• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All Things Red Poppy Merged Thread (sales, copyright, usage, bans/restrictions, etc.)

  • Thread starter Thread starter MAJOR_Baker
  • Start date Start date
Question Want Me To Kill Them GIF

In Starship Troopers, one of the catalysts for the society's political and governmental structure is the idea that previous generations allowed social order and civic responsibility to erode. The novel describes a period in which youth delinquency, violence, and public disorder became increasingly common, with gangs of young people acting with little regard for authority or consequences. According to the story's fictional history, these conditions contributed to a broader breakdown in civic culture and public confidence in existing institutions.

The society that emerges in the novel is presented as a response to those failures, placing a strong emphasis on personal responsibility, service, discipline, and civic duty. Whether one agrees with the author's conclusions or not, the underlying argument is that rights and responsibilities should be closely linked, and that a stable society depends on citizens being willing to contribute to the common good rather than simply demand its benefits.

One of the themes Heinlein explores is the concern that when discipline, accountability, and civic engagement decline, social cohesion can weaken, creating space for disorder and antisocial behaviour to flourish.
 
WRT to the air horn incident the perpetrators will get a slap on the wrist and some probation, depending upon their ethnicity.
 
In Starship Troopers, one of the catalysts for the society's political and governmental structure is the idea that previous generations allowed social order and civic responsibility to erode. The novel describes a period in which youth delinquency, violence, and public disorder became increasingly common, with gangs of young people acting with little regard for authority or consequences. According to the story's fictional history, these conditions contributed to a broader breakdown in civic culture and public confidence in existing institutions.

The society that emerges in the novel is presented as a response to those failures, placing a strong emphasis on personal responsibility, service, discipline, and civic duty. Whether one agrees with the author's conclusions or not, the underlying argument is that rights and responsibilities should be closely linked, and that a stable society depends on citizens being willing to contribute to the common good rather than simply demand its benefits.

One of the themes Heinlein explores is the concern that when discipline, accountability, and civic engagement decline, social cohesion can weaken, creating space for disorder and antisocial behaviour to flourish.

In short, if liberals won’t enforce the law, the people will elect fascists who will.
 
I’m not sure why you’re butt-hurt about my comment. I’m largely agreeing with you.

Apologies I completely misinterpreted your post.

If liberals on the left and the right continue to allow people get victimized by crime with no accountability to the perpetrators, eventually they will vote for those who promise to bring back accountability, even if it’s by extreme measures such as enforcing standards on the populace at large. My comment is for liberals, by which I mean conservative and progressive liberals as opposed to conservative and progressive illiberals, to get their shit together.

Chat GPT

Q: What are the mitigating factors that lead the to world that is present in Starship Troopers ?
AI ASSISTED
I think this is one of the most important questions to ask when evaluating Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Rather than judging the Federation's political system in isolation, we should ask: what happened to humanity that made this system seem reasonable, necessary, or even desirable to the people living under it?

The novel doesn't provide a complete historical account of how the Federation came into existence, but it does give us several important clues.
The crucial distinction is between explaining why a society adopts an authoritarian or restrictive system and proving that the system is justified. Heinlein gives us material to do the former, while leaving plenty of room to debate the latter.

1. The collapse of the previous political order​

In the history taught by Mr. Dubois, Rico's instructor, the pre-Federation world suffers a breakdown of social order. Heinlein describes a period in which conventional civilian governments lose their ability to maintain stability, while violence and criminality increase.
The novel's account suggests several contributing factors:
  • Governments become ineffective at controlling violence.
  • Conventional political authority loses legitimacy.
  • People who are willing and able to use force become increasingly influential.
  • Veterans and military personnel come to see themselves as more responsible stewards of society than the civilian political class.
The important point is that the Federation doesn't present itself as a regime that simply seized a functioning democracy for the sake of power. Its founding mythology is that the old system failed and that a different kind of citizen had to restore order.
That makes the Federation's political philosophy more understandable, even if we question whether its historical narrative is complete or self-serving.

