site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34840 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

15
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sex is physical, gender is emotional. Both are based in physiology, and both are accounted for in science.

Sex is hardware, gender is software. Software can be misconfigured, and it can be reconfigured.

Sex is a fact, gender is an experience. Experiences are reactions to apprehended facts.

Sex is hardware, gender is software. Software can be misconfigured, and it can be reconfigured.

An interesting description. If hardware was roughly as easy to modify as software, would you be indifferent as to which was altered to create harmony?

If the hardware was able to be transformed and/or upgraded with minimal side effects, and without vivisection in the manner of The Island of Doctor Moreau, I’d probably save up my money and try something new myself. The immutability of the flesh is a barrier to a great many new experiences of self which might be more harmonious.

Wait, how would you inherently avoid the vivisection? The only way I can imagine would be cloning a person, but modifying for the opposite sex.

Off the top of my head?

  • stem cell reactivation/homeobox gene shenanigans

  • clone a groin alone (via homeobox gene shenanigans), graft it in

  • nanotechnology magic/grey goo

I know none of these are anywhere near ready. But I've read about the "pockets" created by MtF surgeries with the risk of a persistent smell of excrement. I've read about the need for sounding rods after FtM surgeries. The idea of transformation is much more appealing than the pale simulation we can now carry out, and it's no surprise to me that the suicide risk is not so highly reduced by the current surgeries as the impression their proponents try to create.

We need a better "control panel" or "configuration file" for the "software", in any case. What we need to teach children is how to deal with the disappointments of life, with a consistent model they can use to talk with their parents or guardians, their spiritual leaders, and/or their psychological counselors. And that means we need to find such a model and show that it works. The current "elevation to trauma/abandonment" model used for unpleasantness and disappointment in conjunction with medications is clearly not working.

I've waxed poetic here before about how useful I've found the Fourth Step of the Twelve Steps, how many of my own past issues have been resolved with it. If everyone were taught a simplified version of it, there might not even be a need for as many X Anonymous meetings in the first place. I accidentally used it to resolve my own species dysphoria, and I find myself far less enthusiastic about the furry fandom than I did in my twenties. I still prefer tales of nonhumans among humans as a metaphor for my autism, and I love animal and anthro animal tales as much as ever, but my fandom is no longer driven by a pathological need.

The science of gender belief is what now?

Observations, correlations, and hypotheses, all based on the subjective reality of gender. Because our brain hardware is relatively close to identical, our subjective realities will all be relatively close to identical. But not identical.

That’s a bit hand wavy. Also these observations are generally frowned upon these days by trans activists, who support affirmation only. If there was a science then we’d use it.

Not sure what you're trying to do by reversing the letters but it just makes this post hard to read. Anyways, I don't think it unreasonable to refer to more social aspects caused by sexual dimorphism with the word gender. For example, consider the following - Men do manly things. One reason for this is that male individuals on average are more predisposed to doing manly things, but actually some male individuals are individually not suited for this. As a society there is a benefit to using the heuristic of sex instead of measuring individual aptitude for tasks in order to tell people what to do.

So, what men do is downstream of average sex differences, but not downstream of individual biology of particular individuals. We can refer to this concept as "gender". In a perfect meritocracy maybe gender can be dead, but in a society, it's sort of real.

I think you would have been better off just substituting nonsense words, and carefully constructing your example to help the reader "discover" the points you find salient about the concept that you think regular language doesn't capture.

Otherwise, I don't think this accomplishes much more than the old rationalist staple of "tabooing words" and I think well-informed people on all sides are able to recognize how they're using their terms, and how to rephrase what they're saying.

I'm curious about how you're using "folklore" here. Do you consider any of the following to be folklore in the sense you've used here:

  • Fiat currency

  • The concept of debt

  • National borders

  • Adoptive parenthood

  • The line between a species and a subspecies

  • The line between a genus and a species

  • The concept of species

  • Laws

  • Rules of etiquette

  • Social hierarchies

  • Race

  • Skin color

  • Nationality

  • Citizenship

If you don't consider any of the above "folklore", do you consider them "real"? Until I understand exactly how you're using the term "folklore" here, I don't know if I can really say one thing or the other of the exercise you've done here. Do you believe that the "folkloric illusion" is stupid in other domains, or just in redneg? Do you believe that folklore requires evidence, or can cultures simply create castles in the sky that are locally relevant but seem strange to those outside those cultures? Do you think folklore can be important and useful, even if it isn't "real"?

Similarly, you make the assertion that "half the humans on this planet believe themselves to be the folkloric entity called 'namow'", but I'm curious how you would get to that assertion. Do you mean that if we properly map all folkloric entities in all cultures in some n-dimensional space, we would find a cluster somewhere that every culture would recognize they more or less have in common, and that in our field of redneg studies is called 'namow', and that each culture would independently identify the beliefs of 50% of humanity as being non-different from the proposition "I am a namow"?

Could we train a neural network for "namow" and "nam" and input empirical information we collect about individuals and train it to reliably classify people into these categories, in such a way that there would be broad agreement that the classifier accurately tracks namow-ness and nam-ness? Can a human brain be reliably trained to recognize namow-ness and nam-ness in at least some cultures?

No you are definitely either male or female biologically. Your internal feels aside. And although nationhood is a social construction by and large you can’t escape ethnicity either.

Please tell me how you touch numbers in a bank account. And taking the money out and touching the notes isn't touching "currency", it's touching a physical representation of it that only holds value because society agree it does. It's no different to a case where a society gave every man a trinket and said manhood was defined by having the right to own that trinket. Sure, you can touch the trinket but what you aren't touching is the "male gender".

Suppose instead of offering you $10, I gave you BCC 10 (BurdensomeCount Coin) for a bunch of apples instead. Now you're probably less likely to make this trade, given that nobody else values BCC at all. So what's the difference between BCC and USD? The only difference is people feel that USD has value while people don't feel that way for BCC, hence you can trade USD for apples but not BCC. The reason this trade happens is because of the way people feel about USD. If there was a sudden collapse in confidence then 1USD would still be 1USD but people would be will to exchange a lot less tangible stuff for it. This difference in how much tangible stuff you can get per USD is all to do with how people feel about USD.

Speaking personally, I have no redneg identity whatsoever. Although born as male, I feel neither as a nam nor as a namow, much like atheists who no longer feel as a believer.

That's just normal, it doesn't set you apart from the general public. It's only unusual in that most people who encounter the concept of gender identity aren't introspective enough to think about whether they actually have an internal sense of such a thing and don't have enough contrarian tendencies to call bullshit. To quote a comment I made a year ago:

The concept of "cis gender identity" wasn't created because anyone investigated whether such a thing actually existed and found that it did, it was created by trans activists as a deliberate mirror-image of their model of transgenderism. Someone who believed in the concept hard enough and was introspective about it would probably notice that he doesn't actually have any internal sense of what his "gender identity" is and decide that makes him "non-binary" or something, when really it just makes him normal. Or look until he interpreted random noise as a sign of some gender identity or other. After all, as the British charity Mermaids has taught us (and taught the organizations like schools and police that have taken their training), not being Barbie or GI Joe means you're towards the middle of the "gender spectrum", and by the way gender dysphoria can present as any and all problems you might have.

They know they're women because they remember looking at their body and they remember being taught that growing up, but do they think they have some internal sense of womanhood that is separate from those two things? Let alone one strong enough that they would make sacrifices on its behalf? As I mentioned in this comment, do you think the average person would turn down an offer like "everyone calls you the wrong pronoun for the rest of your life but you get $5,000", provided it didn't have any side-effects like messing up your romantic life?

It's only unusual in that most people who encounter the concept of gender identity aren't introspective enough to think about whether they actually have an internal sense of such a thing and don't have enough contrarian tendencies to call bullshit.

I mean, I could try to steel man the concept.

If you're a typical person, you probably have a good sense of where your body is in 3d-space. Even if you're not looking, if you're in a familiar environment you can reach your hand towards different objects like furniture and have reasonably good odds of getting within the ball park of those objects. This capacity to have a sense of where your body is and how it's moving in 3d-space is called proprioception.

Most people have an accurate proprioception about the world. But some people don't. One example is amputees, who sometimes experience phantom limbs which can include a proprioception that they have an arm somewhere in 3d-space that they do not.

It is possible that some people have genital-related proprioception disorders that make them feel like they have "phantom genitals" that they do not have. On this model, one form of gender dysphoria would be "phantom cross-sex genital proprioception" and cis people would be those who have correctly functioning "genital proprioception."

