This thread's purpose is to discuss politics in works of fiction/media. Please do not use this thread to talk about politics or media in isolation from each other.
I was thinking of asking what people thought were the most interesting post-election Trump related media.
The Good Fight on CBS Access devoted their entire second season to dealing with the subject.
Edited by MacronNotes on Mar 13th 2023 at 3:23:38 PM
Lost in Space
Not to pooh-pooh the travails of the poor, but wireless earbuds cost less than $20 if you're willing to go cheap. We refuse to get our son expensive ones because he keeps breaking them.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
A cheap set of Aux headphones are about $5-10 so half the price and much more reliable/less prone to water or grit damage.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Much more prone to Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness
Edited by Gaiazun on Apr 30th 2024 at 7:17:51 AM
Cheap wireless headphones tend to break on their own often. I've gone through like three pairs because they stopped charging one day.
They call me.... Prophet
I bought expensive wired headphones for the same reason. Plastic ones just snap on my head. A $80 headset is much cheaper than a $30-40 one.
As to cyberpunk, my main problem is simply that it's a genre mostly captured by aesthetics by now. There's rarely much punk in Cyberpunk, and i feel like the genre hasn't progressed much at all.
A common complaint of mine is also that megacorporations don't work like that. Historically, megacorps are an extension of the state, rather than the state being an extension of a corporation. It can *locally* behave like in cyberpunk (e.g. how Nestle acts in third world countries) but it is ultimately backed, directly or indirectly, by the state. If so desired, even an Apple could simply cease to exist at the hand of the state. A global megacorp can only exist if states allow it to.
In Western "soft" SF stories, where humanity is living in a dystopian future, a common scenario is the invention of some kind of treatment/medicament/technology/magic that allows the "removal" of human hostile behavior. And make humans more kind to each other.
This is invariably portrayed as a bad thing.
......................
Usually, the person offering the treatment is just using it as an excuse to Take Over the World, and make people his docile slaves, while he himself hypothetically will never take the treatment, like in Equilibrium.
.....................
Sometimes the person offering the treatment is sincere in wanting to help others, but still feel the need to engage in murder or other villainous actions, that don't serve his goal at all, but he does them regardless in order to provide the heroes with a reason to fight him.
An example is the manga Lost+Brain (a shamless and obvious knockoff of Death Note)
The Villain Protagonist manage to invent a hypnosis technique that cures the individual of any flaws in his personality, like inferiority complex, jealousy, phobias, or fear, and makes them strong-willed, happy and free individuals.
His goal is to convince humans to submit to this treatment in order to create a better world, but for some reason, he still feels the need to engage in senless terrorist attacks and play cat and mouse games with the police (probably because as I said, it is a knockoff of Death Note)
.......................
In other cases, the person who offer the treatment is demanding a huge price for it, like Jasmine from Angel (not science fiction but still) a goddess who brings peace and happiness to the world, but she needs to eat a percentage of humans once in a while in order to survive.
(She also magically compels people to adore her, but strangely, this was not the dealbreaker for the protagonists)
.......................
And in other cases, the treatment simply has dangerous side effects.
...........................................................................................................
All of the above is understandable why the treatment is bad, because his creator is evil.
However, in other cases, even when the treatment is working fine, and no one is abusing it, but it still refused by the heroes, citing things like "those dark impulses are part of us; without them, we won't be humans; I am oppressed by not being able to swear, steal, kill and draw graffity in the walls, FREDOOOOOOOOOM".
....................................
I wonder, if such a treatment existed in Real Life, what will be the moral attitude to take?
Edited by jawal on Apr 30th 2024 at 8:48:01 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
Like reflections in the glass!
I'll another morally gray example here.
With the Krakoans era of X-Men came a variety of wonder drugs created by the mutants as a barbering chip to ensure Krakoa's statehood (as in recognition from the international community). Some nations rejected it (because fantastic bigotry natch) but I think some of the rationale was lack of trust that the cures won't be used as direct or indirect leverage (iirc it included a cure for cancer, the Holy Grail of medicine).
Then Sins of Sinister happen and everyone's favored camp ex-Nazi had been revealed to use it (and the resurrection protocols) as a genetic backdoor for his DNA, cue bad timeline where everyone took on part of his mentality and personality and wages galactic war on each other.