2. Military defeat and national humiliation​

One of the most important mitigating factors is that humanity's old political order had suffered a major military defeat.
The novel refers to a war involving the Anglo-American-Russian alliance and the Chinese Hegemony. The defeat, the Treaty of New Delhi, and the mishandling of prisoners of war leave returning veterans embittered and disillusioned with their governments.

Starship Troopers+1

This creates a familiar historical dynamic:
  • Soldiers believe they sacrificed for their country but were betrayed by its leaders.
  • The public loses confidence in existing political institutions.
  • Veterans possess organization, discipline, and practical experience with violence.
  • Civilian authorities struggle to restore order or command respect.
The veterans don't necessarily need to begin with a grand ideological plan. They can gain power because they are among the few groups capable of maintaining order when existing institutions fail.
That is a plausible mechanism for political change, although it doesn't establish that the veterans' eventual government is democratic or morally superior.

3. The failure of democracy to maintain social order​

Heinlein's fictional history attributes much of the previous order's collapse to what its characters call unlimited democracy.
In the Federation's account, people had come to believe that voting entitled them to whatever policies they wanted, without accepting corresponding obligations or consequences. Crime, juvenile delinquency, and social instability became symptoms of a broader failure of civic responsibility.

LitCharts+1

This is probably the novel's central political premise.
Imagine a society where:
  • Politicians prioritize winning elections over solving long-term problems.
  • Voters reward immediate benefits while avoiding difficult trade-offs.
  • Institutions become reluctant to enforce unpopular laws.
  • People increasingly regard rights as entitlements detached from duties.
  • Public confidence in the justice system collapses.
If those problems become severe enough, citizens might become willing to accept a less inclusive political system in exchange for security and stability.

But we need to distinguish Heinlein's premise from an established historical fact: the novel gives us a fictional explanation of democratic collapse, not proof that universal suffrage caused it. The same failures could arise from corruption, economic crisis, institutional incompetence, or authoritarian leaders exploiting public fear.

4. The breakdown of family discipline and moral education​

This is another major factor in the world described by the novel.

Rico's History and Moral Philosophy classes teach that human beings aren't automatically born with a developed moral sense. They must learn responsibility, self-control, and concern for others through training and experience.

The society that preceded the Federation is depicted as having rejected traditional discipline, including corporal punishment, while failing to develop effective alternatives. Heinlein's characters connect that failure to rising crime and social disorder.

The underlying argument is that a society cannot survive on rights alone. It also needs people who can:
  • Control their impulses.
  • Accept consequences for their actions.
  • Respect obligations to others.
  • Exercise authority responsibly.
  • Put the survival of their community ahead of immediate personal gratification when necessary.
Those are not inherently fascist values. They are important questions in virtually any political philosophy.
Where the argument becomes more questionable is in the proposed remedy. Heinlein's fictional society relies on harsh punishment and a particular state-approved moral education. The novel offers much less scrutiny of the possibility that those tools might themselves be abused.
A society can need discipline without needing authoritarian discipline.

5. The veterans' takeover begins as an emergency measure​

This is perhaps the most revealing part of the Federation's history.
According to the account given in the novel, the new political order emerges gradually from the collapse of existing institutions. Returning veterans organize to stop riots and looting. In one early example, they form a committee that initially restricts membership to veterans. What begins as an improvised emergency arrangement eventually becomes an established constitutional practice.

Starship Troopers+1

The sequence is important:

Stage 1 — Institutional collapse
Existing governments lose the ability to maintain public order and political legitimacy.


Stage 2 — Emergency intervention
Veterans organize to protect communities when established authorities cannot.


Stage 3 — A new political class
The people who restored order begin to see their willingness to sacrifice as evidence that they are more qualified to govern.


Stage 4 — Constitutional permanence
An emergency arrangement becomes a permanent rule restricting political citizenship to those who have completed Federal Service.
This is a much more interesting origin story than a simple military coup. It shows how a system can acquire legitimacy through its ability to solve problems that the previous system could not.

However, it also reveals a danger: the group that claims credit for saving society can begin to treat its own past sacrifice as a permanent entitlement to political power.

