site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   3237 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for May 17, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So I've been watching X-Men '97 and started wondering what opinions here would be on how to deal with mutants if those kinds of powers started to show up in random people. Would you support registration? Something more serious? Nothing at all? Is it really ok to let someone with the destructive capabilities of a nuclear bomb just walk around, or board a plane, etc.?

…have you read Worm? I’d call it the definitive web fiction for superpowers.

For anyone who hasn’t—the setting has trauma-derived powers. Some small fraction of people are, upon having the worst day of their lives, handed a figurative gun. Depending on how poorly the next interaction goes, getting pressganged into the police is perhaps their best outcome.

Most Marvel-style laws would be unenforceable. A state monopoly on violence is right out. Plurality is possible, but slipping. Regions which can’t manage that devolve into warlordism and chaos.

Worm is the absolute best at working out what it would take to see lots of the standard superpower tropes. Why is there a central hero organization? How’d it end up looking like the Justice League instead of a military junta? How is there still a balance of power between criminals and the state? What’s Superman been doing all this time, and why is he in tights?

All these and more are addressed somewhere in this monstrosity of a story. It’s great.

It would depend on how many people get these powers, how powerful these powers are, and what are the mechanisms for getting these powers.

This post makes me really miss the Heroes TV show. The Boys kind of scratched that more gritty superhero show vibe but it's just become too overt in-your-face in its political stances, at least seasons 1 and 2 were more nuanced about it.

Also, obligatory SMBC Superman comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-07-13

So…Worm? You’ve probably already seen it, but if not, you’re in luck.

I haven't but my goodness nearly 1.6 million words? Thanks for the recommendation.

You expressed interest in non-political or nuanced storytelling, in gritty superhero vibes, and in analysis of the consequences of superpowers' numbers/magnitude/mechanisms, for all of which you got a perfect recommendation. If you'd said you wanted brevity, on the other hand...

I don't think I'd be here if brevity was something really important to me lol.

The way I see it, if it's good and the more there is to consume, the better.

I read the whole thing in about a week, and then had a pretty significant narrative hangover by the end.

The recommendations you're getting are correct. It is an amazingly effective story.

Ohhh, you’re in for a treat. It’s so good. Best justifications for so many superpower tropes. And just viciously violent.

Well, I do write a hard scifi novel set in the wake of an abortive singularity where people start getting superpowers for Plot Reasons™, so I suppose I've given it some thought. Or at least I had governments and polities would react.

It depends on how dangerous said power is. For someone who is no more threat than a random dude with a knife, you really don't have to bother. When they're the modestly dangerous, thorough surveillance and mandatory psychiatric followup. If they're incredibly powerful, they're usually conscripted into the military. And if they're both powerful and act up, then time for their brain to be put in a jar, or tamper proofed (fail deadly) high explosives embedded in their occipital protuberance.

Anyone who falls in between, they get a full time slap drone assigned to them, a concept happily ripped off from Banks. Something constantly hovering over their shoulder, ready to call for backup if sedatives, neurotoxins, or a bullet fails.

Some powers, such as telepathy or mind control, are severely restricted on pain of death. Non-consensual mind control is a capital crime, at least if you're not on a leash by a state. Technomancers are absolutely not supposed to mess about with AGI, on pain of having their heads exploded.

Of course, some people are simply too powerful to be handled in such a manner, but the governments of the globe devote a great deal of effort in having contingencies for their contingencies, and if you get really out of hand they'll have someone teleport you into the sun, or maybe a black hole. Not that even that can put down the equivalent of Superman.

If you want a more in depth explanation, well, I guess I wrote the book on it? But you can achieve a lot by playing them off each other, and mostly normalizing the strict monitoring and regulation of the lot. Which is how I'd expect it would go down.

Non-consensual mind control is a capital crime, at least if you're not on a leash by a state.

So, uh, asking for a friend (that friend is the Culture War Thread)

What are your thoughts on social media and porn?

Porn? I think it's harmless, potentially mildly positive and at least net neutral. I've already discussed in the past how it's associated with decreased rates of sexual assault. Of course some dudes do get addicted, but the overwhelming majority just jerk off and move on.