Needless to say when word of that sequence of event got out, it vindicated the idea that people would use the drugs for bad ends and handed Orchids a PR win.
Or at least that's how I recall it anyway. By all accounts those are likely being taken out of the game because the X-Men is undergoing another status quo shift and also because Reed Richards Is Useless.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Unless that also means the world has become some kind of anarchist utopia, that sounds like it benefits mostly priviledged people. As in, the end of political struggle. The unpriviledged have to ask everything nicely.
Of course, it depends what "make humans more kind to each other" really means.
seconded
In From the New World, some of humanity has gained psychokinetic (PK) powers, and while this allows them to do all sorts of wonders using those powers, it also has the result of violence being even easier than it is today. They no longer need weapons to kill: they can just do it with their own imagination.
PK is quite powerful. For a thousand years, the people with PK have ruled over those without. They destroyed all modern states and humanity's population is not even a fraction of what it is now. The psychics became emperors and ruled over the common folk, or they formed raiding tribes. Another PK group hid on the sidelines, and retained scientific and historical knowledge. By the time the story begins, this science society is the only one that survived centuries of war and bloodshed.
Said science society has solved this problem of violence by altering their genes (using their powers) so humans are less aggressive towards other humans by nature. This is called the attack inhibition. They also added another feature: If the attack inhibition fails, and a human attacks another human, their own powers will kick in, and begin to cause them pain. If they continue regardless, their own powers will kill them. This is called the Death of Shame, or death feedback, depending on the translation.
Most people don't know this. Aside from the leadership, historical knowledge is extremely limited, and culture and education is heavily monitored and controlled. As a result, violence towards other humans is borderline unthinkable. Most people believe it to be impossible. This has resulted in two problems.
One, sometimes things go wrong, and the psychic loses control over their powers. Sometimes their powers destroy and mutate everything around them, and sometimes they become uncontrollably violent. The former are called karma demons, and the latter are called ogres. In both cases, the anti-violence trait has failed, and ogres in particular can kill easily. But since other people still have those anti-violence genes, they now literally have no means of defending themselves. This problem is resolved by observing children in the school system, where they kill any child who they fear may break the rules, or become violent, or otherwise lose control over their powers. Humans technically don't get rights until they are adults.
The second problem was people without PK. Since the Death of Shame requires PK, it cannot be instilled into those without it. As such, the psychics feared a reversal of their privileged status. Those without PK would oppress those with PK, they feared, because the former could use violence while the latter could not. They solved this by transforming humans without PK into eusocial Mole Men, and called them "monster rats." They then hid this history from both themselves and from the monster rats. This allows the PK society to not only continue to oppress and kill, it makes it even easier: one, as they no longer look human, the Death of Shame no longer works. They can kill them easily. As they also consider the monster rats to be hideous, warlike, and violent, they also see no moral issue in killing them whenever the monster rats rebel, break laws, or otherwise do not respect their rule. And as the monster rats also require their queens (again, they're eusocial!) for reproduction, she is the priority target: kill her and the colony will die, eventually.
Ah, it's the anime of "the misadventures of post-apocalyptic psychic bisexual supermen." 
Exactly What It Says on the Tin, humans become less aggressive and more empathic towards each other, find pleasure in living in peace, and find the idea of hurting each other's distasteful and unbearable.
Current humans will never live in an anarchist utopia; that is an impossible dream.
Edited by jawal on Apr 30th 2024 at 11:11:57 AM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
Well, the problem is that without submitting literally ‘everyone’ to the treatment (which can only be done by force, in a some sort of totalitarian one world order) the kinder people would be more vulnerable to those who didn’t receive it.
Edited by Smeagol17 on Apr 30th 2024 at 1:26:25 PM
I imagine if the treatment is beneficial and has no side effects, it can be treated like vaccination and made obligatory for newborns.
Notice that such a treatment, should be beneficial to the one who takes it too, since it creates a stronger personality free from negative emotions and impulses, helping one live an independent and happy life.
..................
It should not be like the one in A Clockwork Orange for example, that only causes you pain when you do something illegal, letting you be at the mercy of normal, ruthless society.
