Quote from: The Thing on May 22, 2021, 09:20:38 PM
i'm amazed the ultraleft hasn't gone after him yet. Yes it's ridiculous, but so is the ultraleft. I mean  sure elric was at best an antihero type, but he was the protagonist and white, making him 'racist' in the eyes of the ultraleft. He was also, frankly, the best of his people and again, WHITE!- hence RACIST!!!!

I guess they'll get to him sometime. But you know the old saying "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" What if the ultraleft screams "RACISM!" at Moorcock and his fandom ignores them?

He is a weak albino. If someone screams against Elric just counterattack by randomly using "Body Shaming" and "Ableism" in your answer.

I actually met Moorcock back in the early '90s, at a book signing at the Forbidden Planet in London. During the Q&A someone asked if the relationship between Elric and Stormbringer was symbolic of Moorcock's battle against substance abuse (basically, without it you are weak and in pain and unable to act, but its use slowly destroys those who you love, your World and, at the end, yourself).

Moorcock refused this interpretation and said that, when he created Elric, he took Conan and, character trait by character trait, he created someone who was "the total opposite of the howardian hero"." Then he inserted Stormbringer in the equation.

Anyway, it is possible that Moorcock will be shielded from random woke strafings thanks to the fact that he strongly criticised the production of "authoritarian" fiction by certain canonical writers (i.e. R.A. Heinlein), and H.P. Lovecraft for "having antisemitic, misogynistic and extremely racist viewpoints that he wove into his short stories." This back in 1978, in his infamous (to some) essay "Starship Stormtroopers" (in it Moorcock basically flogs everybody, from Tolkien to Richard Adams and from Lovecraft to Ayn Rand. Not even Isaac Asimov is safe 🤣).

http://web.archive.org/web/20021224193414/http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/moorcock.html

Pretty sure moorcock is subversive enough and a pinko enough to be left alone for now.
Combined with his general anonymity.

He is high enough on the totem pole (and keeps his head down enough) it will be a while before the mob eats him.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 23, 2021, 12:14:03 PM
Pretty sure moorcock is subversive enough and a pinko enough to be left alone for now.
Combined with his general anonymity.

He is high enough on the totem pole (and keeps his head down enough) it will be a while before the mob eats him.

They already ate Rowling. Only a matter of time before they eat Octavia Butler because Lilith's Brood is transphobic.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 23, 2021, 12:32:31 PMThey already ate Rowling.

High profile+speaking out, is why they targetted her.

They will all be targetted, im just saying why it will be a while before moorecock is.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 23, 2021, 12:41:16 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 23, 2021, 12:32:31 PMThey already ate Rowling.

High profile+speaking out, is why they targetted her.

They will all be targetted, im just saying why it will be a while before moorecock is.

I don't think that people like Michael Moorcock or Alan Moore can be "targeted". Someone like J.K. Rowling has a reputation and an image to maintain. If you attack Moorcock he will simply say "here we go again". Maybe he will be add "Oh, for the times when you were attacked for speaking against the Vietnam War! Alas, for the poor souls of today!"

And the above just to amuse his grandchildren, of course.

Quote from: Reckall on May 23, 2021, 01:27:52 PMI don't think that people like Michael Moorcock or Alan Moore can be "targeted".

Considering they thrashed other authors, they don't come off as the rebellious type to me. Or at least the kind to rebel against their 'side'.
I get more the impression that they are keeping their mouths shut and hoping this passes over them until after they die.

Because while JK Rowling has an image to maintain, she ultimately spoke up for her opinions and was surprised by the mob arrayed against her. Michael has yet to do something similar.

Quote from: Reckall on May 23, 2021, 12:06:54 PM

Quote from: The Thing on May 22, 2021, 09:20:38 PM
i'm amazed the ultraleft hasn't gone after him yet. Yes it's ridiculous, but so is the ultraleft. I mean  sure elric was at best an antihero type, but he was the protagonist and white, making him 'racist' in the eyes of the ultraleft. He was also, frankly, the best of his people and again, WHITE!- hence RACIST!!!!

I guess they'll get to him sometime. But you know the old saying "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" What if the ultraleft screams "RACISM!" at Moorcock and his fandom ignores them?

He is a weak albino. If someone screams against Elric just counterattack by randomly using "Body Shaming" and "Ableism" in your answer.

I actually met Moorcock back in the early '90s, at a book signing at the Forbidden Planet in London. During the Q&A someone asked if the relationship between Elric and Stormbringer was symbolic of Moorcock's battle against substance abuse (basically, without it you are weak and in pain and unable to act, but its use slowly destroys those who you love, your World and, at the end, yourself).

Moorcock refused this interpretation and said that, when he created Elric, he took Conan and, character trait by character trait, he created someone who was "the total opposite of the howardian hero"." Then he inserted Stormbringer in the equation.

Anyway, it is possible that Moorcock will be shielded from random woke strafings thanks to the fact that he strongly criticised the production of "authoritarian" fiction by certain canonical writers (i.e. R.A. Heinlein), and H.P. Lovecraft for "having antisemitic, misogynistic and extremely racist viewpoints that he wove into his short stories." This back in 1978, in his infamous (to some) essay "Starship Stormtroopers" (in it Moorcock basically flogs everybody, from Tolkien to Richard Adams and from Lovecraft to Ayn Rand. Not even Isaac Asimov is safe 🤣).

http://web.archive.org/web/20021224193414/http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/moorcock.html

Oof! That was a turgid spiel. I actually haven't read any Moorcock, but I doubt his writings would survive a similar examination.

