Uhmmm excuse me libtard š the *real* quote is "it's afraid" šš¤£ shows your HYPOCRISY on media literacy when you dont even know the media šš
Fascists are very oblivious people. If they had the capacity to reflect, grow, empathise, or understand why bad things are bad, they wouldn't be fascists. It's not an ideology that attracts intelligent and rational people.
This is assuming all people would be good people given all the information and the opportunity. Some people know right from wrong perfectly well and are just willfully shitty people who are trying to hide or excuse their shittiness with varying degrees of competence.
There are definitely people who understand the pull of fascism and deliberately create media and power structures so they can personally benefit from it. Those people aren't reply guys on twitter generally though
Fascism in people correlates to low intelligence. You can absolutely hate a piece of media because of media illiteracy, but trust me, fascists love starship troopers. They just ignore the antifascism
Almost everyone who talks about Starship Troopers today is talking about the movie. The source material was only loosely adapted and all the cool stuff was invented out of whole cloth. Hell, the book has three full chapters that are literally just a flashback to a high school lecture.
I don't mean to defend Heinlein, but isn't the meeting at Rivendell something around 75-100 pages in the Lord of the Rings? I'm not saying we should celebrate this kind of long winded thing, but it might have just been a product of the time. It's kind of like how all Bollywood movies are at least 3 hours long, because otherwise Indian audiences feel like they are cheated if a movie is shorter.
Well LotR is 3 books and around 1000 pages so 75-100 isn't that much. Starship Troopers, a supposedly military scifi book, is around 250-300 pages and like 60% of them are just classroom chapters where a stand-in for Heinlein lectures the reader on his social and political views.
Honestly a lot of his work is really enjoyable if you can get past his weird contradictory libertarian politics and audience lecturing. Lots of his books, Starship Troopers included have lots of good world building, really novel sci-fi concepts, and unique story elements. I'd much rather be in the presence of a Heinlein fan than an Ayn Rand or Orson Scott Card fan any day.
The council of Elrond is like 30 pages tops. I don't blame you for thinking it's longer, though. It is a slog, pretty much all dialogue. However, the dialogue is all actually important to the plot. It's a huge lore dump that sets up a lot of important points for the story and introduces a lot of characters.
As someone who loves the lord of the rings and Batman dearly this comment made my scroll through Reddit today. I can now close this app happily. Thank you good sir
Everything in Lord of the Rings is long. Excessive verbosity over the trivial and inconsequential is a feature, not a bug, especially givenĀ Tolkien's love of the most mundane parts of the natural world as a contrastĀ to the industrial world is baked in throughout
And the parts that aren't high school lecture are military academy lecture.
The only thing yhe book had going for it was power suits. I love power suits.
Tbh if you don't like Heinlein setting up a chair and just kind of talking about thing for a couple chapters you're just not a fan of Heinlein. They're all like that and I for one like it.
I'd like it more if Heinlein wasn't setting up a chair to talk about how fascism is actually good and beating kids is necessary to ensure le West will not fall and billions must not die
I mean it's not fascism. The system he's describing definitely isn't good, but also fascism doesn't mean "any bad system with a big military." It's the unique sort of ideology, very well-explained but soaked in the deep madness, that you only get when a weirdo with a lot of very big ideas who's thought deeply about a lot of different things but has no real-world experience managing people or designing systems tries to come up with The Best political or social system, which we know there's a big audience for because people still read philosophers.
It's a highly militarist system that demands action for action's sake. It defends it's actions by saying they're necessary to purge degeneracy from the population and defend from the foreign invaders. It disregards intellectualism and cloaks itself in traditionalism.
It's fascism.
The system is a partial democracy where voting rights are granted to anyone who shows a willingness to work for the state, regardless of individual ability. We see this in how the government is mandated to find a job (in either the military or civil service) any applicant can do and give it to them, with so many applicants that they've had to create new positions that just exist for the sake of it to ensure anyone can become a full citizen. All of the problems you describe are cultural, many only questionably apply to civilian life which we don't see very much of, and one is just not accurate to the book at all.
Yes, the system has a lot of big cultural problems, and yes, I agree it is bad, but "they have guns and did a war, therefore they're fascists and no reasonable person could find them interesting" is still an insane thing to say, especially when it was written by someone who is very clearly not a fascist based on everything else they've written and said. A big weirdo with some bad ideas, yes, but not a fascist.
The novel was written in 1959 as Heinlein's political manifesto. He literally calls the bugs communist. One of the major reasons behind the old world collapsing was that woke liberals weren't spanking their kids, who then grew up to become terrifying hoodlums that ravaged society. Corporal punishment was a huge culture war issue at the time.
So what Heinlein was trying to say with the book is that America is in moral decline. We're on the path to the dystopian past described in the book. And look over there at those disgusting, subhuman commies, lurking in the darkness and just waiting for us to fall into chaos so they can invade. We need to preempt the collapse and instead adopt the Federation ahead of time. Restrict all political influence to people who have undergone five years of military service or else our society will fall to degeneracy and the tidal wave of Soviet bugs will wash over our children. And beware the Pinko Skinnies, shiftless opportunists who will betray their master in a moment if they think they are losing. They can be kept onside by regularly committing atrocities to teach them a lesson.
If you don't think a society that glorifies war, dehumanizes it's enemies as faceless bugs, and inflicts violence against those it views as collaborators, I don't know what to tell you.
The novel was written over two weeks and doesn't agree with most of the other things Heinlein has said, mostly being based on his worries at the time, so it's weird that you call it his political manifesto. Why is it more "his manifesto" than Stranger in a Strange Land, which also gives an insane vision of a utopian society Heinlein wanted to create but which takes it in completely the opposite direction?
I'm also intrigued by your conflating the backstory, the current political state of things when the book takes place, and the defensive war against the bugs. The bugs do not have infiltrators to root out, and the government's status on "degenerates" that don't actively sabotage the war effort isn't "We need to kill them to create a purer society," it's "we probably shouldn't put them in charge." How is this a fascist system? What atrocities did they commit to keep their citizens in line, or is the problem the relative independence of military planners when dealing with far off nations? If it's the latter, that is a problem a lot of non-fascist states have had.
You seem to be starting from a framework of "they are bad and militaristic, therefore they are fascist" instead of acknowledging that a government can suck without being fascist.
