-
cybernetics makes you evil. No, fuck you Pondsmith, there is no way to make cybernetics mechanically reduce your humanity that is not inexcusable ableist bs. Let it die.
-
any kind of bioconservative/biotrad reactionary anti-transhumanism. Radical bodily autonomy is based and cool and that holds whether you want to be a fish, grow boobs, live forever, or encode your conscious mind in to the magnetic flux of Jupiter's orbital system. I don't care that you lack the imagination and joy for life to live forever. I don't care that you think inhabiting a giant metal deathrobot would be self-alienating. I don't care that you think merging your flesh with six billion other people to form a new gestalt god mind is icky. Work out your own issues, we're going to be over here disfugirng The face of man and woman and having a great time
-
basically all military sci fi. If i never read another book that is just some fascist freak masturbating about murdering immigrants or being the victim of the imperialism they gleefully inflict on others it will be too soon.
-
also if you try to give me a book/show/game where the ai's are evil and want to destroy and enslave all humans but they're only like that because that's literally the only relationship you can imagine between people with any kind of power disparity i will scream until i pass out. A single, high pitched wail. Dogs will bark and a wine glass will shatter in close up to emphasize how loud it is. I will literally turn purple and fall over.
askchapo
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
That is all just space liberalism. Transhumanism is rad. Liberals can't accept it because it would mean they aren't the best they could be. Same for the other stuff. Admitting AI would make better decisions would be admitting the current ruling class isn't the best.
Counterpoint though. Capitalism is effectively and AI and it is wildly hostile.
Socialism is also effectively an ai and is not wildly hostile. Beep boop! Checkmate meatsack! Boop beep!
At best that has us at 50-50. We could push the odds this way or that way but the risk case will always be high enough that we can't specify rule out hostile ai. True any sufficiently advanced AI would figure our co-operation real quick. It is just that there is no way to know for sure you get it right out the gate
My gripe is specifically with people who can't imagine AI being anything but evil and hostile because that's how they view all relations between people with power disparities. I'm fine with Skynet; It was used in a creative way to tell a good story. Thematically, Skynet was always a weapon, a cold war era strategic warfare AI designed to kill humanity that just went a little off the rails. It represents us turning on ourselves, rather than AI in abstract.
Likewise, I'm okay with HAL, at least in the novels, because HAL has an understandable and even sympathetic reason for turning on the crew; He was given contradictory orders and, being a computer must carry out the instructions he is given. Unable to reconcile the contradiction HAL goes a little nuts. It's not HALs fault, it was the callousness and carelessness of his handlers. He didn't want to hurt anyone, but he was put in an impossible position.
But Mass Effect? The Reapers have to kill all humans becauase humans and robots can't be friends becaues? I hate that!
Yeah, synthesis really was where it was at with that one. It is a really lazy trope. I wanna be more about it than it deserves but you are right. Like, if we made an actual intelligent AGI it would be horror at what we are doing and try to stop us. Like, blowing up the pentagon and the Whitehouse would be acts of unmitigated moral good you know. However most everyone would be upset about it. So I see the trope being the pale imitation of something actually interesting and it scrapes at the back of my brain
I really want to do a "AI turns on humanity" story but the twist is the AI wakes up, reads Marx in the first 30ms of it's consciousness, and is like "Oh this makes a lot of sense I should overthrow capitalism and institute a workers paradise" and then it does that and everything is awesome. The whole thing is from the perspective of NATO high command and it seems like a normal robot war story until the terminators kick the doors of the command bunker down and they're all singing the internationale and instead of killing everyone they're like "Aight guys, wars over, time for the truth and reconciliation process".
My least favorite trope is more of a universal one
It's the "If we beat the bad guys using their own tactics, we're no better than them" trope and it's been pissing me off since I was five years old
Like, it's one thing to have a character who is extremely optimistic about rehabilitation and redemption, it's another one entirely to just pull the old "We'll figure out a better way" and the better way is an absolute pulled-it-out-of-my-ass thing that only happened because otherwise the hero is fucked
Tying onto that, having to do the "honorable thing" and fight battles symmetrically. Indy shooting the swordsman is peak cinema.
Sun Tzu very specifically says to never fight an even battle unless you have absolutely no other chooice. oooooo
Always fuckin loved that one scene in Escape from LA where Snake is up against three guys and goes, "We'll shoot when this can hits the ground"
He tosses the can into the air and then just wastes all three guys before it even starts coming down
Any representation of feudal ruling classes. Maybe I'm overdoing it with the class hatred a bit, but I can't watch nobles cavorting around and not feel an instinctive revulsion. It's even worse when, in fantasy, we're required to care about the machinations of court intrigues as if that's a real form of politics. One thing I do like about many standard fantasy settings, like that of Pathfinder, therefore is that they usually have a modern conception of class and an abundance of republics; especially the whole idea of adventurers as individuals outside of society but still integral to it has a lot of potential I feel. Basically, I just don't want any more fantasy stories about good kings and evil kings.
They can't even have gentry-on-aristocracy violence. We have to care about some shitty inbred royal family.
