this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
861 points (99.9% liked)

Memes

45295 readers
1511 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SuperSleuth@lemm.ee 56 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago

the cynical side of me liked it. ofc that may not be your kind of humor

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Actually, now that I think about it, has there even been a piece of media showing a utopia as capitalist? All the genuine utopias I can think of are usually at least socialist leaning. I say genuine cause there's also a huge number of works about "utopias" where the whole plot is about how the society isn't actually a utopia.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

that's because a capitalist Utopia is in no way realistic (and acutally self-contradictory). The only future Capitalism offers is a dystopian one (if we even get to have a future, which is not all that likely under current circumstances)

[–] TurretCorruption@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I think the closest we might would be a mixed economy utopia, where capitalism co-exists with things like workers rights and whatnot. Its probably difficult to write a believeable capalist utopia because it requires that the people at the top are all saints.

Although, with the advances in AI, maybe someone could write a story about some megacorp AI meeting everybody's needs. It might be an interesting writing experiment.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thawed_caveman@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There has to be one, but i think most sci-fi authors are left-leaning so their utopias and dystopias both reflect that.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're, uh, pretty super wrong about sci-fi authors being leftists. Maybe the modern ones, but historically they've been pretty right wing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

tmw you are trying to build up a leftist meme community over at !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com , so you use lemmy's wacky implementation of crossposts

[–] solivine@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago
[–] TurretCorruption@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I just want to point out that starfleet actively oppresses certain groups of people (genetically modified races usually), ignores the needs of their border worlds while simultaneously demanding they adhere to federation laws, and their entire legal system is broken. A judge forced Riker to prosecute Data despite the obvious personal connections.

Star Trek is not as much of a socialist utopia as people like to pretend it is. Its definitely a more liberal society, but equality is not a given.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I haven't watched all of the new trek but I feel like they were slowly turning around the anti GMO stuff with Bashir. They highlighted the absurdity of leaving a child permanently disabled when he could become a doctor instead.

[–] TurretCorruption@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

New trek tries to do something similar, at least in Strange New Worlds anyways. Theres a whole courtroom episode regarding a certain member of the enterprise. Its a pretty new episode so I won't spoil anything for people. Anyways, theres more than 100 years between the two shows and basically nothing has changed.

Bashir got an exception provided his father spend time in prison. I wouldn't call that a particularly major win, but thats just me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think it depicts a communist future quite well actually. Errors can and always will be made, Administration will always have to be done, it's just how do we go about those things once we achive a communist society? Proper Star Trek explores those questions and ofc the show in it of itself isn't flawless either

[–] alcasa@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 1 year ago

Both scenarios could actually happen at the same time

[–] FluffyPotato@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Mad Max is just a documentary of the Australian outback

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty sure Star Trek is actually full on communism given that they're a classless and moneyless society.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

you are correct. though the path to that kind of communism leads through the socialist stage of development

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ohh! So I rewatched Voyager!

Sevenofnine never wanted to be human.. Like she desperately missed the collective for a LOONG time. Janeway forced it on her.

Also! Janeway fucking killed off Tuvick. Dude was begging for his life.

Sorry haha, just wanted to bitch.

[–] lasagna@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The Borg are arguably the most evil force of that universe. What Janeway did is about the only way to convert them back.

Tuvick is a bit more morally ambiguous and a good pick. Either choice would have killed someone, in a sense.

I think a worse one is that time they grew a clone just for their organs. This was Voyager, right? Star Trek do be like that.

[–] drapeaunoir@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

IMHO this situation was not morally ambiguous, like at all. There was a transporter accident. Two crewmen died. That's that. The fact that a new sentient being came to life as a result is a completely separate matter. That being (Tuvix) as far as anyone should be concerned, was a newborn.

At that point, what you had was a tragic accident of no one's intention or volition.

The choice was never "save two crewmen" vs "save Tuvix," because at that point, the two crewman were already dead. And Tuvix was alive and in no danger. There was no moral impetus to do anything. A tragedy happened, it sucks. Move on with life.

So IMHO Janeway absolutely, intentionally, volitionally murdered Tuvix, who was a newborn in no danger. She absolutely resurrected two crewman who were already dead. She did this for her own personal reasons, and acted immorally. QED.

Thank you for coming to my irrationally-important-to-me TED talk.

[–] Sweedie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I just rewatched this episode after reading these comments and I have to say I completely disagree with you.

