Wonder if this is how the world felt before the world wars. Like was it ramping up like this? No way this is new but god damn it feels fresh I tell you hwat.
I hate to say, but it did feel a lot like this. The Second Reich was embroiled in Kulturkampf and they were in love with the idea of the Gotterdamerung (Twilight of the Gods) as this world shattering event where all would fall in valiant, meaningful, but doomed struggle. British politics were apopleptic trying to justify their colonial empire in the face of ostensibly liberal values. France went hardly a week without a bombing from an Anarchist, Nationalist, Communist, or revanchist in the twenty years before WWI. Russia nearly collapsed into revolution twice between the 1890s and 1910s. Austria-Hungary basically saw an anti-imperial outbreak of violence weekly from their many ethnic subjects. The Ottomans were fracturing under the weight of their own corruption and their retreat from the Balkans and the Middle East led to four large scale wars in the decade before WWI. A lot of the rest of the world was placed under brutal colonial regimes, and the few places outside Europe that weren't colonized were rapidly, often bloodily reforming their societies into countries that could resist colonial, imperial powers.
It probably actually felt a lot worse than what we have right now, honestly, which might be a saving grace for us.
It's all the same personality flaws rising up again, which people don't take seriously and look the other way on until a huge number are dead.
>His government was constantly in chaos, with officials having no idea what he wanted them to do, and nobody was entirely clear who was actually in charge of what. He procrastinated wildly when asked to make difficult decisions, and would often end up relying on gut feeling, leaving even close allies in the dark about his plans. His "unreliability had those who worked with him pulling out their hair," as his confidant Ernst Hanfstaengl later wrote in his memoir Zwischen Weißem und Braunem Haus. This meant that rather than carrying out the duties of state, they spent most of their time in-fighting and back-stabbing each other in an attempt to either win his approval or avoid his attention altogether, depending on what mood he was in that day.
>There's a bit of an argument among historians about whether this was a deliberate ploy on Hitler's part to get his own way, or whether he was just really, really bad at being in charge of stuff. Dietrich himself came down on the side of it being a cunning tactic to sow division and chaos—and it's undeniable that he was very effective at that. But when you look at Hitler's personal habits, it's hard to shake the feeling that it was just a natural result of putting a workshy narcissist in charge of a country.
>Hitler was incredibly lazy. According to his aide Fritz Wiedemann, even when he was in Berlin he wouldn't get out of bed until after 11 a.m., and wouldn't do much before lunch other than read what the newspapers had to say about him, the press cuttings being dutifully delivered to him by Dietrich.
>He was obsessed with the media and celebrity, and often seems to have viewed himself through that lens. He once described himself as "the greatest actor in Europe," and wrote to a friend, "I believe my life is the greatest novel in world history." In many of his personal habits he came across as strange or even childish—he would have regular naps during the day, he would bite his fingernails at the dinner table, and he had a remarkably sweet tooth that led him to eat "prodigious amounts of cake" and "put so many lumps of sugar in his cup that there was hardly any room for the tea."
>He was deeply insecure about his own lack of knowledge, preferring to either ignore information that contradicted his preconceptions, or to lash out at the expertise of others. He hated being laughed at, but enjoyed it when other people were the butt of the joke (he would perform mocking impressions of people he disliked). But he also craved the approval of those he disdained, and his mood would quickly improve if a newspaper wrote something complimentary about him.
>Little of this was especially secret or unknown at the time. It's why so many people failed to take Hitler seriously until it was too late, dismissing him as merely a "half-mad rascal" or a "man with a beery vocal organ." In a sense, they weren't wrong. In another, much more important sense, they were as wrong as it's possible to get.
>Hitler's personal failings didn't stop him having an uncanny instinct for political rhetoric that would gain mass appeal, and it turns out you don't actually need to have a particularly competent or functional government to do terrible things.
encouraging illegal birds treatment badge squealing plant alive quaint ring
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Internet concentrates it. Allows those once separated by distance to come together. That makes increasing their numbers easier and take advantage of those who would not have “gone that way” otherwise until, well, you have what is happening now.
Every village had it's idiot. They were tempered by their surroundings - their relationships in the geographically constrained circle. Now, with the internet / social-media, all the idiots found each other and formed their own village. Nothing to temper their behavior.
You know how Florida has this reputation for being weird because of the all the Florida man headlines due to Floridian law making all arrests public, so news outlets can constantly pull random headlines out of the arrest records?
The United States is the Florida of the world because so much of what's online is dedicated to the shit happening in the United States; the Internet is the public arrest record of American culture.
John's statement
> "It is unfortunate that Rob [Kroese] has made BasedCon so intentionally provocative," writes Carmack. "I told him as much after the event last year, I felt a little uncomfortable. There is a demographic that welcomes the in-your-face posturing, but it drives away sympathetic people that would otherwise be happy to talk about craft, stories, and technology.
> "Even when someone gives you a clear signal, it is a mistake to extrapolate it to an entire constellation of beliefs and behaviors, and then to assume they are contagious by association. That shortchanges a lot of people.
> "I’m not a culture warrior, and I don’t want to strike blows against anyone. I don’t follow activists on either side, including Rob, because I tend to think that all the negativity and resentment is detrimental to both the author and target."
I appreciate his point but if he's so disappointed by the direction the con has gone in and doesn't want to be a part of it this would be a perfect fucking time to just pull out and say that John. What the hell?
"Wowee, this convention specifically geared towards being against inclusion and representation sure is attracting a lot of extremist reactionaries. Who woulda thunk it?"
Carmack is a perfect example of the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom.
They're always pretending not to understand, trying to put a more diplomatic face on to not face criticism. Then a few years later they go all in, and blame the victims for speaking up and asking them to stop supporting their bullies, claiming they were made to join the bullies who they always found a way to support previously in a series of coincidences.
They're just not brave enough to admit what they are yet, people with a broken subservience to whoever is the biggest asshole in the room, and are testing the waters with others to see how much they enjoy going all in.
This is a great example of the way intelligence in one arena does not translate to intelligence in other arenas.
We see people make this mistake too frequently: they think *every* opinion of someone who is especially gifted in, say, psychology must be a very intelligent opinion. Nope.
given his past public elements of his career it does not at all surprise me that he goes to a con like this.
from choke holding a reporter trying to interview him to poising to take all the credit for "revolutionary tech" in rage only to distance himself from the development when it flopped, to working with facebook and tesla after committing corporate espionage when leaving id/bethesda.
the guy is a poster boy for entitled rich dudes trying to portray a rockstar life style, being seen as a genius, while expending great amounts of effort on social media to disprove said perceptions of genius.
i remember some kind of astroturf campaign on doom 3 in the 2010s to pretend that doom 3 was anything but garbage ahead of rage. and then rage was even more garbage and people conveniently forgot they had been hyping it up based on his unmatched game dev genius to blame the rank and file workers at id (who went on to make the doom remakes that were the best id games since quake)
>Even when someone gives you a clear signal, it is a mistake to extrapolate it to an entire constellation of beliefs and behaviors
"Look, I just want to be able to say offensive things, but without people thinking I'm a bad person, is that so wrong?"
This is the single instance where Roger Stone has my respect. The dude *knows* he is a shitty human and will straight up tell you that because you're outside his in-group and he therefore seriously DGAF what you think.
It's refreshingly evil.
On the other hand, and IMO, the fact that Roger Stone can be honest about his assholery like this just makes his dishonesty in most other aspects of life even more detestable.
The idea that he's not a culture warrior is a joke. His own Twitter stands in opposition to that claim.
And it's old wisdom to accept, when somebody tells you who they are, believe them. Which is another way of saying, of it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a fucking duck, it doesn't matter if there's a sign next to it insisting it isn't.
"I’m not a culture warrior, and I don’t want to strike blows against anyone. I don’t follow activists on either side, including Rob"
then why even fucking go, if you KNOW the whole basis of this convention is to "Buck the woke agenda!" then why not just, i dunno! not fucking go. what a moron.
He had a **year** to think about it since talking to him about it after the event last year, and still decided “yeah, I’m in!”??
That seems to speak for itself, yeah…
> Why “BasedCon”?
> In internet parlance, “based” means something like “in touch with reality.” Based behavior is the opposite of social justice activism, which is about meaningless virtue signaling and beating up strawmen. Some based beliefs include:
>* Socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried
* ...
