Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Author claims modern society would appear completely dystopian to a visitor from the past   (io9.com) divider line 54
    More: Interesting, modern society, David Brin, George Wallace, Louise Brown, metabolic syndrome, social progress, basic rights, ethnic backgrounds  
•       •       •

13245 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Oct 2012 at 4:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-27 01:58:17 PM  
7 votes:
It seems pretty dystopian to me, too
2012-10-27 04:04:37 PM  
6 votes:
Author claims modern society would appear completely dystopian to visitor from 1999.
2012-10-27 04:12:59 PM  
4 votes:
No kidding. The biggest gift we had was fossil fuels and instead of building a better place for everyone we've created a better treadmill for most of us, and the few people on top get the benefit. Why is our work week still 40 hours? What are all these people "producing" if everything is so expensive?
2012-10-27 07:25:47 PM  
3 votes:
Divorce was almost completely unknown among my ancestors. However, since the Victorian marriage lasted an average of 11 years before one or both parties to the contract died, it was a lot easier to tough out than the Diamond anniversaries so common today would lead you to believe. Many of my ancestors were devout farmers who wore out two or three wives each, and some had more. A husband and a wife was not the basis of the family--it was the basis of the economic unit, and that unit has become much looser since women can work and earn as much or more than men.

Faced with the horrifying prospect of seventy year marriages contracted by foolish children of twenty or thirty, society changed the rules. It's OK to divorce. Having more than three spouses is still a big gauche, but not very. In any case, a lot of people didn't marry in the XIXth century because they couldn't acquire the income and the wealth. Whole families were forced to live together from cradle to grave, working the same dirt poor farm landland or moving away and hoping for the best. Whole families were wiped out by disease all at a blow, even in lightly settled and healthy farm country.

I am sure you could explain to an intelligent person of the XIXth century why we no longer believe in marriage for life--life is too long for that shiat, Bubba.

We could also explain contraception, abortion, and many other evils of our time, even homosexuality, in the reduction of their cost to inviduals, families and society. They never made any real sense in some cases, but there was an economic force at work which has now vanished, and the prejudice can't survive long without the economic incentive or some other strong incentive or disincentive.

I have found a number of ancestors who were victims of the Salem Witch Trials and others who were among the accusers. I have, through the agency of modernists, come to regard this as a shameful incident in your American--my formerly American family--history. We can see, with the benefit of hindsight, that greed, hatred, old scores, folly, madness, cowardice and other factors played a larger role than piety or even the superstitious belief in witchcraft and witches. The persecution stopped when several mistakes were made, such as accusing somebody rich enough to fight backé. When one of the richest men in Boston was accused he sued.

He sued his accusers for 1,000 pounds sterling (real British pounds, not piss-ant colonial pounds, I am guessing). This was towards the very end of the panic and probably one of the things which ended it. 1,000 pounds changed the economic under-pinnings of expropriating people through legal costs. Many of the agents of "justice" were making out like thieves, but if they could be sued successfully, they thought twice of going on. Let the Devil has his minions if he is going to play the game that way!

Bastards! Some of my ancestors have turned out to be SOBs, while others were obvious victims. Most of them seem to have been decent farmers or artisans, with a smattering of clergymen, schoolteachers, etc. In other words, the further back I go, the more they ressemble the population at large until the population at large becomes illiterate and too insignifican to marry, let alone record in the parish registers. That's when the aristocrats and kings and bishops take over--when they are the only ancestors to leave a paper trail or one carved in stone.

Genealogy's very educational. So, for that matter, is reading the better sort of books. You can learn so much of life from cartoons that you can understand how people lived and thought in the past two hundred years, and so much from diaries and other scribbles, that you can push your understanding back to classical or medieval times in some places or some social layers where novels were read and written and letters were mailed and delivered several times a day.
2012-10-27 05:54:31 PM  
3 votes:
While it's hard to tell from that truncated article (and my even more truncated reading of it), a lot of this dystopian-now nonsense seems to be related to a modern vision of a "noble savage" past: This idea that things were better in the past and people were satisfied with how things were or at least preferred them to the awful changes that were coming--presupposing that they knew the terrible future that lay in wait. This of course is nonsense.