Firstly, Tuvok and Neelix were not dead in a classical sense. Their bodies and minds were merged together into a third being. If they had legitimately died, they would not have been able to separate Tuvix back into two separate ALIVE people. To suggest that Janeway somehow ressurected two dead men after murdering a third is a bit disingenuous IMO.

Additionally, I think it's a bit misleading to refer to Tuvix as a completely individual newborn. Right off the bat he introduced himself as both Tuvok and Neelix and expressed that the had retained all of the memories, skills, feelings, and characteristics of the two men. His entire personality was derived from these two men and not something new/unique to him. This is completely different then an actual babies who may inherit traits from their parents but are unique in their own right.

While they did not know if they would be able to separate Tuvix, they were willing to accept their loss and welcome the new guy, however they determined with confidence that they could perform the separation. At that point the moral dilemma becomes: do you let two people die to save one, or do you kill one person to save two?

It's a take on a classic dilemma which, on paper, feels obvious to answer. The point of the episode is to demonstrate how difficult this ethical dilemma actually is when you have to look a man in the face and tell him his life isn't more important than the lives of two others.

I think it was also intended to highlight Janeway's ability to do the right thing even when it is brutally difficult. The episode ends with her walking away, distraught and affected, while maintaining her demeanor. THAT is why she is the captain of the ship.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fpsfrank85@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

remember: Pessimism of the Mind, Optimism of the Will! revolutionary Optimism is hard to upkeep but helps with not falling into despair (I know that all too well unfortunately :/)

[–] PlexSheep@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Talkies are cringe, both is bad

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

what do you even mean? progressive Trekkies are cool and Tankie is just a derogatory word to describe revisionists

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ffkhrocks@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Also nothing is black and white and this meme just furthers the polarized belief that other=wrong makes mine right

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LazyBane@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What's the future under the nordic compromise?

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

the so called nordic compromise, is just an implementation of "social" "democracy" and even that has been eroded over the last few decades. It still upkeeps the exploitative nature of capitalism and is largely build on imperialism, racism and oil/fossil fuel money... As such, it still caters to the interests of the rich minority instead of the well-being of humanity at large

[–] LazyBane@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, capitalism and communism have both had pretty bad implementations historically.

Imo the issue is down the us humans. For these systems to work correctly we need to act in good faith, but we are inherently corruptable.

These systems are like beasts that need to be tamed to work properly, but alot of the time the people in charge like to just throw their hands up and go "that's just how it works!" and not really do anything to fix the issues just because they're comfortable in the now.

We saw it in how Stalen corrupted Marx's ideals and ran the Russian State into the ground, and we see it with how western governments have let themselves be corrupted by the influence of big corporate interests.

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Lenin already corrupted Marx's ideals. Stalin just deepened Leninism.

[–] Famko@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's why I feel weird when people start almost deifying Stalin or Lenin, it's just not true to the vision of Marxism.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Mad Max, but in pyjamas.

[–] query@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago
[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's the future under post-scarcity, not socialism. They have replicators, which has made manual labor, capitalism, and socialism obsolete. We do not have any such technology and therefore cannot achieve such a thing at this time.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

We already live in a "post-scarcity" world... there is absolutely nothing humans could need that we couldn't grow or produce. All the scarcity you see around you is artificially created and maintained - and that means socialism is far, far from obsolete.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] explodicle@local106.com 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think it's closer to communism than socialism or post-scarcity. There's no democratic control of the workplace to be seen; everybody just shares everything. But they don't have infinity starships for everyone.

I think the best episode which explores this idea is the DS9 baseball card episode. The card isn't post-scarcity; it's extremely valuable personal property.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheTechNerd@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What’s up with this place being too pro socialism.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

There is no such thing as being "too pro-socialism."

[–] morphballganon@mtgzone.com 7 points 1 year ago

Well, reddit was showing signs of going more authoritarian, so the people who aren't into that came here.

[–] cmdr_nova@hackers.town 5 points 1 year ago

@alsaaas @TheTechNerd either we as a society deconstruct capitalism or we as a species do not have a future

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

Reality has a left-wing bias, my friend

[–] havokdj@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The bottom is the society that will happen post-socialism. No matter what political system follows, it will always end up in the hands of those who seek to abuse it. Everybody wants to be wealthy and pain free, socialism requires that everyone feel the same degree of pain and suffering no matter what.

We are doomed to be on this rock to the end of our days, unless we can destroy it slowly enough to show us that we are ruining it, and give us the ability to feasibly evacuate it.

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There's nothing tankie about this. Nobody's celebrating genocide or conquest here.

[–] interolivary@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

Don't you know that anybody who's not cheerleading for the status quo is a tankie?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›