HOME | DD

RvBOMally — Hugbox

Published: 2016-02-14 19:07:56 +0000 UTC; Views: 26576; Favourites: 133; Downloads: 262
Redirect to original
Description Here's my Valentine's Day special, ironically a scenario that will probably get me a lot of hate.  I wanted to do something less fantastical and more political sciency with the Valentine's Day idea, so I thought: a dystopia revolving around the use of love and warm fuzzies, not the overtness of hatred and jackboots. So, I decided to blend Brave New World with an ideology I haven't tackled much: modern social justice. I also decided to use this to help round out my ideological worlds . I was inspired a bit by Meerkat92 's Some Strings Attached . I also decided to use MetalSlimeHunt's 1993 PoD idea with the Militia Movement to kick things off. 

---

Welcome to the future, where everyone is lovely and kind and gets along with everyone else. Or else. At least, that's how it is in the United Earth Government. And if you don't like it, well, you're obviously some sort of evil oppressor who should move to the counter-UEG states or, better yet, kill yourself. 

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the West believed it had reached the end of history. Then, in 1993, a series of events began which culminated in the end of the first United States of America. The Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas was besieged by federal authorities, and they (as Branch Davidians today insist, miraculously) escaped from the flames that engulfed their compound. This attack, followed by the bombings of federal buildings in Oklahoma City and Atlanta, led to a major crackdown on the "Militia Movement." The paranoia only became worse after the attack on the World Trade Center in 2002, pulling the United States into a series of wars against Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. The Second Depression in 2011 led to the fall of the Chinese Communist Party and the further destruction of economic security in the world. Crackdowns and riots became commonplace across the country. With extremists on both sides gaining the limelight, the United States practically collapsed as none of the four presidential candidates[1] won the 2016 election, and the Congress handed victory to the two establishment candidates (the Republican gained the presidency, and the Democrat the vice presidency). Neither candidate was popular with the people, and as the situation degraded, civil unrest became even worse. By 2017, the country was in full-blown civil war. 

In the meanwhile, the Russian Federation - already a weakened husk of its former Soviet self - attempted to take advantage of this weakness by reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine by force. In what is now known as the Eurasian War, they were defeated by what remained of NATO in Europe, but only after a long conflict which led to the rise of the European Federation. The Second American Civil War ended with the country divided between a conservative South and two liberal states: Cascadia and the North American Republic. The Middle East was left in shambles, with the Islamic State dominating former Syria, Iraq and Turkey, before the European Federation invaded and cleared the place up. 

The European Federation was the big winner. By 2030, the Chinese and Americans were still repairing, while the Russians were under their boot. The EF knew what had caused the problems of the past few decades: nationalism, capitalism and hate. Of course, the Soviet model was not to be followed - communism had failed in the USSR and China, after all - so a new path should be taken. A path of peace, tolerance, social justice, and equality. Gradually, although with growing rapidity, society would be remolded so that everyone in Europe - and then, the entire world - was a nice, docile, progressive. Around the world, nations followed the EF model. Not only did the world's last functioning economy condition its aid on adopting its principles, the EF also became used to flexing its military muscles. "Humanitarian" regime changes became the norm throughout the 21st century, and became the catalyst for the formation of the other global federations. One notable exception to the model is the NAR and Cascadia; both states were enamored by the "progress" the EF was making, and thus adopted their policies with zeal. 

The UEG is a contradiction. It's not really united, it doesn't encompass the whole Earth, and its structure is so ill-defined that it may not even be a government. The UEG is a product of the political integration that began as early as the 1950s, with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community. The UEG federation of federations, with the ultimate goal of erasing all social, cultural, and economic divisions. Civilian weapon ownership is restricted; gun control was taken for granted, of course, but why stop there? Baseball bats and arrows can kill, too, and who uses those for sport outside of the American South? And isn't it totally reasonable to also have background checks on steak knife owners? 