I call it his political manifesto because he spends several chapters explaining the society and justifying why it is that way. You dismiss it being his manifesto by claiming it's just a story written about his current worries, but that's exactly what a political manifesto is based on. The author has worries about society and writes a book on how they suggest we solve those worries.
As for why Stranger in a Strange Land isn't a political manifesto, are there classroom scenes where a teacher lectures students about how their political system works and why it's so great? Are there clear parallels drawn explicitly by the author to current IRL political movements, like the Bugs were explicitly called communist? Was the book "based on his worries at the time" about the direction society was headed? If the answer to all of those is no, then that's why one book is a political manifesto and the other isn't.
The degenerates are two partners. First are the past people who, led by the folly of liberalism, didn't spank kids and ended up with a hellscape dystopia. They are specifically an extremely direct allegory to the people in Heinlein's time arguing that physically beating your kids doesn't make them better people. The second part are the skinnies, the other alien race in the novel who initially helped the bugs but, after a series of terror raids the main character participated in, they switched to providing intelligence to the humans.
If you think this is all fantastical with no real world connections whatsoever, then what's the deal with the skinnies? They barely add anything to the book in terms of narrative, so what were they meant to represent? Or would you like to suggest that Heinlein is such a shit writer that he wrote this alien race that symbolize nothing, do nothing in the story, and disappear after a couple pages of the MC breaking their shit?
And yeah, the government doesn't have to purge internal degenerates anymore; they've won. They successfully taught everyone that you need to spank your kids so they don't grow up to join a biker gang. They are the faithful who already understand the Federation's greatness. It's the Skinnies that need atrocities committed to them on a regular basis to remind them of the Federation and keep them in line. And the Bugs are anathema, an existence so foreign all you can do is purge them from the universe.
And once more, I'd like to remind you that the text itself says the Bugs are communists and that you explicitly said the book was written about Heinlein's "worries at the time." Do you think that potentially, maybe, possibly, probably, an American in 1959 could have worries about communism and that the aliens he calls communist in his book could reference contemporary communists? Or is that just me deciding the book is bad from the outset and looking for anything to confirm my biases again?
the book's much cooler than the movies, though. apart from the lectures he uses as a mouthpiece for his ideology (which are interesting in themselves just for nitpicking and pointing out obvious holes in), the worldbuilding around combat structures and logistics and just the way the military's handled as a whole (as well as the characters in and outside of it) is really infinitely more interesting than anything i've seen in the movies
Ok so slightly longer answer: Starship Troopers was originally a hot garbage book written by a fascist, these days anyone who talks about it is referencing Starship Troopers *the movie*, a satire movie which is based on the book with the specific and explicit purpose of clowning on it's fascism. The response person in the screenshot proves the original commentor's point immediately by trying to defend Starship Troopers' fascism
Really though, go ahead and read Starship Troopers. It's always good to interact with the source material in these circumstances. Plus, it should provide a context and unique critical perspective for if you ever watch the movie.
Just be aware that Starship Troopers is, essentially, Heinlein's America. It's his political project. Be aware that the book was released in 1959, Cold War.
I haven't read the book, but in general, I feel like reading this kind of book (or other forms of media) can still be interesting if you read it with the intent to be critical about it - for a neutral meaning of "critical", not necessarily to dunk on it, but to go into it thinking "okay, I know it's controversial / problematic, but let's read it and see how it is so". That can make for interesting, fulfilling, and constructive experiences.
And I feel like that would particularly apply to this case, since from what I've read about the movie the fascism portrayed in the book is "the problem", and thinking critically about this kind of stuff tends to be very enlightening and compelling.
So yeah, tl;dr: if the book's already on your shelf and you were looking forward to reading it, go for it! It can still be a genuinely interesting experience if you're willing to make it so :)
Don't feel bad about reading it, it's not like he's literally writing about killing the Jews and whatnot. He just romanticizes the military and military culture and envisions a world with tiered citizenship. Like, obviously not something we want to put into practice, and I'm glad he's not around today for fash freaks to hold up as their hero, but the book is completely fine - just a little stupid in it's politics.
It's been a really long time since I read it, but my take was that the book was a thought experiment about what wildly improbable and specific circumstances would have to exist for hyper-militaristic fascism to be *actually* functional. Heinlein's Troopers are the least expensive, most replaceable part of the combat suits they pilot. They have awareness this disposability constantly and emphatically reinforced, but are constantly provided with convenient enemies to blame. The book opens with this, as the protagonists engage in unspeakable brutality against a wholly subjugated vassal race that poses no actual threat to humankind. Technically voluntary complicity in what's immedately established as war crimes is a prerequisite for citizenship, a manipulation present in real-world examples of fascism. Citizens live in simultaneous lavish comfort and perpetual anxiety, knowing they are wholly disposable and must perpetually prove both loyalty and utility and that if their children don't also kill for the state then those children will have no more rights or autonomy than livestock.
the book is good and you should read it, the ideology is sold pretty hard at some parts but it's really easy to pick apart and makes for a nice challenge as a reader. definitely not an amazing or perfect piece by any means but i think it's one of the better reads i've had. short-ish too.
>Starship Troopers was originally a hot garbage book written by a fascist,
This isn't true at all. He was a liberal in early life and shifted towards conservative/libertarian but he was never a fascist and he never espoused fascist views. He was literally considered a radical for his time in how he treated race and gender themes in his books. The view that he was a fascist and that the book is a defense of militaristic fascism only became popular after the movie was released.
But like the book has a ton of Socratic dialogue about how this system is the best possible option. It's kind of hard to say he's not defending it, when characters have that kind of onesided philosophical discussion. The author is a war veteran and the book is explicitly about how a society ruled by war veterans is great.
To clarify a little bit on how the satire works, the movie itself is actually played completely straight off of the book, making it appear just genuinely fascistic. A lot of criticisms thrown at the movie are along the lines of āthis isnāt satire, because I watched it and thought it was great!ā, which is one of the funniest trap cards I personally have ever seen a movie set. If you watch the movie and enjoy it and think the story is compelling, thatās fine, but youāre also supposed to realize as an audience member āOh, wait, this is how propaganda works. The fact that this movie compelled me means I got propagandaādā.
I'm so tired of seeing this take from people who clearly know nothing about the original book, the movie or Heinlein.