In this situation, the idea that one's proprioception is an "identity" would be a simplification used for others. After all, how do you explain the idea of "phantom genitals" to other people who haven't experienced this thing?

(Even if I allow for the possibility that this covers one kind of gender dysphoria, I tend to think there are many different kinds. Basically, being trans can be described behaviorally as seeking out cross-sex hormones, "cross-sex" cosmetic surgery and attempting to live a cross-sex social role. There are probably several causes of this kind of behavior.)

I find this comment extremely interesting - I actually am not a typical person with regards to proprioception. Specifically, in this domain, I am blind and have no sense of proprioception at all. I completely lack any sense of where my physical body is located in space, though I do still have a sense of touch and can get some approximation from that.

And for the record, not having any actual genital proprioception whatsoever didn't have any impact on my gender identity as far as I can tell. I remain cis, even though I actually do not have correctly functioning genital proprioception and hence would fall outside that category in your proposed classification (though I am of course aware that I am an extreme edge case).

Hm, what does that mean, exactly? If the proprioception information wasn't finding its way to your brain, [maybe i'm wrong but i doubt it] you wouldn't really be able to move in a coordinated way at all, or be able to walk. I guess by 'lack any sense' you mean a relative lack?

I have no conscious sense of proprioception and cannot tell where parts of my body are in the absence of other perceptions like touch or sight, and based on the accidents/mistakes I make, it seems that my subconscious also lacks this information. My brain is capable of processing a lot of this information visually - I'm ok as long as I can visually see my body, and I can vaguely approximate the location of a limb based on movement ( but not for long or consistently, any incidental movement induced by the environment doesn't get accounted for and throws me off balance). I have a lot of trouble performing certain body movements and I can't actually write or draw beyond a child's level, because slight shifts in the position of my elbow mean that I can't co-ordinate properly when it is out of sight and have to rely entirely on my wrists.

Okay, thanks, suppose my guess was wrong.

Most of the focus is on social stuff like "misgendering" though. Which combined with the "everyone has a deeply-rooted gender identity but cis people are just fortunate enough to match it" model makes some predictions that are noticeably false. For instance it seems pretty common for trans activists to try to use "How would you feel if people were referring to you with the wrong pronoun all the time?" as an argument. This makes sense from their perspective but doesn't really work because normal people don't care that much, certainly not enough to become suicidal or the like. Women on the internet sometimes correct people who assume they're men, but it's not a big deal. At worst someone might take it as an insult (e.g. in cultures where calling a man a woman is a way to call him a coward who is failing to live up to his martial responsibilities as a man, or feminists who think assuming people are men is reflective of sexism).

If someone could press a button saying "everyone calls you the wrong pronoun for the rest of your life but you get $5,000", I think most would be happy to take that option. (Provided this was some sort of mystical change that didn't have side-effects like messing up your romantic life or making your friends think you've gone crazy.) Indeed, even "everyone thinks you're the opposite sex" wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't for side-effects like messing with your romantic life, and of course nontransitioning trans people don't have those side effects (on the contrary, quite a few trans people end up blowing up their marriages). Which doesn't fit with the "cis people are mirror images of trans people" model, since gender identity is presented as being more important than that.

Yes, I remember wondering if I was non-binary when I was about 25, simply because I didn't have this sense of "gender identity" that trans people apparently had. I just have my biological sex, which manifests in various ways and interacts with society in various ways. I'm comfortable my male sex organs/secondary sexual features in the same way I'm comfortable being tall, having two eyeballs, having feet etc. - they're familiar and useful (because women's sex organs/secondary sexual features are an awful lot of work/money: tampons, bras, wiping the right way, periods, back pain etc.).

I can touch fiat currency, and exchange goods with it, but race is immaterial inasmuch as one's own self-perception is the extent of its "reality" in this day and age where merit-based treatment is the norm.

You can touch the object we call "dollar bills" or "coins", but the idea that these things hold value is an "illusion" or "folklore" as you put it. Do you consider the idea of fiat currency to be a religion? You seem to have it out for redneg in particular, when, as you say in your post, there are a number of things on my list you consider "all in one's mind", yet you don't seem to consider these "religions" the same way you do "redneg."

I'm also impervious to some of those things in the list, social hierarchies which too fall under the "it is all in your mind, bro" bucket unless of course the authority is real (president of the country, for instance).

I would argue you're not thinking very clearly about this. What you call "real authority" of a president is on just as shaky a ground as redneg. I think there are pragmatic arguments why having a president is useful, and there are descriptive statements one can make about what will likely happen if a president gives a particular person an order, but the idea that either of these means that a president has something that could be called "real authority" is a bit separate. Don't confuse your oughts and your is'es - a president is just a collective illusion, but that doesn't mean that a president isn't very important to everyday life or worth factoring into your decision making process.

My overall point is that many collective illusions are absolutely central to how people think about their lives and navigate the world. They might not be "real", but I would contend that they are often (not always) useful abstractions.

Oh is this why you have been conflating reality and illusions and willfully blurring the distinctions?

I haven't been doing that. I've been arguing something more along the lines of The Categories Were Made for Man, Not Man for Categories.

I make a sharp distinction between categories that more-or-less cut reality at the joints (like "dog", "male", "water") and man-made categories (like "science fiction", "pop music", "president", "American", "goth", etc.) Like you, I don't believe that I have a redneg identity. I'm fully on board with calling all man-made categories "illusions" or "folklore" if you want. What I have objected to in your presentation of your position is the fact that you seem to believe that redneg identity is different from other man-made categories or illusions. I don't actually think it's all that special - it's just more salient because of the modern political climate.

You brought up religion, and that is a good example of what I mean. I'm an atheist. I don't really have a "religious identity" as an atheist - I know that I don't believe in God, but it's much less of a "thing" than being a Christian or Jew would be, because those two identities involve positive beliefs, social groups, traditions, etc. However, I've evolved from being the New Atheist I once was, and have grown to have a much greater appreciation of the power of religion to act as a social glue to hold communities together. Books like "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours" and the concept of metis and signalling have helped me to appreciate the role that religion can have in a life, and how useful it can be to maintaining order and trust in society.

If you re-read what I have written throughout this thread, I think you will find that I've never said that man-made categories are "real" - I've always used words like "useful", "important", etc. And I do believe that they can be those things in certain circumstances. I have nowhere conflated real and non-real things, nor have I blurred distinctions between the real and the socially useful.

Maybe redneg identity isn't useful to you. In the same way a Jewish identity isn't useful to me because I'm not ethnically or religiously Jewish. But it would be silly to say that just because Judaism is made up (as I believe all religions are), that it's not an important part of many Jewish people's lives, and hasn't helped them stay together as a community for more than 3000 years. So too, I don't think we can discount that redneg identity is important to a number of snart people - I have seen first hand the community and joy in the snart community, and in the same way I can "justify" religious mutilation like circumcision through the lens of it being a form of expensive signalling, I think I can "justify" snart medical treatments in part as something that might help a person belong to the queer community (even apart from the possibility that it might alleviate psychological discomfort in some snart people.)

The problem I had with you calling redneg a "religion" is that I think that by that standard almost every man-made social category is a "religion." Sure, not every social group demands that you believe impossible absurdities, but plenty of them ask you to believe social facts that aren't part of material reality, like "there is a country called America, and its borders end here" or "100 cents equals a dollar" - facts that we made up, and which could have been otherwise if history had taken a different turn. India made up the concept of a caste system, Britain made up the idea of the British royal family, etc., etc. I think the main difference between you and I, is that I think these kinds of social fictions are extremely common, and "redneg ideology" isn't even a particularly strange or unusual example. The belief that "I was born a man, but I'm actually a namow" is no more absurd to me than "I have no biological relationship to this child, but I want to take care of them and be treated as their parent in all circumstances - please call me their 'adoptive father' or just 'father' for short."

Uh, I think the answers to the questions in your last few paragraphs are generally "yes".

I assume OP had something in mind they were trying to say with this new terminology, so I'm not taking for granted that that is the case. In fact, they make the claim that:

This division of illusory categories is not exactly precise, as confirmed by the abnormal illusion being suffered by that rare group of people who call themselves snart[^4]. The folkloric illusion may seem intelligent and real to many people, but it is stupid because no one can come up with any evidence for its reality beyond sexual dimorphism.

