
How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction - dnetesn
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/06/28/how-to-live-in-a-dystopian-fiction/
======
hprotagonist
i suggest a career in itinerant software development and pizza delivery.

~~~
seangrogg
Hey, the burbclaves need their 'za.

------
projectramo
I don't know if Handmaid's tale can be considered Dystopian because, frankly,
it is not that scary for two mains reason:

Firstly, it is completely unrealistic. No one would separate a child from
their parent in any world.

Secondly, the characters are unsympathetic. Sure something terrible happens to
them but then you realize that _they broke the law_. Clearly, they are at
fault for breaking the law.

~~~
riku_iki
> No one would separate a child from their parent in any world.

Except current US immigration policy..

~~~
j-c-hewitt
Try it in China and see what happens!

------
aphextron
Maybe I'm not alone in reaching a breaking point recently. Kennedy retiring
and giving Mitch McConnel two supreme court picks has pushed me over the edge.
We're heading for a dark, dark place as a country and I just can't care
anymore. It's too much. It's not even anger, just inconsolable depression. I'm
turning off the news and going back to playing World of Warcraft.

~~~
tgerhbes346
Imagine telling future generations "We could have stopped it, but it was too
stressful, so we played video games."

People died fighting to end slavery. People died fighting for an 8 hour work
day. People died fighting to oppose Hitler. You are just as strong as those
people.

No matter how bleak it seems, do not give up. Write, Complain, Vote.

Edit: Why the downvotes? Ok, maybe I'm being too tough. OP, you should know
that it's OK to feel sad. Everyone replying to this comment wants you to know
that you're not alone, and we hope you can find your way out of a dark place.
Please take care of yourself.

Is it because of the last sentence? I'm not saying only do those three things.

Or is it because I mentioned hitler. Sorry, I was thinking of my Grandpa. He
fought in WW2, and whenever I feel like scared, I think of him because he was
a brave person.

~~~
mattcaldwell
Why do we have to fight for this stuff? Why can't people just be decent
humans? That is the part that I struggle with.

~~~
mlevental
>Why can't people just be decent humans?

because everyone has a different definition of what it means to be decent -
the people on the other side of the debate do believe they're being decent as
well

~~~
jonhohle
I've been thinking _a lot_ about this recently and how to communicate this in
a loving way because I think it's critically important to understand that
people have differing priorities that aren't necessarily morally wrong, just
different.

Jonathan Haidt's TED talks[0] are a good starting point. Getting people from
both sides of an argument to see others as humans, neighbors, partners and how
different perspectives add value.

Miyazaki comes to mind quite a bit. For the most part the "villains" in his
movies are easy to empathize with and the protagonists learn about their goals
and view points and work within those to solve the problem they originally set
out to solve. I'd like to think people within a country are more like
Ashitaka, San, and Lady Eboshi than Luke Skywalker and Emperor Palpatine.

My own personal conviction would like to see more constructive action from
everybody. I don't consider threatening people, screaming at others, demeaning
them, or name calling constructive. I think if more people found thing they
thought could make _any_ impact, and went and helped real people, a lot more
would be done than by lamenting the current state of the universe. And unless
you need help, don't talk about it, don't expect anything in return, and don't
put down others for not thinking the areas you choose to focus on aren't as
important as the areas they've chosen to focus on.

0 -
[https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind](https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind)
,
[https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_ameri...](https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_america_heal)

