I'm not a member of the Knights & Knaves Alehouse, so when I make my infrequent visits I must put up with the egotistic cock-shining of user sigs.
I did spot an interesting one, though...
QuoteD&D is the ultimate right wing wet dream. A bunch of guys who are better than your average joe set out into the middle of nowhere where they murder and kill everything they come across in order to stockpile gold and elaborate magical bling. There are no taxes, no state and any poor people that get in your way get their village burned to the ground. It's like Ayn Rand on PCP
- Mr Analytical
...which offers an interesting take on games, settings and political views.
So, which games and worlds do you think represent a political view or ideology? We should be able to get some funnies out before the thread devolves into a shitfight.
For my money, the most stridently Right-wing game setting is Warhammer 40K: the United States of Humanity is a beacon of light in a universe full of beings who are Not Like Us. The orcs have different-coloured skin – obviously evil - while the awful, intellectual Eldar act as though an ancient history of learning and culture give them some sort of authority and the right to criticise the actions of a race that popped into existence five minutes ago. Worst of all, the Tyranids have mastered the dark arts of biological science, which they use to threaten the magical primacy of Jesu...the Emperor, probably by performing abortions and teaching the warp-spawned lie of evolution, backed only by logic and massive amounts of evidence.
As for Left-wing settings, I think anything Star Trek-related counts: an intergalactic federation of united planets in an environment of limitless resources without conservative Klingons, conservative Humans and conservative Romulans all wanting to make war on each other and denouncing their peaceful brethren as appeasers.
Bring it on, commies.
That's my sig. It is both utterly ridiculous and a completely accurate description of what D&D is.
WH40k is satire, although it seems to have developed an unhealthy fascism fetish along the way. The Morrow Project is a better example of what I'd call right-wing, while Vampire is very leftist (and Werewolf even more so).
Ehm, except 40k is massively satirical, and the Empire of Humanity is seen as utterly utterly sucking ass and being a horrific place to live in.
RPGPundit
And yes, all of WW's games have certain basic political assumptions, which can be summed up as "everything from western civilization is EVIL, vague new-age religion and stereotyped non-western cultural representations are good and noble". Or "science sucks because its too hard, I want to be a wiccan Art-student poet!!"
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;318269Ehm, except 40k is massively satirical, and the Empire of Humanity is seen as utterly utterly sucking ass and being a horrific place to live in.
But humans are grateful for their awful conditions because it's better than the alternatives they're told exist. Authority figures protect humans from a broad, ill-defined threat, therefore uncritical submission seems sensible and rational. How much more Right-wing can it get?
Posted in Mobile Mode
Quote from: Hairfoot;318265As for Left-wing settings, I think anything Star Trek-related counts: an intergalactic federation of united planets in an environment of limitless resources without conservative Klingons, conservative Humans and conservative Romulans all wanting to make war on each other and denouncing their peaceful brethren as appeasers.
Bring it on, commies.
Um,..
NO...just no.
Current political terminology just doesn't apply. You've fallen into a trap that happens quite often. People bring their own political baggage and agenda into Science Fiction /STAR TREK stories where it doesn't really apply.
Klingon and Romulans aren't 'conservative' or 'liberal' - the modern-day terminology doesn't really apply to them. Theiur culture /history evolved differently than Earth's did - hence different ways of looking at things. Also Klingons NEVER had bias/prejudice based on skin color - just look at the episodes. He or she might know that your family or house fought theirs.
Also, it was implied in the episode "Dayt of the Dove" that Klingons had reads Terran history and found the atrocities and Death casmps of World War II and other wars quite strange. Kang's wife Mara specifically refers to this.
As to the STAR TREK universe in general - WHICH version????
The classic shows or NEXT GEN era ? - because there was uite a shift in how things were presented. Original seroes was quite a bit "Libertarian" about many things when compared to nEXT GEN. Also the opposite assumption to yours has been tossed at the STAR TREK universe from time to time - that the Federation is actually Imperialistic and "conquers" planets via trade , negotiation and peer pressure into joinig the Federation.
The line of dialogue that David Marcus had in THE WRATH OF KHAN was an acknowledgement of that sometimes wrongheaded view.
- Ed C.
Quote from: RPGPundit;318270And yes, all of WW's games have certain basic political assumptions, which can be summed up as "everything from western civilization is EVIL, vague new-age religion and stereotyped non-western cultural representations are good and noble".
"Multiculturalism
One of the core assumptions of Changeling: The Lost is that fae things work in much the same way around the world. The Others are the Others, even if one resembles an American urban legend when haunting the streets of Miami and another is reminiscent of a Tibetan demon when it goes hunting for prey at the roof of the world."--from
Winter Masques, a "player's guide" supplement for
Changeling.
Quote from: Hairfoot;318286But humans are grateful for their awful conditions because it's better than the alternatives they're told exist. Authority figures protect humans from a broad, ill-defined threat, therefore uncritical submission seems sensible and rational.
How much more Right-wing can it get?
Posted in Mobile Mode
Thats not "right wing" thats totalitarian - there
is a difference between the two.
Pundit is probably right that the WH40K universe was probably meant as satire....however it has quite drifted into something else. The Warhammer players get a shocked look on their faces when I say I'm not interested in playing it because there are no "Good Guy" faction in that universe. They say : "WHat about the humans?"
ME: "No they are blatantly and obviously oppressive by killing a thousand people a day to keep that human carcas they call an emperor supposedly alive."
- Ed C.