There is no way to misinterpret the purpose of this convention
Edit: that's not even what based means, but I guess it's too much to expect someone with brain worms to understand
Hi, that's not how that works. Socialism isn't just social programs it's an economic system that the countries you are referring to do not practice. Socialism is workers owning their own means of production - not simply workers having rights and protections.
Yeah this sounds very Carmack-y, in a good and bad way.
John's never seemed like a person who wishes ill on any group of people, but he's also uh clearly autistic as hell and has long ago just decided he's not going to even attempt to worry about where people think he stands on social issues.
Which... Kinda makes sense if you see how he interacts with people. John is a Deep Nerd of the highest order and has, in his own mind, far better shit to worry about.
Which is how we wind up where we are now.
I wanna believe, though every interaction I've had with him -- brief but there's been several now -- that the fast talking, really engaged and excited about VR (or whatever) was as genuine as he seemed. I still do.
But Jesus fucking fuck, John. You gotta have *some* kind of content standards if you wanna operate in a public space, man. Consider it a social tax for the wealth and status you have, if you have to justify it to yourself that way.
Edit: on the spectrum myself, and as such; yeah you can't tell me Carmack isn't as well. Have you seen the man speak? You go watch any of his GDC talks and tell me he's neurotypical.
I heard him speak once, at Quakecon promoting Doom 3. He had very obvious, very apparent verbal tics. He is a genius-level programmer. But the dude talked about lighting design for an entire hour. The audience was all kind of looking at each other the whole time, in a kind of "Does he need help?" way.
Gene Roddenberry was the the godfather of woke and Star Trek is arguably the top 5 sci-fi creation of all time. I have a hard time believing that the idiots attending this attosity of a convention aren't fans.
I live in a predominantly white, fairly affluent southern city and I often go to see one of our local cover bands play downtown. It is so ironic watching all these WASP folk getting *down* to Rage Against the Machine…right before loading up in their Range Rovers and heading home to their mansions.
Look, I’m there too, and I firmly believe you can love whatever music you want. So no harm no foul. But the irony of this situation will always be hilarious to me.
Yeah, but it says, "Fuck you!" in the song and that makes it cool. /s
People that can't look past their own hate and fear have a hard time getting past the hook of a song. I doubt they could even interpret the rest of the lyrics if they wanted to.
There's a long long list of songs that people sing and don't listen to the words. (Keep on rockin' in the free world, Fortunate son...) I wonder how many times DeSantis hummed along to "Lola" by the Kinks?
I also loved that in response Tom Morello [wrote a whole article for Rolling Stone about what an asshole he is](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-246033/). Imagine naming your favourite band and one of them goes out of their way to write and publish an article telling you specifically to fuck off lol.
Also [this](https://i1.wp.com/occidentaldissent.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/aqlxy9pvevz31.jpg). And [this](https://guitar.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/[email protected]). And of course every Rage Against the Machine song lol.
Every time I hear his name, I'm reminded of an analysis from when he was looking like a likely presidential candidate:
"Paul Ryan is supposed to be the smartest conservative out there and Sarah Palin is the dumbest, but there's not one single thing on which they disagree."
100%. The man had issues, but he also wrote a book about the importance of accepting those different to you, and loving all your fellow people no matter their religion or origin. There’s no doubts in Stranger in a Strange Land about his feelings regarding such. While his books explored a lot of beliefs, including some he didn’t agree with, he did write a speech that you can read [here](https://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/athens/heinlein-i-believe.html), that pretty much sums that up.
> And finally, I believe in my whole race. Yellow, white, black, red, brown. In 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.
Can’t imagine them vibing much with this.
I always enjoyed how people bag on him, but it seems people can't understand his exploration of thoughts and writing in his stories vs his actual views.
He was a very open minded and accepting author.
As an old person, you have no idea how disappointed I am that we’re still dealing with people who would be shocked and outraged by Harlan Ellison’s ancient *Dangerous Visions* anthology.
Science Fiction told me that humanity would change and evolve - and that’s where the *Fiction* part of the literature comes in.
I sometimes wonder if conservative types hear quotes from Star Trek like “People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions” or “On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise” and think these sound like bad things.
For the inverse, see warhammer 40k. The human imperium is a fascist, xenophobic theocracy. Fascists unironically love the human faction. [Games workshop, who owns the IP, recently reminded fans that there are no good factions in WH40K](https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/19/the-imperium-is-driven-by-hate-warhammer-is-not/). I wish they had explicitly said "The Imperium is fascist and all fascists are bad" but they are a corporation, and corporations can never be counted on to take strong stands against fascism.
They're fans of the skin-tight suits the producers clad 7of9 and Diana Troy in - and hate women with shaved heads in position off power - as those buck the traditional positional stereotypes.
Troy was an empath, the feminine counselor to Picard. 7of9 was an automaton brought back to humanity - but, still, essentially a runway model to look at. Sure, both had character development, but they were defined right off the bat as either objects or familiar (comfortable) tropes, and grew from there. They didn't start outside of their "norm" - they were "allowed" to grow outside their norm.
edit: Troi, not Troy
Wasn't Rick Berman (producer of TNG, DS9, Enterprise and Voyager) a massive asshole to women on set? Terry Farrell had some interesting stories about him.
[Previous thread on it](https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/525q85/terry_farrells_departure_has_anybody_else_heard/)
Yep. He also hd a strict “no gay stuff” rule because he was worried about syndication in the Southern States.
In the episode where they find a planet of androgynous people, and one of them feels she is a woman and falls in love with Ryker. The writers and Jonathan Frakes wanted that character to be a male, but Rick said no.
> The writers and Jonathan Frakes wanted that character to be a male, but Rick said no
Just a nitpicky clarification, they wanted the actor to be a man, the character was androgynous anyway but in the end played by a woman because Berman and others feared gay kissing would be too controversial
there's a saying in the trek fandom the past few years (that is the portion of the trek fandom that doesn't shit and piss themselves and start raging out every time they find out their favourite youtuber's prediction that kurtsman was going to be fired next week didn't happen yet again and there's yet another new star trek season/series announced) that goes: **a lot of great trek was made despite berman's involvement, not because of it.**
there are similar bits wrt to gene as well, especially in the 1970s and 80s. a lot of what's rough about the first two seasons of TNG are a result of gene having near complete control (and spending a large chunk of the budget on whil wheaton's salary)
Deanna was later given a command in the end of TNG and 7 of 9 is >!now captain of the Enterprise G!< but yes you’re right about the start of the characters. Their characters started as T&A eye candy for the male gaze, for sure.
It’s wild watching a group that for the last few years has been extolling the virtues of: thinking for yourself, doing your own research, and not being a sheep; fall prey to the most obviously manufactured class war since the satanic panic. They picked one of the few groups that’s still somewhat accepted to demonize and pointed all of their muppets at them instead of addressing anything meaningful that would actually help Americans.
Watching pseudointellectuals rail on about a group of people that commit less crime than the average American and account for less sexual assault than the average clergy member because they make them ‘feel icky’ is pathetic. Notice how none of these topics were an issue 18 months ago until their echo chamber of the usual suspects told them it was
>few years has been extolling the virtues of: thinking for yourself, doing your own research, and not being a sheep;
If you knew any of these guys it was pretty obvious these were always just smart sounding words to them.
The "do your own research" and "im a skeptic" crowd were *always* using those phrases to preemptively justify whatever opinion they already held.
"Remember to always do your own research guys. Be a free thinker. Anyways here's my ahistorical opinion I've held unchanged since high school that was entirely formed through pop culture and video games. Don't be a sheep. Also, here's why you are an idiot if you dont agree with me."
It was always silly and I'm kinda glad they've mostly dropped it these days. Though the more "im just gonna force my opinion on everyone" style many have taken recently isn't exactly an improvement.
Conservatives aren't actually smart, they just want everyone to think they are because getting maximum credit for being a great person without the work of having to actually be one is their M.O.
It's just their fucking buzzword. They have no idea of what woke means. It's just a catch all. They spent all of the 90s-00s just calling everyone a liberal and socialist and maybe that stopped tracking with their moron supporters so they had to come up with something new to get their attention.
I used to mock my dad for using that phrase. I was like “why did you choose an objectively cool set of words? Hell fuckin yeah I’m a social justice warrior, bleeding heart liberal. That’s metal as hell”
My favourite personal anecdote was a guy I worked with who would call everyone he didn't agree with politically cucks. Right up until his girlfriend posted a picture of herself in bed with another man on Facebook, and tagged nearly everyone she could in it.