6. The Federation appears to deliver results​

The Federation isn't portrayed simply as a miserable dystopia in which everyone lives in fear.
It has a stable government, advanced technology, interplanetary civilization, and a prosperous society. Civilian residents retain important freedoms, including freedom of speech and assembly, even though they cannot vote or hold public office without completing Federal Service. The franchise is not restricted exclusively to combat veterans; the novel allows nonmilitary forms of service.

The Heinlein Society+2

That matters because the system's defenders can point to tangible achievements.

If a government provides security, maintains functioning institutions, respects many personal freedoms, and avoids the failures that destroyed its predecessor, its citizens may reasonably regard it as legitimate.

The more difficult question is whether those achievements depend on restricting the franchise. Could a society have achieved the same stability while retaining universal voting rights?

The novel doesn't conclusively establish that the Federation's political restrictions are necessary for its success.

7. The Bug War reinforces the Federation's worldview​

The external threat is another major factor.

Humanity is engaged in a brutal conflict with the Arachnids, or Bugs, whose highly coordinated society contrasts sharply with human individualism. The war demonstrates that humanity faces dangers that cannot be resolved through good intentions or political rhetoric alone.

In that context, military readiness, sacrifice, cohesion, and decisive action become more than abstract virtues. They are matters of survival.
The Bug War also reinforces the Federation's belief that violence remains a fundamental instrument of political reality. Its citizens have a compelling reason to value the people who defend them.

But there is a complication: an external enemy can both justify genuine defence and strengthen a government's political narrative. The fact that a society faces a real threat does not mean every policy adopted in response to that threat is necessary.

So, does the Federation have a legitimate justification for its existence?​

My assessment is that Heinlein constructs a world in which the Federation's emergence is understandable, rather than simply presenting a society that embraces militarism for no reason.

The mitigating factors are substantial:
FactorWhy it matters
Collapse of civilian governmentCreates a genuine demand for a new political order.
Military defeat and disillusionmentUndermines confidence in the old leadership.
Crime and social instabilityMakes public safety a central political priority.
Loss of civic responsibilityProvides the ideological justification for tying citizenship to service.
Veterans restoring orderGives the new ruling class a plausible claim to legitimacy.
Stability and prosperityGives citizens practical reasons to accept the system.
An existential external threatMakes defence, discipline, and sacrifice essential.

The strongest defence of the Federation is not that military veterans are inherently superior people. It is that, in the world Heinlein describes, they have demonstrated a willingness to accept personal costs for the collective good, while the preceding political order allegedly failed to cultivate that willingness.

The strongest criticism is that demonstrated willingness to serve does not automatically demonstrate superior judgment, wisdom, or fitness to govern.

And there is one final consideration: almost all of this history reaches us through a novel that gives considerable weight to the Federation's own interpretation of events. We should take its account seriously, but we should also ask what its history classes leave out, whether the old democracy's failures have been fairly represented, and whether the new system's success is attributable to its political structure or to other factors.

That's what makes Starship Troopers worth debating. Heinlein gives us a plausible account of how a society might abandon universal suffrage without necessarily believing that it is abandoning civilization. The deeper question is whether its citizens have discovered a better form of government — or whether they have mistaken the virtues that saved their society during a crisis for a permanent entitlement to rule.

I have highlighted and bolded what I see as, probably, an unintended warning.
 
The only thing Heinlein didn’t account for was what would happen if veterans’ interests and solutions became fragmented across a range of different groups each saying “WE speak for veterans, dammit - splitters, all of you others !!!!!!” Sorta like the “one voice covering a consensus of Indigenous viewpoints” :)

Not to mention allowing the worst, most selfish fuckbag military vets that ever served being able to vote instead of smart, truly selfless civilians :)
 
The only thing Heinlein didn’t account for was what would happen if veterans’ interests and solutions became fragmented across a range of different groups each saying “WE speak for veterans, dammit - splitters, all of you others !!!!!!” Sorta like the “one voice covering a consensus of Indigenous viewpoints” :)

Not to mention allowing the worst, most selfish fuckbag military vets that ever served being able to vote instead of smart, truly selfless civilians :)
You mean like how many veterans treat the Legion and just crap on it, rather than get invovled and fix it?
 