Hairfoot's right, Koltar. Roddenberry's Federation in Star Trek is a socialist wet dream, particularly The Next Generation (where you even had a mind-reading ship's counselor to ensure that the crew thought appropriately, the Bad Guys were often either militaristic Klingons/Cardassians or capitalistic Ferengi or perfidious Romulans, and Q was around to demonstrate that a God was nothing more than very powerful spoiled brat).
Thankfully, JJ Abrams came along and drove a wooden stake into the vampiric undead heart of Roddenberry's Ghost to ensure that Star Trek didn't suck anymore as a franchise.
Mr Analytical used to post here.
The thing about that sig is: If I really had a mind I could easily post a similar statement stating that D&D was the ultimate Left wingers Wet Dream... I'd probably start with the alignment assumptions, move on to how the characters are never part of the ruling elite, and are thus exemplars of the common man or some such, then point out the egalitarian nature of parties, where the race and gender of a character are meaningless, or if i was being really snarky, how the various minority races are better than humans...
That being, of course, merely a rough framework.
In order to really do it justice, I'd have to jump up and grab every over the top stereotypical propaganda used against 'left wingers', much as the OP did.
Harfoot,
Was this whole thread a backdoor sneaky way to discuss politiucs in the guise of it being an RPG thread ??
Just wondering.
Jeff - you're both wrong and right.
I was referring to STAR TREK the whole she'bang over the past three decades or so. (And your ongoing Roddenberry slams are getting pretty old)
In the 80s I ran a FASA adventure for a small group. ("A Doomsday Like Any Other") One player had the knee-jerk commentary that the Federation and Starfleet were just spacegoing Imperialists - so he felt 'forced' to play it that way. Meanwhile, the player that grew up in Europe didn't feel that way at all about Starfleet.
If it can be viewed as "Right-wing" wet dream by one bunch of misguided people and also be called a "Left wing wet dream" by yet another group of people - it just means that TREK fell somewhere in the middle and had more than 17 different wraiters over the years and at least 47 different ones that were on staff at one time or freelancers for the shows.
- Ed C.
Oh and Jeff - the next time you knee-jerk slam Roddenberry ? Which version of Roddenberry? - the 1960s version of him? Or the late 1980s version of him that started Next Gen? The man changed his mind on some things.
Nobody is perfect or stays static over the course of his or her life.
Surley a socialist Utopia is the idealised end state for any culture. If you accept that folks will have motivation enough to act even when their every whim is catered to by a benign and limitless central authority.
I mean no one actively wants the starving millions and unfair distribution of resources we just accept it as a result of the result of the fact that resource pool is limited and the more sucessful nations/indivdiuals will therefore grab more of the stuff.
And Koltar, socialist states can be Imperialistic and domineering especially when its for the good of the many to impinge on the freedoms of the few (or is that getting more like the 'Verse). I mean they had to invent a type of money when they invented the Ferengi becuase prior to that they hadn't even needed it.
Quote from: Hairfoot;318286But humans are grateful for their awful conditions because it's better than the alternatives they're told exist. Authority figures protect humans from a broad, ill-defined threat, therefore uncritical submission seems sensible and rational. How much more Right-wing can it get?
Posted in Mobile Mode
You need to broaden your political base quite a bit. A lot, in fact.
You just described Stalin's USSR, and also the PRC for the first 50+ years. Both decidedly left-wing.
Uber right-wing, such as Germany under the National Socialists, told the people to bear heavy burdens for future rewards from dealing with a broad, extremely well-defined threat.
So did the Kymer Rouge, who were decidedly left wing.
As Koltar accurately pointed out, you're confusing political doctrine with political system. Centralized control, demonization of interior and exterior threats, and restriction of information are apolitical tools used for the purpose of control, regardless of whether the governing body claims the left, right, or royal basis for its rulership.
40k is Orwellian in nature, with a strong cyber-uniform fetish. The government would be best described as a paternalistic bureaucratic dictatorship with religious support (the Imperial cult). It is
very strongly modeled after Imperial Russia.
And your quote about D&D could go either way. D&D's concept that small groups of Right-Thinking Folk must save the masses (who are too inept to protect themselves) from poorly-explained EVIL, wherein EVIL is always wealthy, frequently organized, warlike, and harmful to the environment. Its the ultimate tree-hugging leftist dream.
Politics is about power. Left, right, etc., are just the labels used to rally people to their side. As Lenin said, the masses need only slogans which can be shouted, and phrases which can be used to open a speech. The rest is the business of the Party.
A leftist, you will recall, who told the peasants that they should be grateful for their awful conditions because it's better than the alternatives they're told exist. Authority figures protect them from a broad, ill-defined threat*, therefore uncritical submission seems sensible and rational. A concept which ran largely unchanged for 82 years. :D
* = The US, French, British, and Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, and the dire Poles and Finns, for Lenin. The threats were updated with time.
Quote from: jibbajibba;318341....................... I mean they had to invent a type of money when they invented the Ferengi becuase prior to that they hadn't even needed it.
NOT really true - "Classic" or Original TREK had money.
Lots of dialogue like "Scotty, you've earned your pay for the week"
Or the whole business of Starfleet having to pauy the miners in
"Mudd's Women" to get the dilithium crystals.
The planet in
"Devil in the Dark" bering a mining concern that was worried about making a profit - and an important enough business that Starfleet and Kirk had to help them out.
Its NEXT GEN -era ...24th Century STAR TREK where they went too far into saying there was no money.