For instance, factory work is now seen as dreadful, dehumanizing and bad for both the workers and the environment and OF COURSE our forebears would have thought it a terrible thing, right? Probably not. Modern factories are miracles of cleanliness and safety compared to Industrial Revolution factories; and even those nightmare mills were hailed as job creators (!) and makers of necessary goods. Loss of privacy? That assumes that our ancestors had privacy as we understand it. Back in the day, gossip, sewing circles and taverns ensured that neighbors and relatives knew one another's business only less thoroughly than they knew their own--if there is any change today it's the impersonalization of that gossip. If we were to go back to those halcyon days, we might be disconcerted to find out how much Great-Aunt Sophie knew about us and long for the anonymous knowledge of the government instead.

Instead of projecting our fears back on the past, it might be better just to accept that it wasn't really as perfect then as we wish it was. There never were any noble savages, folks.
2012-10-27 05:01:20 PM  
3 votes:

Gergesa: The idea of a woman being Minister of War or Secretary of State (ahem) would have seemed laughable - if not completely terrifying; women were considered to be overly emotional and sentimental - traits that might lead to irrational and ill thought-out political decisions.

A number of women at places I have worked have said they would not trust a woman as president for basically those reasons. But they have also opined that they hate working with other women. Not sure what to make of them.


People who complain women can't be in charge because they're too emotional and illogical usually get upset if they have to deal with a practical not-very-emotional woman. They think there's something wrong with a woman who isn't smiling, chatty, sociable, and trying to make other people happy.
2012-10-27 04:41:34 PM  
3 votes:
The last bit about obesity is completely wrong. Before 1900, such corpulence was a sign of wealth. In fact, muscular and tanned bodies, connected with low-class field work, were looked down about. Only when office work became the new norm and "fit" bodies became a sign of having more leisure time did this standard become attractive.

/armchair historian
//continue with your farking jokes
2012-10-27 04:35:28 PM  
3 votes:
Almost any person from any ancient society of even a hundred years or older would find modern society dystopian. Likewise go a hundred years in the future and the population will be equally appalled at our modern society. Values and morals change with time, and that's why it's foolish to be judgmental of previous societies. People need to be more tolerant and less judgmental, it would do everyone a world of good.
2012-10-27 04:17:24 PM  
3 votes:
I'm an alien from 1942 and find so much more of our modern culture dystopian than the few items in the article: the cults of science and of celebrity; social networking (why? tell me why!); kids and drugs; that crap you people call music; helicopter parenting that produces dependent, spoiled snowflakes; the dependence on technology for all entertainment (including Internet porn); the assumption that every corporation is intrinsically evil; farming reality TV that is as far removed from reality as...name your metaphor. Get off my lawn, please.
2012-10-27 04:13:37 PM  
3 votes:

GAT_00: As George Wallace infamously said at his 1963 inauguration, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

And the fun part is Republicans are still quoting and parroting his lines today. He was the one who made an attack on intellectualism popular. Nixon stole it from him and it became a GOP mainstay.


Hmm--so which Republican "today" said "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." ?
Oh and wasn't he a Democrat? Oh, right of course he was--since segregationists were southern Democrats. And attacks on intellectualism have been popular since Andrew Jackson (another Democrat), at least.

You know, kid, if you pick up a history book every once in a while you might be able to avoid looking so stupid on the Fark.
2012-10-27 04:07:28 PM  
3 votes:
The idea of a woman being Minister of War or Secretary of State (ahem) would have seemed laughable - if not completely terrifying; women were considered to be overly emotional and sentimental - traits that might lead to irrational and ill thought-out political decisions.

A number of women at places I have worked have said they would not trust a woman as president for basically those reasons. But they have also opined that they hate working with other women. Not sure what to make of them.
2012-10-27 05:40:21 PM  
2 votes:
Jeremy Rifkin should be mortified by being Jeremy Rifkin, period. I was 13 in 1978. I understood that a "test tube baby" was not grown in a test tube; it was implanted into the mother when it was still a bundle of undifferentiated cells. Jeremy Rifkin was, at that time, a college graduate in his 30s who had written books on biotechnology... and I knew what a "test tube baby" was better than he did. People still listened to him then; people still listen to him now; this proves people are morons.
2012-10-27 05:06:00 PM  
2 votes:
Lack of privacy?