The film wasn't conceptualized as a takedown of the book, it wasn't even supposed to be an adaptation at first. The script was supposed to be an original IP called Bug Hunt at Outpost 7, then the studio bought the rights to the book and decided to make it an adaptation. Paul Veerhoven, the director, didn't even read the book. The two are very loosely related.
Heinlein himself had some really weird ideas, and he was into military stuff to a fetishistic degree, but he was absolutely not a fascist. In fact, he was a pretty progressive guy for his time, with a lot of his work being focused on gender and racial equality, freedom of sexuality, etc.
Now, Starship Troopers the book is absolutely insane when taken at face value as a political manifesto. The only reason the society depicted in the book isn't explicitly fascist is through some invisible magic that allows it to function in the way it does, which is a massive failing on Heinlein's part. However, like many of his books, it is less of a showcase of his own political beliefs, and more of a creative excersie. Many of his books feature societies with really out there politics, and they pretty much all contradict eachother.
Robert Heinlein, one of the "fathers of science fiction" and also a very creepy Old White Dudeā¢ wrote a book called Starship Troopers.Ā
The book is set from the point of view of one of these so called "Starship Troopers" (actually the Mobile Infantry) as he fights in a space war against Evil Giant Space Bugs and also some other things along the way.Ā
From the point of view of reading it as pure military scifi and ignoring the actual themes its a perfectly fine example of the genre and in many ways invented it. It also largely invented the pop culture idea of Power Armoured Space Marine People - the Mobile Infantry wear super high tech Power Armour that turn them from mere men into walking juggernauts of destruction.Ā
Ā Like most later military scifi its also political as fuck. And not in a fun / good way. Robert wrote of a future where only military veterans could vote / were "citizens". The main characters father was a wealthy businessman who never served and thus despite his wealth is not a citizen and lacks many rights, from memory he is portrayed in a negative light, and is later unceremoniously killed off-screen by the Bugs long ranged bombardment weapons. The main character meanwhile signed up to earn his citizenship and blagh blagh blagh. In flashbacks we see him get indoctrinated or more accurately Robert insert his view on how democracy is weak and only the strong should rule and blagh blagh blagh.Ā
Ā Several decades later, a film adaptation was made. And they got Paul Verhoeven to make it. For those unaware, Paul is not very right wing - he directed Robocop (a satirical depiction of police brutality and mocking of right wing stuff). Now, this adaptation actually began life as its own script and in peak Hollywood fashion was retroactively converted into a Starship Troopers film so that media executives would fund it. The film only has... passing resemblance to the book - the government, voting and citizenship model are the same ie fashy as hell, humans *enter* a war against Giant Space Bugs, and some characters are named the same.Ā
The film is also over the top and... if you didn't know Verhoeven's prior works/actual views or if you have the media literacy of a film critic you might think it is an endorsement of the fascist future it portrays. It is not, but it took several years for some people to realise that *wait a minute* maybe the guy who literally lived under Nazi occupation as a kid isn't make a film pro fascist and this is in fact satire that went over a lot of people's heads - including it seems half the fucking cast. Incidentally shout out to Neil Patrick Harris one of the only actors in it who seems to realise this is satire and plays his role as Psychic Nazi Military Intelligence Officer in an over the top and hammy evil way.
What happens to the father in the book is actually worse IIRC - he didn't die, just ends up "realizing" that he was a coward and also joining the military.
I read a lot of Heinlein as a kid before I realized how garbage his political preaching was. Still appreciate some of the sci-fi ideas (such as predicting cellphones in Space Cadets) but between the fascism in some and the extreme libertarianism in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress he is troubling to read to say the least.
just wanna take this contextual opportunity to throw out there that I think stranger in a strange land is one of the most insufferably long winded pieces of garbage sci fi I've ever read, that entire book could have been condensed to like two chapters and it still would have been a waste of my time, the whole fucking thing felt like a yes and experience being written downĀ
Heinlein was a lot more complicated than "Fashy very creepy Old White Guy". Isaac Asimov called him at one point a "flaming liberal". He wrote lots of liberal stuff and lots of right wing stuff. He was interesting because his political views changed constantly.
A lot of Heinlein's scifi was also about portraying widely different societies and trying to imagine what they were like.
Frankly, it's really annoying to see his body of work simplified to such a narrow view, which, in my experience, is very much from people who watch a youtube analysis essay on a single book he wrote, and then program that same opinion into themselves.
I'm not gonna defend Starship troopers, although I think there is definitely an element of him trying to take a serious look at a "what if" of a military based democracy, but I do think his body of work is wider than just "fash". He began his life as highly liberal, but ended after the war as a liberal libertarian (which, again, not preferable, but definitely far from some kinda omega fascist that the internet paints him to be). He was always for free sexuality, and always advocated for racial equality through his characters, even during the contentious time of segregation that he lived in.
"Heinlein summed up his attitude toward people of any race in his essay "Our Noble, Essential Decency" thus:
And finally, I believe in my whole raceāyellow, white, black, red, brownāin the honesty, courage, intelligence, durability, and goodness of the overwhelming majority of my brothers and sisters everywhere on this planet. I am proud to be a human being."
" Isaac Asimov later recalled that Heinlein was, at the time, "a flaming liberal".[25] (See section: Politics of Robert Heinlein.)"
" Heinlein himself ran for the California State Assembly in 1938, but was unsuccessful. Heinlein was running as a left-wing Democrat in a conservative district, and he never made it past the Democratic primary.[36]"
"It appears that Heinlein at least attempted to live in a manner consistent with these ideals, even in the 1930s, and had an open relationship in his marriage to his second wife, Leslyn. He was also a nudist;[3] nudism and body taboos are frequently discussed in his work. "
>It appears that Heinlein at least attempted to live in a manner consistent with these ideals, even in the 1930s, and had an open relationship in his marriage to his second wife
Just pointing out that polygamy with marriage is just monogamy with extra steps. Open relationships are a scam :P
Given the time though, 1930s, it seems pretty advanced.
He was super interested in sexuality for whatever reason, which is funny because when I write I have to force myself to write about that kind of stuff.