Social media? Relatively robust link to anxiety and depression. Most like causation and not correlation.

Sadly, I consume both, though the latter only because women are spooked if you don't have an Instagram profile. That does diminish the porn consumption, though I did say I don't think it's bad for you.

women are spooked if you don't have an Instagram profile

Instagram specifically, these days?

But I get the spooking. I set up a Facebook account when it first came out, didn't find it interesting, and didn't think about it in connection to dating because I was in an LTR at the time; a few years later another (somewhat younger) girl I dated found that abandoned profile and seemed genuinely weirded out by my not having Friended every person in my life, like I had the profile of a serial killer. I hadn't realized that Facebook had succeeded in growing from "More pretentious Myspace ripoff" to "Indispensable credential of social proof" in just a few years. Back in the before times we had to wait for a new SO to introduce us to friends and family, but apparently now if a man doesn't at least have a sort of "pre-introductory portfolio" in that regard girls worry that they might get the "it puts the lotion on its skin" treatment.

I eventually met my wife on OkCupid, back when dating sites were new and weird, but also deep and suggestive of a more positive future. Then Match bought it out, and swiping-without-depth apps beat it out, and now if you start to type "dating las vegas" into Google then autocomplete will helpfully suggest "dating last chopper out of nam" instead.

I believe the cool kids are primarily on Snapchat, but insta hasn't turned into an old age home quite yet.

A large bit of it is that women love snooping on profiles. It helps them get a lay of the land, though it's not like guys don't do that, but that's for altogether different terrain.

Does the guy know how to dress? Has some semblance of a social life? Does he have anything interesting going on that isn't just drinking beer, playing football on a PS4 and so on? Useful things to know. While the utter absence of a social media presence isn't necessarily a deal breaker, it's a big deal to the kind of women who haunt dating apps. And what am I, if not obliging? And what are my two dogs, if not incredibly photogenic? All I have to do is stick my face in the frame and they'll do the heavy lifting.

I've already said that you were incredibly lucky to be using dating apps before they were turned into glorified gacha games, and that too, meeting someone you could spend the rest of your life with there. Well, it's been long enough since that was the case that the two of you must be having a nice, comfortable old time. Don't mind me, not jealous in the least.

Back in the before times we had to wait for a new SO to introduce us to friends and family, but apparently now if a man doesn't at least have a sort of "pre-introductory portfolio" in that regard girls worry that they might get the "it puts the lotion on its skin" treatment.

That sure stirred up some thoughts. In rough chronological order order:

  • Boy, am I glad to already be married...

and now if you start to type "dating las vegas" into Google then autocomplete will helpfully suggest "dating last chopper out of nam" instead.

Oh lol, I guess I'm not the only one.

  • We need a total and complete shutdown on America until we figure out what the hell is going on.

  • Butlerian Jihad when?

The scenario I find most difficult to solve is exactly mind control, since it's a crime that leaves no evidence. Further, just by the existence of such power, every actual criminal could start using "a psychic mind controlled me to do it" as a defense. I just don't see how society could continue to function. (Also, will be sure to add your novel to my backlog.)

I disagree that it leaves no evidence. Certainly not if you have a surveillance state with a panopticon, let alone if you have other mind readers, preferably sanctioned by the state, who can check for themselves.

That makes such accusations largely moot, because every psychic is being constantly monitored 24/7, and their capabilities and limitations noted, so the government would know they were fucking with you well before even you did.

Note that while this is a near future setting, I'm pretty sure that the sudden appearance of superpowers would absolutely remove any qualms nations today have about omnipresent surveillance.

I do write a hard scifi novel

Do you? I keep checking the page every other day, and keep getting disappointed.

Kidding. I genuinely enjoyed the novel so far, I'm grateful for each chapter. I thoroughly recommend it to everyone here.

The reviews crack me up each time I take a look. "Pretty cool" - 3.5 stars, on a webzone with rating system where in practice 5 stars means 'readable, MAYBE'.

This? After I wrote a whopping 2 chapters in as many months? 🤨

Life got in the way. Though for good reasons, like running myself ragged with immigration paperwork and NHS bureaucracy. Rest assured the fic is alive and kicking, with even more nuggets of psychiatric bullshit when I know better.