Nor should it make you a weak and naive imbecile, good for only taking orders, and an easy victim to anyone who doesn't get the treatment, like that silly movie Demolition Man.
Edited by jawal on Apr 30th 2024 at 11:36:38 AM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
The Element of Hyperbole.
Then you get into debates about what "negative" emotions even are and whether you'd even want to get rid of them.
This is obviously an out there example, but the last Wheel of Time book includes this idea in the final confrontation between the protagonist and The Dark One that getting rid of the Dark One entirely is bad because doing so would remove mankind's capacity to choose evil. In a speculative future where there exists no Dark One, the protagonist's wife is vapid and incapable of displaying the fiery anger he loves so much because anger is a "negative" emotion.
A large part of our personality is shaped by our emotions, how extreme those emotions are and what we choose to do to cope with them, or help others cope with their own.
Edited by GNinja on Apr 30th 2024 at 10:58:16 AM
Kaze ni Nare!
Toning down negative tendencies (like cruelty, greed, and selfishness) is not the same thing as removing free will, though, or removing "EVIL" from the universe, which is what happened in Wheel of Time.
..................
In fact, parents and schools already try to tone down those negative tendencies and encourage positive ones (Empathy, honesty, generosity, hard work,... etc.) in children with very limited success.
Edited by jawal on Apr 30th 2024 at 12:05:08 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
I'm not sure things like cruelty, greed, and selfishness can even be considered emotions.
Technically I said tendencies.
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
Most people are deontologically opposed to the use of mind control and similar concepts. Perhaps this is a bit arbitrary. I'll at least say people don't love the idea of being forced to take mind-effecting drugs against their will, and there is a good reason for that.
I will say that analyzing mass mind control in fiction should probably be approached from the angle of asking what it's a stand-in for, and what it's a stand-in for can vary by work. Often it's something to the effect of collectivism.
A drug that makes people more "peaceful" does have a certain degree of ambiguity to it. Does it prevent angry emotions?
Would it prevent someone from performing a drone strike against an enemy that they only want to kill for un-emotional reasons? What about murder by inaction? There are also non-violent crimes to consider, like nonviolent theft or date rape.
I'd also say that such a system would have trouble defending itself from outside threats (or even internal revolution, which could still happen). Any system that relies on everyone else following the same system is doomed to failure.
There's also the question of how such a system even comes into power without violence, especially if it's being done on any kind of scale.
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"
The Element of Hyperbole.
When people say "peace drug" all I think of is that one sad as fuck Stephen King short story, "The End of This Whole Mess" where a scientist sends water from a special river where the nearby residents who drink it are all pacifistic up into the atmosphere... and sure enough world peace is soon declared... only then it turns out that everyone who drinks the water gets dementia and the world ends.
You know how it goes.
Edited by GNinja on Apr 30th 2024 at 11:30:43 AM
Kaze ni Nare!
I'm actually reminded about the differences between bonobos and chimpanzees. Essentially, the parts of the bonobos brain responsible for empathy and forethought are more well developed than those of chimps. Which is why they are generally less aggressive.
It's funny you mention that. In From the New World, the psychics literally added bonobo DNA to their genome. It makes them less aggressive, and also causes them to relieve stress via sex.
This is combined with social conditioning to reinforce it even more.
Edited by SilentColossus on Apr 30th 2024 at 7:45:06 AM
It is not necessary a drug, it could be computer ship, or a magical tattoe or whatever.
And you are forced by law to take certain medicines against your well (e.g. vaccines)
Even "mind-affecting drugs" can be administered against one's well legally in certain cases (e.g. a patient who is suicidal or poses a danger to others)
..................
Yes it is a valid angle, though one that has been discussed to death since the 1950s
I personally however feel that there is not a single way that someone should think about a work, everyone is free to focus on what they find interesting, and others are free to engage or not, or even discuss "deeper" aspects of it.
........................
1) Killing others with drones? That not-necessary drug- treatment will, as I said in theory, encourage empathy and harmony towards others, and as such, you will not want to start a war or murder others with any weapon.
