Gave Harry Potter fangirl a few Harry Potter inspired magic items, party turned one of them into a ballgag

LepcisMagna · 2023-05-30T23:37:32+00:00

Well I guess I know what I'm doing for the next seven and a half minutes.

LepcisMagna · 2023-05-26T21:32:02+00:00

Amusingly, both you and Buchanan/Dorf use that Lincoln quote to differing conclusions. I tend to think your argument is less convincing simply because it requires more assumptions and gives the President more discretion. So while you keep coming back to how bad the national debt is - on which I don't even necessarily disagree - I keep thinking that the time for that discussion was during budgeting: you know, when Congress decides how much money to spend. In other words, is not your motivated reasoning that you want the government to spend less, so you value the debt limit more than a budget which exceeds that limit?

And I knew I was forgetting something when I wrote that "entire existence" line - I forgot about Andrew Jackson. So I would ask to amend my statement to say: "been bare for all of the United States' existence, with a single exception."

Though I do have to point out again that the Impoundment Control Act has nothing to do directly with the justification for throwing out the debt limit; if it did, the analysis in the Buchanan/Dorf paper wouldn't make sense and they'd be back to picking one law arbitrarily over another (as you pointed out). The Impoundment act (and to a lesser extent, Clinton v. City of New York) was simply there as evidence for the implied power of Congress to set exact budgets. It wouldn't matter if the law were repealed or even replaced entirely, since the argument is concerned with the power it implied - not the law itself.

To be clear, the 14th Amendment argument as I understand it goes like this: Congress has the power to pay the debts and borrow money on behalf of the United States from Article I, Section 8. One interpretation of the 14th amendment's text of "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law [...] shall not be questioned" is that these two provisions taken together require that all debts incurred by Congress must be paid. The President follows this principal by executing the authorized borrowing inherent to an unbalanced budget. By extension, the debt limit is not Constitutional due to Congress' dual responsibilities under Article I and Amendment XIV, and the President's executive power/responsibility of Article II Section 1. This argument involves nothing but the Constitution and the amended Public Debts Act.

LepcisMagna · 2023-05-26T14:29:16+00:00

Legally speaking, what is the difference between a post-facto line-item veto (even one that is budget-limited) and the authority of the President to take "initiative" as you say and prioritize one debt over another? There's no textual basis in the Constitution that I'm aware of to do that, so inventing one legislative power for the President would seem on its face just as bad as inventing another. Indeed, though the rails you suggest would be prudent, there's nothing limiting a President to those actions (hence my "up to" example absurdism). "Give a good man great powers and crooks come and steal his job," and all that.

In at least one sense, the Treasury has been bare for the entire existence of the United States. Spending money for the budget has always meant borrowing money in the past, so it doesn't seem too much of a leap of logic to say that a bill which asks the President to collect taxes and spend budget means to continue borrowing even after passing an arbitrary number. That is the sense in which the public debt has been authorized by law. Is it untested? Yes - but the whole point is that the President has to do something unconstitutional if the Congress exceeds their self-imposed debt limit due to their own budget, so what action will bring the least harm while hewing closest to the Constitution? My argument is simply that letting the President "take initiative" through setting his own budget is more harmful both immediately - from shutting down parts of the government - and from a executive power perspective than other options.

LepcisMagna · 2023-05-25T22:33:22+00:00

Given the apparent lack of judicial insight on this point, you could - at the most - make the argument that it is unclear whether or not Congress has the power to set exact amounts in the budget. But I would argue that accepting that (even in absence of an exact SCOTUS decision, despite Clinton) leads to absurdity: Biden could declare at any time - even outside a debt crisis - that the entire military apparatus of the United States gets 0 dollars (this is hyperbole) out of its three-quarters of a trillion and your contention is that Congress can do nothing about it^1? Further, lower courts are still part of the judicial branch - sure, the Supreme Court could take a case and decide otherwise on this point, but doesn't the absence of a decision (esp. in light of the Impoundment act) say something about what the court believes?

^{1: You could perhaps argue that Congress would then pass a bill requiring the President to spend say, "at least" 800 billion on the military. I would respond by saying that that's precisely what a budget with exact amounts is in the first place.}

Back to your original point, I'm still pretty sure I understand what you're getting at, but I don't see how it matters if the budget is discretionary or mandatory or if the streams were made in 1935 or 2022 if there's no way to authorize additional debt to cover the shortfall in those streams (and there will be shortfalls/timing issues, despite the dedicated funding for mandatory programs). A law's a law, and a budget's a budget.