~~~
mlevental
I don't believe in this kind of moral relativism - my intent was not to
relativise but to explain. You can believe you're moral and be immoral. I
don't believe in vitriol only because it is ineffectual - I don't care if some
regressive's feelings are hurt. I think power needs to be wrested from the
conservative class - that means more progressives in law schools, in b
schools, on judiciaries, in office, on boards.

~~~
jonhohle
I don't believe in moral relativism either, however, what you believe is moral
and just is likely different from what I believe is moral and just. I'm sure
I'm right (except where I'm wrong ;-) and I'm sure you believe you're right.
If we differ, I believe one of us is wrong.

However, when we come to such an impasse, I'd prefer to acknowledge it,
respect one another, and come to a common solution. What common things do
opposing groups have in common and how can that be built on?

With the knowledge that I'm stepping into the deep end: many conservatives are
convinced that life starts at conception and believe abortion is equivalent to
murder. How would you react if your government was legally permitting
selective death of a class of people who could not defend themselves?

Another group of people are convinced that separating children from families
detained at the border is equivalent to putting them in concentration camps.
How would you react if your government was allowing a class of people to be
detained without charge?

For whatever reason, it seems many people choose to think one is OK and not
the other (sure, there's nuance), but in both cases the outraged party has
complete conviction that their view is correct and logical justification for
why.

Calling the other group regressive, libtard, or any other demeaning name and
showing disgust for them rather than understanding the perspective that their
coming from makes it easier to treat the other with disrespect and dismiss
their views no matter how sane or logical they may be. Both political cultures
have deep contradictions. I see the current political climate as not
dissimilar from Cowboys vs. Packers fans. Flip flop on issues all you want, as
long as it means winning.

It may not seem like it, but there are very good and culturally healthy
reasons to have conservative and progressive viewpoints. I say this outside of
a political context.

~~~
mlevental
>no matter how sane or logical they may be

this presumes all perspectives are equally as sane/logical. that's not the
case: any group of people can choose to believe anything they'd like and
structure their politics around those beliefs. that doesn't mean they're
legitimate beliefs or politics.

i can understand why someone might believe the earth is flat and why that's a
value for them, or why climate change isn't real and that's a value. that
doesn't mean i'm going to try to compromise with either of these political
identities.

~~~
jonhohle
I don’t need to accept that the earth is flat to fight for increased
government transparency (something flat earthers would be interested in). I
don’t need to deny climate change to find other benefits to promote more
efficient energy use.

I think most people would agree that the US healthcare system is overly-
expensive, complicated, and excludes a vulnerable portion of the population.
That doesn’t mean the right solution is federal health insurance or even
single payer.

tl;dr I don’t need to change someone else’s beliefs to work towards mutually
beneficial goals.

~~~
mlevental
>I don’t need to accept that the earth is flat to fight for increased
government transparency (something flat earthers would be interested in)

can you show me anything (other than your most charitable interpretation of
the realization of that political identity) that suggests this is what they
want?

>I don’t need to deny climate change to find other benefits to promote more
efficient energy use.

can you explain to me why we should operate this way? sure i can come up with
all sorts of alternative explanations for why environmentally friendly energy
sources are good (solar jobs blah blah blah) that might be more amenable to
climate-change deniers but why does it have to be this way?

how about anti-vaxxers and the like? how about birthers? how about sovereign-
citizens? how many different narratives do i need to construct in order to get
buy-in for something that's rigorously verified and people are simply obdurate
with respect to? is the reason that that's how it is now because certain
groups have as much power as they do?

>I don’t need to change someone else’s beliefs to work towards mutually
beneficial goals.

there are people with whom you do not have common cause. or maybe not you. but
there are certainly peoples that are marginalized to such an extent that they
do not have common cause with any in power. should they being playing these
creative games as well?

~~~
jonhohle
I’ve only spent a small amount of time reading about the motivations of flat
earthers, but IIRC, the best I could come up with was TPTB hiding the truth
from the populace. It seemed like a lot of effort to me for little benefit,
but there are areas where I think we would all benefit from odd things the
government has done. The others are mostly the same - distrust in government -
something the left seems to be embracing whilst out of power.

In many of those cases, flat earth, birther, sovereign citizen - there is no
obvious impact to me except maybe some Minor annoyance. I could see an
argument for anti-vaxxers potentially being dangerous, but people should have
control over what goes into their own bodies - and from what I know about
them, it’s not the vaccine that’s largely a concern, but the other stuff which
may or may not come with it.

Charity (and charitable interpretation) is a big portion of it. In many cases
people have fears that aren’t being addressed and want to protect themselves
and their families. In some cases there may be mental health issues that
predispose certain types of thinking. But ultimately, we’re all humans with
differing priorities. If another group is making a good faith attempt at
pursuing their priorities, treating eahcother fairly and with respect should
be the default.

If someone threatens to harm me or my family based on our differing beliefs,
affiliations, or priorities, it only makes forward progress difficult. Based
on my own family, I prefer to think communication is a more likely issue than
50% of the population being wrong and stupid.