So we are told:

  • namow and nam are "folklore" and also that they are illusory categories without precise divisions (is being folklore the same as being "illusory" or is a distinction intended here?)

  • That being snart is an "abnormal illusion", which confirms that the illusory nature of namow and nam

  • That this "folkloric illusion" is "stupid" because no one can come up with any evidence for it beyond sexual dimorphism

I think one issue is that the referent of a few phrases is a little ambiguous in OP's short post. If the "folkloric illusion" does indeed refer to the redneg-related ideas of namow and nam, then I don't know if I agree that the only evidence for redneg is "sexual dimorphism." To me, the evidence for redneg is the same as the evidence for htog(!) or ome(!) fashion - sure, the exact boundaries of htog and ome are hard to define, but that doesn't mean they're not real enough for people to form a social identity around. They really need to connect the dots of why they think "sexual dimorphism" proves anything one way or the other about redneg, since it seems to be a term related to sex and not redneg?

And given their final statement, are we to understand that OP is a redneg abolitionist? That they want to eliminate the concepts of namow and nam? What would that mean in practice? How would we treat snart people in a redneg-less society? Are snart namow namow, in a society where namow exist? If redneg is a "religion" are other concepts like noihsaf(!) and swal(!) religions as well?

Are feelings an illusion? Well, are they part of reality? "I feel like that girl hates my guts." Is that an illusion or reality?

I mean, I assume you could find neurons in someone's brain that correspond to their belief that "That girl hates my guts." Those neurons are real.

If you mean, 'does the proposition "That girl hates my guts" as believed by someone represent an accurate belief about the world?' That would depend on the empirical facts about whether the girl did, in fact, hate that person's guts. If the girl does hate that person's guts, then that belief is a true belief, and I would call it a reality, or at least an accurate reflection of reality. (The map is not the territory, after all.)

I would like to propose a different sentence, that I think better represents what I believe you mean by illusion. Please tell me if I'm on the wrong track. The sentence is: "I am an employee at McDonald's."

I think this gets at your idea of "illusion" because you could grind down the universe to its atoms, but you would never find "McDonald's" or "employees" anywhere. McDonald's is a fiction that allows large groups of people to coordinate their actions towards a common goal, and an "employee" is an abstraction describing a social relationship (always illusory) between two or more people. Similarly, if someone believes that, "I am a namow", they are declaring something about their internal sense of sex role (per your statement.) A sex role is an abstraction, like "McDonald's" or "employee" which describes a set of social relations, and I think people can be right or wrong about their internal sense of sex roles in a society. That is, a person's belief about their sex role can be an accurate reflection of reality. If someone believes "I am a namow" and they are a "namow" then their belief is an accurate reflection of reality.

This seems to be your thing.

Unfortunately, you're still presenting it in a very low-effort and trollish way. Reversing letters to make your thesis sound clever is not clever.

"Gender is a delusion, trans doesn't exist."

Okay. And?

State your case plainly, and actually say something other than "This is stupid."

It's not the mods' duty (or really, any other user in this site) to do the job for you. If you can present an effort post as a top level comment, present it; if you can't, then refrain from posting as Amadan said "very low-effort and trollish" posts.

There are many out there, mostly progressives in my experience, who confuse open mindedness (verb) with open-mindedness (noun). The noun version of it often assumes that open-mindedness refers to a set of specific outlooks and convictions, and not the simple act of being open to new and/or different views.

I'm really gonna need some examples to engage with this.

This is also analogous to people who "believe in Science" i.e. agree with a set of opinions they have been told scientists support, as opposed to "doing science" i.e. actually investigating claims and being willing to change one's beliefs when presented with new data.

This is interesting and I think a good point (it's something I remembered doing as a teenager - conflating "being smart" with "agreeing with very smart people") but it isn't really sufficient for a top level comment. Can you add some detailed examples?

This is a bad top level post. It is low effort, boo outgroup, and lacks evidence. Don't do this.

I’m not seeing the “verb” version as a verb. Use it in a sentence.

verb - being open to new ideas

noun - a specific set of ideas that are regarded as the open minded ideas.

Seconded. Open-minding? Mind-opening? Not really seeing any such form used as the OP suggests.

Probably what the OP meant was something like open-mindedness as a practice as opposed to open-mindedness as an identity. Their noun/verb distinction is wrong and distracting.

I'll second the comment that this isn't enough meat to justify a top-level comment. But to build on the post, I think this is a part of a larger pattern I see, where some people believe in principles and some people don't.

A personal anecdote I've brought up here in the past is me noticing - and being surprised by - around 10 years ago how common it was for people in my leftist progressive circles to describe ideology and behaviors they disagreed with (usually right-wing and conservative) as "gross." This was immediately after the previous couple decades of us fighting for gay marriage and more broadly gay rights and acceptance under the reasoning that personal disgust reaction was something that ought not to carry any sort of moral weight, and thus all those conservatives who found gay people icky had no ground in refusing to accept gay people just as much as they accept straight people. Yet the exact same people - often the exact same individuals - were using their own personal disgust reaction to something as a way to denigrate it.

Around that time around 10 years ago was also when Atheism+ was formed as an offshoot from the existing atheism/skepticism online community. I believe this was the blog post announcing this intended schism, which I quote:

Atheists plus we care about social justice,

Atheists plus we support women’s rights,

Atheists plus we protest racism,

Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,

Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

This was intended as a contrast to the existing community which was really just that last bullet point in its core, though I would actually describe it more as "Atheists as a result of using critical thinking and skepticism." Most of the above bullet points have nothing in principle to do with atheism, but are rather sociopolitical positions that were popular among online atheists at the time (and likely still today). I came to realize that, for many of my fellow online atheists, the reason they had arrived at atheism wasn't so much due to trying to reason about the existence of a god as it was due to being a way to contrast their own beliefs against the religious conservative beliefs they disagreed with.

Going back to the gay acceptance issue, more recently, I had a conversation with someone here (can't recall whom, and this was several months ago) about liberalism and gay acceptance, and I tried to make the point that if someone doesn't viscerally find gay people disgusting or degenerate or whatever, then supporting gay marriage/acceptance doesn't indicate anything about their support for liberal principles (rather than the liberal side of the liberal/conservative sociopolitical divide in the US); it's only by supporting rights and acceptance for something that one finds personally disgusting or otherwise negative that one can actually meaningfully indicate their support for liberal principles. I recall not being able to make an argument that was convincing to that person.

My thinking is that this is partly/largely an influence of postmodern thinking. In a very real sense, the people that I found surprising are stepping one meta level above where I am; I take one step up from the object level and relying on principles, and they're taking one step up from that and picking and choosing the principles that allow them to arrive at their object-level preferences. I haven't thought about this much beyond this and how to resolve the turtles-all-the-way-down problem here, though. I also wonder if this issue is just as common in other sociopolitical circles, since humans have human failings everywhere, but I notice it more among my own circles. But postmodern discourse and way of thinking tends to be more dominant in the leftist world, so maybe not.

You get it. That's exactly what I'm referring to.

I really like your point about atheism. I've noticed something perhaps similar with the rise of being "spiritual". It more strikes me as someone wanting to have their cake and eat it too; they want the palliative benefits of religion without having to suffer from the way religion is regarded culturally. In other words, they want the benefits of religion but they also want to be cool and progressive.

Also a good point about true open mindedness coming from a place of principal and not simple agreeance. I do agree that the tendency to determine one's conclusion and then reverse engineer the argument is all too common. I suppose this has probably been common to some extent throughout human history, but what strikes me as unique is that this psychology has infected institutional thinking as well. It doesn't seem that there are really any adults left in the room on that regard; institution managers who engage in the boring, almost technocratic practice of simply assessing the information and then making the right decision based on that.

One of Scott's best posts is relevant here

Here's a question for you that is less war and more straight culture. What makes a piece of media truly inspiring? What qualities does something need to possess so that things based on it will be great? I don't mean this in the sense of expertly turning your IP into a multimedia franchise through judicious licensing or whatever. I want to know what happens in the case of something like Dune where licensing doesn't seemed to be handled well at all. Yet it still not only managed to spawn a great movie. It also inspired a legendary board game, hugely influential video game, etc.

What makes Dune such fertile ground compared to, say, Lord of the Rings?

Tfw you write out what you think is a really cool topic of discussion, but forget that nobody else lives inside your head but you, so you just expect everyone to connect all the dots the same way you did instead of explaining yourself properly, so you spend the whole time getting frustrated that nobody is engaging with it the way you expected.