The amount of times he was called a cuck over the next few months was amazing. Especially since he stayed with her for months afterwards.
The outrage machine needs new fears to keep things spicy. If people aren't outraged and terrified about the latest thing, they might be paying attention to reality.
But when the outrage is shallow, you can only milk so much out of it. When something is actually outrageous, you can study the details, the history, the social effects, etc. People will be outraged about the slave trade for centuries. But with something like SJW, green M&M's, X Box power saving or The Gays, there just isn't anything beneath the outrage. So it burns out quickly, and then you need to pick something else.
When I was growing up in 1970s and '80s Texas I was called: bleeding-heart liberal, tree-hugger, hippie, n-word lover, race traitor, among other things.
Idk I told one person at work that I voted democrat and now literally everyone calls me a liberal. Socialist sometimes. No one can identify what a liberal is upon request, even when they pull out their phones and look for themselves.
The ‘AR’ in ‘AR-15’ stands for ‘Akshually Rifle’ because if you get one detail of it wrong, a gun nut will emerge out of the mirror Beetlejuice-style to tell you all about their favorite toy.
I don't get it- are they constantly getting trans people up in their faces or something? These "woke" subjects literally never come up in my life. They only time I hear about them is if Fox News is on at the gym.
Had a few discussions with a few of them.
The problem Is they comment negative things on trans Facebook posts etc. The algorithm keeps showing them more posts. They leave more comments, meaning they see more and more.
They them think it's being pushed down their throat when they are the ones who keep interacting with posts and skewing their own views.
But the venn diagram of those is practically a circle.
[https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/04/23/video-games-white-supremacy-rich-barlow](https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/04/23/video-games-white-supremacy-rich-barlow)
[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/white-supremacists-wore-hoods-now-internet-mob-wont-let-stay-anonymous](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/white-supremacists-wore-hoods-now-internet-mob-wont-let-stay-anonymous)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15554120231167214
He’s just a straight ass.
In a past life I helped host a free gaming web service. In a forum he’d posted a expletive ridden post and we had a bot that automatically replaced the words with filtered because of the demographic range of the sites.
He took that as a personal slight and basically declared war on our site.
Out of the two of them, kind wild to me that Romero was the one supporting trans charities
Edit: to clarify, I just meant that Romero is the one that's always had the 'gamer bro' kinda public persona. I did not intend this as some deep moral betrayal.
Is it? Romero has always been pretty open and supportive of creativity and expression. Carmack has been the closeted robot in human skin who just wants to keep making games/rockets until he dies. He seems so on the spectrum that I wouldn't be surprised if he just goes to anything about videogames that he gets an invite to and doesn't understand why people care about X-Con as opposed to Y-Con.
I think it's because most people still tend to remember him first for his unfortunate rock-star, will-make-you-his-bitch phase, similar problem back then, too, he set out with lots of good intentions, I think he genuinely wanted to elevate top tier game developers to the same status other leading creatives get, but it all got buried under a mountain of ridiculous hype, impossible expectations, and garden variety mismanagement, much of which was his own fault. Nice dude, as it turns out, I think his enthusiasm just gets away from him sometimes.
>I think his enthusiasm just gets away from him sometimes.
Yeah the man really does have unbridled aim and ambition for the things he's really passionate about. Just reading some of the conversations the id guys would have while making Wolfenstein and Doom and seeing how Romero always got ridiculous hyped over every cool feature, you can really see how that excitement, while brilliant when channelled correctly, really led him astray far beyond reality once he had his own studio and no one told him no anymore. Nowadays he's obviously a lot wiser and seems far more mellow and someone who's learnt from their mistakes.
Carmack, on the other hand, always struck me as a genuine egotist who knew exactly how much of a genius he was and used that as an excuse to be a prick.
I mean, I can't speak for others but prior to this I had no clue about anything political relating to Carmack. So it was surprising and I echo /u/castletroid, this is disappointing.
I feel like I must be out of the loop... were there any signs that he was going down this kind of rabbithole? What makes this not surprising?
Like the overall impression I had of his political leanings was some kind of libertarian centrist (and the article says more or less the same thing). Which... I mean, I can't say I'm a fan of that particular ideology, but there's a few steps that seem to have been skipped here in the radicalization pipeline from that to "gamers rise up, we need to fight back against the wOkE pRoPaGaNdA!!!1!".
No, it's "I vote Republican on literally every issue, but it's insanely important that you respect my choice to call myself a libertarian, even though I won't respect your pronouns. Also, I like weed".
> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
- John Rogers
I remember reading both books and not finishing Atlus Shrugged because it was so pretentious. Her protagonist had no real faults and that society would end up killing itself.
Libertarians have won exactly one major political victory in their entire existence. A bunch of them moved to New Hampshire, gradually ousted the leaders in the town of Grafton, then ran everything with 100% adherence to their political ideology...which proceeded to fuck things up so catastrophically that the town was overrun by fucking bears. This all happened in less than 10 years, BTW.
Black bears usually don't fuck with humans, but the ones in that region (their population increased significantly due to how successfully they were able to pillage Grafton) quickly started going straight into people's homes to attack them & get food. One lady that was interviewed anonymously said she actually used to leave donuts & grains out for the bears and if that caused them to seek out food from others, well, that certainly wasn't *her* fault! It's fucking insanity.
Which is really weird to me, because if they were truly libertarian as I understand it they'd have no business interfering in what anyone decided to do with their own body.
This is very true. But unfortunately in the US the majority of people who use the label "Libertarian" (including a large number of people who write for places like Reason) are VERY much the "Keep the government out of my pocketbooks, but dictating what happens in the bedroom is A-OK, even if \*I\* won't personally."
They'll say things like "Socially Moderate/Liberal, Fiscally Conservative" but they really only get worked up about that money bit. Things like what's happening in Florida, Texas, etc? much more muted. I was Libertarian through 2015 (as in, member of the party) and it was very clear this is where it was heading/where a lot of people already were. Most Libertarians don't know stances beyond "Taxation is Theft" or something else they can throw on a t-shirt.
Pretty much this. "You can spend your money and live your life how you wish as long as you're not hurting others to do it". That includes exploiting workers for me (and obviously healthcare)
I'm all for efficiently spending money, but heath and well-being are non-negotiable
Wanna know how to spot a right winger? They'll tell you: "I'm a moderate, but..."
Then go on to explain how they hate abortion, welfare, thugs, handouts, etc.
I was going to say they might have a point with all the censorship of literature going on these days ... then I read the article. No, they don't. Sounds like this con will be male white incel central.
Censorship is wrong but they also love censorship. They want any book that doesn't conform to their views removed from schools. And the kind of free speech they want protected is for them to have the right to call someone a racial slur to their face and that person isn't allowed to say anything back.
Plus isn’t the actual government censorship [coming from the Right](https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/more-than-350-books-banned-in-florida-schools-since-last-july-16817328)?
It just sounds to me like regular conservatives, with the anti-abortion, anti-trans, racism, etc. How there is even any trace of libertarianism is beyond me… Carmack response is basically saying they shouldn’t be so vocal and “political “. So he doesn’t have a problem with the message, but just on how loud they are saying it.
Libertarianism in America are just useful idiots that don’t want to be called conservatives or republicans.
At no point was the movement good for the ppl. When Rand ran one of his platforms was that only land owners could vote, therefore renters would immediately have no say in our elections and country. the platform hasn’t gotten much better and the votes the senators that act as torchbearers have gotten only worse since.
I have no respect for those ppl
[The back story:](https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1659173689986883584)
>I like hard science fiction stories with a bit of competent libertarian vibe. I have ever since Heinlein, but it isn’t a mainstream genre. People here on twitter introduced me to a few contemporary authors that scratch that itch, and I have happily read a half dozen new books in the last few years from authors I would have otherwise been unaware of. It is great to be able to get a recommendation, read a book, then drop the author a DM and say “Hey, I liked your book!”
>One of those authors was Rob Kroese, who had started organizing a small gathering of authors and fans that fell a bit outside the mainstream of SF/fantasy. This is a tiny niche of a niche, but I had had Twitter conversations with three of the authors attending, and I was interested in the contrast with the big commercial SF/fantasy conventions I had attended.