A progressive tax was instituted, with the top ten percent paying 90% and the lowest tax bracket at 40%; can't have those rich fat cats not distributing their "fair share" now, can we? That a lot of this money was squandered by corrupt EF politicians was no matter. Also ignore the fact that the poorer members of the UEG do not have cradle to grave benefits, so their workers can toil from cradle to grave so that the EF's people can live large. 

Democracy, of course, is important and a guaranteed human right…but anyone who opposes the ruling Progressive/Labour/Social Democratic Party or any parties in their coalition was obviously a bigot of some description, so those parties can be safely banned. Anti-government speech is also deemed "problematic," and the EF is gradually instituting a new, sanitized version of English for everyone to speak. This "new speech" is extremely simplistic, so that everyone could learn it, and so that it is difficult to express certain ideas without using "problematic" language. Even religion is not exempt, and is attacked as being a tool of oppression; recently, Islam has joined Christianity in this group. 

To ensure that all peoples are equally represented in government and business, quotas were passed to ensure that at least half of every corporate Board of Directors and every legislature on Earth was composed of women, with the appropriate percentages of ethnic minorities as well. And just because of the historical oppression visited upon them, ethnic minorities and non-heterosexuals get preferential quotas and treatment everywhere. Of course, ignore all of the rich, old, white men who claim to be black transgender lesbians to take advantage of these laws; you don't know how they identify! And ignore the fact that it's still rich white people in charge of the UEG; they know what's best for everyone else, and they have your best interest at heart. 

Drug use and vapid entertainment is commonplace. Rather than addressing personal problems, why not take some antidepressants and keep up with the newest social media trends. Better than paying attention to what's actually going on. Anybody who speaks out about this state of affairs is clearly a bigot, and bigotry is anti-social and illegal, so they are thrown in jail. Or, more likely, they are socially ostracized and forced to live in the streets as a beggar because nobody could hire such a person. Who could oppose this utopian vision? 

The counter-UEG states do. These "regressives" are despised by the UEG, and are frequently the subject of demonization. In the UEG, everyone is supposed to be happy…until counter-UEG powers are brought up, and then the hatred is allowed to flow. The UEG frequently launches invasions of counter-UEG insurgents around the world, but given that the counter-UEG states are armed with nuclear weapons and orbital railguns, they are off-limits. The counter-UEG states are an electic mix of not-so-nice states. China, the unofficial leader of the bloc, is an outright dictatorship, one that has become strongly Christian. The fall of the Communist Party and the chaos that followed opened the door for Christianity in China, although the form it takes is very syncretic. The Second American Federation, the conservative remnant of the first United States, is still a democracy, albeit it is as democratic as the EF. There is a constant scare for "globalists," and anybody who criticizes the government is quickly blacklisted. The Levantine Federation - a union of Israel and Palestine - has become a surprisingly successful Jewish-Muslim mix, one that despises the radical secularism of the UEG. The others are bog-standard dictatorships. 

In Oceania, the Republic of Oceania forms a third bloc. The product of the Indonesian Revolution, Oceania is a horrific, highly militarized Orwellian state. During its early years, Oceania destroyed all vestiges of Indonesian, Malaysian, Australian and Kiwi culture, replacing it with its strange neo-Maoism. Other rogue states include the Empire of Zaire, which models itself off the Roman Empire, and the fundamentalist Christian Republic of West Africa, which is currently waging a "crusade" against "infidels" in its borders. 

[1] The GOP and Dems were divided, and the two anti-establishment candidates ran as independents.
Related content
Comments: 227

RvBOMally In reply to ??? [2016-02-15 02:58:20 +0000 UTC]

Huh? It's just a dystopia based on modern social justice ideology. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

KuboCaskett In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 04:03:56 +0000 UTC]

And on the SJW view of things a utopia to them. Talk about one man's trash being another man's treasure.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to KuboCaskett [2016-02-15 04:10:13 +0000 UTC]

I don't think anyone would consider this a utopia, unless they picture themselves in leadership. These scenarios are designed to be shitty for everyone except the leadership, which is how a vast majority of human societies around the world were and are organized.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Meerkat92 In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 05:13:02 +0000 UTC]

> I don't think anyone would consider this a utopia, unless they picture themselves in leadership.

That's the whole point. A lot of Internet radicals actually *do* see themselves as future lords, instead of the peasants they would actually be. There are a lot of SJWs out there, like Arthur Chu, who have the psychological profile of a proto-Cheka, except SJWs have no actual power outside the Internet and are way too cowardly to risk their own lives. But given the opportunity, after more courageous people have established a totalitarian system, is there any doubt that they would gleefully partake in the executions? Not in my mind. Many of those who actually engaged in murder back then were pretty pathetic people before the real revolutionaries took over. It doesn't mean much.

Maybe I'm being overly gullible in taking hardcore Social Justice people at face value, but a lot of them don't strike me as the type of folks who *wouldn't* do that shit. 

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Meerkat92 [2016-02-15 05:31:26 +0000 UTC]

I do think that some of the keyboard warriors on the extremes picture themselves as proto-Cheka or Gestapo when "the day of the rope" arrives. And when you look at the psychological profiles of the people who actually participated in those horrors during the twentieth century, you'll see similar psychological profiles. Himmler was a chicken farmer and that dude who held the flag at Nazi rallies, for example. Then you get deeply damaged people like Elliot Roger, who actually go out and commit crimes, but of course they never get far. Whether extremists online would actually kill people on behalf of a totalitarian state is a question I'd like to leave to the realm of hypothesis. That being said, I think a lot of these people are just frustrated youngsters who want to talk tough because it's easy to say things online. I dislike the "they'll grow out of it" argument, but in most cases, I really do think it's a case of immaturity.

👍: 1 ⏩: 2

OneHellofaBird In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 20:52:27 +0000 UTC]

the "we're just a harmless movement confined to the internet and sophomore columns in college newsletters" is part of their posture: they write laws, advise judges, run mandated training seminars, and even influence asylum policy (transwomen left to their butchers in the Caribbean and Central America)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Meerkat92 In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 05:51:45 +0000 UTC]

Part of it probably is immaturity, but a lot of it is that a lot of people nowadays just feel rootless and worthless. So they gravitate to extreme ideologies because they promise them a spot in a recognizable hierarchy and gives their life a type of extrinsic meaning that's hard to come by. 

Going with your Elliot Roger example, some of his problems likely stemmed from his weird home life, but there's also the fact that, being of mixed European and Asian heritage, he probably felt like he didn't really fit in with the cultures of either side of his family. In an important way, the dude was an outsider even among his own family. That alienation probably exacerbated whatever mental problems he already had (and he clearly did have mental problems). It's interesting to speculate how many maladjusted people today would have turned out differently if they'd lived before the age of mass society. 

Speaking of talking tough online, I'm thinking you're more familiar with the Internet far right than you let on, at least if your "Day of the Rope" reference is anything to go on.   

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Meerkat92 [2016-02-15 06:07:22 +0000 UTC]

Agreed with you on all of those points. I like to look at historical antecedents of current events, and a lot of this alienation and rootlessness reminds me of the post-WWI West. While I wouldn't say it's gotten that bad (honestly, I think we need a new Great Depression for that), there is a definite sense of alienation that people - especially young people - are desperately filling with extreme ideas. "Hey, they're angry and want change! So do I!" Would this lead to the rise of a new Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? I'm doubtful that we'd see totalitarianism in those forms again, because it's too obviously evil. But I do think other extreme ideas can take power, but only if we have that great crisis like a new Great Depression (world wars are out; that's a whole other set of problems), and this totalitarianism will take a new form. A different strain of the same disease, if you will. 

I do not know how you are defining mass society, but if you mean pre-Internet, he may have found his niche and settled. Living among the elites in California would put tremendous pressure on him regardless, but he may not have wandered off into the wilds of the Internet and reinforced his warped ideas. However, I do think that living in such a high expectation environment, and having preexisting mental disorders, are equally important. It's a trifecta of terror with Roger, unfortunately. 

I am rather aware of the Internet far right, but the reason I don't talk about it much is that they have little to offer by the way of the work I do here. I don't want to mess around with Neo-Nazis if I can readily use the real deal. And the rest of the far right is too niche for a remotely plausible scenario where they are in charge; I did have a bit where Anders Breivik took over the EU, but that was a silly World War I parallel where everything went insane. The far right is too closely associated with the Nazis to ever gain power, and they do not have the advantage of a great crisis like the Great Depression to turn their beyond outsider status into an asset. 

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

Meerkat92 In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 06:23:18 +0000 UTC]

When I say "mass society," I mostly mean the period after mass media really took off. So I guess the post-WWII period would be the age of mass society. 

As for the Internet far right, I'm kind of in a similar position. I occasionally pop in to see what they're talking about in a general sense, but the signal-to-noise ratio is awful. I'm not bothered by their bigotry--I can listen to some pretty abhorrent ideas without being personally affected, and they're the only milieu left that's producing really edgy humor--but they're just too whiny for me to take seriously. They seem to think that they're just "owed" a country because their ancestors had one. For a milieu as fond of Will to Power bloviating as Neo-Nazis, they sure do hate applying it to themselves. 

That said, as a rightist it bothers me how the fascists are the only right-wingers out there who aren't totally naive about capitalism. That doesn't bode well at all. 

EDIT: A lot of the pathologies we see in the First World can probably be explained by the fact that we're basically living in a scaled-up version of John B. Calhoun's rat utopia experiments .

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Meerkat92 [2016-02-15 06:59:02 +0000 UTC]

The Internet far right's bigotry amuses me more than anything else (for the record, I'm not white). It's so immature and edgy that I can't take it seriously. The people posting that stuff are either trolls or morons, so either way I see them as no threat.

I do see the Internet far right as flawed for their whiny nature. For a group that professes to hate the identity politics of the left, they are all about nebulous ideas about race and sex. And given how often they argue about who's "actually white," it shows how ill-conceived their ideas are. If they practiced what they preached, and moved to a white supremacist compound somewhere and left everybody alone, then maybe they wouldn't be so pathetic. As for the idea of being "owed" a country, it's funny to see how they react to Zionism. Oh, nationalism for me, but not for thee.

I do think that tradition and culture are important for reasons of giving people an anchor. Without an anchor, people get lost and get caught up by extremism. But on the other hand, going so far that someone thinks they are superior for their ancestor's achievements shows how much of a failure they are. If all they can point to in their lives is the accomplishments of others, they have no accomplishments of their own.

As for capitalism, I consider myself a free market guy, but I do have major issues with capitalism in its current form. I disagree heavily with consumerism, and I think it is damaging to both the planet and society, I dislike some effects of globalization, I think there's too much cronyism and corruption going on, and I think that the current mode of economic organization in the West is a holdover from industrialism that must be allowed to restructure for the Information Age.

As for the rat experiment, I am well aware of it! I do think that civilizations experience this cycle of prosperity and collapse, and we are no exception. There will be no "end to history" unless human nature itself is changed. I actually use the rat experiment as the basis for the collapse of the Second Empire of Mankind in my Space Cadet series. The Second Empire is basically the rat experiment on a galactic scale. I haven't fleshed it out too much, though, so don't go hunting for something that isn't there!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Meerkat92 In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 07:29:13 +0000 UTC]

I actually brought up that idea about getting over whininess and actually fleshing out your racial/sexual theories before on a far-right forum. They then downvoted every comment I'd ever made in droves, to the point where I had people following me around calling me a Jew shill trying to divide "muh movement." They never get anywhere because they're paralyzed by splitters and drama. One day it's about a movement figure being gay, then it's about whether Christianity, Euro-Paganism, or Atheism is the "whitest" belief system, then it's about whether we can troll the Jews by promoting Flat Earth Cosmology (I'm not kidding ). So nothing ever gets done and they go around in circles. It's a giant bucket full of racist, anime-loving crabs.  And the anarchists are a bucket of naive, bowtie-wearing crabs. And the SJWs are a bucket of angry, sexually-abused crabs. And so on.