When you include a line like "What makes Dune such fertile ground compared to, say, Lord of the Rings?" you really should reiterate your specific target. Especially since it was the only sentence you broke out of the paragraph, you basically made it the flashpoint of your post. People try to read left to right top to bottom, but our eyes are drawn to areas of uniqueness, I'd guess a lot of people read the last line first and, if they were like me, had an inordinate amount of trouble focusing on anything else you said after such a cosmetically ridiculous statement (because it does make sense under your stipulations, but your stipulations are kind of confusing.)

Here's a question - can you think of any examples of this other than dune? Another piece of media that seemed to fuck up its licensing opportunities but still inspired some great licensed works?

Here's a question - can you think of any examples of this other than dune? Another piece of media that seemed to fuck up its licensing opportunities but still inspired some great licensed works?

Dragonball managed to produce FighterZ even though 90% of its licensed games are terrible.

Moreover, the license fits the game. Dune II may have been a successful game, but I don't get the impression that it was successful as a Dune game specifically.

I suppose Dune II didn't necessarily stand out for its IP, yeah--the reason it's even called that is because the other Dune game of its time was a weird adventure game (albeit with strategic elements, weirdly), and aesthetically, Dune II doesn't quite fit with the visual style of the Lynch film (though Dune 2000 and Emperor would change that).

But that being said, I think Dune as an IP does give a cool enough world that makes people want to explore it--lord knows that that's probably why Brian Herbert continues to crank out Dune spinoffs.

Your mention of Dragon Ball does make me think: Gundam is an IP that arguably could be so much more, though it hasn't done too terribly--I think it's more that Gundam could use a bitchin' simulationist game along the lines of MechWarrior or Steel Battalion. The only games that seem to have come even close to emulating the brutal, anyone-can-die combat of the actual anime are MSG 2.0 for the PS1 and the Side Stories games for the Saturn--and outside of the Missing Link remake(?) of the latter, those games are trapped in the past. Everything else is more fantastical, arcade-oriented fare like Dynasty Warriors Gundam or Gundam Versus, or RPG stuff like SD Gundam or Super Robot Wars. And all of that stuff is maybe a little too focused on referencing iconic moments from their source animes, rather than simply plopping you into the world of the Universal Century, After Colony, Cosmic Era, or Post-Disaster and letting you choose your story. The only other kind of game that Gundam has spawned that really sounds appealing is the Japan-only Gihren's Greed series of strategic games.

The only games that seem to have come even close to emulating the brutal, anyone-can-die combat of the actual anime are MSG 2.0 for the PS1 and the Side Stories games for the Saturn--and outside of the Missing Link remake(?) of the latter, those games are trapped in the past.

Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire (for PS3) is very down-to-earth—it's quite easy to be sniped across the map by Gelgoogs or Guntanks in later levels (or by Acguys in earlier levels). I've also read that Zeonic Front (for PS2) is very tactical in the style of the first Rainbow Six game, though I haven't played it.

Dune II may have been a successful game, but I don't get the impression that it was successful as a Dune game specifically.

Yeah, I loved that game as a kid, but when I got my hands on the book, I felt it's a big missed opportunity. The Dune universe is full of these little details that are begging to be translated into game mechanics - you can only reliably use infantry to move your forces around, anything mechanized is getting eaten by worms, unless you airlift it in the last possible moment, etc... it would be a lot of work to get it right, but you could have so much rock-paper-scissors stuff built around that.

I guess I'll throw my hat into this ring: to leave aside your specific examples, I suppose that it depends not only on the source material, but how to use its tropes. Maybe also other factors like how nerdy are the licensors and how memeable the IP can be.

Okay, I lied, I still had your specific examples in mind when I typed that sentence, but I'll use them to demonstrate my points in a way that can potentially generalize:

Dune, as a franchise, seemed a bit impenetrable to me, despite the available media. Maybe it was just that I never worked up the urge to actually read the original novel for whatever reason, but I often saw the novel as this mystery land of deepness and esoteric-ness. I'd heard that the Lynch movie was an honest-but-failed attempt at adapting the book, I knew about Dune II and how it spawned Command & Conquer and the rest of the RTS genre, I knew about some of the concepts (albeit if only because they happened to be referenced in TV shows I watched, like Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy).

I finally read the original novel a couple years ago and it blew my mind. Before, I saw it as a sci-fi epic for those with more elitist (read: pretentious) tastes, but afterwards I got it, I thought it truly deserved its place as a sci-fi classic. Again, though, something about it isn't quite as "proletarian" as, say, Star Wars. It's a thick and dense novel (quite literally, even with my paperback copy being the recent-ish edition by Ace/Penguin and being reasonably-sized dimensionally), and it's also technically incomplete on its own (that "I consume your energy" quote I've seen thrown about here and on the old subreddit a few times? That's from Messiah, the sequel novel that was originally supposed to be part of the original novel). It's political in every sense of the word, and the "elitist" vibe I got from it is because its message can be easy to miss (Messiah reportedly came as a shock to fans of the original who now saw Paul recast into the role of a galactic asshole--Herbert's intended message of warning against hero worship was probably undermined by, again, needing to chop off Messiah's story into its own thing). Still, Dune can be boiled down into a classic and relatable story about an unlikely hero who is tarnished by the world around him, even when he changes things for the better. The problem may just come down to the investment energy requirements.

LOTR, which I admit to not really reading or wanting to experience, may seem at first glance to have similar challenges. Isn't that source material also huge, with a lot of stuff to digest? Well, yes, but that doesn't stop its fans. It may just be because Peter Jackson got an incredible amount of opportunity to adapt Tolkien's work in more managable chunks, and with somewhat more deft care than David Lynch could afford back in the 80's. I think one factor, though, is that the movies gave people things to point to, in the form of memorable scenes, quotes, and memes. Through gargantuan effort, LOTR was boiled down to its more essential elements, then transmitted memetically in a way that people could latch onto and get invested through. By contrast, Dune mostly had references to the more memorably-bonkers stuff from the Lynch film for years.

The other thing is the worlds of these, well, worlds, and how enticing they might be to explore. I think a big problem you had with your OP was phrasing: perhaps you meant to ask why Dune has so much potential that was kind-of squandered, versus LOTR which was handled generally-well but hasn't rippled beyond itself in quite the same way as Lynch Dune or Dune II. To which, I'd answer that Dune and LOTR have had vastly-different impacts on their respective genres, and while no LOTR thing has changed a medium quite like some Dune things have (again, outside of the Peter Jackson movies, possibly), LOTR doesn't need to further define other categories of works in its own image. Both settings, however, do have their fans who might love to explore those worlds. Any franchise has the potential to go bonanza like this if the cards are right.

Dune, as a franchise, seemed a bit impenetrable to me, despite the available media. Maybe it was just that I never worked up the urge to actually read the original novel for whatever reason, but I often saw the novel as this mystery land of deepness and esoteric-ness.

I read the books in my early 20s and recently re-read the first 3 books in honor of the movie coming out and was immediately immersed. I completely agree with you that it deserves it's place as a classic.

I think the "problem" with adapting Dune and the reason that it has the reputation for esotericism that it does is that so much of the story and world-building happens "off screen" as it were. It happens in the little snippets of in-universe media that introduce each chapter, it happens in the footnotes about the empire's economy, and it happens in little vignettes were a piece of music will remind some character of an incident from their childhood. This works well when presented in the original format as an illustrated serial or as a bound book, but it presents challenges in adaptation. A classic example is the famous(infamous?) banquet towards the middle of the first book. For the those unfamiliar the book basically starts out as a spy thriller. The Atreides family (our protagonists) know they are being set up but not by whom or to what purpose. Paul Atreides is working the room at a state dinner trying to get a read on who the various factions are and who is plotting with whom. In prose it's a fairly important scene that establishes a couple of recurring themes, forshadows some of the main characters' future choices, and it advances the ongoing mystery plot by giving the audience some clues. However, if you were to do a straight translation of it to stage or film what you would get is basically 5 minutes of Paul making small-talk with a bunch of minor functionaries/side-characters while everyone else sips whine and looks pensive. It's just kind of hard to stage a scene where most of the action is happening in the form of internal monologues.

Edited to Elaborate

Yeah, it's a shame that amazing scene has been left out of both film adaptations, but at the same time, I don't know how you could include that in filmic form without going all Edgar Wright on Dune. And as you note, that's just one example of something that makes Dune difficult to process into other media.

