About "Humans Are Bastards" and misanthropy in general

So this thread was necro'd, which is usually a bad thing; but the discussion is actually pretty good.

I don't think I should lock this just because it was necro'd. If you think this should be locked, you can post here about it. But as long as the thread is going somewhere interesting and people are being civil at each other, I don't really see a reason to lock this.

Thank you, Best Of, I'll call you Lucius Best from now on.

Look people, "all the death in the X Xth century" is a silly concept: the world population went from around one billion to six billions in the course of that era. I am not sure you grasp the sheer magnitude of progress that has been accomplished.

Grimdark works are emotionally challenging and aesthetically shocking, and that's why there are popular, not because they're true. Newspapers and TV channels like to tell horrible news because they're the most emotionally brutal, and because, culturally, we haven't learned to get all excited and passionate about good stuff going on. It's even more glorious than that: good stuff going on is boring because it happens all the time.

You'll notice that, when the times are actually grimdark, people like to read naïve, idealistic works, becaue pain and misery is dull and routine, and brightness is refreshing and stimulating.

It's just that. Stimulation.

And then there's the talking about whether tropes they see in media often say something about reality, but that's simple Spotlight Bias (like thinking that the main cause of death is murder rather than cardiovascualr diseases because most of the deaths you see in the media are murders) mixed with TV Never Lies. An easy mistake to make, but even easier to avoid once you have spotted it.

The main issue I see with all these negative points of views is that anything that is bad is impossible without a previously existing good.

Death, devastation and decay are bad? Well, that's only possible if life is already a good thing, no? Not to mention that life and beauty need to be created at some point before they disappear, so complaining that there is "a lot of death" is actually pretty silly.

Many people are evil? Well, where did you get the perspective to tell good from evil in the first place?

What bothers me the most is the fact that most people simply don't value what they have. Once something brings them out of their comfort zone, the way things are "supposed" to be, they start paying attention and complaining.

You know what, after all of this I think that the reason that Grimdark is so popular is because the world is so idealistic and when bad times happen, the world becomes cynical and "retreats" to a time of idealism. Case in point, The New '10s, where I see the world————one step in idealism and one step in cynicism. This is even reflected in the New Tens article itself:

• Culturally, there was a boom in light, happy, or extravagant entertainment as the world looked for distraction; according to the Sekhmet Hypothesis, 2010 marks the beginning of the new "hippie" era in contrast to the dark and gloom of the previous decade.................
  • ............But Darker and Edgier has also done well in the current environment; consider the progression of the Harry Potter films as per their source novels, the explosion of Young Adult Literature set in dystopian settings (i.e. The Hunger Games series), and zombies becoming a genre fiction mainstay almost as popular as vampires. In TV, the laugh track (currently associated with "campy" sitcoms targeted to younger audiences) went out of fashion, leading to an era of cynical and quirky humour. However, Modern Warfare and it's influence om the Video Game serve to keep the current trend of cynicism while dismissing anything that isn't Deader than Disco as many optimistic games had caused the studios that made them to close down while those who follow the trend continued to prosper.

This shows that the world is ultimately in an uncertain direction. And Darker and Edgier works are popular IMO not because of misanthropy, but because of drama. In times of idealism we could say "what went wrong" and look at things from a cynical end——————-but in that, write stories with more depth.

With this in mind, the popularity of the grimdark genre lies not on 40K——————-the popularity of grimdark as a "meme" DEFINITELY does—-WH 40 K uses the phase "grim dark" the most but grimdark works is not necessary WH 40 K. There's no angst or great tragedy in it that the audience can relate to or cry at. It shows a bleak universe where War Is Hell but presents it in a way that is "so bleak everyone's actually being awesome at fighting!". We have chainsaw swords, 300-meter tall walking battle cathedrals, vehicles that go faster because they are painted red or are controlled by "machine spirits", battle nuns with flamethrowers in powered armor, and aliens with guns that shoot ninja stars and cannons that rip holes straight to hell........and oh..........the galaxy HAS a hell. It's less of a "depressing grimdark hopeless story of sadness and bleakness" and more of a "grimdark hopeless bleak universe of badass and awesomeness where everyone is morally wrong in modern standards and the action and setting is completely over the top!"

The novels are another story but they are arguably more idealistic than the source material but still bleak, but that's because they focus on individual planets and conflicts, not the universe at large, and in 40K standards, that doesn't mean much, if remotely any.......AT ALL. Furthermore, it allows, by showing smaller-scale conflicts in a universial war, allow you to understand and even sympathize with characters that do not have "unrecognizable" morality.

Proof? Look at the WH 40 K Tear Jerker page and see where all the sad moments come from.

So I belive the "sad" parts of the 40K universe is less to do with the material itself but more with the "expanded universe", through most of the games set in 40K aren't grim dark at all. They have a gritty tone but are not showing, or significantly toning down, the darker aspects of the universe.

I find stuff like 1984, Tomino's anime at his "kill em all" phase, the best stories from the dark age of comics and such actually more "depressing", just not as bleak as 40K. So in conclusion, the popularity of grimdark is not because of one source material that made grimdark a "household name", but rather due to human mentality for darker works————-when the economy is good, fiction explores "what could have gone wrong?" and when it's not, fiction explores "what could have been".

edited 5th Sep '12 8:23:55 PM by xie323

Appropriate Shakespeare quote for the OP (may/may not have already been quoted):

Humanity seems to have negative bias of itself. Is it a case of being on the C-end of the Sliding Scale of Cynicism Versus Idealism?

Nobody has anything to say about my last comment?

Because good is dull, apparently.

