Just got to thinking about this after those threads on The Expanse and Military Sci-Fi (which admittedly is probably the sub-genre least affected by this trend).
I know the case can be made for the existence of some conservative authors or sometimes conservative themes, of course they exist, but are they “swimming upstream” so-to-speak? Going against the flow of “the mainstream” of Sci-Fi?
I’m not looking for a list of conservative authors by the way, I want to hear if the people here think that Sci-Fi as a genre may or may not have an inherent bias towards the new, the previously unseen, and thus “progressive” ideas and ideologies. Not even necessarily to castigate Sci-Fi, merely to attempt to understand what’s happening.
The “Sad Puppies” folks probably have some insights on this subject but I don’t know much about them beyond their existence and their claim that the Sci-Fi book awards system has been subverted by leftist/progressive ideologues:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Puppies
Sad Puppies activists accused the Hugo Awards "of giving awards on the basis of political correctness and favoring authors and artists who aren't straight, white and male".
I do see the ideas of sci-if and “progressivism” as connected, but I’m not sure if that’s an inherent aspect of the genre, or if that is perhaps a cultural relic. I lean towards the idea that it is likely largely cultural (i.e. well respected sci-fi authors of old put “culturally progressive” themes in their books about Scientific “progress”, and that has carried on to this day) but I’m interested in where everyone else falls on the subject.
I dunno dude, I kind of feel like you’re operating in some kind of ontological realm where Truth is something that’s even considered by all, much less understood and agreed upon. That’s not to say that Truth doesn’t exist or any such postmodernist claptrap, I think our lives should, on the whole, be dedicated to the pursuit of Truth. I just also acknowledge that earnest, dedicated seekers (much less the unthinking hordes) can come to different conclusions, especially at different points in time / their lives.
Is not one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? One man’s junk another’s treasure? Like I say I’m not so sure.
In my experience, everyone who disagrees with me from the left, when pressed, thinks they are being “good”/“kind”/“tolerant” [ed. blegh] in their approach and thus that I am being evil/mean/wrong in mine. Of course their minds and moral frameworks are stuck in the mire of postmodernist brain rot, but within that mire they’ve been convinced of the shit they believe.
If it has to be "agreed on", it's not a truth at all. It's a consensus, crass democracy posing as truth.
And in my experience with terrorists, they know full well exactly what they are.
As for the left, you're making the mistake of assuming that their professed motivations are accurate, or even honest. Bad faith is a matter of course for these people.
Were you more or less leftwing / progressive / liberal in your youth?
What changed?
Is it conceivable that this never changes for some people?
Do you find Truth to be something graspable? Something you can hold in your hands and speak aloud? I’m talking about the actual, important Truth of things, not tautological silliness like “2+2 =4” - for example, what is the Truth of religion/spirit? Can you point me to a denomination of any group and honestly say “yeah, these guys here have the Truth”?
Point being, despite the acknowledged existence of Truth, I don’t think it really enters into our discussions often. It’s almost a meta-physical layer underlying and overlaying our existence, but only rarely and fleetingly breaking through. Most often only with the dedicated conscious effort of motivated individuals, it seems.
I was a far right prepper maniac in my youth and the only thing that changed is that I now have a wife and kids. Which I'll admit has made me determined to see the left dealt with as soon as possible so my kids don't have to do it.
Of course truth can be grasped, regardless of whether it's physically tangible or not. Take my phone for example. If I hold it out a window and drop it, it WILL fall. You can get fifty, a thousand, or a million people to say it won't fall, but it still will. Not because I say it will, either.
Because truth isn't subject to opinions or consensus.
Interesting background, I think yours might be more unique than most, my general sense of the average user here is that at some point in their life they called themselves “liberals” / “progressives” on at least some issues (drug laws, foreign intervention [which ironically seems to have flipped in the last decade] racial issues, sex/gender issues, etc), regardless of how loathe they might be to admit such today.
How do you go about evaluating intangible notions for their Truth? I go back to the religion point not to be unfair to you or overly rhetorical, but because I just think it’s a great summation of how no matter how much effort and conscious consideration we put to an issue, it’s very hard (if not impossible in some cases, at a given point in time) to discern what exactly the Truth of a matter may be, do you get what I mean?
Edit: to go back to your earlier point about “one man’s terrorist”, wouldn’t Americans have seen the founding fathers as freedom fighters, and the British/British loyalists have seen them as troublemaking terrorists?