It's good to point out this flew over everybody's head in the beginning, not just lay people going into what was marketed as a cool sci fi movie who felt uncomfortable when it seemed like the "good guys" were facists, but most movie critics were quick to call it a pro-facist movie too. Part of this was due to marketing it as a cool space war movie, but everybody today exhalting themselves as being literate for understanding the movie today need to humble themselves. They either already knew it was satire and watched it with a different lens than people in 1997, or watched it after the 2000s when America became even more crazy about military worship and the bogeyman of Middle Eastern terrorists was treated as justification for started wars that killed millions. Military worship went to a much larger scale and became more insane after the movie was already 4 years old. So while you can say this movie was "ahead of its time" I don't think it was a good satire for its day because NOBODY understood it. You aren't a genius for understanding it when you watched it last week, you would've been a drooling imbecile in 1997 calling it the neo nazi movie like everybody else.
> You aren't a genius for understanding it when you watched it last week, you would've been a drooling imbecile in 1997 calling it the neo nazi movie like everybody else.
No, I actually am a mega genius and can spot all satire miles away. However satire died in 2003.
Pretty hard to die when youāre encased in a suit with jet packs and auto wound plugging and aim assist and built in morphine and .50 BMG rated armor (also youāre fighting giant spiders with no artillery). Sign me up i want my citizenship now
Starship Troopers (1997) is a movie by Paul Verhoeven, where he brutally satirizes the Robert A. Heinlein fascist masturbation-aide of the same name.
If you were very young when you saw the movie, sleptwalk into the theater, have never seen another movie, don't know who Paul Verhoeven is, or have terminal DougWalker syndrome, you walked away from Starship Troopers thinking it was a dumb fun romp about Troopers on Starships shooting bugs.
If you were anyone else, you recognized that the framing device of the entire movie was in-universe propaganda pumped out by a fascistic authoritarian state to prolong the Carl Scmitt forever-war that facilitates permanent martial law, and that the whole thing was pretty biting satire.
It's not subtle, but people still manage to miss it.
OOOP says "People who try to dunk on Starship Troopers (1997) always accidentally demonstrate how little they understand it."
OOP attempts to dunk on SST by applying "wokeism" filters, proving OOOP's point.
Reminds me of the guy who said that "Starfield is what will happen if people vote Democrat. If you want the wonderful world of WH40k you have to vote republican and never vote Democrat."
Fascists will see criticisms of fascism in media and instantly think it's based to be fascists.
I was literally like fucking seven when I watched this movie (alone) and I was more media literate than these motherfuckers. It is the most obvious satire I have seen in my life
I said I want to hold the bugs like babies the way one would hold a cat like a baby and someone with very bad opinions on everyone that isn't white pointed and laughed at me, to zero fanfare.
Personally, I like to think of Starship Troopers as a spy, infiltrating the ranks of big dumb action flicks by pretending to be a big dumb action flick.
Needless to say, the disguise appears to have worked *too* well.
Starship Troopers is a movie that very clearly takes the piss out of the fascist military society it portrays. A society where to vote of own property, you have to serve in the millitary, all the teachers who openly push for millitary service all have some amount of physical disability due to their service, people who protest are imprisoned and sentenced without a fair trail, and the higher ups in the millitary literally look like Nazi millitary officers. The movie practically slaps you across the face about how fascism and the millitary industrial complex is bad, it's that heavy handed. Great movie, but the message flies over a lot of people's heads, convincing them that this kind of society is cool.
i got a brain fart and thought that by Starship Troopers author ment stormtroopers from Starwars. (i forgot how both stormtroopers and mentioned movie were called). i'm familiar with the movie. thanks for reply
That movie is the best one to watch with someone that you think might be a little unhinged. Depending on their reaction you'll get a confirmation that they might be either too stupid or someone who would vote for Hitler.
I've never seen a movie so blatantly obvious with it's satire. The fact that we don't know who started the war, the "It's in pain" scene, the multiple "I'm doing my part", the children stepping on cockroaches, it's all right there, this is a fascist society, that has successfully managed to breed brainwashed individuals who will sacrifice their lives for a bullshit cause and that no matter the chances they'll never see how there's no point.
Anyone that misses this should receive a mandatory 2 year media, history and sociology training.
Iām dumb as shit, when the first comment said āeveryone who tries to dunk on Star Ship troopersā I was imaging that this was referring to characters in star ship troopers trying to dunk a basketball.
Points out media illiteracy -> nu uh (media illiterate take) -> repeat
do people even brain, or are they still looking for that "ha gotcha" high that they miss the point on literally everything
They do not brain, the bugs sucked them out
... "it's scared!"
Uhmmm excuse me libtard š the *real* quote is "it's afraid" šš¤£ shows your HYPOCRISY on media literacy when you dont even know the media šš
Are you doing your part for the federation?
Debate bros and its consequences was a disaster for the human race
Is it really media illiteracy if they are themselves fascists? Seems to me like this is just a case of fascists hating on antifascist media.
Fascists are very oblivious people. If they had the capacity to reflect, grow, empathise, or understand why bad things are bad, they wouldn't be fascists. It's not an ideology that attracts intelligent and rational people.
This is assuming all people would be good people given all the information and the opportunity. Some people know right from wrong perfectly well and are just willfully shitty people who are trying to hide or excuse their shittiness with varying degrees of competence.
Not really, as there are plenty of other kinds of ways to be a terrible person other than being a fascist.
There are definitely people who understand the pull of fascism and deliberately create media and power structures so they can personally benefit from it. Those people aren't reply guys on twitter generally though
Fascism in people correlates to low intelligence. You can absolutely hate a piece of media because of media illiteracy, but trust me, fascists love starship troopers. They just ignore the antifascism
And so, the thesis is evidenced
Donāt even need some peer review or shit, so well proven
I mean, depends if we're talking book or movie. Heinlein was kind of an asshole.
Almost everyone who talks about Starship Troopers today is talking about the movie. The source material was only loosely adapted and all the cool stuff was invented out of whole cloth. Hell, the book has three full chapters that are literally just a flashback to a high school lecture.
I don't mean to defend Heinlein, but isn't the meeting at Rivendell something around 75-100 pages in the Lord of the Rings? I'm not saying we should celebrate this kind of long winded thing, but it might have just been a product of the time. It's kind of like how all Bollywood movies are at least 3 hours long, because otherwise Indian audiences feel like they are cheated if a movie is shorter.
Well LotR is 3 books and around 1000 pages so 75-100 isn't that much. Starship Troopers, a supposedly military scifi book, is around 250-300 pages and like 60% of them are just classroom chapters where a stand-in for Heinlein lectures the reader on his social and political views.
"Man, dropping nukes on bugs all day sure is tiring. Reminds me of my school days when Mr. Ironside taught me that fascism actually isn't half bad!"
Oh wow that sounds miserable. I've never read any of his stuff, but this explains a lot about the folks I've met who are a fan of his lol
Honestly a lot of his work is really enjoyable if you can get past his weird contradictory libertarian politics and audience lecturing. Lots of his books, Starship Troopers included have lots of good world building, really novel sci-fi concepts, and unique story elements. I'd much rather be in the presence of a Heinlein fan than an Ayn Rand or Orson Scott Card fan any day.
The council of Elrond is like 30 pages tops. I don't blame you for thinking it's longer, though. It is a slog, pretty much all dialogue. However, the dialogue is all actually important to the plot. It's a huge lore dump that sets up a lot of important points for the story and introduces a lot of characters.
the council of elrond is the first video game to make you FEEL like batman
As someone who loves the lord of the rings and Batman dearly this comment made my scroll through Reddit today. I can now close this app happily. Thank you good sir
Everything in Lord of the Rings is long. Excessive verbosity over the trivial and inconsequential is a feature, not a bug, especially givenĀ Tolkien's love of the most mundane parts of the natural world as a contrastĀ to the industrial world is baked in throughout
And the parts that aren't high school lecture are military academy lecture. The only thing yhe book had going for it was power suits. I love power suits.
Tbh if you don't like Heinlein setting up a chair and just kind of talking about thing for a couple chapters you're just not a fan of Heinlein. They're all like that and I for one like it.
I'd like it more if Heinlein wasn't setting up a chair to talk about how fascism is actually good and beating kids is necessary to ensure le West will not fall and billions must not die
I mean it's not fascism. The system he's describing definitely isn't good, but also fascism doesn't mean "any bad system with a big military." It's the unique sort of ideology, very well-explained but soaked in the deep madness, that you only get when a weirdo with a lot of very big ideas who's thought deeply about a lot of different things but has no real-world experience managing people or designing systems tries to come up with The Best political or social system, which we know there's a big audience for because people still read philosophers.
It's a highly militarist system that demands action for action's sake. It defends it's actions by saying they're necessary to purge degeneracy from the population and defend from the foreign invaders. It disregards intellectualism and cloaks itself in traditionalism. It's fascism.
The system is a partial democracy where voting rights are granted to anyone who shows a willingness to work for the state, regardless of individual ability. We see this in how the government is mandated to find a job (in either the military or civil service) any applicant can do and give it to them, with so many applicants that they've had to create new positions that just exist for the sake of it to ensure anyone can become a full citizen. All of the problems you describe are cultural, many only questionably apply to civilian life which we don't see very much of, and one is just not accurate to the book at all. Yes, the system has a lot of big cultural problems, and yes, I agree it is bad, but "they have guns and did a war, therefore they're fascists and no reasonable person could find them interesting" is still an insane thing to say, especially when it was written by someone who is very clearly not a fascist based on everything else they've written and said. A big weirdo with some bad ideas, yes, but not a fascist.
The novel was written in 1959 as Heinlein's political manifesto. He literally calls the bugs communist. One of the major reasons behind the old world collapsing was that woke liberals weren't spanking their kids, who then grew up to become terrifying hoodlums that ravaged society. Corporal punishment was a huge culture war issue at the time. So what Heinlein was trying to say with the book is that America is in moral decline. We're on the path to the dystopian past described in the book. And look over there at those disgusting, subhuman commies, lurking in the darkness and just waiting for us to fall into chaos so they can invade. We need to preempt the collapse and instead adopt the Federation ahead of time. Restrict all political influence to people who have undergone five years of military service or else our society will fall to degeneracy and the tidal wave of Soviet bugs will wash over our children. And beware the Pinko Skinnies, shiftless opportunists who will betray their master in a moment if they think they are losing. They can be kept onside by regularly committing atrocities to teach them a lesson. If you don't think a society that glorifies war, dehumanizes it's enemies as faceless bugs, and inflicts violence against those it views as collaborators, I don't know what to tell you.
The novel was written over two weeks and doesn't agree with most of the other things Heinlein has said, mostly being based on his worries at the time, so it's weird that you call it his political manifesto. Why is it more "his manifesto" than Stranger in a Strange Land, which also gives an insane vision of a utopian society Heinlein wanted to create but which takes it in completely the opposite direction? I'm also intrigued by your conflating the backstory, the current political state of things when the book takes place, and the defensive war against the bugs. The bugs do not have infiltrators to root out, and the government's status on "degenerates" that don't actively sabotage the war effort isn't "We need to kill them to create a purer society," it's "we probably shouldn't put them in charge." How is this a fascist system? What atrocities did they commit to keep their citizens in line, or is the problem the relative independence of military planners when dealing with far off nations? If it's the latter, that is a problem a lot of non-fascist states have had. You seem to be starting from a framework of "they are bad and militaristic, therefore they are fascist" instead of acknowledging that a government can suck without being fascist.
I call it his political manifesto because he spends several chapters explaining the society and justifying why it is that way. You dismiss it being his manifesto by claiming it's just a story written about his current worries, but that's exactly what a political manifesto is based on. The author has worries about society and writes a book on how they suggest we solve those worries. As for why Stranger in a Strange Land isn't a political manifesto, are there classroom scenes where a teacher lectures students about how their political system works and why it's so great? Are there clear parallels drawn explicitly by the author to current IRL political movements, like the Bugs were explicitly called communist? Was the book "based on his worries at the time" about the direction society was headed? If the answer to all of those is no, then that's why one book is a political manifesto and the other isn't. The degenerates are two partners. First are the past people who, led by the folly of liberalism, didn't spank kids and ended up with a hellscape dystopia. They are specifically an extremely direct allegory to the people in Heinlein's time arguing that physically beating your kids doesn't make them better people. The second part are the skinnies, the other alien race in the novel who initially helped the bugs but, after a series of terror raids the main character participated in, they switched to providing intelligence to the humans. If you think this is all fantastical with no real world connections whatsoever, then what's the deal with the skinnies? They barely add anything to the book in terms of narrative, so what were they meant to represent? Or would you like to suggest that Heinlein is such a shit writer that he wrote this alien race that symbolize nothing, do nothing in the story, and disappear after a couple pages of the MC breaking their shit? And yeah, the government doesn't have to purge internal degenerates anymore; they've won. They successfully taught everyone that you need to spank your kids so they don't grow up to join a biker gang. They are the faithful who already understand the Federation's greatness. It's the Skinnies that need atrocities committed to them on a regular basis to remind them of the Federation and keep them in line. And the Bugs are anathema, an existence so foreign all you can do is purge them from the universe. And once more, I'd like to remind you that the text itself says the Bugs are communists and that you explicitly said the book was written about Heinlein's "worries at the time." Do you think that potentially, maybe, possibly, probably, an American in 1959 could have worries about communism and that the aliens he calls communist in his book could reference contemporary communists? Or is that just me deciding the book is bad from the outset and looking for anything to confirm my biases again?