Edgar Wright's Dune is an alternate history production i didn't know i needed.

What makes Dune such fertile ground compared to, say, Lord of the Rings?

I question the premise that Dune is more fertile than Lord of The Rings. That said I think I understand the question that you're getting at will attempt to engage...

Related to my post last week on "Inferential Distance" I feel like one of the major assumption/axioms where blue tribe culture differs from the red is in the assumption that something that is popular cannot be good or worthwhile or vice versa. There seems to be this assumption that good art is supposed to be esoteric and inaccessible to the general public because how else is one supposed to demonstrate their superior education, intellect, and understanding. At the risk of coming across as uncharitable, the image in my mind is that of an insufferable hipster sneering at "all that shit" that the normies like

Meanwhile feel like history has demonstrated the opposite. The mark of "a great artist" is not being esoteric, or being admired by one's contemporaries. Often just the opposite. Historically the thing that has set a great artist apart is the ability to convey deep/complex themes to as wide an audience as possible, and I think that that is the true answer to your question.

What does 'blue tribe' mean here? Scott's Blue Tribe was "liberal political beliefs, vague agnosticism, supporting gay rights, thinking guns are barbaric, eating arugula, drinking fancy bottled water, driving Priuses, reading lots of books, being highly educated". Some of these people are esoteric hipsters, but many, many more of them enjoy popular media, like popular music/movies/tv/, than try to one-up each other over short films they saw at film festivals.

In this context it means being a "Weirdo" IE western industrialized and educated, while also ticking the boxes of a secular, urban, hipster type. IE most of Scott's bullet points.

One thing that many popular fictions have in common is that engaging with them feels more like discovering than like inventing. For example, I can pose to myself and others the question of what Sherlock Holmes' childhood was like. Sherlock Holmes is fictional so any speculation that I or others do about his childhood is invention. But the fiction is so rich that one can enter into it, basing one's speculations on the known written material and the less effable "spirit" of the work, and it feels as if one were researching the history of an actual human being. Similarly, one can for example discuss with others what the relationships between Lovecraft's various invented fictional entities are, or speculate about the nature of Tom Bombadil, or write an essay about the motivations of the Bene Gesserit. The fictional universe is rich enough that it easily supports adding new creation to it because it has established a certain consistency and coherence of logic, flavor, and spirit so that one can pick up where the original creator(s) left off. It holds together. The boundary between what is acceptably part of the universe and what violates its nature is of course blurry and no two people view it in exactly the same way, but nonetheless pretty much everyone feels that there is some kind of difference between new creations that are more consistent with the fictional universe and creations that are less consistent with it.

20 years ago, it was LotR getting the Hollywood treatment while Dune was the flagship for an existing player's first forays into the miniseries format. How the tables have turned! Though Frank Herbert's Dune was well-received, probably because it occupied a sweet spot between passion projects and big budgets.

I'd say good media is the intersection of a decent premise and an artistic vision. Since we're talking about adaptations of famous works, the premise is already met. Then it's up to the director/producer/etc. to make a cohesive piece of art rather than a checklist. I know that's kind of a cop-out, but...that's the key. Design by committee reduces the risk of outright bad media at the cost of some of the good.

There's a whole other argument I want to make about market share, deconstruction vs. reconstruction, and postmodernism, but tonight is not the night.

Design by committee reduces the risk of outright bad media at the cost of some of the good.

Is is frankly astonishing to me how expensive some movies are and how few people are responsible for the artistic vision, even if it is a committee. It's even more astonishing if it's just left up to one producer. How is this kind of trust formed at all?

There's a hidden assumption in your astonishment that spreading the responsibility to more people would make movie production safer from a financial perspective. Is there a reason to believe that?

Indeed, some works shine thanks to the Auteur Theory.

Hmmm. I guess I don't have a solid explanation for why committees are safer. My vibe is that committees operate by consensus and this means individual weirdnesses get sanded down in the process, thusly ensuring the outcome is more firmly within bounds.

That's great in manufacturing or engineering, it's often detrimental in art and entertainment.

What makes Dune such fertile ground compared to, say, Lord of the Rings?

I don't think that one has had clearly more franchise/influence success that LoTR, especially when one looks at their influence on science fiction and fantasy respectively.

However, I do think that there is an interesting contrast: Frank Herbert was deliberately an austere writer, partly because the easiest way to have a plausible and non-dated portrayal of the future is to leave a lot of details unfilled. Tolkien, meanwhile, often goes out of his way to fill his world with detail.

This does have the advantage that an adaptation of Dune can look like almost anything, and there are lots of details for imaginative creators to fill in, e.g. House Ordos (loads of houses in Dune, let's add a cool one), Lynch's uniforms for the Atredis, or Villeneuve's spaceships. Of course, you also get things like Lynch's Guild Navigators or Villeneuve's hilariously unsubtle understanding of the Voice, but that's the price of freedom.

Frank Herbert was deliberately an austere writer

Herbert, austere? Perhaps by modern standards but by the SF standards of the day he didn't hold a candle to most of the well-known writers, and not even close to Asimov.

I meant more in comparison to the average speculative fiction writer, and I meant mainly in terms of leaving out world-building details.

I had a similar reaction at first (pages and pages of Jessica drinking a cup of coffee?) but on reflection, Harlequin5942 is right - there's not much depth to the Dune universe. He tells us a lot about Arrakis, but mostly in the form of the history of the Fremen as it relates to Paul and the Atreides family. I don't really remember much about the story and history of the planet when it wasn't all about the Fremen Tough Guys.

And he mentions a lot of things about the Empire and so forth, but we get more "and this happened way back, and so-and-so lives on this planet" but not a lot of deep world-building. So there is a lot of space for adaptations, particularly in relation to games, to go whatever way they like - keep the visuals, but you can pretty much have Planet of Whatever, New Order, Sect, Guild, Society or Tea Rooms of That, and inventing all the original characters you like, because why not, who says they can't exist?

LOTR is a lot different. You can't just pop up with "oh yeah we have this new set of Elves", not unless you are going to fit them in to existing canon, and even if you go "Well they're Avari, that's why they look like a cross between Kenyans Maasai and Samurai" you will have to do a lot of fast talking to get that one to fly 😁

That's where Rings of Power fell flat on its face - it tried to crowbar in DIVERSITÉ and ENNNCLÚSION while keeping as near to the look of the movies as Warner Studios lawyers would let them go, and with not even two lines of "Okay, so Dísa is the black Dwarven princess from one of the Eastern Houses, this is why she doesn't look like the Khazad-dum Dwarves" to prepare the ground. Oh, you noticed our one (1) black Elf and our one (1) black Dwarf and you want more than "this is the 21st century adaptation" to explain that? You racist bigot hater!

At least in the very recent era of these IPs you can look at it like this: The people making Dune were trying to adapt the book of Dune. The people making the new Lord of the Rings show were trying to write their own prequel they made up and couldn't include anything from the Silmarillion.

Tbh after reading your other comments, this just reads to me like "Why is [thing I like] so much better than [thing I don't like]?". I hate the new LotR series just as much as anyone else, but I've never heard about the Dune video nor board games and even the current movie, while certainly not bad, is not even near the LotR film trilogy. Looking at review aggregators, wikipedia, etc., both the public and critics seem to agree with that as well. The board game has a small fandom with no larger impact. The Dune 2 RTS seems to be the only objectively culturally impactful piece of media following the Dune books themselves.

I don't dislike Lord of the Rings at all. I have read it four times. I'm rather disappointed by the trilogy next to Villeneuve's Dune, but only because I have high expectations for it. In fact, most Lord of the Rings media is underwhelming and forgettable. I tried a lot of Lord of the Rings media in the 90s and 2000s and most of it fell in that 3.5-6.5 range. It is so forgettable that (some) people disagreeing with me here didn't even know that Lord of the Rings branded media was being produced long before the movies. Compare that to most Dune media, which I have been very impressed by. Not because I prefer Dune, which I enjoy but have read half as many times, but because the media that is based on it is so consistently impressive by comparison to what Lord of the Rings has put out.

And while the board game is undoubtedly niche (as games that have been out of print since '84 tend to be), its impact upon board games is still huge. Unique, balanced faction powers are now common in board/strategy games.

Agree completely. The original LoTR movie trilogy alone trumps anything Dune has done.

LOTR also has a legendary board game, many popular video games, etc. So I'm not really sure what exactly you're trying to say is the advantage of Dune here.