FTA -"These institutions served as the backbones of communities - the go-to place to meet and greet the neighbors. Moreover, religion used to serve as the alpha and omega of moral, existential and metaphysical thought for the vast majority of the population. Very few people, particularly before the European Enlightenment, would dare to question anything about Scripture."

Everyone in town knows what goes on at your house and is gossiping about it. Just wait until the minister finds out. Church is going to be real fun this Sunday! Not to mention the rest of your life being judged by their "morals".

If going back to a time when women and minorities had no civil rights, criminals (as well as corrupt officials) had no fear of cameras witnessing their crimes, work meant exhaustion in the fields or injury in the factories, widespread hunger kept everyone skinny, and the church controlled everyone's behavior means our future-present is somehow "dystopian" then I say bring it on!

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going back to watching black lesbians scream "oh god!" as they dildo each other like crazy on a proxy and TOR secured internet connection paid for with easily earned ebay cash while eating a four course dinner. Later we're going to a swinger's party that the neighbors and the church know nothing about and fark other people's partners.

/Went to a gay wedding last weekend. It was the best wedding I've ever been to.
//Helped a disabled Mexican woman vote this week
///Didn't have to leave the recliner all day today
\If all that ain't utopia I don't know what is
2012-10-27 04:55:51 PM  
2 votes:

LegoLewdite: The last bit about obesity is completely wrong. Before 1900, such corpulence was a sign of wealth. In fact, muscular and tanned bodies, connected with low-class field work, were looked down about. Only when office work became the new norm and "fit" bodies became a sign of having more leisure time did this standard become attractive.

/armchair historian
//continue with your farking jokes

Mostly

true. The degree of obesity that we're seeing today would be unacceptable during most of history. Obesity to the point that one could no longer walk unassisted would have been considered to be a sign of weak character. Also, being fit and trim was quite acceptable as long as you didn't get that way by menial labor. Riding, walking (to look at scenery,not as a mode of travel), physical games, etc. were fine. Gardening was okay, too, if you were doing it as a hobby or for scientific studies.
2012-10-27 04:54:25 PM  
2 votes:
If you want to know what people from several centuries ago would think of our time, Google for "Cockaigne". The time we live in today is pretty similar if to what they visualized for that land, if you out the most fantastic elements (like pigs who walked around with knives in their back to make them convenient to carve). Most people would be too busy stuffing themselves with burritos to be worried about the fact that a woman is Secretary of State or that Mass isn't performed in Latin.

I suspect the thing they would find most horrifying right after stepping out the time warp is airplanes.
2012-10-27 04:34:28 PM  
2 votes:
One of the first things a visitor from the past would notice about our society is that virtually everyone is fat. As is stands, more than one-third of all Americans are now obese.

So which is it? 'virtually all'? Or only 1/3?

/dumbass clickbait article is dumb
2012-10-27 04:32:39 PM  
2 votes:

Challam: I'm an alien from 1942 and find so much more of our modern culture dystopian than the few items in the article: the cults of science and of celebrity; social networking (why? tell me why!); kids and drugs; that crap you people call music; helicopter parenting that produces dependent, spoiled snowflakes; the dependence on technology for all entertainment (including Internet porn); the assumption that every corporation is intrinsically evil; farming reality TV that is as far removed from reality as...name your metaphor. Get off my lawn, please.


Those same "cults" which produce the very technology for you to communicate over data networks to spew your brand of derp, produce the tools and medications to save your ass in the ER instead of prayer circles for that heart attack, produce the machines to speed you to your destination faster and more safely than ever before, and produce satellites which maintain watch over storms and aggressor nations from advancing upon us?

Go back to 1870 please. We don't need you here.
2012-10-27 04:29:52 PM  
2 votes:
Thomas Jefferson was into that whole "Gentleman Farmer" thing where people become one with the land and nature. He believed that cities were UNNATURAL aberrations and not a viable model of social development.
2012-10-27 04:25:36 PM  
2 votes:

m3000: If we were to tell a Southerner from pre-Civil War America that a black president would take office in 2012, he'd have a massive heart attack.