So yeah, there was a background premise shift.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;318340(And your ongoing Roddenberry slams are getting pretty old)
Oh and Jeff - the next time you knee-jerk slam Roddenberry ? Which version of Roddenberry? - the 1960s version of him? Or the late 1980s version of him that started Next Gen? The man changed his mind on some things.
Nobody is perfect or stays static over the course of his or her life.
You are just pissed off that JJ Abrams came along and does Star Trek better than the original creator.
Roddenberry is dead, Ed. You can stop sucking his cock any time now.
Quote from: jeff37923;318345You are just pissed off that JJ Abrams came along and does Star Trek better than the original creator.
Where the bloody hell did you get THAT idea from???
I loved the Abrams movie!!
Saw it three times, would love to see it again before hits DVD.
If you paid attention 2 months ago - I based an RPG scenario on it.
To me J.J. Abrams went back to "Original Gene-ster" (OG TREK)
The movie plays like the best moments from the pilot ewpiosdes and 1st season
If you're gonna criticize me , Jeff - at least have your facts straight on what I liked or didn't like.
The new movie revived my interest in original TREK enough that I now have all three seasons of the Enhanced/improved DVDs. I see a LOT of the Abrams movie spirit in the first season of classic ST.
- Ed C.
Quote from: jibbajibba;318341I mean no one actively wants the starving millions and unfair distribution of resources we just accept it as a result of the result of the fact that resource pool is limited and the more sucessful nations/indivdiuals will therefore grab more of the stuff.
It is accepted because people realize that no one central authority has all the answers. It just doesn't work in the long term and only leads to various forms of tyranny. This is applies to monopolists that rise out of unrestrained capitalism as well.
The most efficient way to get everybody what they want in adequate quantities is the free market operating under the rule of law.
Quote from: jibbajibba;318341I mean no one actively wants the starving millions and unfair distribution of resources we just accept it as a result of the result of the fact that resource pool is limited and the more sucessful nations/indivdiuals will therefore grab more of the stuff.
Next time gas hits $3 a gallon, see how people feel about fair distribution of resources.
Or try to get people to donate to the 'help the starving in ratfuck, Third world'.
Everyone agrees fair is nice, until it costs them money, comfort, or convienence. Then the self-interest kicks in.
Everyone knows that much of the produce in the USA is cheap because its grown using Third World immigrants doing back-breaking labor under unhealthy conditions for next to nothing in wages; a lot of what is imported is raised by slave labor (just attended a class on Human trafficking-got lots of useless facts). The First world clothing industry is kept going by slave labor in Third World nations, and has been for decades, a well-known fact.
Indifference & self-interest: major factors in politics and business.
Quote from: estar;318350The most efficient way to get everybody what they want in adequate quantities is the free market operating under the rule of law.
Actually the most efficent way would be to reduce the world population by half.
Fact is, there isn't enough to go around while maintaining First World lifestyles.
Quote from: Koltar;318347Where the bloody hell did you get THAT idea from???
I loved the Abrams movie!!
Saw it three times, would love to see it again before hits DVD.
If you paid attention 2 months ago - I based an RPG scenario on it.
To me J.J. Abrams went back to "Original Gene-ster" (OG TREK)
The movie plays like the best moments from the pilot ewpiosdes and 1st season
If you're gonna criticize me , Jeff - at least have your facts straight on what I liked or didn't like.
The new movie revived my interest in original TREK enough that I now have all three seasons of the Enhanced/improved DVDs. I see a LOT of the Abrams movie spirit in the first season of classic ST.
- Ed C.
You have a very selective memory, then. The most common Roddenberry plot hook was for the crew to go into deep space and find God with hilarity ensuing.
Which doesn't sound anything like the JJ Abrams Star Trek movie.
As an interesting side note, one of the reasons why the new Battlestar Galactica was so good is that Ron Moore was so disenchanted by his experience with the Star Trek franchise that he vowed that the old tired Roddenberry tropes would not be seen in any science fiction show he ever worked on again.
Quote from: Koltar;318344Its NEXT GEN -era ...24th Century STAR TREK where they went too far into saying there was no money.
So yeah, there was a background premise shift.
When you can make any thing about of matter with the right software and a heap of CHON (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen). It changes things.
I am not arguing your point about Roddenberry changing his mind. I agree with that.
But you have to think about what happens to a society when there is little or no scarcity. Not just in basic goods but in complex items as well. The rare examples in our history (pacific islanders mostly) suggest it would a gift based economy. Where a person wealth is determined mostly by how much they give.
Quote from: estar;318354When you can make any thing about of matter with the right software and a heap of CHON (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen). It changes things.
It does change things, but you still need the energy to rework or create that matter. The energy supply then becomes the basis for the economy.
Quote from: OneTinSoldier;318352Actually the most efficent way would be to reduce the world population by half.
Fact is, there isn't enough to go around while maintaining First World lifestyles.
No the best way is to invent a replicator that can convert practically free energy into anything you can think of from food to warp drives (including of course other replicators).
I mean we are taking about a game right and not about like real life or something.
Oh as an aside I actually think that overpopulation is something of a red herring. In 1860 A visiting Dutch administrator (who's name escapes me) said that Java was vastly over populated and was unable to support its current population of 50 million. Java now supports 200 million people and arguable the worst off are no worse off than they were in 1860 and the average standard of living has risen massively. Areas with very low population densities are acually far worse of than areas with higher population densities (Holland has a much better standard of living than Niger for example).