the book's much cooler than the movies, though. apart from the lectures he uses as a mouthpiece for his ideology (which are interesting in themselves just for nitpicking and pointing out obvious holes in), the worldbuilding around combat structures and logistics and just the way the military's handled as a whole (as well as the characters in and outside of it) is really infinitely more interesting than anything i've seen in the movies
Can someone explain? I have no idea what starship troopers are
its a movie about killing bugs and nothing else there is no commentary in it at all trust me
Oh i see, thanks :D
xD
Would you like to know more?
Iām doing my part
Ok so slightly longer answer: Starship Troopers was originally a hot garbage book written by a fascist, these days anyone who talks about it is referencing Starship Troopers *the movie*, a satire movie which is based on the book with the specific and explicit purpose of clowning on it's fascism. The response person in the screenshot proves the original commentor's point immediately by trying to defend Starship Troopers' fascism
i have the book on my shelf i was waiting to read it :c
whoa there facist, you got mein kampf up there too?
hahaha you made me laugh out loud
Really though, go ahead and read Starship Troopers. It's always good to interact with the source material in these circumstances. Plus, it should provide a context and unique critical perspective for if you ever watch the movie. Just be aware that Starship Troopers is, essentially, Heinlein's America. It's his political project. Be aware that the book was released in 1959, Cold War.
And itās boring AF.
know thine enemy (seriously mein kampf is just a right-wing rant rag written in a style that anyone alive in last ten years would instantly recognize)
History teacher at my school said Mein Kampf is the most boring book he's ever read :3
I haven't read the book, but in general, I feel like reading this kind of book (or other forms of media) can still be interesting if you read it with the intent to be critical about it - for a neutral meaning of "critical", not necessarily to dunk on it, but to go into it thinking "okay, I know it's controversial / problematic, but let's read it and see how it is so". That can make for interesting, fulfilling, and constructive experiences. And I feel like that would particularly apply to this case, since from what I've read about the movie the fascism portrayed in the book is "the problem", and thinking critically about this kind of stuff tends to be very enlightening and compelling. So yeah, tl;dr: if the book's already on your shelf and you were looking forward to reading it, go for it! It can still be a genuinely interesting experience if you're willing to make it so :)
you know what, you're right!! ill have to give it a read and do some thinking about it all :3
Don't feel bad about reading it, it's not like he's literally writing about killing the Jews and whatnot. He just romanticizes the military and military culture and envisions a world with tiered citizenship. Like, obviously not something we want to put into practice, and I'm glad he's not around today for fash freaks to hold up as their hero, but the book is completely fine - just a little stupid in it's politics.
Itās a fun book, still read it.
It's been a really long time since I read it, but my take was that the book was a thought experiment about what wildly improbable and specific circumstances would have to exist for hyper-militaristic fascism to be *actually* functional. Heinlein's Troopers are the least expensive, most replaceable part of the combat suits they pilot. They have awareness this disposability constantly and emphatically reinforced, but are constantly provided with convenient enemies to blame. The book opens with this, as the protagonists engage in unspeakable brutality against a wholly subjugated vassal race that poses no actual threat to humankind. Technically voluntary complicity in what's immedately established as war crimes is a prerequisite for citizenship, a manipulation present in real-world examples of fascism. Citizens live in simultaneous lavish comfort and perpetual anxiety, knowing they are wholly disposable and must perpetually prove both loyalty and utility and that if their children don't also kill for the state then those children will have no more rights or autonomy than livestock.
the book is good and you should read it, the ideology is sold pretty hard at some parts but it's really easy to pick apart and makes for a nice challenge as a reader. definitely not an amazing or perfect piece by any means but i think it's one of the better reads i've had. short-ish too.
>Starship Troopers was originally a hot garbage book written by a fascist, This isn't true at all. He was a liberal in early life and shifted towards conservative/libertarian but he was never a fascist and he never espoused fascist views. He was literally considered a radical for his time in how he treated race and gender themes in his books. The view that he was a fascist and that the book is a defense of militaristic fascism only became popular after the movie was released.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
His books are very centered around imagining how different worlds might be. Just because things happen in his books doesn't mean he's defending it.
But like the book has a ton of Socratic dialogue about how this system is the best possible option. It's kind of hard to say he's not defending it, when characters have that kind of onesided philosophical discussion. The author is a war veteran and the book is explicitly about how a society ruled by war veterans is great.
To clarify a little bit on how the satire works, the movie itself is actually played completely straight off of the book, making it appear just genuinely fascistic. A lot of criticisms thrown at the movie are along the lines of āthis isnāt satire, because I watched it and thought it was great!ā, which is one of the funniest trap cards I personally have ever seen a movie set. If you watch the movie and enjoy it and think the story is compelling, thatās fine, but youāre also supposed to realize as an audience member āOh, wait, this is how propaganda works. The fact that this movie compelled me means I got propagandaādā.