A lot of Southerns today are having that same reaction.


Not necessarilly. A lot of them did believe that Lincoln was at least part-black. And there were a heckuva lot of high-ranking Southerners whose rather dark complexions were officially laid down to "Cherokee" or "Spanish" blood, but everyone knew better. You just didn't say much because lots of these folks with "Cherokee" or "Spanish" blood habitually went armed and knew how to use a pistol or knife pretty well.
2012-10-27 04:13:35 PM  
2 votes:
I guess it's true what they say, one person's dystopia is another's utopia.
2012-10-27 04:10:54 PM  
2 votes:

OtherLittleGuy: Plop someone from the 60s at a TSA checkpoint or tell them to take pictures of a cop.

Better yet, tell them to list "rights" and respond, "No, that's a 'privilege"."


cdn.ph.upi.com
2012-10-27 04:03:03 PM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: As George Wallace infamously said at his 1963 inauguration, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

And the fun part is Republicans are still quoting and parroting his lines today. He was the one who made an attack on intellectualism popular. Nixon stole it from him and it became a GOP mainstay.


Do you have some personal rule where you have to say Republican, Conservative, Christian, or fundie in every post?
2012-10-27 03:50:31 PM  
2 votes:
Plop someone from the 60s at a TSA checkpoint or tell them to take pictures of a cop.

Better yet, tell them to list "rights" and respond, "No, that's a 'privilege"."
2012-10-27 02:25:09 PM  
2 votes:
If we were to tell a Southerner from pre-Civil War America that a black president would take office in 2012, he'd have a massive heart attack.

A lot of Southerns today are having that same reaction.
2012-10-27 09:52:57 PM  
1 votes:

LDM90: GAT_00: As George Wallace infamously said at his 1963 inauguration, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

And the fun part is Republicans are still quoting and parroting his lines today. He was the one who made an attack on intellectualism popular. Nixon stole it from him and it became a GOP mainstay.

Do you have some personal rule where you have to say Republican, Conservative, Christian, or fundie in every post?


reposted for emphasis
2012-10-27 09:29:23 PM  
1 votes:

Silverstaff: Eh, I find it's better to Farkie types like you in Red 1 with a handy tag of why I did that. It's why I've labelled you as "CONFIRMED TROLL (Racist Republican Mouthpiece)".

You're not ignored, but I know before I even look at your post to not take it seriously, because I know you're just trolling and spewing racist crap. Funny thing is, you were like that before this thread. I don't remember which one, but that lets me know this isn't the first thread you've come in and shiat right-wing racist talking points into.


techredible.com

Do you even know what racist means? If so, tell me what I've said is racist, oh wise one.

/reality must be racist
2012-10-27 07:43:15 PM  
1 votes:

BolshyGreatYarblocks: HotIgneous Intruder: Why is it always a picture of a white woman with a black man?
Why not a black woman with a white man?
Think about it.

Black women are fat?


Not to bring politics into it, but I suspect this widely held assumption is the reason so many right-leaning people view Michelle Obama as being fat. The fact that the First Lady isn't fat doesn't seem to occur to them. Well, she's a black woman, therefore she must be fat, seems to be the line of "thinking" there.

brantgoose: Black women, like all women, may feel they have to be guardians of the race and thus be less inclined to pick a white male partner, even if he offers status or some other benefit above and beyond what can be had by acquiring a black male mate.


I just remember from my time at school, most black women simply would not consider a white man. And, if asked, they were quite open and honest about their disinterest in anything but black men. Asian women, however, seemed to prefer white men to Asian men. And, by Asian, I mean both South Asian (Indian, Pakistani) and East Asian (Japanese, Korean, Chinese). I honestly felt bad for the Asian guys. Black guys and white guys, on the other hand, had no problem getting girls.
2012-10-27 07:41:46 PM  
1 votes:

Nemo's Brother: LDM90: GAT_00: As George Wallace infamously said at his 1963 inauguration, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

And the fun part is Republicans are still quoting and parroting his lines today. He was the one who made an attack on intellectualism popular. Nixon stole it from him and it became a GOP mainstay.

Do you have some personal rule where you have to say Republican, Conservative, Christian, or fundie in every post?