I don't really have anything against ethnocentrism or the formation of ethnostates, except that once you admit that large numbers of your supposed ethnos are shiftless morons who don't care about themselves or you, it all seems kind of pointless. Obviously, they're not the master race if they're so easily brainwashed by network TV, nor are they particularly relatable if you consider yourself a thinking person. It's like having a big extended family of assholes and morons.

So, what value is there for you as an individual in preserving the genetic purity of your ethnos? All people manage to come up with is "so my kids will look like me and share my culture." A good point, except that now they've inadvertently confirmed the notion they originally rebelled against: that race is only skin-deep and culture is what matters. Besides, as a white man (and radical politics is almost always a male thing), you could marry a Jew or light-skinned Arab or Hispanic woman, and still have kids that look like you.

So you have one of two choices: either continue to work for the interests of people who are not your own despite a common ancestry, or form your own tribe of people whom you can actually relate to, and who may even care whether you live or die. 

Sorry about the long digression; nobody else wants to hear me complain about other losers on the Internet, and this convo seems as good a place as any to vent.

Other than that, your beliefs are almost identical to my own. I knew I liked you.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Meerkat92 [2016-02-15 16:25:49 +0000 UTC]

Inter-ideological (and inter-religious) fights always interest me. That old adage about a heretic being someone who agrees with you on almost everything holds true all the time. At the end of the day, the only person who will agree with you 100% is you, and when power (even over something as nebulous as an Internet movement) is thrown into the mix, divisions will be exacerbated and lead to conflict. When political power and money are involved, it will often lead to blood. 

I found myself more or less agreeing with your views on ethnocentrism. I have no problem with people establishing their own ethnocentric societies, or being "proud" of their race, so long as they don't hurt others, but it's silly because of the reasons you posited. 

I also find myself wishing to expound on my ideas on tradition and culture further. I view those things as good, not (necessarily) for their inherent worth, but because of their utility as an anchor. To quote Voltaire (if he really said this ), if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. I just think it's human nature to desire some sort of social value system beyond plain hedonism, and the sort of person who can be truly apart from societal norms is, as Aristotle said, is a beast or a god. It is the exceptional (in both the good and the bad sense) individual who can be rootless; most of us will take root somewhere, and often it's not anywhere pleasant. I am skeptical of change for change's sake, and the "it's the CURRENT YEAR, COME ON" train of thought disturbs me. Humanity isn't on a rail going to some inevitable future, it is a man wandering down many branching paths, some of which loop around. I am all for challenging traditions that are detrimental or simply don't make sense, but I also think that other traditions do ultimately have a rational basis (even if it's hidden deep in history); otherwise, people would have rejected it long ago. Some traditions do account for - indeed, rise from - those immutable truths of the human condition that will not change unless the human condition itself changes. Yes, try new ideas, but acknowledge that they will often fail! And don't change for change's sake; take rational steps, and take into account past knowledge, because it is wise to learn from the mistakes and experiences of those that have gone before us. 

👍: 1 ⏩: 2

PersephoneEosopoulou In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-19 16:35:28 +0000 UTC]

The above has been extremely interesting to read .

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

UraniumUtopia In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-17 14:08:11 +0000 UTC]

Speaking about the human condition and changing it, how do you feel about doing such a thing?  Should we change the human condition?  Why, or why not?  If so, in what way?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to UraniumUtopia [2016-02-17 16:43:01 +0000 UTC]

That is a tough question. I think the only way to do that is through extensive biological and mechanical augmentation or modification of humans. I'm wary of it because this sort of technology can easily be abused. And even if it isn't, who gets to decide what path the human species takes? I address this issue tangentially in Space Cadet, where the Second Empire represents a form of "utopian" transhumanism and my personal concerns with that particular path. 

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

PersephoneEosopoulou In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-19 16:35:02 +0000 UTC]

I have concerns with Transhumanism myself. I don't believe genetic modification and cybernetic augmentation are bad or evil but so of the end results might be undesirable.