The reviews crack me up each time I take a look. "Pretty cool" - 3.5 stars, on a webzone with rating system where in practice 5 stars means 'readable, MAYBE'.

I know precisely the one you mean. Wow, good book! Eh, clicking far to the right is taxing.

Now good sir, in the amount of time it took you to write this comment, you could have left a glowing review right there yourself. Ignore if you already have, but as an incredibly niche novel, it could use all the ones it could get, especially from the odd person who enjoys it.

Life got in the way

Honestly, I'm impressed you manage to be so productive, considering all you mention.

you could have left a glowing review right there yourself

I did a while ago, recommended to a friend too. "I'll take a look" - never did, flaky bastard.

Honestly, I'm impressed you manage to be so productive, considering all you mention.

I write the most when I'm drowning in work and responsibilities, it's a pleasant form of procrastination. But in this case, I have a legit fire under my ass, I can't afford to fuck up the one good thing I've got going haha.

I did a while ago, recommended to a friend too. "I'll take a look" - never did, flaky bastard

Why, thank you. If I had a Patreon, I'd bump you up to cameo in novel tier, but since I don't, I'll just hand that to you for free. If you do actually want a character to show up, just let me know and I'll make it happen.

That’s why I’ve always thought that the X-Men was a bad metaphor for prejudice. Say what you will about any particular ethnic/social/sexual group, a single one of them can’t usually annihilate an entire city block unaided.

In some ways, that difference can make it a better metaphor, especially for conversations in the 1990s and early-00s. Questions like whether you can treat sexual minorities with additional caution because of an infectious disease (or even protect them from themselves, as defenders of the Cuban concentration camps sanatorios argue even today), or ethnicities with suspicion because a co-religionist drove a plane into a building are still relevant, even if they're not the central case. Rogue killing someone with a casual touch, or Cyclops blowing up a city block with a blink, are exaggerations, but there are answers to these questions that also answer all the closer ones.

I'm a fan of bringing up trans stuff and gun stuff... well, partly because it makes both sides very uncomfortable, but also because the question of whether a dick gun makes a rapist murderer drives a lot of disagreement. Not all, especially outside of the TERF border, but a decent amount. And one reasonable response is that ability alone does not make for a deadly act: it takes either decision or negligence.

It's just that this ended up not being where the broader progressive movement actually went. There had always been a fraction insistent that prejudgement was fine for even things far smaller than leveling an skyscraper, it was just being pointed the wrong direction, and they won. Once you've decided that the possibility was enough, you're pretty quickly going to find yourself just haggling over the price. At the risk of pointing to metafictional example:

Huntington's disease was a hereditary degenerative disease with cognitive and psychiatric symptoms, one of which was psychosis. Huntington's was seen in perhaps one in eight thousand people, and psychosis was seen in perhaps one in ten of those. If a randomly selected human of Superman's apparent age were to obtain Superman's pwoers, there would be in a one in eight thousand chance that they would both have Huntington's disease and the symptoms of psychosis, the result of which would probably be casualties that would dwarf the Great War by a large margin...

When these probabilities were multiplied together, the final very rough estimate was that Superman had a one in ten chance of bringing about a global scale human catastrophe of some kind in the next thirty years. Even if the odds had been one in a hundred, Lex would have taken a similarly extreme course of action.

Same in Dragon Age with mages as an example of a discriminated against/enslaved caste.

Yeah, Blockbuster's mutant power to collapse local property values was a little on the nose.

It might be one of the earliest examples of existing franchises cramming left wing politics in for critical acclaim and foundation funding at the cost of becoming incoherent. Supposedly the mutant adventures thing was floundering before they decided to become a civil rights comic.

It's also somewhat interesting that X-Men is very (US) liberal coded. In contrast to typical US liberal positions favoring collective safety over individual freedom (stronger support for lockdowns, gun control), X-Men is rather explicitly opposed to government infringement on the liberties of mutants to use their powers freely. Ideas like the Mutant Registration Act or mutant power suppressive collars are often cast in a strongly negative light. All while Cyclops sneezing hard enough to drop his glasses is more dangerous than any gun.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats