SoylentNews

I see a lot of people whose entire identity is based around being anti-something, and who seem to think that that's not only acceptable but an intelligent position. However, being a reactionary is not intelligent, not progressive, not helpful.

Anti-capitalism will not advance the cause of socialism, anti-fascism will not bring freedom from oppression, anti-racism will not eliminate prejudice, anti-immigration will not make brown people disappear, anti-woke will not make your grandkids conform to your outdated expectations.

I'm not saying it's wrong to oppose ideas and ideologies which you believe to be harmful, but when that forms the core of your politics, you sacrifice the ability to lead anyone and purposefully adopt the position of a follower. Ceding initiative to those who you claim to oppose is the same as endorsing them - if you want a better world, you have to be the one dragging the crowd behind you.

Republicans, Libertarians, and others on the right are often painted in the media as voting for policies that favor rich over policies that would benefit them. Democrats and progressives are likewise portrayed as voting against their interests in on issues like gun control and law enforcement. I don't think this portrayal is necessarily inaccurate, but that it is a false argument specially crafted to promote the idea that people should be voting in their own best interests. Sorry, but that's a horrible idea, and you are destroying democracy by promoting such an idea. Self-interest politics is what keeps people divided and fighting while oligarchs laugh and enjoy the spectacle (and of course, their ever greater wealth and power).

Over the past few months I've read several of Adrian Tchaikovsky's books, which have received much praise around the 'net. I started with Dogs of War, which was great fun, even though I found myself knowing how the scenes would unfold before I read them. I then moved on to The Tiger and the Wolf expecting great things, but I gave up on the series halfway through The Bear and the Serpent... Tchaikovsky is a good storyteller, but he lacks the originality and subtle nuance of a great one. I started Children of Time several hours ago and am now ~70% of the way through. The writing is predictable, every nerd-culture reference contaminating the foreshadowed plot with a weebish hamfistedness. The book reads like a cross between 40,000 in Gehenna and A Deepness in the Sky, but lacks that spark which has lead me to reread each of those many times. I don't know if I'll even finish it, let alone move onto the sequels.

In short, if you're looking for something "comfortable," Tchaikovsky might be a good choice, but ultimately he fails to live up to the standard of the works he apes.

For all of those on this forum (and others around the net) who are obsessed with "wokeism," I have a challenge: Go find even one "woke" person in real life.

I bet you can't. I'd even bet you I can find 100 hardcore neo-nazis before you find even one person who believes in CRT in real life. Hell, I know black radicals who call white people neanderthals and cave beckies and they don't even do that shit. All your "critical race theory" and "woke lefties" are an illusion conjured by propagandists on TV and the internet. It has no basis in reality. Those looters and rioters you keep going on about are not the "commies" your deranged Cold War fantasies imagine them to be, they are just angry people and opportunists, largely without any political agenda at all. You are being deceived and manipulated, because you won't go outside and actually talk to people and find out what they really believe.