I didn't ask about number. I asked about quality. Sure, Lord of the Rings has a great board game. Some of the video games are even pretty decent. But I'm talking about percentage of hits here. Lord of the Rings, for all of its numbers and popularity, is comparatively underwhelming when you compare the average quality of what it gets in comparison to Dune. Sure, War of the Ring is considered a classic, but what about Lord of the Rings that came before it? Or the Lord of the Rings TCG? Etcetera.

I mean if it's about quality and not numbers, one single classic board game (War of the Ring as you said) is enough. The others before it don't matter.

I will grant that Dune 2 is a legendary RTS and LOTR has nothing with that kind of legacy, but I contend that has little to do with the IP. They simply were making the right game at the right time, and had few to no competitors. By the time you had LOTR games being made (which I remind you are actually pretty good in many cases), there was a thriving games industry and the genres were pretty well established. I contend that something like BfME 2 is as good as Dune 2, it just was later on and so it didn't have the same impact. The IP didn't cause that.

Of course the others before it matter. It's an infinite monkeys on typewriters scenario. If you give enough people opportunities to make a game based on Lord of the Rings, one of them eventually is likely to be good.

And sure, on a technical level, Battle for Middle Earth is the more polished, later game. But that is sidestepping the most difficult part in creating, which is creating something new and dynamic. It is easy to make a similar game in hindsight, once it has already been done. And you are simply wrong when you say that there was no opportunity to make Tolkien-branded games while they were making Dune games. That just isn't true. They were making games. They even attempted a strategy game before Dune II. It is just forgettable.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think you are wrong on all points, I'm sure you think the same of me. If we can't agree on the basic axioms we're dealing with, then of course our conclusions will differ.

LOTR has nothing with that kind of legacy

Not quite, but there was a very influential adventure game:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1982_video_game)

Presumably that's why, in Red Dwarf, as their generic adventure game, they hint at a LOTR game:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=fYAlB1Kxayc

I think the one IP based aspect of the RTS template that easily could have converged towards very different designs is the focus on in-map resource extraction and economy. You can't make a Dune game without harvesters, but you can easily make a strategy game without actively managed economy units and harassing thereof. And many successful RTS's from this century have abandoned this aspect.

I wasn't even particularly looking for Dune-related insights, but this is definitely an interesting point. Thank you.

I mostly agree with everyone. Your estimation of Dune versus Lord of the Rings seems way, way off to me.

That said, I think you are still observing something. Dune, even today, is a wildly alien setting. I have no clue how alien Lord of the Rings was when it came out, but today after decades of copy cats and the whole fantasy genre being a tentpole of nerd culture, it's bog standard. This makes Dune infinitely more niche. Both works are profoundly fertile IMHO, but LotR has had people tilling it's fields for 60 years now. It's just about used up. Dune on the other hand, has remained comparatively impenetrable. Relatively few artist have dredged anything out of it's pages, much less successfully, compared to LotR. And there is ample thematic depth to explore in that regard.

That said, we are no longer a culture that seems to comprehend themes. Watch the 40 hours of documentary footage about Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson cared deeply about maintaining the vision and themes that Tolkien infused into his works. I know people argue about how well he did. But at least he wasn't actively striving to shit all over it, "update it for a modern audience" or "fix Lord of the Rings.". I'm so fucking starved for sincerity and integrity in my culture these days, rewatching LotR almost brought a tear to my eye it was so beautiful.

The themes of Dune are more complicated and nebulous. The first book is a traditional hero's journey. Or is it? The sequels really have you questioning what young Paul Atreides wrought. The series as a whole takes place on a massive timeline. I question the capacity of our culture making apparatus to grok what Dune is really about. It asks questions like "What makes for a stable civilization, and at what costs?" And "Can I be so good at fucking that my sexcraft is considered a bioweapon?"

Frankly I'm shocked I haven't seen more Dune porn parodies. Or maybe they wouldn't even need to be parodies, just straight up porn adaptation.

Regardless, the Dune universe always seemed like a post-singularity world of profound human suffering. It was about as opposite to Iain Banks vision in the Culture novels as could possibly be. Instead of machines granting humans endless lives of luxury, they had been extirpated utterly and completely, and instead humans were beat into the tasks of machines, often losing their humanity in the process. I don't know if Herbert intended these depictions of humans "accomplishing anything" to be aspirational, but the horrifically deformed and caged Navigators or the drug addicted Mentats always squicked me out. It's never been done justice, and I don't expect it to. I can only give David Lynch credit for at least making a movie as weird as the books were, even if it got goofy as fuck in places with the source material.

So what do you think makes Dune so much more alien? It can't simply be cultural. Western fantasy, at least as an aesthetic, has certainly found fans in Asia. Is it the focus on politics and big, weird ideas like transhumanism? Is it the focus on the macro scale compared to LotR, which made it less character focused but better lent to the strategy games that I ended up having to talk to so much about?

What makes Dune so alien is that the people aren't people anymore. I mean, a few are remotely relatable. Duncan Idaho, as he comes and goes throughout the story, is probably the most relatable. But everyone else has weird alien brains, acting on strange neo-singularity logic in a world that takes what we know of the human condition and pushes it to it's breaking point.

Yet there is no struggle in this. The world of Dune is so habituated to this strange alien condition, it's taken totally for granted. It's a society that regularly wrings the humanity out of children from birth so that they can serve the functions various machines used to, and nobody cares. It's a wildly fascinating, alien setting. But it's so distantly removed from our present understanding of the human condition, it can only resonate weakly with an audience in that way. It's main draw is it's sheer alienness.

So you have these two settings. One (LotR) is defined by good versus evil, overcoming bleak odds for the sake of home and hearth, and hope. The other (Dune) is about stretching the parameters of the human condition until things are no longer recognizably human. It's easy to make a game, or a movie, or artwork or song about the first. To do the second one, and do it proper, takes a skill and imagination I have not yet seen. Oh there have been serviceable Dune products. A board game, video games, movies, that ape the aesthetic or literal plot points of Dune. And the aesthetic is important. But I've never, ever, seen the themes of Dune accurately portrayed or grappled with in any follow on media.

I should quibble that, while Dune isn't as obviously bound into the DNA of sci-fi as LOTR is to fantasy, Dune still has left indelible marks on the genre as a whole. Besides the aforementioned Dune II and how it led to Command & Conquer, the books themselves and the ideas therein were practically ripped-off for a sci-fi/sci-fantasy franchise you might recognize: Warhammer 40,000.

40K has a lot of Dune's ideas: a powerful God-Emperor, technology reverted to a means rather as the be-all-end-all, the focus on humanity and its capabilities (albeit twisted and tinged, no doubt, by heavy-metal influences like 2000 AD), the freakish Navigators that space travel relies on...

40K also has that "profound human suffering" part down pat, albeit for different reasons (in 40K, the human race as a whole commits great evil against others and itself in order to have a fighting chance against Moorcock-influenced endless evil). 40K isn't quite as interested as being as deep as Dune (at least, depending on the writer). After all, it is a wargame franchise, meaning there must always be war (which is literally part of the game's tagline!), and one of the popular sayings from the universe is "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." However, again, depending on the writer, the grand saga of the Imperium of Man can be about the human drive to survive and flourish, about how hope and unity can keep one strong in the face of evil.

The only other sci-fi franchise I can think of that uses some of the same tropes as 40K and also gestures broadly at the ideas of civilization, war, and stability is the other major sci-fi wargaming franchise from the 80's: BattleTech, the game and world created when Jordan Weisman picked up model kits/miniatures at a trade show and imagined a world not unlike the medieval, post-Roman-collapse world, but where giant anime robots replaced horses and knights and where kingdoms stretched across lightyears.

Star Wars has also obviously ripped a shitload from Dune. There's also an intergalactic emperor, a main character with a biblical first name (Paul -> Luke), a large part of the original firm takes place on a desert planet, the whole medieval/futuristic combination etc. More listed here.

If one accepts the Castalia House thesis that D&D actually didn't borrow much at all from Tolkien and was more indebted to pre-LotR pulps, one might indeed make an argument that Dune is at least as important to scifi as a genre as LotR is to fantasy. Of course, that is a big if.

Fuck without rhythm!

And you won't

Extract

The sperm.

Dune

Fertile

I'm sorry, what

By your own account, you think Dune licensing is mismanaged. And you still call this fertile?

Fertile means bountiful. There's much less Dune stuff than there is LOTR stuff. It might have something to do with the way LOTR invented a whole genre of fantasy fiction and then had a very popular and well-received movie trilogy that continues to live in the minds of "normies" long after it succeeded.