The truth of the matter is that Capitalism and the free market is very wasteful of resources when those resourses have no current market value. Similarly it is even worse at the backend with the handling of waste. The fact that it costs more to repair a 10 year old car that has been in an auto-wreck than it costs to buy a 'new' 5 year old car is indicative of this and the result is heaps of car wrecks full of purified raw materials that get left to rust into the ground whilst we spend millions, and lots more resurces digging up and processing more of them and don't get me started on TVs or computers.
We could drive cars that did 80mpg and were made from 95% recycled materials and it not affect our standard of living at all. In fact it will happen eventually
But again I digress ...
REPLICATORS thats the answer :)
(wonder why no fantasy author has taken the Utopian TREK type world and ported it over to a Fantasy world....)
Quote from: estar;318354When you can make any thing about of matter with the right software and a heap of CHON (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen). It changes things.
I am not arguing your point about Roddenberry changing his mind. I agree with that.
But you have to think about what happens to a society when there is little or no scarcity. Not just in basic goods but in complex items as well. The rare examples in our history (pacific islanders mostly) suggest it would a gift based economy. Where a person wealth is determined mostly by how much they give.
Hmm gift reciprosity and the ecomonics of profundity. We will be quoting Maus and Malinowski next.
Quote from: jibbajibba;318361No the best way is to invent a replicator that can convert practically free energy into anything you can think of from food to warp drives (including of course other replicators).
I mean we are taking about a game right and not about like real life or something.
REPLICATORS thats the answer :)
(wonder why no fantasy author has taken the Utopian TREK type world and ported it over to a Fantasy world....)
TANSTAAFL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL).
Quote from: jeff37923;318355It does change things, but you still need the energy to rework or create that matter. The energy supply then becomes the basis for the economy.
Well they got that taken of in TNG, fusion, dilithum, antimatter. TNG has both unlimited energy and material goods. It simply doesn't have scarcity within the Federation. The only effective limits are on those things that can't be fabricated or require large groups of people to act in concert like building and running a starship.
Still if you have to wonder if the show truly follows from the premises. If society is that affluent there would thousands of people just building starships for the hell of it and going "out there". Must drive the surrounding races crazy. Probably the real reason for Starfleet's existence is to act as a sponge to soak up all the space crazies.
Quote from: estar;318367Well they got that taken of in TNG, fusion, dilithum, antimatter. TNG has both unlimited energy and material goods. It simply doesn't have scarcity within the Federation. The only effective limits are on those things that can't be fabricated or require large groups of people to act in concert like building and running a starship.
Still if you have to wonder if the show truly follows from the premises. If society is that affluent there would thousands of people just building starships for the hell of it and going "out there". Must drive the surrounding races crazy. Probably the real reason for Starfleet's existence is to act as a sponge to soak up all the space crazies.
I thought they were on Trilithium now?
And the space ship thing may not be that big a deal. With a totally affluent society 95% of them are likely to just sit on their arses and eat or run round in their holo-suites. The other 5% will probably spread out or join Star Fleet even if its just to meet green chicks and shoot mooks.
Quote from: jibbajibba;318375I thought they were on Trilithium now?
And the space ship thing may not be that big a deal. With a totally affluent society 95% of them are likely to just sit on their arses and eat or run round in their holo-suites. The other 5% will probably spread out or join Star Fleet even if its just to meet green chicks and shoot mooks.
Yes and supposed Earth has billion people on it even just a 100 million. That helluva green chicks being hit on and mooks being shot.
Quote from: jibbajibba;318361No the best way is to invent a replicator that can convert practically free energy into anything you can think of from food to warp drives (including of course other replicators).
I mean we are taking about a game right and not about like real life or something.
Oh as an aside I actually think that overpopulation is something of a red herring. In 1860 A visiting Dutch administrator (who's name escapes me) said that Java was vastly over populated and was unable to support its current population of 50 million. Java now supports 200 million people and arguable the worst off are no worse off than they were in 1860 and the average standard of living has risen massively. Areas with very low population densities are acually far worse of than areas with higher population densities (Holland has a much better standard of living than Niger for example).
The truth of the matter is that Capitalism and the free market is very wasteful of resources when those resourses have no current market value. Similarly it is even worse at the backend with the handling of waste. The fact that it costs more to repair a 10 year old car that has been in an auto-wreck than it costs to buy a 'new' 5 year old car is indicative of this and the result is heaps of car wrecks full of purified raw materials that get left to rust into the ground whilst we spend millions, and lots more resurces digging up and processing more of them and don't get me started on TVs or computers.
We could drive cars that did 80mpg and were made from 95% recycled materials and it not affect our standard of living at all. In fact it will happen eventually
But again I digress ...
REPLICATORS thats the answer :)
(wonder why no fantasy author has taken the Utopian TREK type world and ported it over to a Fantasy world....)
Yes, if only we had a magic way...
In the meantime, over-population in sub-Sahara Africa, central Africia, & the Horn continues to cost hundreds of thousands of lives & social dissolution.
Holland has a stable political environment and a developed infrastructure. Comparing it to Niger is like saying cows don't need water to breath, so fish do not either.
And your recycled car would cost about 150% of what cars cost today. The reason we do not recycle in bulk is that re-processing metal is just as expensive (or more, in the case of painted or laminated) as ore, and gathering ore is easier and cheaper than sorting, gradeing, moving existing scrap, with the growing exception of copper.
Infrastructure and transport are what consumese resources. Consumer goods are just the feel-good issues. The energy demands of a city of 50k in a first world state are staggering. Power for climate control and life-support, fuel to move essential services (police and fire service have fuel as their #2 budget item, salary is #1), plus maintenance equipment-you could build the entire world production of consumer vehicles for less resources than it takes to run just the USA' cities.