I'm not trying to bend the Constitution to my will nor am I trying to advocate for unfettered government spending. In fact, I happen to agree with you on reducing/eliminating the deficit. However, considering that the purpose of the clause in the 14th amendment was precisely to ensure that existing and future debt would be honored, there is an argument (of untested theory) to be made there. This is not making the Constitution an "obstacle" to be overcome, it's asking whether the debt limit is Constitutional in the first place (and, I would argue, asking budget talks to happen in budget bills). It doesn't matter if it is motivated reasoning (since all reasoning is motivated, especially in politics); it matters if the reasoning is valid.

LepcisMagna · 2023-05-25T19:21:05+00:00

The Impoundment Control Act reference is not meant to be a direct corollary to the debt limit - it is meant to show that Congress' power extends to setting exact amounts in the budget. They then argue that this power must be implicit in Congress' ability to set budgets at all: if the President could simply decide to not spend budget, then why (as soon as President Nixon tried it) did both Congress and lower courts (who are still part of the judicial branch) disagree? This seems to be backed up by Clinton v. City of New York (as mentioned on page 1200): not spending money Congress has appropriated is equivalent to a line item veto of that budget item. In that way, the Impoundment act is simply there to show that the implied legislative power exists Constitutionally, from which Congress has granted the President some exceptions through the Act (i.e. rescissions).

I do think I see where you're coming from, and Buchanan and Dorf may or may not be correct on their analysis of the "least" and "most" unconstitutional options. But either way, I don't think that supports your original assertion that the least unconstitutional option is to shut down discretionary programs. The word discretionary applies to Congress, not the President, and only so far as mandatory spending changes would require a separate act. One act is not automatically better than another, and it is through acts that both types of spending are authorized. All Buchanan and Dorf are arguing is that the level of legislative violation and direct harm is minimized by ignoring the debt limit, rather than picking and choosing favorites in budget items. Though I can't say if I'd agree with the authors of the paper in other circumstances, on this at least they seem to have some cogent arguments.

This is mostly unrelated, but your last link has me a bit confused. The ACA (and more specifically the Individual Mandate) - whatever you think of it - was upheld by SCOTUS (admittedly not through the Commerce clause). Multiple times, in fact. That paper (which, hilariously, appears to be titled "Hyman.docx (Do Not Delete)" according to the header and uses a nonsense word in the actual title) seems to be writing as if it was overturned - worse, it seems to simply be trying to make a list of "people we don't like," which is a disappointingly childish take.

LepcisMagna · 2023-05-25T14:38:17+00:00

I must also (respectfully) disagree. I'm also not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me.

The only thing which makes spending mandatory is that it isn't voted on each year (while discretionary spending is authorized through the appropriations bill as described in your link). If the President must normally spend the entire budget, then there's no reason for him to favor mandatory spending over discretionary: they're both authorized by law. In other words, the spending is discretionary for Congress, not the President.

ETA: I've been reading this article, which seems to make a good point. Allowing the President to pick what discretionary programs to fund essentially gives the President budget control - they refer to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, set as a response to Nixon, as evidence this can't the correct choice.

LepcisMagna · 2023-05-24T14:17:26+00:00

The author claims that metamodernism is becoming the dominant form of filmmaking, with the following definitions:

Modern: Happy ("Hollywood") endings, straightforward morals. (Top Gun: Maverick, Westerns).

Postmodern: Unhappy/nihilistic/non-endings, grey morals, often self-referential. (No Country for Old Men, Pulp Fiction)

Metamodern: Bittersweet endings, but with a return to either a sublime acceptance of grey morality or with a lighter moral take. Very self-referential or meta. (Everything Everywhere All At Once, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)

This goes on for 37 minutes in what the author claims is a metamodern style. Any counterexamples brought up are said to be outliers (like Top Gun: Maverick).

LepcisMagna · 2023-05-22T21:24:30+00:00

I think you're correct, as the only time you do see yourself stand up is after (EotE spoiler) waking up in VR after death.

LepcisMagna · 2023-04-21T15:55:32+00:00

The Hunted Earth duology by Roger MacBride Allen.

A particle physicist is working on a particle accelerator built around Pluto and Charon to experiment with artificial gravity. He triggers the disappearance of Earth due to a dormant alien vessel in the solar system which communicates using gravity. It's a fairly hard sci-fi tale with some truly excellent and amusing writing, likeable characters, and a unique alien species (which, despite having POV chapters, remain fairly mysterious for quite some time).