I think Marvel is heavily mismanaged, but still fertile. Just none of it is any good. They keep growing garbage. They keep making more and more of it, but it sucks.

They don't make a lot of Dune. Dune media is as parched as the desert it comes from. Had the newer movie not come out - a movie where even the company funding it was unwilling to commit to wholly and was on record not being willing to fund the second half before they saw how people reacted - I think licensing it would have been dirt cheap. I also don't think Dune is all that great, although it definitely fills its world with a ton of ideas and is quite rare in the world of schlock-sci-fi in terms of both its scope and breadth.

You could probably say the same about WH40k; a similarly rich and expansive world in scope, which takes the distinct opposite approach to licensing by shotgunning walls of flak at everyone in exchange for cashing big royalty checks from as many sources as possible, with a net result that maybe 15-20% of their licensed work is worth anything at all.

What makes a piece of media inspiring is a terrible question because what inspires people will vary from person to person. If I had to take a blind stab at it, I'd say it would probably have to do with stories that try to grasp at universal things about the human condition.

I think the enduring power in the LOTR work is that it posits the existence of clear good, clear evil, and that the corrupting presence of evil is not defeated by martial might or using evil against evil but by the willingness of small, humble beings from nowhere to sacrifice. These are things that speak to the human understanding of the world and the nature of evil.

Granted, I think the first Blade movie is Great. I also think Nabokov's Pale Fire is Great, and I think the Lives of Others is Great. I think all of these things are wonderful for entirely different reasons. I don't want things that are based on these intellectual properties, much less think they'll be great at all. Yes, even the Wesley Snipes vampire movie. The more of this we got the worse it gets. They fail (or succeed, rarely!) on their own merits, but I would not call anything based on the intellectual property great simply because it belongs to the same intellectual property.

That way lies Star Wars. And the more you look at Star Wars as an IP, the more you realize that sometimes dead truly is better.

That way lies Star Wars. And the more you look at Star Wars as an IP, the more you realize that sometimes dead truly is better.

Yes, I'm surprised when people are surprised that new Star Wars stuff is rubbish. There hasn't be a truly great Star Wars film for 40 years (arguably longer) and the heyday of Star Wars franchised stuff was the 1990s, I think, with some great Lucas Arts games from that period.

Creative success is one of those highly unpredictable evolutionary processes whose outputs look better on average than they are, because we tend to forget the detritus.

There has been a bunch good EU content though. My assumption was that similar to marvel Disney would try to pick through the material and more or less loosely adopt the good stuff.

This seemed like such an easy (and already proven within the company) recipe for success that I couldn't really imagine massive failure. The property isn't super complex and the fans are not very needy. And yet..

I think that it's at least 10 years too late to create a fun expanded universe. Too much PC, too much safety-first writing. Even the Marvel stuff doesn't interest me, except at the margins where some really vivacious creativity sneaks in e.g. the Guardians of the Galaxy films.

I think I would have to go back at least 20 years to find any Star Wars creativity that I thought wasn't just good, but great. I mean, there are still good Bond films, but I haven't seen a great one since Goldeneye nearly 30 years ago.

What makes Dune such fertile ground compared to, say, Lord of the Rings?

This paragraph threw me for a loop. My impression is that Lord of the Rings is way more of a cultural Thing compared to Dune. Like, there also LotR video games? Action adventure, turn based RPG, RTS, even an MMORPG! There are movie series both live action and animated. All these vary wildly in quality so I'm not sure savvy licensing is the reason for their existence and success. Not to mention Lord of the Rings influence on the development on fantasy as a genre of media in general.

Apologies for not commenting on the more general question on your post, which I don't have many thoughts on, but feels like a very specific cultural bubble to regard Dune as more fertile ground for inspiration than Lord of the Rings...

Right, but that is why I chose Lord of the Rings for comparison. For all of its impact, for all the media based on it directly and indirectly, it has a much worse pound for pound showing than Dune. Sure, it has a forgettable RTS, but Dune II practically invented the genre. Sure, one of the Lord of the Rings board games ended up being great, but Dune has, again, a hugely influential game that people loved so much they were still playing it when it had been print for nearly 30 years.

Was this just luck that Dune has such a stronger showing than a more popular, older IP? Or is there some quality that can be analyzed?

So could your question be rephrased as "why do Dune-licensed games have more impactful/genre-defining mechanics than LotR-licensed games"?

No, because I wanted a more universal examination. People just got really attached to the Lord of the Rings and Dune game comparison. Even the licensing aspect was less about importance for the principle and more about trying to head off nerdy arguments about what counts as influenced by these books. (E.G. how much inspiration does Star Wars take from Dune?)

I mean, if comparing Dune II to War in Middle Earth is a particularly useful comparison for insights, sure, compare away. But I was hoping for universalizable principles here, not just comparisons of these two franchises.

E.G. how much inspiration does Star Wars take from Dune?

None. They both take inspiration from the same well, but Star Wars is much more open about the roots in the Saturday morning serials like Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. Star Wars starts off with "desert planet" but then leaves that behind for the basic "rayguns and rockets" plot (and none the worse for it).

Dune is Morocco IN SPAAAACE and the Fremen are Berbers IN SPAAACE and he is a lot more pretentious than Lucas about it all. Both of them are planetary fantasies, but Herbert is all "deep environmentalism philosophy man" and Lucas was "and then pow! zap! space battles! stormtroopers! smugglers in starships! the good guys win!" so he's a lot more fun.

They both take inspiration from the same well, but Star Wars is much more open about the roots in the Saturday morning serials like Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers

It also lifts a lot of plot and characterization from a specific Kurosawa movie. Mostly changed for the better but the parallel is very transparent.

Aside from generally being unpleasant and mischaracterizing my post, I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you mad that I'm not listing more fun Dune media? That I'm not getting further into the weeds? Or do you think that talking about another game that you have already described as fun and unique somehow disproves my point about Dune having disproportionately better media than Lord of the Rings?

What do I have to argue against, even if I wanted to? You say that Dune II is mostly generic with its ships and units, as if that is somehow a strike against the idea. But a couple of other people already made the point that the ability to fill in the gaps and details of Frank Herbert's universe is one of the things it has going for it when creating media.

Are they wrong? Maybe. Feel free to make that argument. It could be interesting, but you haven't actually made it yet.

Instead you seem to think you have proven some point when all you have done is attack me, state some facts about Dune games, and declared that I am "wrecked" because of my "grand-sounding theory."

If you step out of your weird fanboy-rage for a second, you'll see that I don't actually have a theory at all. I have three statements, only two of which are at all controversial. One is the assertion that some media inspires higher-quality derivatives than others (even if the media itself is not necessarily higher quality). This is a hypothesis. It has none of the characteristics of a theory because it is currently a blank page. A thesis statement looking for a body.

My second assertion was that Dune has inspired quite a lot of high-quality media. This was an illustration of the hypothesis. Because abstracts without concrete examples don't get engagement.

My final assertion, the one that seems to have filled you with such weird, fanboyish rage, is that Lord of the Rings has a much lower average level of quality. This is also part of the illustration for comparison and contrast. This isn't a theory. Now, I'm not going to say that I don't understand why the statement is controversial, and I'd be happy if people were disagreeing in a way that even broached the thesis statement, but again, you aren't doing it. You haven't even actually engaged with the concept.

You are so mad that you think that you can somehow knock down my "grand-sounding theory" without even engaging it. You can't. Even if you were to somehow prove that I am totally wrong and Lord of the Rings has much higher quality media, that still wouldn't disprove my hypothesis. Because that would just fit the hypothesis in the opposite direction.

I didn't use the word prove, so I don't understand why you are once again attributing words to me to mischaracterize what I wrote. Is this intellectual dishonesty or just poor reading comprehension?

Edit: Oh, you think I "accidentally" admitted that this is unfalsifiable. Just poor reading comprehension, then.

More comments

LOTR's MMO was one of the best MMOs. For things outside of the movies, which LOTR still easily claims the better of them, Dune's universe is a bit more interesting when it comes to speculation. Middle Earth has a history. Dune has stuff. Its easy to create any sort of war or resource game (Age of Empire or Settlers of Catan IN DUNE)

Define "stuff."

Thousands of theoretical houses governing planets who could be at war with each other for any made up reason.