And since in the last quarter-century the first world states have seen the transition to a majority of the population living in urban areas, every rise in population brings a corresponding rise in infrastructure.
Futz around with consumer goods, and you will accomplish zip. You want to effect the consumption of resources, start with a low-resource was of bulk transport, and the transmission of energy and communications. Solar panels, nuke plants, and wind farms (which are huge out where I live) are fine and good, but moving the juice still consumes more metal than the private auto industry.
Quote from: estar;318367Well they got that taken of in TNG, fusion, dilithum, antimatter. TNG has both unlimited energy and material goods. It simply doesn't have scarcity within the Federation. The only effective limits are on those things that can't be fabricated or require large groups of people to act in concert like building and running a starship.
Still if you have to wonder if the show truly follows from the premises. If society is that affluent there would thousands of people just building starships for the hell of it and going "out there". Must drive the surrounding races crazy. Probably the real reason for Starfleet's existence is to act as a sponge to soak up all the space crazies.
Hmmm, if both matter and energy are freely available, then what about labor? In this case, intellectual labor? Someone has to create the designs used to replicate everything. Some will be better than others, so you have an economy based upon the scarcity of intellectual property creators.
I can see where that would appeal to Trekkies.
Quote from: jeff37923;318381Someone has to create the designs used to replicate everything. Some will be better than others, so you have an economy based upon the scarcity of intellectual property creators.
For an RPG setting based on much the same principles, see here:
Sufficiently Advanced. (http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/sufficiently-advanced)
Is it just me or does it seem like most Sci-Fi novels are conservative and most Fantasy ones are liberal? At least in the case of Sci-Fi, the authors can get very preachy (at least the stuff I've read lately- David Weber, Heinlein, John Ringo) and it eventually sours me on it.
Quote from: GrimGent;318386For an RPG setting based on much the same principles, see here: Sufficiently Advanced. (http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/sufficiently-advanced)
After reading 3 pages, my mind shut down from the causality problems that the setting creates for itself. Transcendental AIs that send themselves messages from the future which will be translated into orders for the human cyborgs (PCs in the present) to execute? Fuck me running, that is some Transhumanist bullshit wankfest where God is actually a Computer.
Quote from: mhensley;318387Is it just me or does it seem like most Sci-Fi novels are conservative and most Fantasy ones are liberal? At least in the case of Sci-Fi, the authors can get very preachy (at least the stuff I've read lately- David Weber, Heinlein, John Ringo) and it eventually sours me on it.
This is just CRYING out for a comment about how people dealing with science have to deal with repercussions and the like, while fantasy worlds have magic to cure all their problems....
.... but I wouldn't be that cheap. :D
Quote from: mhensley;318387Is it just me or does it seem like most Sci-Fi novels are conservative and most Fantasy ones are liberal? At least in the case of Sci-Fi, the authors can get very preachy (at least the stuff I've read lately- David Weber, Heinlein, John Ringo) and it eventually sours me on it.
You just need to switch authors.
I doubt anyone would call Harlan Ellison "conservative".
Maybe Steven Barnes would be more to your liking?
When I talked to Barnes in March of 2008 , I know he was very Pro-Barack Obama and his wife had a decent shot at getting them good seats at the Democratic National Convention.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;318395Maybe Steven Barnes would be more to your liking?
When I talked to Barnes in March of 2008 , I know he was very Pro-Barack Obama and his wife had a decent shot at getting them good seats at the Democratic National Convention.
- Ed C.
Have you read any Steven Barnes?
Quote from: jeff37923;318397Have you read any Steven Barnes?
Recently?
No.
10 years ago - yes.
However, in person the man is definitely NOT "conservative" in his politics.
Great fun to talk to.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;318398Recently?
No.
10 years ago - yes.
However, in person the man is definitely NOT "conservative" in his politics.
Great fun to talk to.
- Ed C.
So if eveyone had the opportunity to have private time with Steven Barnes, that would be equivalent to reading one of his novels. Which novel would that be, Ed?
Quote from: Spike;318393This is just CRYING out for a comment about how people dealing with science have to deal with repercussions and the like, while fantasy worlds have magic to cure all their problems....
.... but I wouldn't be that cheap. :D
I would never call you cheap. Easy, yes, but never cheap. ;)
I've always been interested in the old TSR Dark Sun setting for that very reason: magic had a terrible ecological impact.
You best be remembering that, OTS... don't get too wild with that paycheck until after....
Quote from: Spike;318393This is just CRYING out for a comment about how people dealing with science have to deal with repercussions and the like, while fantasy worlds have magic to cure all their problems....
.... but I wouldn't be that cheap. :D
Of course it may just be that most of the sci-fi I've read is very militaristic.
Quote from: mhensley;318387Is it just me or does it seem like most Sci-Fi novels are conservative and most Fantasy ones are liberal? At least in the case of Sci-Fi, the authors can get very preachy (at least the stuff I've read lately- David Weber, Heinlein, John Ringo) and it eventually sours me on it.
I'd go so far as more sci fi being conservative and more fantasy being liberal, with notable exceptions, sure. I soured on Anne McAffrey eventually for the same reason, despite liking the first books I read (but she's more sci fi).