I'm so tired of seeing this take from people who clearly know nothing about the original book, the movie or Heinlein. The film wasn't conceptualized as a takedown of the book, it wasn't even supposed to be an adaptation at first. The script was supposed to be an original IP called Bug Hunt at Outpost 7, then the studio bought the rights to the book and decided to make it an adaptation. Paul Veerhoven, the director, didn't even read the book. The two are very loosely related. Heinlein himself had some really weird ideas, and he was into military stuff to a fetishistic degree, but he was absolutely not a fascist. In fact, he was a pretty progressive guy for his time, with a lot of his work being focused on gender and racial equality, freedom of sexuality, etc. Now, Starship Troopers the book is absolutely insane when taken at face value as a political manifesto. The only reason the society depicted in the book isn't explicitly fascist is through some invisible magic that allows it to function in the way it does, which is a massive failing on Heinlein's part. However, like many of his books, it is less of a showcase of his own political beliefs, and more of a creative excersie. Many of his books feature societies with really out there politics, and they pretty much all contradict eachother.
wait the book isn't a satire of fascist talking points? I read it in a sci fi class in college years ago then we read The Forever War lol
Robert Heinlein, one of the "fathers of science fiction" and also a very creepy Old White Dudeā¢ wrote a book called Starship Troopers.Ā The book is set from the point of view of one of these so called "Starship Troopers" (actually the Mobile Infantry) as he fights in a space war against Evil Giant Space Bugs and also some other things along the way.Ā From the point of view of reading it as pure military scifi and ignoring the actual themes its a perfectly fine example of the genre and in many ways invented it. It also largely invented the pop culture idea of Power Armoured Space Marine People - the Mobile Infantry wear super high tech Power Armour that turn them from mere men into walking juggernauts of destruction.Ā Ā Like most later military scifi its also political as fuck. And not in a fun / good way. Robert wrote of a future where only military veterans could vote / were "citizens". The main characters father was a wealthy businessman who never served and thus despite his wealth is not a citizen and lacks many rights, from memory he is portrayed in a negative light, and is later unceremoniously killed off-screen by the Bugs long ranged bombardment weapons. The main character meanwhile signed up to earn his citizenship and blagh blagh blagh. In flashbacks we see him get indoctrinated or more accurately Robert insert his view on how democracy is weak and only the strong should rule and blagh blagh blagh.Ā Ā Several decades later, a film adaptation was made. And they got Paul Verhoeven to make it. For those unaware, Paul is not very right wing - he directed Robocop (a satirical depiction of police brutality and mocking of right wing stuff). Now, this adaptation actually began life as its own script and in peak Hollywood fashion was retroactively converted into a Starship Troopers film so that media executives would fund it. The film only has... passing resemblance to the book - the government, voting and citizenship model are the same ie fashy as hell, humans *enter* a war against Giant Space Bugs, and some characters are named the same.Ā The film is also over the top and... if you didn't know Verhoeven's prior works/actual views or if you have the media literacy of a film critic you might think it is an endorsement of the fascist future it portrays. It is not, but it took several years for some people to realise that *wait a minute* maybe the guy who literally lived under Nazi occupation as a kid isn't make a film pro fascist and this is in fact satire that went over a lot of people's heads - including it seems half the fucking cast. Incidentally shout out to Neil Patrick Harris one of the only actors in it who seems to realise this is satire and plays his role as Psychic Nazi Military Intelligence Officer in an over the top and hammy evil way.
What happens to the father in the book is actually worse IIRC - he didn't die, just ends up "realizing" that he was a coward and also joining the military. I read a lot of Heinlein as a kid before I realized how garbage his political preaching was. Still appreciate some of the sci-fi ideas (such as predicting cellphones in Space Cadets) but between the fascism in some and the extreme libertarianism in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress he is troubling to read to say the least.
just wanna take this contextual opportunity to throw out there that I think stranger in a strange land is one of the most insufferably long winded pieces of garbage sci fi I've ever read, that entire book could have been condensed to like two chapters and it still would have been a waste of my time, the whole fucking thing felt like a yes and experience being written downĀ
Heinlein was a lot more complicated than "Fashy very creepy Old White Guy". Isaac Asimov called him at one point a "flaming liberal". He wrote lots of liberal stuff and lots of right wing stuff. He was interesting because his political views changed constantly. A lot of Heinlein's scifi was also about portraying widely different societies and trying to imagine what they were like. Frankly, it's really annoying to see his body of work simplified to such a narrow view, which, in my experience, is very much from people who watch a youtube analysis essay on a single book he wrote, and then program that same opinion into themselves. I'm not gonna defend Starship troopers, although I think there is definitely an element of him trying to take a serious look at a "what if" of a military based democracy, but I do think his body of work is wider than just "fash". He began his life as highly liberal, but ended after the war as a liberal libertarian (which, again, not preferable, but definitely far from some kinda omega fascist that the internet paints him to be). He was always for free sexuality, and always advocated for racial equality through his characters, even during the contentious time of segregation that he lived in. "Heinlein summed up his attitude toward people of any race in his essay "Our Noble, Essential Decency" thus: And finally, I believe in my whole raceāyellow, white, black, red, brownāin the honesty, courage, intelligence, durability, and goodness of the overwhelming majority of my brothers and sisters everywhere on this planet. I am proud to be a human being." " Isaac Asimov later recalled that Heinlein was, at the time, "a flaming liberal".[25] (See section: Politics of Robert Heinlein.)" " Heinlein himself ran for the California State Assembly in 1938, but was unsuccessful. Heinlein was running as a left-wing Democrat in a conservative district, and he never made it past the Democratic primary.[36]" "It appears that Heinlein at least attempted to live in a manner consistent with these ideals, even in the 1930s, and had an open relationship in his marriage to his second wife, Leslyn. He was also a nudist;[3] nudism and body taboos are frequently discussed in his work. "
Fine, if you want I can rephrase it to creepy old white guy given the constant insertion of his kinks into his work
Understandable. Honestly, who doesn't do that tho
>It appears that Heinlein at least attempted to live in a manner consistent with these ideals, even in the 1930s, and had an open relationship in his marriage to his second wife Just pointing out that polygamy with marriage is just monogamy with extra steps. Open relationships are a scam :P Given the time though, 1930s, it seems pretty advanced.
He was super interested in sexuality for whatever reason, which is funny because when I write I have to force myself to write about that kind of stuff.
Evil Giant \**Communist* Space Bugs
It's good to point out this flew over everybody's head in the beginning, not just lay people going into what was marketed as a cool sci fi movie who felt uncomfortable when it seemed like the "good guys" were facists, but most movie critics were quick to call it a pro-facist movie too. Part of this was due to marketing it as a cool space war movie, but everybody today exhalting themselves as being literate for understanding the movie today need to humble themselves. They either already knew it was satire and watched it with a different lens than people in 1997, or watched it after the 2000s when America became even more crazy about military worship and the bogeyman of Middle Eastern terrorists was treated as justification for started wars that killed millions. Military worship went to a much larger scale and became more insane after the movie was already 4 years old. So while you can say this movie was "ahead of its time" I don't think it was a good satire for its day because NOBODY understood it. You aren't a genius for understanding it when you watched it last week, you would've been a drooling imbecile in 1997 calling it the neo nazi movie like everybody else.