Be careful. GAT cries to a mod every time someone calls him out. I've been bannister a few times. He's sends give, I guess. As sensitive as the mods are fat.


Some of the bigger trolls around here have mods covering for them.

Once a particularly racist, antagonistic troll appeared. Somebody called him out, suspecting him of being the alt of another poster, a regular here who trolls on one specific topic, but is less blatant about his trolling.

The alt was confirmed when he posted with his regular login denying that he was the alt of his regular login. I got a screenshot of it.

I called this troll out later when he was saying things that basically directly contradicted what his more well known login says regularly, pretty much diametrically. I posted a screenshot of his admission that he's someones trolling alt.

Posts deleted and I got a little vacation from Fark. I posted proof that a new troll was a regular farkers alt, and got smacked for it. I'd say who is who's alt, but can't for obvious reasons. Apparently this regular is rumored to have a modmin login too (and a number of troll alts).

Yeah, mods are covering for some of the trolls. The conspiracy theory that some of the trolls are shiat-stirrers assigned by Drew to drive clicks has some weight to it.
2012-10-27 07:32:45 PM  
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: Why is it always a picture of a white woman with a black man?
Why not a black woman with a white man?
Think about it.


It is almost always a white woman with a black man in real life. It goes the other way less frequently.

Why is this? There are cultural and economic reasons I think. A black man with a white woman is rising socially. Women raise the children, do the dirty work, but a white woman is a social plus to a black man even if she is not going to put up with so much shiat (whether she does or not is not something I know but since some of these women are getting a younger, handsomer, more "fun" mate, they might). Black men may also be looking for a bossier woman (just like Mom) or one who is less demanding (unlike Mom). In any case, whatever the psychology, sociology, politics, economics, it is clearly sex-relevant.

Black women, like all women, may feel they have to be guardians of the race and thus be less inclined to pick a white male partner, even if he offers status or some other benefit above and beyond what can be had by acquiring a black male mate. Or maybe they're just more likely to be lesbians. The data is all over the place. It proves little or nothing.

In any case, that is the way it really works now. It might even out over a longer period of time as society changes. Pictures tend to show the "normal" or the "probable" rather than the unusual when editors and journalists write articles on such issues. It has heuristic value although it leads to a distinct lack of statistical accuracy.
2012-10-27 06:56:05 PM  
1 votes:

Meatybrain: Now, half the guys I fist are black. Progress is a beautiful thing.


Does that mean what I think it means?

HotIgneous Intruder: Why is it always a picture of a white woman with a black man?
Why not a black woman with a white man?


2.bp.blogspot.com
2012-10-27 06:43:53 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: While it's hard to tell from that truncated article (and my even more truncated reading of it), a lot of this dystopian-now nonsense seems to be related to a modern vision of a "noble savage" past: This idea that things were better in the past and people were satisfied with how things were or at least preferred them to the awful changes that were coming--presupposing that they knew the terrible future that lay in wait. This of course is nonsense.

For instance, factory work is now seen as dreadful, dehumanizing and bad for both the workers and the environment and OF COURSE our forebears would have thought it a terrible thing, right? Probably not. Modern factories are miracles of cleanliness and safety compared to Industrial Revolution factories; and even those nightmare mills were hailed as job creators (!) and makers of necessary goods. Loss of privacy? That assumes that our ancestors had privacy as we understand it. Back in the day, gossip, sewing circles and taverns ensured that neighbors and relatives knew one another's business only less thoroughly than they knew their own--if there is any change today it's the impersonalization of that gossip. If we were to go back to those halcyon days, we might be disconcerted to find out how much Great-Aunt Sophie knew about us and long for the anonymous knowledge of the government instead.

Instead of projecting our fears back on the past, it might be better just to accept that it wasn't really as perfect then as we wish it was. There never were any noble savages, folks.


Excellent post, imo.

Thank you.

This is why I still love you, however, you must vote Obama and disperse this to your friends too.

Go vote for Obama now.

Go and do

Do and go.

He IS a leader.

The other guy IS a money-maker.

There is a difference.

That is all.

*)

P.S. Thank you.
2012-10-27 06:40:32 PM  
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: Why is it always a picture of a white woman with a black man?
Why not a black woman with a white man?
Think about it.