But I have to say, I'll give you Weber and Ringo as preachy, but Heinlein always struck me as having a fairly wide range of voices. Most of his stories deal at least broadly with personal freedom and responsibility, but not in a consistently right-wing fashion. Starship Troopers and Moon is a Harsh Mistress have such opposed morals that if you do consider them preachy you have to assume one or both are preachy "in character" of the protagonist, or as an exploration of a concept, not the author's unfiltered views. Stranger in a Strange Land certainly is no right wing manifesto; Heinlein got a few letters from hippy communes asking for advice and guidance after it came out! I suggest you may be blind to differences between modern conservativism, proto-libertarianism and old fashioned, pre-partisan American ideas of personal freedom.
Quote from: jeff37923;318335Hairfoot's right, Koltar. Roddenberry's Federation in Star Trek is a socialist wet dream, particularly The Next Generation (where you even had a mind-reading ship's counselor to ensure that the crew thought appropriately, the Bad Guys were often either militaristic Klingons/Cardassians or capitalistic Ferengi or perfidious Romulans, and Q was around to demonstrate that a God was nothing more than very powerful spoiled brat).
Sorry, but Roddenberry's original startrek made it VERY clear that the Klingons were the Soviets, and Kirk & co. over at Starfleet were Kennedy Democrats.
QuoteThankfully, JJ Abrams came along and drove a wooden stake into the vampiric undead heart of Roddenberry's Ghost to ensure that Star Trek didn't suck anymore as a franchise.
When Roddenberry was in charge, Star Trek was the most popular Sci-fi TV show in North American history.
IT was later, when Berman(?) took over, that they fucked it all up, and mainly by moving too far from Roddenberry's vision over into Nerd Country.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;318432When Roddenberry was in charge, Star Trek was the most popular Sci-fi TV show in North American history.
IT was later, when Rick Berman(?) took over, that they fucked it all up, and mainly by moving too far from Roddenberry's vision over into Nerd Country.
RPGPundit
I mostly agree with that thought .
Also, I'm guessing around 40% of TREK fandom might as well.
- Ed C.
Quote from: RPGPundit;318432Sorry, but Roddenberry's original startrek made it VERY clear that the Klingons were the Soviets, and Kirk & co. over at Starfleet were Kennedy Democrats.
Who just happened to go into space and find God every other week?
Quote from: RPGPundit;318432When Roddenberry was in charge, Star Trek was the most popular Sci-fi TV show in North American history.
Which was only a fraction of the franchise's longevity.
Quote from: RPGPundit;318432IT was later, when Berman(?) took over, that they fucked it all up, and mainly by moving too far from Roddenberry's vision over into Nerd Country.
Roddenberry's vision included the first couple of season's of The Next Generation and the heavy handed moralistic influence on the show bibles up until the JJ Abrams movie. That is, after the money for actually writing the show's bible was awarded to David Gerrold in a dispute adjucated by the Writer's Guild of America (seems Roddenberry was happy to plagerize Gerrold, but not pay him even after Gerrold's writing gave Trek its Tribbles).
And actually, didn't Paramount assign Rick Berman to Roddenberry after he made the overbudget turkey of Star Trek: The Motion Picture? You know, to ensure that he didn't fuck up again?
As for ron moore, he later turned around and created a p.c., moral-relativist nihilist anti-civilization piece of crap, where they also end up "finding god".
RPGPundit
Quote from: jeff37923;318442.........And actually, didn't Paramount assign Rick Berman to Roddenberry after he made the overbudget turkey of Star Trek: The Motion Picture? You know, to ensure that he didn't fuck up again?
Your facts are off (again).
STAR TREK: The Motion Picture was 1978 (filiming) 1979 (released)
STAR TREK: THe Next Generation started Production in late 1986 after Paramount noticed that VOYAGE HOME was a huge hit at the box office. TNG premiered in Early October of 1987. There is no political connection between the two projects.
From the Wikpedia article on Rick Berman:
QuoteIn 1987, Roddenberry selected Berman and Maurice Hurley to help create Star Trek: The Next Generation.[2] Initially, he shared supervising producer duties with Robert H. Justman; after Justman changed to consulting producer duties, Berman was promoted to co-executive producer.[2] As Roddenberry's health declined, Berman took over more of the show's daily production; he was promoted to executive producer in the show's third season, following Hurley's departure.[2] Berman wrote the TNG episodes "Brothers" and "A Matter of Time".[2] In its final year, The Next Generation became the first syndicated television show to be nominated for the Best Dramatic Series Emmy.[2]
In some interviews with both Roddenberry and Majel Barret it is revealed that Gene knew his healthg was declining - he chose Berman to manage the show for him...not Paramount.
Again , Jeff, your constant slams of Gene Roddenberry are getting old and boring.
- Ed C.
Entirely too much information on Star Trek there, chaps. :emot-clint: Let's get back to the more interesting stuff.
Hypothesis: Wushu is communism. Discuss.
Quote from: OneTinSoldier;318380Yes, if only we had a magic way...
In the meantime, over-population in sub-Sahara Africa, central Africia, & the Horn continues to cost hundreds of thousands of lives & social dissolution.
Holland has a stable political environment and a developed infrastructure. Comparing it to Niger is like saying cows don't need water to breath, so fish do not either.
.
Intertesting position (I say interesting i mean ... um the same as everyone else says ) but not necessarily true. There is a school of thought that says overpopulation is a myth and if you take sub-sarharan africa say ... Sudan the average population density is 14/km (the 194th highest in the world compared to say Indai with 344/km (the 29th highest). The real problem in Sub-sarharan Africa is the people that live on the boarders of arid areas are politically unable to migrate so the land gets increasingly poor. In Sudan in particular the political oppression of Darfur and the cycle of civil war it leads to doesn't help any.