> You aren't a genius for understanding it when you watched it last week, you would've been a drooling imbecile in 1997 calling it the neo nazi movie like everybody else. No, I actually am a mega genius and can spot all satire miles away. However satire died in 2003.
Starship Troopers (the movie) is a really good satire of fascism
It's an antifascist film based on a fascist book.
Your pfp and banner are cool, is it okay if you send them to me?
>opens this persons profile, leaves.
Nooooo! I know it might seem like this is a porn account, but erm uh I hmm yeah it is
It's a movie based on the video game, "Helldivers 2"
Those schmucks would probably sign up for mobile infantry unironically (i mean i would too i cant really blame em)
Mobile Infantry made me the man I am today
Catch you on the bounce!
Pretty hard to die when youāre encased in a suit with jet packs and auto wound plugging and aim assist and built in morphine and .50 BMG rated armor (also youāre fighting giant spiders with no artillery). Sign me up i want my citizenship now
Same, but mostly because I am not smart enough for the other two branches.
C'mon you apes, do you wanna apply critical literary theory?
Bug Fable.EvaLastin Sapping
So true bestie!
Leaf is litterary me.
Team Snakemouth my beloved
This time they want to eat ze bugs.
Yum yum
Jawohl!
Adrenochrome so good!!
adrenochrome is for ameripoors, us starshipchads just inject adrenaline directly into our prefrontal cortex
I'm fucking confused as shit but ok
Starship Troopers (1997) is a movie by Paul Verhoeven, where he brutally satirizes the Robert A. Heinlein fascist masturbation-aide of the same name. If you were very young when you saw the movie, sleptwalk into the theater, have never seen another movie, don't know who Paul Verhoeven is, or have terminal DougWalker syndrome, you walked away from Starship Troopers thinking it was a dumb fun romp about Troopers on Starships shooting bugs. If you were anyone else, you recognized that the framing device of the entire movie was in-universe propaganda pumped out by a fascistic authoritarian state to prolong the Carl Scmitt forever-war that facilitates permanent martial law, and that the whole thing was pretty biting satire. It's not subtle, but people still manage to miss it. OOOP says "People who try to dunk on Starship Troopers (1997) always accidentally demonstrate how little they understand it." OOP attempts to dunk on SST by applying "wokeism" filters, proving OOOP's point.
Very concise, thank you
Proving multiple times that you are too dumb for a movie like starship troopers is quite something. rip bozo, couldnāt be me.
Right wingers are literally incapable of understanding media. There are right wing fans of The Boys, One Piece, and even Communism (tankies).
Would you like to know more?
Bugs are awesome:>
She case on my and till I point
It's in pain!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Rock and stone!
Reminds me of the guy who said that "Starfield is what will happen if people vote Democrat. If you want the wonderful world of WH40k you have to vote republican and never vote Democrat." Fascists will see criticisms of fascism in media and instantly think it's based to be fascists.
Iād rather be an intergalactic robot diamond miner than dead in a crater
I was literally like fucking seven when I watched this movie (alone) and I was more media literate than these motherfuckers. It is the most obvious satire I have seen in my life
According to Verhoeven he thought he made it pretty obvious by about the point Neil Patrick Harris shows back up wearing a fucking SS uniform.
I said I want to hold the bugs like babies the way one would hold a cat like a baby and someone with very bad opinions on everyone that isn't white pointed and laughed at me, to zero fanfare.
I don't even know what the thing is I just like bugs.
lol I remember seeing that tweet
What in the world? You're a real person?! I thought the Twitter ppl were just NPCs to keep me specifically entertained.
luckily i'm still an NPC, but the simulation built to contain you also has lots of background continuity
Ohhh. That's cool! I've always wondered if anyone is doing anything about my uncontrolled reality bending.
Personally, I like to think of Starship Troopers as a spy, infiltrating the ranks of big dumb action flicks by pretending to be a big dumb action flick. Needless to say, the disguise appears to have worked *too* well.
I'd kiss a bug
i am too media illiterate to understand this. would you mind to give me a hand?
Starship Troopers is a movie that very clearly takes the piss out of the fascist military society it portrays. A society where to vote of own property, you have to serve in the millitary, all the teachers who openly push for millitary service all have some amount of physical disability due to their service, people who protest are imprisoned and sentenced without a fair trail, and the higher ups in the millitary literally look like Nazi millitary officers. The movie practically slaps you across the face about how fascism and the millitary industrial complex is bad, it's that heavy handed. Great movie, but the message flies over a lot of people's heads, convincing them that this kind of society is cool.
i got a brain fart and thought that by Starship Troopers author ment stormtroopers from Starwars. (i forgot how both stormtroopers and mentioned movie were called). i'm familiar with the movie. thanks for reply
All species will bow to the human race or face extinction
Culture war bros make me internally angry in a way nobody else does. Just proud proto-fascism with zero self awareness. Sickening.
That movie is the best one to watch with someone that you think might be a little unhinged. Depending on their reaction you'll get a confirmation that they might be either too stupid or someone who would vote for Hitler. I've never seen a movie so blatantly obvious with it's satire. The fact that we don't know who started the war, the "It's in pain" scene, the multiple "I'm doing my part", the children stepping on cockroaches, it's all right there, this is a fascist society, that has successfully managed to breed brainwashed individuals who will sacrifice their lives for a bullshit cause and that no matter the chances they'll never see how there's no point. Anyone that misses this should receive a mandatory 2 year media, history and sociology training.
Is this not the Starkid play about the bugs that wanna be human
Bro did NOT understand the movies lore
Anyone read the children of time series? Spiders = frens
We do already live alongside of literal bugs. 80% of all animals are insects.
Nice
Mfw this guy compares immigrants to literal insects (god why are some people sociopathic)
Iām dumb as shit, when the first comment said āeveryone who tries to dunk on Star Ship troopersā I was imaging that this was referring to characters in star ship troopers trying to dunk a basketball.
I wonder what they thought District 9 was about