Got a few of my own since I was a white guy dating a black woman.
2012-10-27 06:27:25 PM  
1 votes:
Yes, Google Books did it. In fact, it was the next hit after Wikipedia:

"Kind and credulous reader ... " it starts off ....

Lovely story. Give it a go.
2012-10-27 06:23:48 PM  
1 votes:
I read a SF story on that once. It was published by an anonymous author in Dublin University Magazine in 1838.

It wasn' readily available so I ordered a copy through interlibrary loan.

According to Wikipedia: "In the science fiction anthology Far Boundaries (1951), the editor August Derleth identifies the short story Missing One's Coach: An Anachronism, written for the Dublin University Magazine by an anonymous author in 1838, as a very early time travel story. In it, the narrator is waiting under a tree to be picked up by a coach which will take him out of Newcastle when he suddenly finds himself transported back over a thousand years. There he encounters the Venerable Bede in a monastery, and gives him somewhat ironic explanations of the developments of the coming centuries. It is never entirely clear whether these events actually occurred, or were merely a dream."

He thinks he can one-up the backward locals with the Wonders of the Great Nineteenh Century but finds that hey are unimpressed with technology and even with the moral development of the English over a thousand years. It's a gentle satire but it makes exactly the same point, namely that "Progress" is difficult to achieve or evaluate. To a man from the past, today might well be a dystopian future, but in any case, it would be dystopian in different ways to a time traveller from any time, even quite recent time.

The author pulls a sort of reverse Mark Twain on the reader, showing how the "primitive" past might regard us as the primitives where Mark Twain's Connecticutt Yankee merely made himself look like an idiot and screwed things up trying to enlighten the ancestors (Twain was a bit of a cynic and perhaps even less kindly an author than whoever wrote this short satire).

Imagine how things look to your ancestors from the 1950s or 1960s, even if they are alive now and thus used to the dystopian future.

Everything changes but remains the same in accordance with the old French proverb: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Many of the things which liberals regard as signs of progress and enlightenment are still being viciously attacked by conservatives of the same age (or younger), while the conservatives constantly apologize for and fondly remember social conditions that were regarded as barbaric even by many in their own time, such as slavery, the low status of women, and cruelty to animals, slaves, children, women, workers, the poor, foreigners, religious and other minorities, etc.

There is surprisingly little progress and there are constant set-backs, even in technology. The romans had central heating, the Minoan civilization had running water and bathtubs, the Egyptians had medical specialists and wooden or stone toilet seats just as comfortable as anything heated and padded that we might have today. And I have made a minor hobby of enjoying the occasional discovery of old office technology and bureaucracy that is just as fast, efficient and reliable as anything our computers can do--and then some.

Progressive is often many tiny steps forward and giant steps back, or vice-versa. We are not any better than our ancestors in recorded history. Real progress takes geological time scales and often ends up wiped away just as quickly, especially now that humans have the power to destroy ten million years of progress in a few days, years or centuries.
2012-10-27 05:56:33 PM  
1 votes:

Jamdug!: which begs the question: do we really want to put an end to obesity?


Consider the people whose job it is to shovel those bloated angry corpses into the furnaces. They could hurt their back!
2012-10-27 05:48:49 PM  
1 votes:
How is it a dystopia?

We have so much freedom it's sickening. We're free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in, and if we don't pay our taxes, we're free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster!

/Did you see what I did there?
//Always thought the future depicted in that show was actually extremely dystopian, they just never harped on it.
2012-10-27 05:48:10 PM  
1 votes:
Wonder how it will be in 100 years if humans are still around.
2012-10-27 05:25:31 PM  
1 votes:
it's clearly dystopian cause all the weed smokers of the world (everyone) is always worrying about being arrested
2012-10-27 05:14:30 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: It seems pretty dystopian to me, too

Yeah, what's so not-dystopian about it NOW?


The fact that we're not all in prison camps might be a good indicator.
2012-10-27 05:12:25 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: sfpfc: Cute girls are "dystopian" to you?