Then you have weird people who want to make everyone some kind of hivemind and remove our individuality eg Humans become ants. There are even stranger people but I don't even know where or how to begin with them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KuboCaskett In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 04:13:34 +0000 UTC]

Well just to let you know some people actually might think the ideas that made such dystopic worlds are a good idea. Shame they can't (and even refuse to) comprehend the consequences of those ideas.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to KuboCaskett [2016-02-15 04:16:17 +0000 UTC]

Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China existed (well, the PRC still does, just not in the same horrible form). I know that people have wanted to push ideology far enough to create horror shows.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Meerkat92 In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 05:16:14 +0000 UTC]

It's kind of funny how, in order to create something really evil and ugly, you have to believe you're creating something beautiful. It's almost like God steps in after a certain point and says "OHHHH NO YOU DON'T; CREATING HEAVEN IS MY JOB!"

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Meerkat92 [2016-02-15 05:32:13 +0000 UTC]

My view on utopianism has always been that trying to create perfection on an imperfect world, with imperfect beings, will break one of the two. And the world isn't going to budge. 

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

PersephoneEosopoulou In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-19 16:24:00 +0000 UTC]

That's a very logical view and one that I share, that said I liek so called flawed utopias like the one in Apple Seed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KuboCaskett In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 04:20:15 +0000 UTC]

And we must hope that they must not be repeated, but then again we have the likes of ISIS to deal with.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Meerkat92 In reply to KuboCaskett [2016-02-15 05:22:55 +0000 UTC]

ISIS isn't much of a global threat; they'll only exist for as long as the great powers find them convenient to have around. The EU needs ISIS around to drive more Syrians into Europe to prop up their labor pool, Russia needs ISIS around to give them a pretext to support Assad militarily, Israel needs ISIS around to give them a villain to scare the Israeli left into submission, and America's just kind of on autopilot. 

IMO, the real struggle of the 21st century will be between globalists and nationalists.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

KuboCaskett In reply to Meerkat92 [2016-02-15 05:31:23 +0000 UTC]

I don't know why the world would want ISIS around as it is a threat to mankind's existence (that and it sounds like a conspiracy theory to me); but to be fair, the great powers would compete to see who breaks the Crooked Caliphate first since well that's going on whatever power's list of achievements.

Also your view of globalists vs. nationalists reminds me of Front Mission's themes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Meerkat92 In reply to KuboCaskett [2016-02-15 05:40:33 +0000 UTC]

It's not really a conspiracy theory; just taking a look at what each power would gain from keeping a destabilizing factor like ISIS around: 

Europe is aging at an apocalyptic rate and needs new workers, which ISIS provides by creating refugees. 
Russia needs a good relationship with Syria, an ally, which ISIS endangers. 
Israel is constantly at war with itself and needs an enemy, which having jihadists literally next door provides. 

If it sounds like a conspiracy theory, then I'm probably oversimplifying it. Having ISIS around is a PR disaster, but also serves each power's immediate needs.  

Also, I'm not sure what Front Mission is, so I'm not sure how to take that.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

KuboCaskett In reply to Meerkat92 [2016-02-15 18:43:33 +0000 UTC]

That's pretty sad given what you said, and it seems to prove my point that ISIS might last for more than 20 years; heck they might last a century! Boy will the 21st century be in a long ride with that.

Anyway, about Front Mission; it's a multi-media franchise owned by Square-Enix that began with a manga then spread into video games and oddly known more as a video game franchise. Long story short it's like Gundam minus the space stuff and somewhat more realistic (and IMO the most realistic mecha stuff it can get). Shame Square Enix didn't do much to bring it over to the West but that's another story for another time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

KuboCaskett In reply to KuboCaskett [2016-02-19 18:35:02 +0000 UTC]

Right and I quite dig them to an extent, given that mechas usually aren't my kind of thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PersephoneEosopoulou In reply to KuboCaskett [2016-02-19 16:37:26 +0000 UTC]

Front Mission has the Wanzers right ?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

hgfggg In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 03:01:02 +0000 UTC]

Somehow, even though I look at your scenarios a lot of the time... I'm optimistic enough to think that if "modern social justice ideology" and not a parody of it took over, it wouldn't be this shitty. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to hgfggg [2016-02-15 03:02:20 +0000 UTC]

