invading the Byzantine empire, Genghis Khan setting off to conquer the known world, Khoikoi on the war path against the San, Aleuts battling Inuit or Yupik, nearly all of them feel themselves superior to their opponents in some way.

This is not a race thing, not is it a cultural thing. It is a human trait which is universal. It is not just related to physical attacks either, e.g. so-called 'social justice warriors' feel themselves morally superior over those who do not follow their specific strain of self-flagellation and -denial, sports teams, philosophers, investors, anywhere people choose themselves a niche they plant their flags and wave their banners.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#87

Post by maxlybbert » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:48 PM UTC

zokier wrote: post #10

maxlybbert wrote: post #9

Based on the website address, I thought the article would be about written science fiction, which continues to move forward if you ignore recommendations from people who don't actually like science fiction. I think "The Martian" counts as moving forward, but I'm much less happy with most of the books Amazon recommends for me. But the article is about television. I really am not qualified to say much about television…

> I think "The Martian" counts as moving forward, but I'm much less happy with most of the books Amazon recommends for me I'd believe that more if there would have been any wider followup of similar works. But alas, there hasn't been (or at least I haven't heard of them), so I'm more likely to categorize The Martian as an outlier rather than a herald of new era.

I'm sad that a lot of the progress looks like outliers, but I think it's a mistake to claim there hasn't been any progress (note, I'm not accusing you or the original article of making that claim; I would have liked more progress but I have to admit there's been some).

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#88

Post by maxlybbert » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:50 PM UTC

kwhitefoot wrote: post #67

maxlybbert wrote: post #9

Based on the website address, I thought the article would be about written science fiction, which continues to move forward if you ignore recommendations from people who don't actually like science fiction. I think "The Martian" counts as moving forward, but I'm much less happy with most of the books Amazon recommends for me. But the article is about television. I really am not qualified to say much about television…

> special effects will keep production costs high. The vast majority of written science fiction doesn't need a lot of special effects. There are almost uncountably many stories that could be transferred to television or film at no more cost than any other drama. Take Clifford Simak's Way Station for instance, most of Ray Bradbury's stories, J. G. Ballard, and dozens or hundreds more. Even stories with a grand idea an…

I would be happy to see those kinds of works get made. Perhaps the notorious faddishness of Hollywood and TV means that nobody says "let's do science fiction" without meaning "let's do a lot of special effects." It would be great to see that change.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#89

Post by eesmith » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:57 PM UTC

ashark wrote: post #64

eesmith wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've not read Lit Crit. I have read history. The European colonial period was justified using logic very similar to the argument described in this article. British colonialism specifically argued for Anglo-Saxon superiority, and the Kipling's "The White Man's Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands" used a similar logic to argue that the US should take over the Philippines.

I get what "a Victorian faith in white mythologies" means re: racist colonialism and cultural imperialism, I just don't get what it means for the show to "still [believe] in 'culture' with a Victorian faith in white mythologies". The scare-quoted (I think?) "culture", in the context of the rest of the sentence, is what's getting me. To believe in "culture" with a victorian faith in white mythologies. That's some badl…

I do not believe it is a scare quote. I think it's an actual quote. The more complete quote from the show follows immediately afterward: “It would be unwise to confuse race and culture.” I believe "culture" is used to pull out that one term for further discussion.

The review assumes that the reader has watched the show. I have not. I cannot comment further on this point, nor on the "deeply racist portrayal of its Klingons". I can point out that http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/07/star-trek-discovery-trump-politi... says:

> “The Klingons are going to help us really look at certain sides of ourselves and our country. Isolationism is a big theme. Racial purity is a big theme. The Klingons are not the enemy, but they do have a different view on things. It raises big questions: Should we let people in? Do we want to change? There’s also the question of just because you reach your hand out to someone, do they have to take it? Sometimes, they don’t want to take it. It’s been interesting to see how the times have become more of a mirror than we even thought they were going to be.”

and various people have asserted that the new Klingons are supposed to be like Trump supporters.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#90

Post by metaphorm » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:59 PM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #82

wildmusings wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no other word to describe the groups behind the wave of petty but vicious activism in the last decade or so. The people calling for "safe spaces" and trigger warnings, literally shaking from micro-aggressions, trying to ruin people's careers for holding common opinions, and always claiming to be the victims of some -ism. What would you call them?

Calling for a safe spaces? "Trump demands safe space for Mike Pence after he was booed at Hamilton" - https://news.avclub.com/trump-demands-safe-space-for-mike-pe... ("The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!") Trying to ruin someone's career? "Donald Trump Casually Threatens To ‘Destroy’ The Career Of State Lawmaker"…

Trump is deliberately using the language and tactics of his political enemies against them in a kind of counter-trolling demagoguery.

This is ugly stuff. The discourse has descended to the level where the media is dominated by two different groups of extremist trolls taking potshots at each other using the language of outrage and grievance. The rest of us are caught in the middle and our society is becoming deranged as a result.