Dystopian back story

Oh I see. You mean a REAL dystopian society.
;)



i.chzbgr.com
2012-10-27 04:53:02 PM  
1 votes:
I think people from ancient times would be shocked at how fast decisions need to be made. During the American Revolution, some British lord in charge of navy or army, I forget which, took off for 2 weeks of fly fishing and it was completely normal to have no one in his place and just to wait for him to come back.

Nowadays, decisions have to made in the split second.

Jesus, I have customers who biatch and moan unless the response is done by the end of the day. Really? You can't wait while I make sure the answer is optimal?

Lawyers of course, still live in the old world, where court cases take years to complete. Must be nice.
2012-10-27 04:39:18 PM  
1 votes:
Yeah it is "dystopian."

21st goddamn century and we still have social conservatives insisting on how this country should be run.
2012-10-27 04:32:08 PM  
1 votes:
Why is it always a picture of a white woman with a black man?
Why not a black woman with a white man?
Think about it.
2012-10-27 04:30:57 PM  
1 votes:
"What? A mulatto in the White House, Jews have their own country, AND one can receive erotically enticing kinescopes on the wireless? This 'future' of yours, good sirrah, is pure balderdash!"

I remember Wallace getting shot. He was a credible candidate for prez at the time. The people who freaked out over it would not survive today - their vaginas would become sand-encrusted kitten-cannons.

It is weird to think that I was born into a legally segregated country. Only went to school with ONE black kid in twelve years, and I never even saw him, just knew he was there. No "coloreds" in church, either, or in local government, or at the Lion's club.

Now, half the guys I fist are black. Progress is a beautiful thing.
2012-10-27 04:22:41 PM  
1 votes:

Gergesa: The idea of a woman being Minister of War or Secretary of State (ahem) would have seemed laughable - if not completely terrifying; women were considered to be overly emotional and sentimental - traits that might lead to irrational and ill thought-out political decisions.

A number of women at places I have worked have said they would not trust a woman as president for basically those reasons. But they have also opined that they hate working with other women. Not sure what to make of them.


The hardest group of people to get to work together are women. It has been my experience that men find it easier (thought not always ie politics) to put aside personality clashes, dislikes and even hatreds to get the job done. Men can compartmentalize the two. Women seem to have more difficulty in doing that.

The best civilian boss I ever had was a woman and she even stated working with men was easier with less drama.
2012-10-27 04:19:20 PM  
1 votes:

Challam: cults of science


??
2012-10-27 04:16:37 PM  
1 votes:
...women were considered to be overly emotional and sentimental - traits that might lead to irrational and ill thought-out political decisions....

assets0.ordienetworks.com
2012-10-27 04:16:18 PM  
1 votes:

lohphat: LDM90: GAT_00: As George Wallace infamously said at his 1963 inauguration, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

And the fun part is Republicans are still quoting and parroting his lines today. He was the one who made an attack on intellectualism popular. Nixon stole it from him and it became a GOP mainstay.

Do you have some personal rule where you have to say Republican, Conservative, Christian, or fundie in every post?

Yeah, "bigot" is so much more efficient.


I prefer "Democrat", but tomato/tomahto, I guess.
2012-10-27 04:09:21 PM  
1 votes:

LDM90: GAT_00: As George Wallace infamously said at his 1963 inauguration, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

And the fun part is Republicans are still quoting and parroting his lines today. He was the one who made an attack on intellectualism popular. Nixon stole it from him and it became a GOP mainstay.

Do you have some personal rule where you have to say Republican, Conservative, Christian, or fundie in every post?


Yeah, "bigot" is so much more efficient.
2012-10-27 04:09:15 PM  
1 votes:

m3000: If we were to tell a Southerner from pre-Civil War America that a black president would take office in 2012, he'd have a massive heart attack.

A lot of Southernsracists today are having that same reaction.

2012-10-27 04:02:34 PM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: It seems pretty dystopian to me, too


Yep, Obvious tag too obvious for this link.
2012-10-27 04:02:16 PM  
1 votes:
Especially if we let the visitor watch TLC for a day.
2012-10-27 02:39:32 PM  
1 votes:
I guess that explains why my grandparents are so paranoid. I thought it was because of Fox News.
2012-10-27 01:46:59 PM  
1 votes:
But we also have a taco made out of Doritos, so it's a wash.
 
Displayed 54 of 54 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report