These dystopias are always meant to be exaggerations of the core idea, so you're probably right. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AvatarVyakara In reply to ??? [2016-02-15 01:56:23 +0000 UTC]

...eep.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TLhikan In reply to ??? [2016-02-15 01:19:50 +0000 UTC]

You can have my steak knives when you pull them out of my cold, dead, hands.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Tuskin38 In reply to ??? [2016-02-14 23:50:30 +0000 UTC]

i"m confused about the Second American Civil War.  When it was over, did the Northern States purpose to Canada to join together? Were they already together before the Civil War?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Tuskin38 [2016-02-14 23:52:03 +0000 UTC]

They joined in the aftermath of the civil war because the former American states were heavily damaged and were willing to join into a new federation with Canada, which was also damaged in the war. The expansions into the Caribbean were much later.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Tuskin38 In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-14 23:57:47 +0000 UTC]

Ah ok.

Interesting world.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mdc01957 In reply to ??? [2016-02-14 23:47:11 +0000 UTC]

So basically, the EU writ large. And it functions even more dysfunctionally.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to mdc01957 [2016-02-14 23:50:47 +0000 UTC]

Well, it is a dystopia.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mdc01957 In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-14 23:57:20 +0000 UTC]

Yeah. Also, you've captured the Tumblr/SJW/ideologue mindset taken to its logical conclusion rather well. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PersephoneEosopoulou In reply to mdc01957 [2016-02-19 16:24:56 +0000 UTC]

Indeed, this is a fucking horrible world.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Sir-Conor In reply to ??? [2016-02-14 23:29:35 +0000 UTC]

great map pretty hilarious.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Sir-Conor [2016-02-14 23:34:07 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Meerkat92 In reply to ??? [2016-02-14 22:40:12 +0000 UTC]

LOL, awesome stuff. I'm sure a fair number of your fans are gonna be all cans.wav  over it, but I liked it a lot. Ironically,  your world is a lot more hopeful than my original. Your anti-UEG forces are fairly substantial.  

EDIT: Never thought I'd see another "Algeria-invades-Morocco" scenario.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Meerkat92 [2016-02-14 22:49:39 +0000 UTC]

I think my fans are mature enough to handle this. After all, I'm out to make a dystopia from every ideology, including my own.

The Doylist reason the counter-UEG forces are more substantial is that this world is also restricted to one planet (the paltry Moon bases that the UEG has don't count). And I like to put in an opposition bloc to every one of these ideological worlds. Although I did forget to establish one for Under the Jackboot. Whoops!

Algeria invades Morocco was a spur of the moment thing. I idly set it up on the map and then decided to give it a backstory. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

PersephoneEosopoulou In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 02:03:58 +0000 UTC]

Have you done a Buddhist dystopia?.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

OneHellofaBird In reply to PersephoneEosopoulou [2016-02-15 20:40:32 +0000 UTC]

Zhang Xianzhong, the Dzhungar genocide, Ungern-Sternberg, wartime Japan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar--won't somebody stop the Dharmic Menace!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RvBOMally In reply to PersephoneEosopoulou [2016-02-15 02:05:22 +0000 UTC]

I'll tackle it when I do theocracies.

I also did this: rvbomally.deviantart.com/art/S…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PersephoneEosopoulou In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 02:19:38 +0000 UTC]

Sweet .

Will that also cover fictional religions ?.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to PersephoneEosopoulou [2016-02-15 02:20:58 +0000 UTC]

No.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PersephoneEosopoulou In reply to RvBOMally [2016-02-15 02:30:07 +0000 UTC]

Ahh I assumed as much, as interesting as a Unitology (Dead Space) theocracy would be there isn't much to go on for example.

So would it be one for each religion or one map covering all of them ?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to PersephoneEosopoulou [2016-02-15 02:45:17 +0000 UTC]

I wouldn't use Unitology, I'd just use Scientology.

One map, with each religion getting their own dystopia.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1


<= Prev | | Next =>