Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

For Reals - 02 - HD (Patreon)

Published:
2021-10-14 04:29:27
Imported:
2021-12

Content

Somewhere to Talk About It

At egscomics 

Commentary

"Oh yeah, I have somewhere I can say this" has been the motivation for many a things I have written.

There are many reasons someone might enjoy a story, so it's not necessarily THAT strange if they don't care about the morals of a story while still liking other things it.

Still seems weird.

Files

Comments

AstroChaos

Hmm... It really isn't that weird. For a machine, yes, but humans are emotional bundles of contradictions. Being non-progressive - which, let's be honest, is really being "conservative" by whatever definition of that word you apply - and yet a fan of highly progressive media such as Star Trek is far from the most extreme example.

David Fenger

One can admire a utopia while still picking at the underpinning and wondering how it is all supposed to work.

Dan Merget

I think it's pretty common to enjoy a story but disagree with the morals. The classic film "Wizard of Oz" ends with Dorothy learning the lesson that she shouldn't have any ambitions or dreams beyond a quiet life on the farm. Love the movie, but that moral sucks. Similarly, the play "Annie Get Your Gun" ends with Annie deciding to be subservient to her man. The play came out in 1946, when the soldiers who had returned from WWII wanted to resume their roles as breadwinners. This meant that working women ("Rosie the Riveter") were being pressured to quit their jobs and return to being housewives. It's a great play with wonderful songs, but I don't like the ending. In the world of comics, I enjoyed Willingham's "Fables", but the author's right-wing politics occasionally seeped into the series. Mostly in the form of a villainous gun-toting straw liberal, but fortunately she didn't appear often.

Serith

The last np was kinda boring to be honest, hope this one has more transformation shenanigans and fun stuff overall.

Some Ed
>>69759219

Oh, I'd like to apply a definition to conservative that is quite progressive in today's world. But I learned long ago that conservatism has nothing to do with conserving anything, whether that's resources, people, or whatever - even thoughts. It might seem like it may be about conserving thoughts to some people, but I'd recommend those people take a closer look at the leaders of their own political party and see what some of them asking of their followers. Conserving of thoughts isn't a conservative thing to do - it's a control thing.

Applestone

Maybe some conservatives do like the morals of the story, but don't believe that they're realistic.

Chordat

ehhhh... Calling Star Trek "progressive" never sat well with me. Like, yeah, they're culturally advanced to the point of post-scarcity, and a lot of modern issues have either been resolved or made obsolete, but at the same time, Trek is weirdly conservative as regards advanced technology. In a lot of episodes where some new bleeding-edge tech is featured, that technology usually ends up going wrong for no other reason than BECAUSE it is bleeding-edge technology. TNG's particle fountain, TOS's shipboard AI and those Mudd androids, Voyager's Krenim timeship just to name a few off the top of my head. Not to mention the cultural and authorial bias against genetic and cybernetic enhancement. If there's an area where the Imperium of Mankind is more progressive than you are, you're probably doing something wrong.

Sogen

Oh Susan, you're about to step in it big time...

Matt R

I wonder what movie she'll be asked about: Big Trouble in Little China?

Anonymous
>>69762346

Not to mention they skip a lot of the painful soul searching and changing people's attitudes and just go "there was a huge war which was bad, so after that we were all enlightened", and it just doesn't happen that way. It has a huge blind spot for the idea that most of the time it's a bunch of hated misfits fighting against injustice in a society that *thinks* it's already enlightened (but isn't) that causes progress to be made. Edit: I mean, plots like that definitely show up, but aliens making the "wrong" choices is not the same thing. An external perspective defeats the point.

Anonymous
>>69759219

Also, what's considered "conservative" or "liberal" varies from place to place. Especially between cultures.

Dan Merget
>>69762346

In fairness, it's historically accurate for the beta version of new tech to have bugs that haven't been worked out yet. By the time we work out the kinks, it's no longer bleeding edge.

NakedSunFlower

We are interested in some kind of new thing without realizing that we like it so much, this is a fact. Definitely agree with one of the commentator here. We can enjoy the story but disagree with moral.

Lak
>>69762346

Tech working is boring. The computer on starships tend to work, until the plot needs them to fail (see Chekhov's gun). As someone who fixes computers, I know that when it works,no one gets credit, when it fails it's a disaster and something is to blame (rarely the user at the heart of it all). I'd love to hear about the Enterprise's sysadmin who keeps "Computer" running though. It is a story after all, and a hour long TV one at that. (I haven't seen Lower Decks, so that may be shorter.)

John Trauger
>>69759219

Actually, yes "conservative" does mean conserving something. I am a conservative in the sense of conserving "what works". Practicality. There are parts of what is political conservatism that I do not buy into because they aren't practical. It is highly unwise to bull rush into the unknown heedless of the consequences to 330million people, or 7 billion. And the only way to assess the possible consequences are to compare what you want to do to what people in the past have tried before. So conserving the past and what's succeeded/failed is important. That's Conservatism, at least at its shined-up best. That said, there's a dark side to everything human. (If you don't know what the dark side of Progressivism is. it is important that you learn it) A lot of you have experienced the dark side to Conservatism Unwillingness to change, and rejecting what's outside their experience. But it's not all dark side. Conservatism plays very prominently especially in the classic Kirk-Spock-McCoy Star Trek alongside content that was nearly heretically-progressive for its day. I think that is as it should be. The famous "Prime directive" is innately conservative. The Federation had seen what could happen to civilizations too young for interstellar contact and learned from it creating the Prime directive to shield future civilizations. I think later iterations of Trek became shallower and shallower as they more and more blatantly pushed a social agenda. If you have to reserve time for preaching there's less time for developing characters and telling a good story.

Some Ed
>>69759219

@John Trauger: That's a sort of conservatism I haven't really seen much of, outside of scifi. I used to practice it, but got very frustrated with how much the "conservatives" around me insisted on sticking with stuff that was shown to categorically *not* work, except for keeping "them" in "control". Or, rather, keeping the few pulling their strings where they could get their hands into the city's coffers, while the city continued its long slide into mediocrity. To be clear, I think that both the Republican party leaders and the Democratic party leaders are doing that same game, each with their own version of "what works", each doing their best to drain the country's wealth at their expense. Of course, that's *not* the dark side of Progressivism. That's the dark side of a two party system. At the top, neither side is truly vested in the political position they espouse, they just want to direct government funds their way. I don't know how to get to a system that really works, I just know this isn't it. And this isn't the place to discuss it.

Anonymous

I would really like to ask dan if they've ever read the webcomic "Faans"...

John Trauger
>>69759219

I come at things from an inverted perspective to you. When I was in high school, college and for a while after, I was a "liberal". the term "Progressive" didn't exist in its modern political sense. My desire for practicality and rationality led me rightward. It's not that Republicans were great at it. they were simply less-bad at it. As for defining such a high-functioning system, ask for high-functioning principles. The US was founded on the idea of strong emphasis on individual rights and responsibilities, limited government and equality among people. That last part's had to be expanded several times and needs expanding again, but it it weren't baked into the system, we wouldn't have kept at it. No system that "really works" is going to stay "really working" unattended. You have to conserve the "really working" parts and tinker with it as the world changes, setting aside what doesn't work or no longer works. If for no other reason that power attracts those to whom it should never be given. I think you'll find as lot of what both parties say "works" is just what gives them power. that's not a 'what works" at all and is usually a "what doesn't work." The leaders of both Republicans/Conservatives and Democrats/Liberals/Progressives encourage their loyalists to process their world in emotional rather than rational terms. It makes them easier to retain and mobilize. If you want a starting place for looking for dark sides, that's it.