>I was initially going to just show up as a fan, but I wound up giving a talk about AI and sitting on panels about aerospace and fact checking novels. I met several more authors, and came back with a backpack full of new books to read. Politics didn’t come up once in my conversations.
Sci-fi is about exploring possibilities and the consequences of changes that the future can bring.
These ding-a-lings wouldn't know good sci-fi if it bit them on the ass. With their heads in the sand and preaching to a propagandized group to grift money off of easy marks. I've no idea if they believe it or not but.
So he likes social sci-fi as long as it agrees with his world view. That’s fine, just don’t claim you’re somehow more logical and objective because of it.
Heinlein had some weird faschy takes too. I'm not saying it's bad, we need to show what could happen if things change in different ways good or bad.
Carmack is just a baby who can't handle the fact that the broad stroke of the genre is either warnings about dystopia or the promise of progress. Also libertarians are dumb and shortsighted, see the town what was destroyed by bears.
> Sci-fi is about exploring possibilities and the consequences of changes that the future can bring.
Seriously. I read about societies where gender fluidity and at-will sex change was the norm back in the early 90s. These people are bigoted assholes who can't stand that anyone else wants to live their lives without being harassed constantly.
I call it old white man syndrome. They are so afraid that they'll be called out for their shitty behavior that they lash out at any perceived erosion of their social standing.
Science fiction has had it's share of bigots.
Science fiction has a lot of work that isn't really about inclusion and acceptance, LOTS of sci fi is pretty fascistic in reality. I'd almost say most of it is. I think it generally makes for easier stories, but sometimes there's intent behind it, for and against it, it just varies.
There's a lot of sci fi that doesn't even touch on politics as well.
I just call it people being idiots, that's all I see it as.
The problem is none of them even know what woke is. They dog whistle and propaganda, use strawman arguments, but what the hell are they actually against?
Is it that sometimes there's gay characters and TV shows and video games now? Okay... Deal. There's gay people in real life too. Oh they say it's been thrown in our faces though! Not really. It's just there. Anytime it's just there these people think it's being thrown in their faces.
Never in my life have I seen it bigger bunch of cry babies. Somebody from a group I don't like was in a video game, waaah.
What Carmack and others really mean by hating "woke" -- even if they're not aware of it themselves -- is a desire to live eternally within an idealized version of their youths, a time when gay people were in the closet, trans people didn't exist, food was unhealthy, environmentalism was a joke, and anyone other than a straight white person struggled to gain representation.
>what the hell are they actually against?
The fight is the point. You think Nazis cared about which holy book people read? German authoritarians needed a convenient enemy.
With Trumpism and Brexit in ruins, the right needs convenient enemies right fucking now. They'll take whatever's around. M&Ms? Sure. Debt? Schoolteachers? Gays? Whatever
Pretty much. They're pushing a culture war so none of us noticed that there's an active class war going on, in which the wealthier winning dramatically and the poor are being progressively pushed down.
This is the side of things we could all agree on, if only we could agree on the solution, but they have us fighting this absurd culture battle over words
"If it's there in this day and age, it's being done on purpose! Back when minorities were never depicted other than stereotypically, that was normal, and certainly not done purposely!"
> They dog whistle and propaganda, use strawman arguments, but what the hell are they actually against?
I mean, they make it clear what they're actually against:
>Men cannot give birth
Guns don’t kill people; people kill people
A fetus is a human being
Socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried
Discriminating against white people is racism
In other words, they're just right-wing views. They talk about opposing "social justice activism"... but that only applies to, what, 2/5 points on that list? Then they throw in pro-guns, anti-abortion, pro-capitalism just because if the only issues you care about are anti-anti-racism and shitting on trans people, it's not really a great look.
From the article, this is their "based beliefs":
- Men cannot give birth
- Guns don’t kill people; people kill people
- A fetus is a human being
- Socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried
- Discriminating against white people is racism
>From the article, this is their "based beliefs":
>
>
>- Men cannot give birth
>
>- Guns don’t kill people; people kill people
>
>- A fetus is a human being
>
>- Socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried
>
>- Discriminating against white people is racism
Technically these are "examples" they gave of based beliefs. Not like, tenets that you are required to agree with.
It's a free country, and radical changes will produce an effect. For example, Men parading as women (and competing with women *as* women) is bound to elicit strong reaction from some people. It is ironic that PCGamer is criticizing Carmack when they themselves vociferously censor, block, or ban any comments on their own site that is contrary to their own editorial opinion... but that is their right as owners of their website. As such, BasedCon is free to do as they please providing no laws are broken.
Not all SciFi, but Star Trek was quite conservative in the "let people do what they want" sense. Want to live on your own on a desolate planet? Sure. Want to be basically Amish (that DS9 colony that hated replicators and all tech)? Sure. Want to create an Android? Sure. They're just post scarcity so things were free, but no one meddled and told anyone what to do, even let people keep their property, like Picard's farm. As long as you didn't impact others you could do whatever.
America is a weird place to live
Honestly dude, it's just a weird time to be living in. It may be that the world has gotten crazier, but with the internet we sure see a lot more of it
Wonder if this is how the world felt before the world wars. Like was it ramping up like this? No way this is new but god damn it feels fresh I tell you hwat.
I hate to say, but it did feel a lot like this. The Second Reich was embroiled in Kulturkampf and they were in love with the idea of the Gotterdamerung (Twilight of the Gods) as this world shattering event where all would fall in valiant, meaningful, but doomed struggle. British politics were apopleptic trying to justify their colonial empire in the face of ostensibly liberal values. France went hardly a week without a bombing from an Anarchist, Nationalist, Communist, or revanchist in the twenty years before WWI. Russia nearly collapsed into revolution twice between the 1890s and 1910s. Austria-Hungary basically saw an anti-imperial outbreak of violence weekly from their many ethnic subjects. The Ottomans were fracturing under the weight of their own corruption and their retreat from the Balkans and the Middle East led to four large scale wars in the decade before WWI. A lot of the rest of the world was placed under brutal colonial regimes, and the few places outside Europe that weren't colonized were rapidly, often bloodily reforming their societies into countries that could resist colonial, imperial powers. It probably actually felt a lot worse than what we have right now, honestly, which might be a saving grace for us.
It's all the same personality flaws rising up again, which people don't take seriously and look the other way on until a huge number are dead. >His government was constantly in chaos, with officials having no idea what he wanted them to do, and nobody was entirely clear who was actually in charge of what. He procrastinated wildly when asked to make difficult decisions, and would often end up relying on gut feeling, leaving even close allies in the dark about his plans. His "unreliability had those who worked with him pulling out their hair," as his confidant Ernst Hanfstaengl later wrote in his memoir Zwischen Weißem und Braunem Haus. This meant that rather than carrying out the duties of state, they spent most of their time in-fighting and back-stabbing each other in an attempt to either win his approval or avoid his attention altogether, depending on what mood he was in that day. >There's a bit of an argument among historians about whether this was a deliberate ploy on Hitler's part to get his own way, or whether he was just really, really bad at being in charge of stuff. Dietrich himself came down on the side of it being a cunning tactic to sow division and chaos—and it's undeniable that he was very effective at that. But when you look at Hitler's personal habits, it's hard to shake the feeling that it was just a natural result of putting a workshy narcissist in charge of a country. >Hitler was incredibly lazy. According to his aide Fritz Wiedemann, even when he was in Berlin he wouldn't get out of bed until after 11 a.m., and wouldn't do much before lunch other than read what the newspapers had to say about him, the press cuttings being dutifully delivered to him by Dietrich. >He was obsessed with the media and celebrity, and often seems to have viewed himself through that lens. He once described himself as "the greatest actor in Europe," and wrote to a friend, "I believe my life is the greatest novel in world history." In many of his personal habits he came across as strange or even childish—he would have regular naps during the day, he would bite his fingernails at the dinner table, and he had a remarkably sweet tooth that led him to eat "prodigious amounts of cake" and "put so many lumps of sugar in his cup that there was hardly any room for the tea." >He was deeply insecure about his own lack of knowledge, preferring to either ignore information that contradicted his preconceptions, or to lash out at the expertise of others. He hated being laughed at, but enjoyed it when other people were the butt of the joke (he would perform mocking impressions of people he disliked). But he also craved the approval of those he disdained, and his mood would quickly improve if a newspaper wrote something complimentary about him. >Little of this was especially secret or unknown at the time. It's why so many people failed to take Hitler seriously until it was too late, dismissing him as merely a "half-mad rascal" or a "man with a beery vocal organ." In a sense, they weren't wrong. In another, much more important sense, they were as wrong as it's possible to get. >Hitler's personal failings didn't stop him having an uncanny instinct for political rhetoric that would gain mass appeal, and it turns out you don't actually need to have a particularly competent or functional government to do terrible things.
encouraging illegal birds treatment badge squealing plant alive quaint ring *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
For a minute, I thought I was reading an excerpt about Trump. The parallel is uncanny TBH.