The only thing Heinlein didn’t account for was what would happen if veterans’ interests and solutions became fragmented across a range of different groups each saying “WE speak for veterans, dammit - splitters, all of you others !!!!!!” Sorta like the “one voice covering a consensus of Indigenous viewpoints” :)

Not to mention allowing the worst, most selfish fuckbag military vets that ever served being able to vote instead of smart, truly selfless civilians :)

You get certain privileges when you're the author of fiction ;)
 
You get certain privileges when you're the author of fiction ;)
Oh, more than fair - writers get to create whole new worlds. But beware of taking too much away from said fiction. Still an intriguing read - just that I read into it a bit differently as an old fart compared to when I was an uber-keen section commander :)
 
Oh, more than fair - writers get to create whole new worlds. But beware of taking too much away from said fiction. Still an intriguing read - just that I read into it a bit differently as an old fart compared to when I was an uber-keen section commander :)

While I enjoy a good dystopian novel, my only real tangible takeaway is reflected in the highlighted portions of my quoted AI post above.

I see them as indicators of a society in decline, and I believe many of those same warning signs are present in our society today.
 
I see them as indicators of a society in decline, and I believe many of those same warning signs are present in our society today.

I would say 1965 , rather than 1968 , was the pivotal turning point in America .


Whether 1965 represents a "decline" or simply a transition into modern pluralism depends on one's perspective.
 
I would say 1965 , rather than 1968 , was the pivotal turning point in America .


Whether 1965 represents a "decline" or simply a transition into modern pluralism depends on one's perspective.

Its could very well be generational, and its truly just my humble opinion, but I see 9/11 as the point of divergence.
 
Its could very well be generational, and its truly just my humble opinion, but I see 9/11 as the point of divergence.

I had the impression 9/11 , temporarily , brought America together.
 
I had the impression 9/11 , temporarily , brought America together.

Q: What is the historical impact of 9/11 on the current american society

AI ASSISTED
The September 11 attacks fundamentally transformed American society by permanently expanding the federal government's security apparatus, reshaping domestic and foreign policy, and deepening political and cultural polarization. [1, 2]

1. National Security and Surveillance State
    • New Federal Agencies: The government created the Department of Homeland Security (unifying 22 agencies) and federalized airport security under the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), introducing routine measures like shoe removals and liquid restrictions. [1, 2, 3, 4]
    • Mass Surveillance: The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and subsequent legislation dramatically broadened government authority to conduct electronic and communication surveillance, sparking ongoing debates between national security and civil liberties. [1, 2]
    • Immigration and Law Enforcement: Border control, visa screenings, and domestic enforcement agencies (such as ICE and CBP) were tightly integrated into a permanent counterterrorism framework. [1, 2, 3]

2. Foreign Policy and the "Forever Wars"
    • Global War on Terror: The U.S. launched military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, resulting in massive long-term financial costs and thousands of American casualties. [1, 2, 3]
    • Shift in Public Support: While initial public backing for these conflicts was high, decades of engagement followed by the chaotic 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan left a legacy of deep skepticism regarding military intervention and foreign nation-building. [1, 2]

3. Domestic Politics and Social Fabric
    • Erosion of Trust in Institutions: The initial surge of post-9/11 patriotism and government trust gradually eroded over the following decades, contributing to anti-establishment politics and growing institutional distrust. [1, 2, 3]
    • Polarization and Islamophobia: The post-9/11 era heightened societal anxiety, increased political and partisan divides, and led to sustained scrutiny, discrimination, and hate crimes directed at Muslim Americans and Middle Eastern communities. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
    • Shift in Collective Memory: For older generations, 9/11 remains a defining rupture in modern history, whereas younger Americans who grew up after 2001 experience its consequences largely as an inherited political and economic reality. [1]
For a broader historical breakdown of these changes, see the analysis from the Council on Foreign Relations or explore public opinion tracking via the Pew Research Center. [1, 2]
 
I would say1965 , for better or worse , changed the course of modern American history.
 
Back
Top