I mean, hell, you could make a strategy game depicting the Jihad as it happens between the original book and Messiah. Have two campaigns; one where you play as the Imperial house and work your way up to eventually meet face-to-face with Emperor Paul himself, and one where you're fighting for a band of houses trying to survive the wave of galactic murder Paul's ascension to the throne has unleashed.

That could be a fun 1P game, but RTS Dune is just low hanging fruit. You can be the Atriedes, the Harkkonnens, the Corrinos, etc.

It is not obvious to me that "a Dune video game created the RTS genre" and "there was a Dune board game so popular people played it decades after it was out of print" is sufficient to conclude "Dune had a stronger showing" than Lord of the Rings in terms of cultural inspiration.

The influence Tolkien's worldbuilding and method of storytelling on fantasy as a genre seems difficult to understate. Not just on directly LotR inspired works but across a range of intellectual properties and media types. This is not to say Dune wasn't influential or inspirational but it does not really compare, to my mind.

But this is just vague handwaving. I'm not arguing the popularity of Lord of the Rings or its cultural impact. I'm talking about the impact, in turn, of the licensed media that followed.

Lord of the Rings, as a book series, is hugely impactful on the culture. Lord of the Rings the multimedia franchise is, on average, middling and most of it will be forgotten. Dune, on the other hand, has been less impactful overall. Yet, despite having far less adaptations and licensed media (before the most recent movie. I'm not young and free enough to keep up with everything that is coming out now), what exists is both of a much higher average quality and often hugely impactful on their own mediums.

Just shrugging that off is simply being obtuse and ignoring the actual subject.

Then maybe that is where I'm misunderstanding what you're asking. I was thinking of the two works in terms of their broad cultural impact, not of just the impact of their licensed multimedia. In that case I think there is a case to be made for the original Lord of the Rings trilogy of films but that's about it innovation wise. I have enjoyed a lot of the Lord of the Rings games but I don't think they did anything particularly innovative, certainly not compared to what Dune seems to have done (I haven't played it myself).

On the one hand, I'd say this actually must be my fault in writing clearly because almost everyone is responding with a focus on the books themselves rather than the larger multimedia franchises.

On the other hand, I am mostly getting a lot of tears about how the Lord of the Rings trilogy is better and posters didn't even know that the board game existed so how impactful could it be? All without even engaging the question. High decouplers? Yeah, okay.

I think there's two different things being claimed.

Is the tie-in media for the Dune franchise better than the stuff produced for LOTR? Possibly. If you mean Rings of Power oh hell yeah.

Is the tie-in media for the Dune franchise more influential? Again, maybe, but I think it's more in the "niche sphere where people really really care about the RTS genre" and not "general game-playing public". I haven't played any of the LOTR games and I remember back when they were issuing board games under the licence, but I've heard about them and seen them advertised. I honestly don't remember seeing anything for Dune media.

What you said at the end there - that there’s Dune related media that’s “hugely” impactful isnt clear at all. I can’t think of any.

Dune has produced one bad movie and one good movie.

LOTR has hugely influenced fantasy, music, video games and mich more. Dune has nothing much

I'd say Dune's resulted in some bangin' music.

Before clicking the link, my guess was this.

Are we forgetting Peter Jackson's LotR movies? They were far more impactful and frankly better than any Dune movie.

Also, LotR basically spawned the fantasy genre. Even within the LotR franchise, there are countless books that spun off from the main series.

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that Lord of the Rings adaptations are less inspiring than Dune's unless you are ignoring the Peter Jackson trilogy entirely. Those are some of the most culturally significant films in recent memory. Not a month goes by where I don't hear someone quoting Gandalf, sharing a meme about the One Ring (this is one I encountered last week), comparing their political opponents to orcs, or otherwise referencing them. While Dune has also had a significant impact, this influence went under the radar for many people until the recent movie release.

For what it's worth, I had never heard of the board game until now despite having read all 6 of Frank Herbert's books and most of the Dune Encyclopedia. Most people I talk to about Dune know it has something to do with a desert, spice, and sandworms, but I am far more likely in my experience to find someone able to recite Théoden's speech at the Pelennor Fields from memory than I am someone who can recall the Litany Against Fear. If you are only looking at the most recent adaptations and comparing the Denis Villeneuve film to the Rings of Power show, then of course Dune wins hands down, but that hardly seems fair.

If your question was more narrowly focused on Dune II and the Dune board game being genre-defining as compared to LOTR strategy games and board games, then I'd wager that due to Dune's lesser cultural significance than LOTR and somewhat freer IP, developers were more willing to take risks and innovate than they would have with the Tolkien Estate breathing down their backs. Looking at the source material, it's clear that Tolkien left a lot more to work with than Herbert, so if it were a true free-for-all I'd bet on some Silmarillion adaptation wiping the floor with the best Dune has to offer (though if someone other than Brian Herbert wrote a proper Butlerian Jihad story that might stand a chance).

To be fair, the Dune RTS game was a genre-defining phenomenon.

But I agree with the overall sentiment!

I thought about that, but the Dune RTS was genre-defining in large part because of when it came out. It was easier for a game to stand out in those days.

Hi all, I was just curious on the opinions around here that people have regarding the paranormal? These types of events are also known as High Strangeness (theres a whole subreddit dedicated to it).

I've personally witnessed things throughout life that I can't properly explain and reading books, such as Surviving Death by Leslie Kean, has further reinforced my view that there really are things going on around us that one day may be understandable but elude us right now, such as UFOs (which are now being taken more seriously by the media).

I know this community has many smart people in it, who might be understandably sceptical if they havent witnessed anything paranormal first hand, but I think the study of high strangeness would massively benefit by more intelligent people taking it seriously.

Does anyone have interesting stories they could share of things they've witnessed that are unexplainable?

It's not often we tell someone to move a post in the other direction, but I think this would be more suitable to the Small Scale Question Sunday thread than the Culture War thread.

Elon is still making changes to twitter

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1637198368714772486

In the coming weeks, Twitter will prioritize replies by:

  1. People you follow
  1. Verified accounts
  1. Unverified accounts

Verified accounts are 1000X harder to game by bot & troll armies.

There is great wisdom to the old saying: “You get what you pay for.”

"1000X harder to game by bot & troll armies" Really? It seems like scammers have no trouble getting verified accounts: https://www.theverge.com/23379133/twitter-instagram-verified-account-for-sale-scam-criminal

Also, not to mention that verified accounts tended to be the ones who are woke and the most critical of his management, so why would Elon want to give them priority? It's already bad enough that there are more ads on twitter. Now giving more priority to blue accounts will make it worse.

This seems like a bad idea

From the article you linked:

Pearl was familiar with the email content’s theme as it resembled previous automated correspondence from Twitter — featuring a minimal white background, black text, and blue links.

Fearing her account’s safety, Pearl clicked the link inside the email that supposedly would instantly let her secure her account and entered her existing password on the following webpage to update it.

Moments later, a message arrived in a Telegram group. All it contained was a screenshot of Pearl’s Twitter profile and a link. Three hours later, the admin texted, “Sold.”

Pearl had fallen prey to a phishing attack. The email wasn’t from Twitter but from a hacker who had copied the look of an official Twitter message.

This doesn't seem like anything new, let alone related to the new Twitter Blue system. "Impersonation of official communication" is an age-old "social engineering" attack. Hell, the article predates Twitter Blue, and has more to do with the prior crypto-craze that's even led to things like the hacking of Discord bots.

I assume Elon's bet is that $8/month is too high a price for normal spammers and scammers to bother with. Phishers will always be a problem, yes, but again, we've had literal decades of trying to warn regular people to be vigilant against cyberattacks. Maybe it'll be worse when there's more bluechecks, but that's the other thing: the value of the bluecheck is not as high in the eye of the beholder, or, rather, the signal changes with the ubiquity of the check. Pre-Elon, the Blue Check was generally taken as a warning sign that the holder was a sanctimonious opinion-holder who leaned left. Post-Elon, "you paid $8 for a checkmark" has become the new lazy insult on Twitter. If the worst-case scenario you imply were to come to pass, why would the response not be "most users scroll past the checkmarked tweets"?

From that small excerpt, all I can say is that Pearl is an idiot. How many of these kinds of emails does everyone get everyday? I've had urgent messages about my account with such-and-such being compromised, and they look legit - but since I never went near such-and-such and have no account, I know it's a fake.

Anyone above the age of reason who clicks on a mystery link in an email, in this day, is an idiot. Sorry Pearl but it's your fault, not Musk's fault.