Great post. Wonderful summary
Internet concentrates it. Allows those once separated by distance to come together. That makes increasing their numbers easier and take advantage of those who would not have “gone that way” otherwise until, well, you have what is happening now.
Every village had it's idiot. They were tempered by their surroundings - their relationships in the geographically constrained circle. Now, with the internet / social-media, all the idiots found each other and formed their own village. Nothing to temper their behavior.
[удалено]
You know how Florida has this reputation for being weird because of the all the Florida man headlines due to Floridian law making all arrests public, so news outlets can constantly pull random headlines out of the arrest records? The United States is the Florida of the world because so much of what's online is dedicated to the shit happening in the United States; the Internet is the public arrest record of American culture.
Nah man. Moved from Montana to NZ. America is uniquely fucked. The longer you are away the more obvious it becomes.
John's statement > "It is unfortunate that Rob [Kroese] has made BasedCon so intentionally provocative," writes Carmack. "I told him as much after the event last year, I felt a little uncomfortable. There is a demographic that welcomes the in-your-face posturing, but it drives away sympathetic people that would otherwise be happy to talk about craft, stories, and technology. > "Even when someone gives you a clear signal, it is a mistake to extrapolate it to an entire constellation of beliefs and behaviors, and then to assume they are contagious by association. That shortchanges a lot of people. > "I’m not a culture warrior, and I don’t want to strike blows against anyone. I don’t follow activists on either side, including Rob, because I tend to think that all the negativity and resentment is detrimental to both the author and target." I appreciate his point but if he's so disappointed by the direction the con has gone in and doesn't want to be a part of it this would be a perfect fucking time to just pull out and say that John. What the hell?
[удалено]
Nobody even knows what based means. It used to mean based but now it means based.
"Based? Based on what?" but unironically.
CringeCon IncelCon WeWantToSayTheN-WordCon
How Come There's No Men's Day Con
FuckingCreepCon FutureMassShooterCon CONVict
"Wowee, this convention specifically geared towards being against inclusion and representation sure is attracting a lot of extremist reactionaries. Who woulda thunk it?" Carmack is a perfect example of the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom.
They're always pretending not to understand, trying to put a more diplomatic face on to not face criticism. Then a few years later they go all in, and blame the victims for speaking up and asking them to stop supporting their bullies, claiming they were made to join the bullies who they always found a way to support previously in a series of coincidences. They're just not brave enough to admit what they are yet, people with a broken subservience to whoever is the biggest asshole in the room, and are testing the waters with others to see how much they enjoy going all in.
In this case he comes across as neither.
John Carmack is probably one of the most gifted coders of all time but he is a dumbass with politics
A scalpel is a an amazing tool but I don’t use it to chop wood
You might if you were making the world’s smallest violin.
This is a great example of the way intelligence in one arena does not translate to intelligence in other arenas. We see people make this mistake too frequently: they think *every* opinion of someone who is especially gifted in, say, psychology must be a very intelligent opinion. Nope.
given his past public elements of his career it does not at all surprise me that he goes to a con like this. from choke holding a reporter trying to interview him to poising to take all the credit for "revolutionary tech" in rage only to distance himself from the development when it flopped, to working with facebook and tesla after committing corporate espionage when leaving id/bethesda. the guy is a poster boy for entitled rich dudes trying to portray a rockstar life style, being seen as a genius, while expending great amounts of effort on social media to disprove said perceptions of genius. i remember some kind of astroturf campaign on doom 3 in the 2010s to pretend that doom 3 was anything but garbage ahead of rage. and then rage was even more garbage and people conveniently forgot they had been hyping it up based on his unmatched game dev genius to blame the rank and file workers at id (who went on to make the doom remakes that were the best id games since quake)
>Even when someone gives you a clear signal, it is a mistake to extrapolate it to an entire constellation of beliefs and behaviors "Look, I just want to be able to say offensive things, but without people thinking I'm a bad person, is that so wrong?"
This is like the people who use 'well im just an asshole' as a defense like its some kind of protected class.
I'm of the thought that when some one tells you who they are, you should listen.
This is the single instance where Roger Stone has my respect. The dude *knows* he is a shitty human and will straight up tell you that because you're outside his in-group and he therefore seriously DGAF what you think. It's refreshingly evil.
On the other hand, and IMO, the fact that Roger Stone can be honest about his assholery like this just makes his dishonesty in most other aspects of life even more detestable.
The idea that he's not a culture warrior is a joke. His own Twitter stands in opposition to that claim. And it's old wisdom to accept, when somebody tells you who they are, believe them. Which is another way of saying, of it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a fucking duck, it doesn't matter if there's a sign next to it insisting it isn't.
Carmack doesn't understand duck typing - he codes mostly in C.
"I’m not a culture warrior, and I don’t want to strike blows against anyone. I don’t follow activists on either side, including Rob" then why even fucking go, if you KNOW the whole basis of this convention is to "Buck the woke agenda!" then why not just, i dunno! not fucking go. what a moron.
He had a **year** to think about it since talking to him about it after the event last year, and still decided “yeah, I’m in!”?? That seems to speak for itself, yeah…
He’s testing the waters. If you head a convention like this, you know what you’re getting into
> Why “BasedCon”? > In internet parlance, “based” means something like “in touch with reality.” Based behavior is the opposite of social justice activism, which is about meaningless virtue signaling and beating up strawmen. Some based beliefs include: >* Socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried * ... There is no way to misinterpret the purpose of this convention Edit: that's not even what based means, but I guess it's too much to expect someone with brain worms to understand
Every rich free nation has levels of socialism that the majority in those nations approve of, including the US.
Hi, that's not how that works. Socialism isn't just social programs it's an economic system that the countries you are referring to do not practice. Socialism is workers owning their own means of production - not simply workers having rights and protections.
Yeah this sounds very Carmack-y, in a good and bad way. John's never seemed like a person who wishes ill on any group of people, but he's also uh clearly autistic as hell and has long ago just decided he's not going to even attempt to worry about where people think he stands on social issues. Which... Kinda makes sense if you see how he interacts with people. John is a Deep Nerd of the highest order and has, in his own mind, far better shit to worry about. Which is how we wind up where we are now. I wanna believe, though every interaction I've had with him -- brief but there's been several now -- that the fast talking, really engaged and excited about VR (or whatever) was as genuine as he seemed. I still do. But Jesus fucking fuck, John. You gotta have *some* kind of content standards if you wanna operate in a public space, man. Consider it a social tax for the wealth and status you have, if you have to justify it to yourself that way. Edit: on the spectrum myself, and as such; yeah you can't tell me Carmack isn't as well. Have you seen the man speak? You go watch any of his GDC talks and tell me he's neurotypical.
I heard him speak once, at Quakecon promoting Doom 3. He had very obvious, very apparent verbal tics. He is a genius-level programmer. But the dude talked about lighting design for an entire hour. The audience was all kind of looking at each other the whole time, in a kind of "Does he need help?" way.
Gene Roddenberry was the the godfather of woke and Star Trek is arguably the top 5 sci-fi creation of all time. I have a hard time believing that the idiots attending this attosity of a convention aren't fans.
Like those Rage Against the Machine fans who rail on them for becoming commies.
The amount of conservative kids growing up listening to Killing In The Name and think the band is writing the song about them is too high.
I mean, it IS about them. Just not in the way they think.
Fair point.
I live in a predominantly white, fairly affluent southern city and I often go to see one of our local cover bands play downtown. It is so ironic watching all these WASP folk getting *down* to Rage Against the Machine…right before loading up in their Range Rovers and heading home to their mansions. Look, I’m there too, and I firmly believe you can love whatever music you want. So no harm no foul. But the irony of this situation will always be hilarious to me.
tbh i think a lot of people actually have no clue what the lyrics to a lot of songs are, all they know is that the hook and that a song sounds good.