SST is extremely vague and it's difficult to determine what the Terran Federation is actually like. It's very progressive in terms of how racial differences, gender, and disabilities are treated, but the political tracts feel like regurgitated and cynical propaganda.

Also, if you count every instance of hypnosis mentioned then you can contrive a theory that the Federation uses rampant hypnosis (which isn't an effective argument, as hypnosis doesn't work in real life).

Starship Troopers is more a response to beurocracy than a desire for authoritarian control. The idea/hope is that if you want to be a politician or demand to have policies implemented you need to do 3 years' worth of community service first. It just so happens the events are happening during a war, so community service entails military service. If you where unfit for service, they would find something else for you to do.

Generally, yes.

Heinlein's politics and social views in general were all over the map.

My thought was that to hold any kind of office or vote in any initiative beyond 'basic local', you had to go through a term of service. In times of war, this was generally in the military, but I could easily see forestry ranger positions as a peacetime option.

Also, there are sharp and severe penalties for committing crimes in the society of SST. Caning/flogging, indentured servitude, and yes, executions for felonious acts against one's fellow citizens/civilians.

The corporal punishment bit is so outdated. Studies have shown that severity of punishment doesn't deter crime, higher risk of getting caught does. That's why increasing the size of the police force doing patrolling reduces the crime rate.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 23, 2021, 06:33:14 PM
Generally, yes.

Heinlein's politics and social views in general were all over the map.

I mean I don't agree with all of them. I just feel he is unfairly pigeonholed as a fascist or a warmonger.
When in the book it's stated that even somebody quadriplegic and blind would find something to do.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 23, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
The corporal punishment bit is so outdated. Studies have shown that severity of punishment doesn't deter crime, higher risk of getting caught does.

It's a principle/philosophy thing more than social science thing. I really liked CS Lewises lecture about crime and rehabilitation about this.

But to the main question: Will the next book be drow? Probably not. They are too understaffed to have time for a dedicated splat of that sort.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 23, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
The corporal punishment bit is so outdated. Studies have shown that severity of punishment doesn't deter crime, higher risk of getting caught does. That's why increasing the size of the police force doing patrolling reduces the crime rate.

Greetings!

Whatever "studies" you must be reading are flawed. Common sense tells you that in a society where the justice is pussy coddling and weak, a rational person is more tempted to engage in crime. In a justice system where a criminal is severely flogged and fucking strung up to swing high for everyone to see, that people are less inclined to engage in crime.

Yes, of course a higher chance of getting caught plays a role--but if the punishment is pussy codling, who cares if you get caught?

Stretching the criminal's stupid ass on the jig is not only good for showing the population the price of crime, but also demonstrates that justice will be swift, severe, and ruthless. It also ensures that the criminal doesn't repeat offend--as we know much of the crime is perpetuated over and over again by the same small percentage of evil, dysfunctional, morons.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on May 23, 2021, 07:00:01 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 23, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
The corporal punishment bit is so outdated. Studies have shown that severity of punishment doesn't deter crime, higher risk of getting caught does. That's why increasing the size of the police force doing patrolling reduces the crime rate.

Greetings!

Whatever "studies" you must be reading are flawed. Common sense tells you that in a society where the justice is pussy coddling and weak, a rational person is more tempted to engage in crime. In a justice system where a criminal is severely flogged and fucking strung up to swing high for everyone to see, that people are less inclined to engage in crime.

Yes, of course a higher chance of getting caught plays a role--but if the punishment is pussy codling, who cares if you get caught?

Stretching the criminal's stupid ass on the jig is not only good for showing the population the price of crime, but also demonstrates that justice will be swift, severe, and ruthless. It also ensures that the criminal doesn't repeat offend--as we know much of the crime is perpetuated over and over again by the same small percentage of evil, dysfunctional, morons.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

What social science studies reveal about human psychology is often at odds with our "common sense".

If what you're saying is true, then we would expect developed countries with more lenient justice systems to have worse crime compared to the USA. Is that what we see?

According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:

QuoteThe claim that corporal punishment is an especially effective deterrent has been refuted by empirical evidence, however, which shows that offenders who are punished by corporal means are actually slightly more likely to commit further crimes than are those punished by imprisonment.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 23, 2021, 07:28:19 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 23, 2021, 07:00:01 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 23, 2021, 06:44:53 PM
The corporal punishment bit is so outdated. Studies have shown that severity of punishment doesn't deter crime, higher risk of getting caught does. That's why increasing the size of the police force doing patrolling reduces the crime rate.

Greetings!

Whatever "studies" you must be reading are flawed. Common sense tells you that in a society where the justice is pussy coddling and weak, a rational person is more tempted to engage in crime. In a justice system where a criminal is severely flogged and fucking strung up to swing high for everyone to see, that people are less inclined to engage in crime.

Yes, of course a higher chance of getting caught plays a role--but if the punishment is pussy codling, who cares if you get caught?

Stretching the criminal's stupid ass on the jig is not only good for showing the population the price of crime, but also demonstrates that justice will be swift, severe, and ruthless. It also ensures that the criminal doesn't repeat offend--as we know much of the crime is perpetuated over and over again by the same small percentage of evil, dysfunctional, morons.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

What social science studies reveal about human psychology is often at odds with our "common sense".

If what you're saying is true, then we would expect developed countries with more lenient justice systems to have worse crime compared to the USA. Is that what we see?

According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:

QuoteThe claim that corporal punishment is an especially effective deterrent has been refuted by empirical evidence, however, which shows that offenders who are punished by corporal means are actually slightly more likely to commit further crimes than are those punished by imprisonment.

The replication crisis called; it wants your bullshit statistics back...
https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/a-new-replication-crisis-research-that-is-less-likely-be-true-is-cited-more