Because the media kinda enforces cynicism in times of prosperity and idealism in times of recession IMO and rarely reports about the good news because good news are common, but not as significant as bad ones.

Also I believe that there should be a "resurgence" in "enlightened" or "progressive" thought, and the media should be less biased to cynicism and view things from a "balanced approach".

Which is why I used Ron Paul's quote to highlight this——-we should not view the crimes as history to what defines wholly human nature—-it defines our darker side, but we need to define our lighter side as well, and use it to make a difference. Remember the past, but leave it there.

Also this world is not a Crapsack World by any measure. There are areas and countries that clearly fit this definition but the world is a World Half Full for the most part————-and that is something everyone should understand

edited 6th Sep '12 6:10:06 PM by xie323

Uhm... By "good" do you mean optimism? Because "good" itself cannot be "dull". Lack of conflict may be dull. Repetitive things may be dull. Dull is a bad thing by definition. Paradoxes are stupid.

edited 6th Sep '12 8:05:51 PM by Teraus

Bingo. I was mainly after the optimistic view is often perceived as "dull", "boring", "goodie-two-shoes" and "stupid", as mentioned before. That, and alluding to the the media selection bias that has already been mentioned: nobody (we're constantly told) buys papers for "boy saves dog from drowning", but will for "boy convicted for kicking dog".

I was trying for a witty twofer involving saracasm, but, seemingly failed. Should have potholed, instead of using an emoticon... <slaps head>

edited 7th Sep '12 2:39:02 AM by Euodiachloris

I thought you used sarcasm, but I wasn't sure. It's hard to say for sure when people talk about this subject.

Compared to what they could be, humans — even the very best ones — are quite disappointing. We could be so much more that we are.

But this is no cause for discouragement. It just means that we have a lot of room to improve yet.

As a race, I feel like we're capable of doing so much. Hell, we've got a permanent space station up in Earth's orbit. On an individual level, however, we all vary drastically. Differences are good; how boring would life be if we all acted the same way? While these differences drive some to crime and horrible acts, it's the knowledge that there are also others who choose to give and sacrifice for the good of other people that keeps my faith in humanity strong.

TL;DR, you can't paint humanity as completely good or evil. It's impossible and for me childish and naive to view things so simply.

I feel that, mostly, we (as in "we sapientkind") are young. Much awaits us yet — horrors and marvels, both beyond our wildest imaginations.

Of course we can improve, but aren't your standards a bit unfair? Compare humans with any other known lifeform. Many of the things we've accomplished are truly incredible.

But we are not these lifeforms. Our potentials and capabilities — and, therefore, our duties — are far greater.

One example: an ant is not even remotely equipped to understand the concept of environmental crisis, let alone predicting one and coming up with remedies. I cannot fault it for that, obviously: it is what it is. On the other hand, we are definitely capable to do so: and therefore, as I see it, we have a sacred duty to do so and to preserve the health of our planet.

I cannot say that we have done a stellar work so far — although, it must be said, we are still extremely young as a species, and it comes to no surprise that sometimes we make messes. Despairing over them is pointless; what's important is to fix them.

edited 8th Sep '12 1:03:04 AM by Carciofus

This may be a bit off-topic, but is the grim future presented in WH 40 K, barring the chaos gods, just the whole "eternal War and Death" theme, even plausible as a future for humanity, as that real life WMG claims?

edited 10th Sep '12 1:14:34 PM by xie323

People have been prophesying the worst-case scenario for millennia. Take from that what you will.

And, sadly, the people who have been prophesying the "best-case scenarios" seem to be generally at the root of the closest things to worst case scenarios that we ever had.

I do not think that they were all insincere or cynical, more's the pity. WellIntentionedExtremists — especially ones who end up trying to fit people to their ideal system rather than the other way around — seem to be one of the main causes of tragedies.

In an odd way, I actually find this heartening. It kind of fits with my belief that humans, as a whole, are not so much evil as mistaken.

edited 10th Sep '12 2:09:52 PM by Carciofus

Well... a lot of that time that's partly because they were out to "make it happen" by any means necessary. Those prophecies tend to come across as "excuses" rather than anything else. <sighs>

Having said that... doomsday one's also get used similarly, at times... "Prophecies and predictions: check your source, first," is the lesson, methinks. And, take the mushrooms/ rye-bread away...

edited 10th Sep '12 3:49:54 PM by Euodiachloris

Some people have mentioned it before, but I think that it's because the bad things just seem to hit harder.

We don't realize how good things are until they stop being good. And the best things in life seem outweighed by how absolutely shitty the world can be sometimes.

The only happy stories are the ones where the narrative bends over backwards to make it so, which is not how things would go in Real Life, so the more cynical stories are seen as the way things would really be.

Most definingly, we always expect the worst out of each other. It's saddening.

I guess it could be said that if there is evil in the world, it's not stronger, just easier. It's not more numerous, it's just more noticeable.

In other words... Evil is an Attention Whore.

Though evil is pretty subjective on many occasions, but that's another topic altogether.

Eh, I agree to an extent, but I think it has more to do with people having the 'what have you done for me lately' mind set. Someone does something good, cool, we cheer them on, one year later we don't care unless it was extremely game changing(MLK, Ghandi, Lincoln). Someone does something evil and we never let them live it down.

Hell, when someone good does something bad it tends to totally overshadow all of their good work. Wasn't that a major point in the ending of The Dark Knight?

True dat.

The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft' interred with their bones

It greatly bothers me when people that live a perfectly comfortable life, using objects that were created by several other hardworking people, and still say that they hate every person and the world. I think that there's no better way to describe these people as incredibly spoiled.

edited 15th Sep '12 10:17:13 AM by Teraus