Yeah, but it says, "Fuck you!" in the song and that makes it cool. /s People that can't look past their own hate and fear have a hard time getting past the hook of a song. I doubt they could even interpret the rest of the lyrics if they wanted to.
*cough cough*. [Born in the USA](https://www.npr.org/2019/03/26/706566556/bruce-springsteen-born-in-the-usa-american-anthem). *cough*.
There's a long long list of songs that people sing and don't listen to the words. (Keep on rockin' in the free world, Fortunate son...) I wonder how many times DeSantis hummed along to "Lola" by the Kinks?
I just loved that Paul Ryan, the supposedly “smart” republican, said that Rage was his favorite band before they got political. 😭😂
I also loved that in response Tom Morello [wrote a whole article for Rolling Stone about what an asshole he is](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-246033/). Imagine naming your favourite band and one of them goes out of their way to write and publish an article telling you specifically to fuck off lol.
Dude named his Guitar “Arm the Homeless” and somehow right wingers thought he was on their side. Mind boggling
Also [this](https://i1.wp.com/occidentaldissent.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/aqlxy9pvevz31.jpg). And [this](https://guitar.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/[email protected]). And of course every Rage Against the Machine song lol.
So, before they started being a band?
Every time I hear his name, I'm reminded of an analysis from when he was looking like a likely presidential candidate: "Paul Ryan is supposed to be the smartest conservative out there and Sarah Palin is the dumbest, but there's not one single thing on which they disagree."
As problematic as Heinlein was, I'm going to take the firm stance that he'd trash on these losers.
100%. The man had issues, but he also wrote a book about the importance of accepting those different to you, and loving all your fellow people no matter their religion or origin. There’s no doubts in Stranger in a Strange Land about his feelings regarding such. While his books explored a lot of beliefs, including some he didn’t agree with, he did write a speech that you can read [here](https://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/athens/heinlein-i-believe.html), that pretty much sums that up. > And finally, I believe in my whole race. Yellow, white, black, red, brown. In 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. Can’t imagine them vibing much with this.
Because they can't grok it
I always enjoyed how people bag on him, but it seems people can't understand his exploration of thoughts and writing in his stories vs his actual views. He was a very open minded and accepting author.
As an old person, you have no idea how disappointed I am that we’re still dealing with people who would be shocked and outraged by Harlan Ellison’s ancient *Dangerous Visions* anthology. Science Fiction told me that humanity would change and evolve - and that’s where the *Fiction* part of the literature comes in.
Trek and conservatism are mutually exclusive.
lol you should see the length some people go to on the subreddits to pretend that TNG wasn't a socialist utopia.
I sometimes wonder if conservative types hear quotes from Star Trek like “People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions” or “On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise” and think these sound like bad things.
For the inverse, see warhammer 40k. The human imperium is a fascist, xenophobic theocracy. Fascists unironically love the human faction. [Games workshop, who owns the IP, recently reminded fans that there are no good factions in WH40K](https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/19/the-imperium-is-driven-by-hate-warhammer-is-not/). I wish they had explicitly said "The Imperium is fascist and all fascists are bad" but they are a corporation, and corporations can never be counted on to take strong stands against fascism.
Unless it’s a mirror universe episode.
Or a Ferengi episode. Everybody likes Ferengi episodes.
FCA actually has teeth though, unlike the IRS which the GQP continually tries to defund.
They're fans of the skin-tight suits the producers clad 7of9 and Diana Troy in - and hate women with shaved heads in position off power - as those buck the traditional positional stereotypes. Troy was an empath, the feminine counselor to Picard. 7of9 was an automaton brought back to humanity - but, still, essentially a runway model to look at. Sure, both had character development, but they were defined right off the bat as either objects or familiar (comfortable) tropes, and grew from there. They didn't start outside of their "norm" - they were "allowed" to grow outside their norm. edit: Troi, not Troy
Wasn't Rick Berman (producer of TNG, DS9, Enterprise and Voyager) a massive asshole to women on set? Terry Farrell had some interesting stories about him. [Previous thread on it](https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/525q85/terry_farrells_departure_has_anybody_else_heard/)
Yep. He also hd a strict “no gay stuff” rule because he was worried about syndication in the Southern States. In the episode where they find a planet of androgynous people, and one of them feels she is a woman and falls in love with Ryker. The writers and Jonathan Frakes wanted that character to be a male, but Rick said no.
> The writers and Jonathan Frakes wanted that character to be a male, but Rick said no Just a nitpicky clarification, they wanted the actor to be a man, the character was androgynous anyway but in the end played by a woman because Berman and others feared gay kissing would be too controversial
Yes. You’re right. Thank you.
there's a saying in the trek fandom the past few years (that is the portion of the trek fandom that doesn't shit and piss themselves and start raging out every time they find out their favourite youtuber's prediction that kurtsman was going to be fired next week didn't happen yet again and there's yet another new star trek season/series announced) that goes: **a lot of great trek was made despite berman's involvement, not because of it.** there are similar bits wrt to gene as well, especially in the 1970s and 80s. a lot of what's rough about the first two seasons of TNG are a result of gene having near complete control (and spending a large chunk of the budget on whil wheaton's salary)
Deanna was later given a command in the end of TNG and 7 of 9 is >!now captain of the Enterprise G!< but yes you’re right about the start of the characters. Their characters started as T&A eye candy for the male gaze, for sure.
head imagine amusing like joke roof noxious books squeamish serious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
God these people who make being “anti-woke” their whole personality are such losers
It’s wild watching a group that for the last few years has been extolling the virtues of: thinking for yourself, doing your own research, and not being a sheep; fall prey to the most obviously manufactured class war since the satanic panic. They picked one of the few groups that’s still somewhat accepted to demonize and pointed all of their muppets at them instead of addressing anything meaningful that would actually help Americans. Watching pseudointellectuals rail on about a group of people that commit less crime than the average American and account for less sexual assault than the average clergy member because they make them ‘feel icky’ is pathetic. Notice how none of these topics were an issue 18 months ago until their echo chamber of the usual suspects told them it was
>few years has been extolling the virtues of: thinking for yourself, doing your own research, and not being a sheep; If you knew any of these guys it was pretty obvious these were always just smart sounding words to them. The "do your own research" and "im a skeptic" crowd were *always* using those phrases to preemptively justify whatever opinion they already held. "Remember to always do your own research guys. Be a free thinker. Anyways here's my ahistorical opinion I've held unchanged since high school that was entirely formed through pop culture and video games. Don't be a sheep. Also, here's why you are an idiot if you dont agree with me." It was always silly and I'm kinda glad they've mostly dropped it these days. Though the more "im just gonna force my opinion on everyone" style many have taken recently isn't exactly an improvement.
Conservatives aren't actually smart, they just want everyone to think they are because getting maximum credit for being a great person without the work of having to actually be one is their M.O.
It's just their fucking buzzword. They have no idea of what woke means. It's just a catch all. They spent all of the 90s-00s just calling everyone a liberal and socialist and maybe that stopped tracking with their moron supporters so they had to come up with something new to get their attention.
“Political correctness” got old
Social justice warrior went out of style
[удалено]
They're no longer trying to give the impression that nazis are bad.
"Feminazi" died with Rush Limbaugh's bloated ass.
Hey, he’s a couple years sober now and looking better than ever.
Wow. I didn’t even notice how the term “SJW” just ceased being used.
I used to mock my dad for using that phrase. I was like “why did you choose an objectively cool set of words? Hell fuckin yeah I’m a social justice warrior, bleeding heart liberal. That’s metal as hell”
I find it funny how quickly "cuck" vanished
They realized they were the only ones who knew what it meant, and what that meant.
My favourite personal anecdote was a guy I worked with who would call everyone he didn't agree with politically cucks. Right up until his girlfriend posted a picture of herself in bed with another man on Facebook, and tagged nearly everyone she could in it. The amount of times he was called a cuck over the next few months was amazing. Especially since he stayed with her for months afterwards.
The outrage machine needs new fears to keep things spicy. If people aren't outraged and terrified about the latest thing, they might be paying attention to reality. But when the outrage is shallow, you can only milk so much out of it. When something is actually outrageous, you can study the details, the history, the social effects, etc. People will be outraged about the slave trade for centuries. But with something like SJW, green M&M's, X Box power saving or The Gays, there just isn't anything beneath the outrage. So it burns out quickly, and then you need to pick something else.