Even if you are forced into a war, you will look for a way that avoid huring innocents, so no dronse
If you are sending drones to kill others, then clearly the treatment is not working.
It is worth mentioning that using drones in theory is frowned upon morally in Real Life (even Obama was attacked for using them in Afghanistan) because of the discriminatory nature that leads to many innocent deaths.
Of course, they are still used, because we live in a Might Makes Right world.
2) Murder by inaction? If I have empathy for someone and I see him unknowingly driving toward an abyss, I will try to stop him and won't just stand and watch, but this is just me.
3) Nonviolent theft or date rape? Same answer as 2. If I have empathy towards someone, I would not bear to think of the harm they will suffer when they wake up to find that they have been raped or that their belongings have disappeared.
In conclusion, all of your examples can be answered by "that treatment augment your empathy toward others.".
.........................
There's also the question of how such a system even comes into power without violence, especially if it's being done on any kind of scale.
In your second paragraph you are talking as if the treatment is forced on everyone, but in the first one you are talking about internal revolutions???
And if most of the world is "forced" to take the drug? Where will the "external threat" come from? Aliens?
But to answer your questions, as I said before, this treatment, in theory, won't make you a weakling or an idiot; it will free you from negative tendencies and self-destructive behavior.
It is a well-known fact that people who are mentally healthy and have a positive outlook on life tend to do better, in school, work, marriage, etc. Than people who suffer from permanent anger, depression, regret about the past, grudges against others who wrong them, envy towards others...etc.
There is even some studies cliaming that first group live longer and have better health in general.
So the first group will be better suited to handle any "threat" natural or otherwise, and yes, before you ask, that includes war by aliens or other humans who have not taken the treatment.
Having more empathy and less anger towards your fellow man, does not force you into Suicidal Pacifism, nor should cause you to let someone stab you to death, because you can't bear to harm the attacker.
............................
Finally, as how will it be applied? Well my original question was basically "how will humans react if a treatment like that was found?"
It can be that once people see the positive effects it has on both individuals and society in general, they will decide to take it voluntarily, make a referendum, and pass a law that makes it obligatory for newborns to take it, like vaccines.
Once the second generation comes, there will be no problem, because people should be convinced by then of the benefits of treatment without the need for a law.
It could, of course, also be forced upon people by a dictator.
And finally, it can be refused adamantly, with people going in protests screaming "you no play with my braiiiiiin, God made me a man, not a robot" with every sample of the treatment destroyed, and the inventor hanged in the streets.
Edited by jawal on Apr 30th 2024 at 1:22:44 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
If the nonviolent theft is carried out by desperation (like say out of providing food to your starving family), then empathy won't stop the theft there. If you argue that empathy will encourage people to devote more of their earnings to help the poor, that also can be resisted based on the argument that people want to provide the best life for their children, and need money for that, or the general mindset of "charity starts at home". I personally feel that the power of empathy may be really getting overexagerrated. Tribalism or a general mindset of ingroup- outgroup mindset is just as integral to humans as empathy and no plain empathy enhancing drug is going to make you have even equal empathy and care to strangers as to those you see as your own.
Or as the COVID pandemic has shown, there will be worldwide conspiracy theories about how that drug is being either used by some govt to control or destroy the masses via some adverse effect, leading to many people protesting it.
Edited by xyzt on Apr 30th 2024 at 8:22:50 PM
Oh, bother.
No one was forced to take vaccines against their will in the COVID pandemic. They just had to accept that not being vaccinated meant they couldn't do a lot of things.
It's as much a violation of rights as "No Shirts, no shoes, no service" signs.
It's not as if we had vaccination police driving around breaking into homes and forcefully injecting people with Moderna shots.
Not being vaccinated meant giving up privileges, not rights.
Edited by M84 on Apr 30th 2024 at 10:50:30 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
I have definitely read cyberpunk stories (mostly short stories) from the perspective of someone who had access to the society's normal level of technology, but then fell on really hard financial times and couldn't pay for any of it and had to deal with basically being invisible and how were they even going to do basic things like get a job or contact their friends.
(At least I think it's more than one story I'm thinking of. Could be just that one sticking in my mind XD)
Edited by PointMaid on Apr 30th 2024 at 6:10:16 AM