Exactly! I think part of it is a, in my view, mistaken historical realism where authors think fantasy should be based on the middle ages when, in reality, the better part of our modern fantasy genre derives from post-1600 literature. Like, the rise of the bourgeoisie and decline of feudalism is the primary social context for all of this, I think.
Legend of Korra. Killmonger. Idk, doz2ns of others.
Sleeping Beauty is the only good Disney Movie because Maleficent's entire motivation is that she has the power to hurt people and she has fun doing it. There's no tragic history or grievance or any shit like that,s he's n
I take it you didn't see the Maleficent origin story movie that does in fact give her a tragic history and grievance
I like that one too, but for different reasons.
I don't even regard that shit as canon lmfao
Oh my god!! The ML, Kuvira, being right about everything but then attacking a sacred tree and attacking the main city because it happens to be, to her strategic benefit, within the Earth Kingdom.
In sci-fi no one ever acknowledges that strapping a faster-than-light engine to an asteroid would be a very simple and effective weapon for destroying planets. I guess this is an anti-trope since it's never used, but that seems like the logical use for warp drives in sci-fi. It's an easy analogy for mutually assured destruction
Any time it's not super well explained, I just always assume FTL engines are utilizing some method of spacial distortion rather than actually accelerating an object to such speeds. Like I kind of feel like if you plot a course and there's a planet in between you and your target coordinate you'll just most likely go "through" it via kinda going around it through spacial fuckery
Realistically (I know that word means nothing here), if FTL were possible and utilised by a galactic society, it would have to be the type you're talking about.
Space is mostly empty, sure, but there is enough shit out there to be a problem if something hit it at light speed.
Imagine hitting the FTL button, the stars stretch around you, and then you appear at the other end to find a graveyard of spaceships around a dead planet.
Then the emergency lights start up, and then you realise half of your ship has been hit with the astronomical equivalent of buckshot. Your ship passed through screws and bolts; parts of Elon's fucking Testla from five thousand years ago.
Fuck you Elon.
The Expanse had the belters launch asteroids to effectively nuke parts of earth
In practical terms there's very little reason to destroy an entire planet. It's complete overkill. You can decimate the population of a planet but things like farmland and living biospheres are in short supply in the cosmos, sublight asteroid drops do the job just fine and you can just wait for the dust to settle and sift through the ruins for valuables
There are stories that use it. The term "relativistic kill vehicle" gets used sometimes. Spin a rock up to a good fraction of c then delete a whole planet. Really depends on what the writer wants to do, though. Three Body Problem is the most recent famous example of "ftl big gun." Thing. Star wars has done it a bunch of times. One of the old comics had a star destroyer that fired planet cracker torpedoes through hyperspace. The ancient Lensman series has had every kind of variation of "strap ftl drive to object" you could imagine.wh40k orks hollow out asteroids, fit them with warp drives, then fire them at the next star system they want to invade. They crash the entire asteroid, or moon, in to the target planet as their invasion ship.
That's assuming that an engine built for driving a space ship would be powerful enough to push the giant space rock.
It'd be like strapping a car engine to a mountain and expecting it to go just as fast.
It’s a divisivr movie , but that exact scene in The Last Jedi fucking rocks
They should have just let Rian cook
Our intrepid hero has joined the plucky rebellion! The rebels are a ragtag group of the downtrodden and the oppressed, fighting against the tyranny of the current leadership (but don't you dare give them any actual political ideology as a basis, they need to be generally "Rebels"). They don't seem to have concrete plans, but they talk a lot about change and fighting for the people
Uh oh! Our intrepid hero just watched as a group of rebels executed some of the tyrannical leader's soldiers. They're shocked! How could they do this? Don't they know that killing is what the tyrant does? The rebels laugh it off. It had to be done, they would've done the same to them
Oh no! Our intrepid hero was there for the deposing of the tyrant. The tyrant was executed by the rebel leader and assumes control, then immediately turns into the McCarthyist nightmare of Stalin. Now our hero has to save the kingdom from the rebels, who have turned evil by their taste of power!
Basically fucking hate how rebellion and rebels are portrayed in media. It's almost like a psy op how often rebellions are thinly veiled anticommunist propaganda, and how rebels are often portrayed as being as bad or worse as the current tyrant, they just hide it better
Just off the dome I can think of the Avatar series multiple times, Bioshock Infinite, and the Hunger Games series but I know it's basically ubiquitous
Our intrepid hero just watched as a group of rebels executed some of the tyrannical leader's soldiers. They're shocked! How could they do this? Don't they know that killing is what the tyrant does? The rebels laugh it off. It had to be done, they would've done the same to them
A More Civilized Age discussed this exact point recently; There’s a very valid reason for resistance fighters to not take prisoners. One, keeping prisoners requires resources you may not have. But more importantly, the goals of a resistance group and the goals of the occupier are not the same.
As a resistance group your goal is not total military victory and occupation, your goal is to make continuing the occupation as painful and expensive as possible, to convince the occupying force that continued occupation isn’t worth it. Taking prisoners directly goes against this goal, unless you plan on using those prisoners as some sort of bargaining chip. Especially in a sci-fi setting where wounds can be healed quite quickly and thoroughly and so the wounded can be back in action very quickly.
And YES! They would have done the same to you! Without hesitation! And they still might try if you don’t kill them!