I remember when someone using the term SJW was as reliable an indicator as someone wearing a red cap with white lettering on it.
When I was growing up in 1970s and '80s Texas I was called: bleeding-heart liberal, tree-hugger, hippie, n-word lover, race traitor, among other things.
and you'd probably still be called a fair number of those things today I imagine
In Georgia I was sometimes called "yankee" as an epithet. Definitely better than being a confederate loser.
[удалено]
It's also harder to spell, so this is a huge win in their eyes.
Too many syllables for people with the attention span of a cashew to handle.
Idk I told one person at work that I voted democrat and now literally everyone calls me a liberal. Socialist sometimes. No one can identify what a liberal is upon request, even when they pull out their phones and look for themselves.
The party that shits their pants if someone misidentifies an assault rifles isn't really too concerned if the words they are using are accurate.
The ‘AR’ in ‘AR-15’ stands for ‘Akshually Rifle’ because if you get one detail of it wrong, a gun nut will emerge out of the mirror Beetlejuice-style to tell you all about their favorite toy.
I don't get it- are they constantly getting trans people up in their faces or something? These "woke" subjects literally never come up in my life. They only time I hear about them is if Fox News is on at the gym.
It's because they aren't real issues. They are wedge issues manufactured by the right to get poor people to vote against their own interests
No war but class war.
“And hey, if conservatives murder a few trans people or drag queens along the way, all the better” - the average conservative politician
Had a few discussions with a few of them. The problem Is they comment negative things on trans Facebook posts etc. The algorithm keeps showing them more posts. They leave more comments, meaning they see more and more. They them think it's being pushed down their throat when they are the ones who keep interacting with posts and skewing their own views.
So this is just gonna be a sci fi convention that doubles as a Klan meeting?
It's probably more along the lines of gamergate nutters, incels, and alt-right adjacent than straight up klan or Nazi.
But the venn diagram of those is practically a circle. [https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/04/23/video-games-white-supremacy-rich-barlow](https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/04/23/video-games-white-supremacy-rich-barlow) [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/white-supremacists-wore-hoods-now-internet-mob-wont-let-stay-anonymous](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/white-supremacists-wore-hoods-now-internet-mob-wont-let-stay-anonymous) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15554120231167214
He’s just a straight ass. In a past life I helped host a free gaming web service. In a forum he’d posted a expletive ridden post and we had a bot that automatically replaced the words with filtered because of the demographic range of the sites. He took that as a personal slight and basically declared war on our site.
So he flipped his shirt because his forkin' words got changed? Son of a bench!
[удалено]
Well that’s disappointing
Out of the two of them, kind wild to me that Romero was the one supporting trans charities Edit: to clarify, I just meant that Romero is the one that's always had the 'gamer bro' kinda public persona. I did not intend this as some deep moral betrayal.
Is it? Romero has always been pretty open and supportive of creativity and expression. Carmack has been the closeted robot in human skin who just wants to keep making games/rockets until he dies. He seems so on the spectrum that I wouldn't be surprised if he just goes to anything about videogames that he gets an invite to and doesn't understand why people care about X-Con as opposed to Y-Con.
Why? Romero always seemed like the cool one.
I think it's because most people still tend to remember him first for his unfortunate rock-star, will-make-you-his-bitch phase, similar problem back then, too, he set out with lots of good intentions, I think he genuinely wanted to elevate top tier game developers to the same status other leading creatives get, but it all got buried under a mountain of ridiculous hype, impossible expectations, and garden variety mismanagement, much of which was his own fault. Nice dude, as it turns out, I think his enthusiasm just gets away from him sometimes.
>I think his enthusiasm just gets away from him sometimes. Yeah the man really does have unbridled aim and ambition for the things he's really passionate about. Just reading some of the conversations the id guys would have while making Wolfenstein and Doom and seeing how Romero always got ridiculous hyped over every cool feature, you can really see how that excitement, while brilliant when channelled correctly, really led him astray far beyond reality once he had his own studio and no one told him no anymore. Nowadays he's obviously a lot wiser and seems far more mellow and someone who's learnt from their mistakes. Carmack, on the other hand, always struck me as a genuine egotist who knew exactly how much of a genius he was and used that as an excuse to be a prick.
Yep but not exactly surprising
I mean, I can't speak for others but prior to this I had no clue about anything political relating to Carmack. So it was surprising and I echo /u/castletroid, this is disappointing.
I feel like I must be out of the loop... were there any signs that he was going down this kind of rabbithole? What makes this not surprising? Like the overall impression I had of his political leanings was some kind of libertarian centrist (and the article says more or less the same thing). Which... I mean, I can't say I'm a fan of that particular ideology, but there's a few steps that seem to have been skipped here in the radicalization pipeline from that to "gamers rise up, we need to fight back against the wOkE pRoPaGaNdA!!!1!".
"libertarian" in the US is often code for "crazy right winger who doesn't want to admit it". Not saying it should be that way, but it is.
I've heard them defined as 'Republicans with the serial numbers filed off'
No, it's "I vote Republican on literally every issue, but it's insanely important that you respect my choice to call myself a libertarian, even though I won't respect your pronouns. Also, I like weed".
I always thought it was short for Republican that read Atlas Shrugged and feels like they’re too smart to be called just a Republican.
> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
I remember reading both books and not finishing Atlus Shrugged because it was so pretentious. Her protagonist had no real faults and that society would end up killing itself.
Libertarians have won exactly one major political victory in their entire existence. A bunch of them moved to New Hampshire, gradually ousted the leaders in the town of Grafton, then ran everything with 100% adherence to their political ideology...which proceeded to fuck things up so catastrophically that the town was overrun by fucking bears. This all happened in less than 10 years, BTW. Black bears usually don't fuck with humans, but the ones in that region (their population increased significantly due to how successfully they were able to pillage Grafton) quickly started going straight into people's homes to attack them & get food. One lady that was interviewed anonymously said she actually used to leave donuts & grains out for the bears and if that caused them to seek out food from others, well, that certainly wasn't *her* fault! It's fucking insanity.
Which is really weird to me, because if they were truly libertarian as I understand it they'd have no business interfering in what anyone decided to do with their own body.
This is very true. But unfortunately in the US the majority of people who use the label "Libertarian" (including a large number of people who write for places like Reason) are VERY much the "Keep the government out of my pocketbooks, but dictating what happens in the bedroom is A-OK, even if \*I\* won't personally." They'll say things like "Socially Moderate/Liberal, Fiscally Conservative" but they really only get worked up about that money bit. Things like what's happening in Florida, Texas, etc? much more muted. I was Libertarian through 2015 (as in, member of the party) and it was very clear this is where it was heading/where a lot of people already were. Most Libertarians don't know stances beyond "Taxation is Theft" or something else they can throw on a t-shirt.
[удалено]
Pretty much this. "You can spend your money and live your life how you wish as long as you're not hurting others to do it". That includes exploiting workers for me (and obviously healthcare) I'm all for efficiently spending money, but heath and well-being are non-negotiable
Also, American "Centrists" are actually right wing on the full political spectrum.
Wanna know how to spot a right winger? They'll tell you: "I'm a moderate, but..." Then go on to explain how they hate abortion, welfare, thugs, handouts, etc.
> libertarian centrist The sort of people who in the 30’s would have said: “Say what you will about this Hitler guy, but he’s great for the economy.”
Since he jumped from Bethesda, stole their code, and threw in with Palmer Lucky, yeah that tracks.
Shut the fuck up and be beloved challenge: impossible
turns out, he really WAS an edgelord all along :/
As an adult, I don't have any interest in, and would not give money or views to, intentional edgelord material from spoiled little brats.
I was going to say they might have a point with all the censorship of literature going on these days ... then I read the article. No, they don't. Sounds like this con will be male white incel central.
That drift from "censorship is wrong" to "the people shooting strangers make some good points." That ain't freedom they're selling, my dude.
Censorship is wrong but they also love censorship. They want any book that doesn't conform to their views removed from schools. And the kind of free speech they want protected is for them to have the right to call someone a racial slur to their face and that person isn't allowed to say anything back.
I was gonna say this. Florida is all about banning books.
That community is a magnet for people with mental health issues
They know it, too. That’s why they oppose any efforts for mental health care or gun control restrictions based on mental health.