In fact The densest mainland African state is Rwanda and prior to the genocide in '94 it had a realatively high standard of living. Overall thepopulation density of Africa as a whole is only about 17/km (1/2 the global average) .
Sorry if this sounds a bit preachy but I get unnecessarily narked when people trot out the same old Africa is in the shitter becuase "its population density is too high and women have 8 kids each". Now if only they had replicators...
Oh and the problem with the TREKverse running on Intellectual property is that the people inventing stuff won't be doing it for money they will be doing it for prestige, fame and possibly in a few rare instances the common good. The reason for this is simple once you have a replicator you don't need money cos you can replicate. Therefore everything will be given away for nothing in order to get it out there, much like the internet without the need to advertise.
Quote from: Koltar;318475Your facts are off (again).
STAR TREK: The Motion Picture was 1978 (filiming) 1979 (released)
STAR TREK: THe Next Generation started Production in late 1986 after Paramount noticed that VOYAGE HOME was a huge hit at the box office. TNG premiered in Early October of 1987. There is no political connection between the two projects..
Bullshit. The connection is Roddenberry.
Keep trying to obfuscate the truth.
Quote from: Koltar;318475In some interviews with both Roddenberry and Majel Barret it is revealed that Gene knew his healthg was declining - he chose Berman to manage the show for him...not Paramount.
From a June 6, 2009 interview with David Gerrold -
QuoteYeah, now Rick Berman was not...Gene didn't like Rick, at all. But Rick was installed on the show by the studio as a way to keep a control on the show. To keep it from getting out of hand. To keep the budgets in line, make sure that the scripts were done. Rick was there to manage the details. To make sure that the scripts got done on time, and that production moved along. Because the studio was a little bit afraid of another debacle like STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE, which had gone way over-budget, way out-of-control, and was a big fat turkey. And the studio knew their problem then had been Gene. And so they put Rick in place to try and make things work. To work around Gene, to make it work.
Quote from: Koltar;318475Again , Jeff, your constant slams of Gene Roddenberry are getting old and boring.
Again Ed, you are a Trekkie. One of those for whom Star Trek is not a science fiction franchise, but a religion with Roddenberry as the Holy Father.
Quote from: Mr AnalyticalD&D is the ultimate right wing wet dream. A bunch of guys who are better than your average joe set out into the middle of nowhere where they murder and kill everything they come across in order to stockpile gold and elaborate magical bling. There are no taxes, no state and any poor people that get in your way get their village burned to the ground. It's like Ayn Rand on PCP
That cocksmock is still around? He's one of the poster-child Bitter Non-Gamers, he's been whinging and shaking his fist in futile nerdfury for half a decade at least. I wouldn't pay attention to anything he says.
I think politics can be interesting in a game setting. Different groups and individuals want different things, some things they can and do compromise on, some things they can't or won't compromise on. You can chuck PCs into these conflicts and see what happens next, and there you have your adventure.
The key is that the politics of the game setting must not be stable. Things should be jumping up and down like mad. That way the actions of the PCs can make a difference, and players get into the game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;318472As for ron moore, he later turned around and created a p.c., moral-relativist nihilist anti-civilization piece of crap, where they also end up "finding god".
RPGPundit
You mean his work on
Roswell? I can't argue with that.
If you mean
Battlestar Galactica - well winning a Peabody Award, a Hugo Award, and an Emmy Award must not mean much to you.
Not to mention, no writer to my knowledge has had any problems with Ron Moore over
Battlestar Galactica. The stories of Roddenberry's ham-fisted treatment of writers and fucking up episodes are legion.
Quote from: jibbajibba;318341I mean no one actively wants the starving millions and unfair distribution of resources we just accept it as a result of the result of the fact that resource pool is limited and the more sucessful nations/indivdiuals will therefore grab more of the stuff.
I know a few social darwinists who actively think that starving Ethiopians are a good thing, since it means a market to be exploited, and some Ethiopians should be getting rich off it.
Right royal bastards, really, see any social welfare laws as bad for the species, and welfare programs as theft.
Heinlein was a rabid libertarian. Every stinking one of his later works I've read was preachy libertarian crap.
His "juveniles" lacked that, for the most part.
Heinlein was kind of a mental case; its very hard to say what his real political leanings were.
RPGPundit
Quote from: aramis;318554Right royal bastards, really, see any social welfare laws as bad for the species, and welfare programs as theft.
You don't see welfare programs as theft? :D
Quote from: RPGPundit;318638Heinlein was kind of a mental case; its very hard to say what his real political leanings were.
RPGPundit
Not really. All you have to do is read his book on political activism entitled
Take Back Your Government (http://www.amazon.com/Take-Back-Government-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0671721577/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249586226&sr=8-1)to see that he was pretty conservative with a dash of libertarianism. Not hard to say what his political leanings are when he tells you in a book.
Ah... but it is ALWAYS easier to simply paint people you disagree with as 'confused' or 'fucked up' than to actually rebut anything they say. That's why its so popular.
Also: Ignore any replies from Jeff, he is a moron :p
Quote from: Spike;318673Also: Ignore any replies from Jeff, he is a moron :p
That's MISTER Moron to you. :D
My Apologies, Mr. Moron, sir!
Quote from: Spike;318673Ah... but it is ALWAYS easier to simply paint people you disagree with as 'confused' or 'fucked up' than to actually rebut anything they say. That's why its so popular.