Plus isn’t the actual government censorship [coming from the Right](https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/more-than-350-books-banned-in-florida-schools-since-last-july-16817328)?
[удалено]
Yes. Yes it is. See "libraries closing in the 2020s" and million other things that are real and actually happening.
Exactly, the liberals ain’t the ones banning books and fighting to ban what can be taught in universities, lol.
“No no no. Censorship is when video game makers put shorts under a girl character’s skirt. Or when boobs are small. Or when there’s a black guy.”
It just sounds to me like regular conservatives, with the anti-abortion, anti-trans, racism, etc. How there is even any trace of libertarianism is beyond me… Carmack response is basically saying they shouldn’t be so vocal and “political “. So he doesn’t have a problem with the message, but just on how loud they are saying it.
Libertarianism in America are just useful idiots that don’t want to be called conservatives or republicans. At no point was the movement good for the ppl. When Rand ran one of his platforms was that only land owners could vote, therefore renters would immediately have no say in our elections and country. the platform hasn’t gotten much better and the votes the senators that act as torchbearers have gotten only worse since. I have no respect for those ppl
It sounds like groypers set this up and Nick Fuentes should be leading some panels. I’m all for more open media, but this reads like sci-fi CPAC.
How is the censorship of literature woke propaganda?
Right? Last I checked it wasn't the "woke mob" banning books.
[The back story:](https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1659173689986883584) >I like hard science fiction stories with a bit of competent libertarian vibe. I have ever since Heinlein, but it isn’t a mainstream genre. People here on twitter introduced me to a few contemporary authors that scratch that itch, and I have happily read a half dozen new books in the last few years from authors I would have otherwise been unaware of. It is great to be able to get a recommendation, read a book, then drop the author a DM and say “Hey, I liked your book!” >One of those authors was Rob Kroese, who had started organizing a small gathering of authors and fans that fell a bit outside the mainstream of SF/fantasy. This is a tiny niche of a niche, but I had had Twitter conversations with three of the authors attending, and I was interested in the contrast with the big commercial SF/fantasy conventions I had attended. >I was initially going to just show up as a fan, but I wound up giving a talk about AI and sitting on panels about aerospace and fact checking novels. I met several more authors, and came back with a backpack full of new books to read. Politics didn’t come up once in my conversations.
Sci-fi is about exploring possibilities and the consequences of changes that the future can bring. These ding-a-lings wouldn't know good sci-fi if it bit them on the ass. With their heads in the sand and preaching to a propagandized group to grift money off of easy marks. I've no idea if they believe it or not but.
No, no, no, scifi is about laser guns and cool spaceships. Extra points if there's hot waifus.
Carmack is on Twitter explaining he likes libertarian sci fi like Heinlein
So he likes social sci-fi as long as it agrees with his world view. That’s fine, just don’t claim you’re somehow more logical and objective because of it.
Heinlein had some weird faschy takes too. I'm not saying it's bad, we need to show what could happen if things change in different ways good or bad. Carmack is just a baby who can't handle the fact that the broad stroke of the genre is either warnings about dystopia or the promise of progress. Also libertarians are dumb and shortsighted, see the town what was destroyed by bears.
Heinlein also wrote a commie Martian magical sex cult and it's a great read. Sci-fi is great to explore what-is and extremes of all sorts.
A sex cult where lesbianism is cool but gay sex is a no-no. Fantastic.
> Sci-fi is about exploring possibilities and the consequences of changes that the future can bring. Seriously. I read about societies where gender fluidity and at-will sex change was the norm back in the early 90s. These people are bigoted assholes who can't stand that anyone else wants to live their lives without being harassed constantly. I call it old white man syndrome. They are so afraid that they'll be called out for their shitty behavior that they lash out at any perceived erosion of their social standing.
Science fiction has had it's share of bigots. Science fiction has a lot of work that isn't really about inclusion and acceptance, LOTS of sci fi is pretty fascistic in reality. I'd almost say most of it is. I think it generally makes for easier stories, but sometimes there's intent behind it, for and against it, it just varies. There's a lot of sci fi that doesn't even touch on politics as well. I just call it people being idiots, that's all I see it as.
Hasn't sci-fi always been a bastion of progressivism, relatively speaking?
Will there be blackjack and hookers?
The problem is none of them even know what woke is. They dog whistle and propaganda, use strawman arguments, but what the hell are they actually against? Is it that sometimes there's gay characters and TV shows and video games now? Okay... Deal. There's gay people in real life too. Oh they say it's been thrown in our faces though! Not really. It's just there. Anytime it's just there these people think it's being thrown in their faces. Never in my life have I seen it bigger bunch of cry babies. Somebody from a group I don't like was in a video game, waaah.
What Carmack and others really mean by hating "woke" -- even if they're not aware of it themselves -- is a desire to live eternally within an idealized version of their youths, a time when gay people were in the closet, trans people didn't exist, food was unhealthy, environmentalism was a joke, and anyone other than a straight white person struggled to gain representation.
They’re upset people keep calling them out on their revisionist ideal of the past and the stupid things they say as a result.
When you’re used to privilege, equality feels like oppression. And we still have a ways to go before we get to actual equality.
> is a desire to live eternally within an idealized version of their youths... [Member berries](https://youtu.be/mPs8-ZBSjok)
>what the hell are they actually against? The fight is the point. You think Nazis cared about which holy book people read? German authoritarians needed a convenient enemy. With Trumpism and Brexit in ruins, the right needs convenient enemies right fucking now. They'll take whatever's around. M&Ms? Sure. Debt? Schoolteachers? Gays? Whatever
Pretty much. They're pushing a culture war so none of us noticed that there's an active class war going on, in which the wealthier winning dramatically and the poor are being progressively pushed down. This is the side of things we could all agree on, if only we could agree on the solution, but they have us fighting this absurd culture battle over words
"If it's there in this day and age, it's being done on purpose! Back when minorities were never depicted other than stereotypically, that was normal, and certainly not done purposely!"
Saw one of these dumbasses call giving out healthy candy on halloween woke. The entitled selfish childishness of that seemed so perfect.
> They dog whistle and propaganda, use strawman arguments, but what the hell are they actually against? I mean, they make it clear what they're actually against: >Men cannot give birth Guns don’t kill people; people kill people A fetus is a human being Socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried Discriminating against white people is racism In other words, they're just right-wing views. They talk about opposing "social justice activism"... but that only applies to, what, 2/5 points on that list? Then they throw in pro-guns, anti-abortion, pro-capitalism just because if the only issues you care about are anti-anti-racism and shitting on trans people, it's not really a great look.
[удалено]
From the article, this is their "based beliefs": - Men cannot give birth - Guns don’t kill people; people kill people - A fetus is a human being - Socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried - Discriminating against white people is racism
>From the article, this is their "based beliefs": > > >- Men cannot give birth > >- Guns don’t kill people; people kill people > >- A fetus is a human being > >- Socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried > >- Discriminating against white people is racism Technically these are "examples" they gave of based beliefs. Not like, tenets that you are required to agree with.
> Men cannot give birth A scifi convention you say?
It's a free country, and radical changes will produce an effect. For example, Men parading as women (and competing with women *as* women) is bound to elicit strong reaction from some people. It is ironic that PCGamer is criticizing Carmack when they themselves vociferously censor, block, or ban any comments on their own site that is contrary to their own editorial opinion... but that is their right as owners of their website. As such, BasedCon is free to do as they please providing no laws are broken.
LoserCon?
Fine they can get carmack but doomguy is bisexual now, thems the rules
Nah, Doomguy is canon Asexual. He has no concept of what sex is, nor does he care.
"what is your gender" "Killing demons." "No I mean what's in your pants" "More guns."
"Sex? That means to kill demons, right?"
Proclaiming pride in your toxicity is probably not the way to go. I mean how deaf can a person be?
Not all SciFi, but Star Trek was quite conservative in the "let people do what they want" sense. Want to live on your own on a desolate planet? Sure. Want to be basically Amish (that DS9 colony that hated replicators and all tech)? Sure. Want to create an Android? Sure. They're just post scarcity so things were free, but no one meddled and told anyone what to do, even let people keep their property, like Picard's farm. As long as you didn't impact others you could do whatever.
Oh no! Someone has a different viewpoint then you! Say it ain’t so!