Also: Ignore any replies from Jeff, he is a moron :p
I should listen to the Pika's advice more often....
- Ed
Quote from: Koltar;318687I should listen to the Pika's advice more often....
- Ed
Only as long as it keeps your fellow Klingon cosplayers from robbing convenience stores with bat'leths.
(http://www.thedenverchannel.com/2009/0204/18642086_640X480.jpg)
Quote from: jeff37923;318696Only as long as it keeps your fellow Klingon cosplayers from robbing convenience stores with bat'leths.
That person is a criminal NOT a "cosplayer".
I am NOT a "cosplayer" either. the groups I work with normally benefit a charity.
You've crossed the line into Nox territory with that last post.
- Ed C.
You do realize you've started to sign your posts twice, right?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318490That cocksmock is still around? He's one of the poster-child Bitter Non-Gamers, he's been whinging and shaking his fist in futile nerdfury for half a decade at least. I wouldn't pay attention to anything he says.
:D
I think his stated reason for leaving here was we were all too mean to him.
Quote from: Koltar;318766I am NOT a "cosplayer" either.
- Ed C.
From your own signature...
Klingon Votes on November 4th: http://s3.silent-tower.org/TheKlingonVotes/index.html
Do you deny that this is you dressed up as a Klingon depicted in that link?
Quote from: wikipedia entry on cosplayCosplay (コスプレ, kosupure?), short for "costume roleplay",[1] is a type of performance art whose participants outfit themselves, with often-elaborate costumes and accessories, as a specific character or idea.
You dressing up as a Klingon, acting the role of Koltar/Quoltar/whatever sure fits the definition of cosplay. Regardless of whether or not you like the word cosplay, you are exhibiting the behavior.
Quote from: jeff37923;318672Not really. All you have to do is read his book on political activism entitled Take Back Your Government (http://www.amazon.com/Take-Back-Government-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0671721577/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249586226&sr=8-1)to see that he was pretty conservative with a dash of libertarianism. Not hard to say what his political leanings are when he tells you in a book.
Heinlein wrote that book in the mid-40s, decades before his death. Over the course of the rest of his life, his political ideas went on evolving, shifting back and forth around the political "spectrum", and no doubt affected by not only changing times but also by events in his personal life (not least of which was the brain-fever).
I generally like Heinlein, but he's far too complex to tack into a single political "side", and anything he says about politics can only be taken at what he was thinking at a given moment.
RPGpundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;318793Heinlein wrote that book in the mid-40s, decades before his death. Over the course of the rest of his life, his political ideas went on evolving, shifting back and forth around the political "spectrum", and no doubt affected by not only changing times but also by events in his personal life (not least of which was the brain-fever).
I generally like Heinlein, but he's far too complex to tack into a single political "side", and anything he says about politics can only be taken at what he was thinking at a given moment.
RPGpundit
You have a point, but if his political ideology changed in a radical fashion from that written down then you'd think that those who knew and worked with him like Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven would have mentioned something in the interim.
Quote from: One Horse Town;318769I think his stated reason for leaving here was we were all too mean to him.
But we're mean to
everyone! It's not like we were picking on him. That would be political.
Quote from: jibbajibba;318483Intertesting position (I say interesting i mean ... um the same as everyone else says ) but not necessarily true. There is a school of thought that says overpopulation is a myth and if you take sub-sarharan africa say ... Sudan the average population density is 14/km (the 194th highest in the world compared to say Indai with 344/km (the 29th highest). The real problem in Sub-sarharan Africa is the people that live on the boarders of arid areas are politically unable to migrate so the land gets increasingly poor. In Sudan in particular the political oppression of Darfur and the cycle of civil war it leads to doesn't help any.
In fact The densest mainland African state is Rwanda and prior to the genocide in '94 it had a realatively high standard of living. Overall thepopulation density of Africa as a whole is only about 17/km (1/2 the global average) .
Sorry if this sounds a bit preachy but I get unnecessarily narked when people trot out the same old Africa is in the shitter becuase "its population density is too high and women have 8 kids each". Now if only they had replicators...
.
You're using the numbers, but the numbers often lie in situations such as these. You're right about the use of land, except that the very dry numbers ignore cultural, social, and political issues-effectively putting the cart before the horse. Rwanda had a decent standard of living by Africian standards before the killings, but for various political, social, and cultural reasons a significant portion of the population felt that said standard of living was insufficent. And felt strongly enough that the killing started.
Just as sufficent First world citizens feel that their standard of living is barely sufficent, and needs upgradeing, no matter what the cost to the Third World.
In the realm of realpolitik, preception is the reality.
The reality of American grain-fed beef means massive amounts of food production is expended in a pointless closed loop. But frankly, I'm certainly not interested in changing my eating habits. Nor are most Americans.
One of the prime directives of political science: self interest is the dominant motivation of every culture, and any political sitation that is not based on that concept is doomed to failure.
So: the fact is, Earth cannot support six billion people at First World standards of living. We know people are not going to change, so the fact is that barring the magic replicator technology, a good percentage of the world will live their lives in squalor. And I suspect that much like modern medicine, just the development of great technology in the First World will generally not translate into aid for the Third World.
World-wide, more tonnage of weapons are shipped into the failing parts of the world than food.
Quote from: RPGPundit;318638Heinlein was kind of a mental case; its very hard to say what his real political leanings were.
RPGPundit
Very true.
His opinions on the military are likewise all over the field, from arch convservative to really out there.