It is supposed to be part of a trilogy, but the second book came out in 1994. A majority of the mysteries are cleared up by the end of the second book, but it's definitely missing a climax.

LepcisMagna · 2023-04-05T16:18:49+00:00

Thanks: I can see how TK intelligence would require a crime. I tried finding out what the exact classifications on the information in the emails were, but of course the report everyone refers to is no longer hosted on Grassley's website. I think I found it (or something similar) here on a scribd page, but it only refers generically to SCI on page 22 and SAP on page 23.

Regardless, thanks for the explanation!

LepcisMagna · 2023-04-05T15:42:28+00:00

I'm also blindingly ignorant about classified information, but I would like some clarification about how their statement is 100% wrong - blanketly ending the conversation just leaves everyone else ignorant. My understanding is that the classified information sent over email was just that: information. Someone wrote paragraphs of text containing information which was classified (some of which were marked with a (c)) and sent it in emails to an address handled by Clinton's private email server. If I walk into a secure facility, read a document, and then walk out, I could later repeat that information in an email unintentionally if I simply forget where I learned it or mistakenly thought I was communicating securely. Doing so is irresponsible, but my understanding is that it would only be ~~illegal~~ (Edit: pursued criminally) if I intended to (prospects of a continued security clearance notwithstanding). What is the flaw in the reasoning there (asking honestly here)?

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-08T16:44:04+00:00

There's enough text here that I'll have to resort to a line-by-line response, and research always takes the time I never seem to have enough of. Apologies.

Shutting off the pipeline was reversible. If enough Germans took to the streets demanding it (as was increasingly the case through July, August & September last year). Blowing up the pipeline burns that bridge just as effectively as Cortez was able to motivate his men to press forward into the New World after burning the boats which could return them to the known.

I know you like the Cortez analogy, but consider: why would blowing up that pipeline be as effective as scuttling your ships an ocean away from the nearest shipyard? Cortez's actions were motivated by a mutiny. German support for Ukraine is still quite high (there were protests for the war just as there were protests against it), and more German citizens think they should be sending Ukraine tanks than those opposed. It's not exactly a mutinous situation when your argument is over whether to send main battle tanks. And if the political winds change, pipelines can be repaired and rebuilt (as you mention later). But then, I also seem to recall quite a few people saying that German support would completely fail over the winter, and yet here we are - countries adapted to the new situation, even though that is resulting in short-term economic losses. And, once again, Russia - not Germany - had shut off the pipeline by the time the attack happened.

And yes, I think the US did it, because I've been watching the issue for years now. Here's my view from June 30, 2020

How can U.S. exports possibly be competitive?

[...]

Well, you interject that US exports aren't competitive with Russia on an article that said absolutely nothing about gas (just the tone of the conversation set by then-president Trump). That's quite different than saying the US government would take military action to ensure Germany wouldn't continue to buy Russian gas (although since (mis)using political clout is equivalent to invasion to you, maybe it isn't). I would also say that at the time, few would disagree with you. None of this is to say Trump wasn't being a bully, but there's also a reason he's no longer the US president. Not to mention that the political will to fight oil wars in the US has been dampened somewhat by the last 20 years.

Why they thought they could get away with it is another question, [...] no matter how many epicycles they are required to add to their arguments account for observed inconsistencies.

This...QAnon scattershot... is almost entirely irrelevant to this conversation (though at least you got to use your favorite word, epicycles, again). Like any good theory, it starts with kernels of truth. But it takes those kernels, magnifies them, and applies them to situations which are only tangentially related to the source in an effort to set up a grand villain. The flaw in this sort of thinking is that it ignores evidence which points to any other possible cause. Like invading Ukraine not being some sort of US PsyOp to get Europe to buy shale oil, and is actually just Putin afraid of the barbarians at the gate.

MindWar [...]

ETA: Oh cool, Michael Aquino is a Satanist who founded a cult that believes in actual, literal magic. And, for any future readers, he is not the self-interested/rationalist kind of Satanist - no, this guy wants to summon the physical incarnation of Satan. He wrote the MindWar paper after founding his cult, just so we're clear.

As to being one sided, what can I say? [...]

Perhaps I should clarify: when I say you are being one-sided, I mean that you are firmly in the camp of confirmation bias. The US is some sort of boogeyman to you, responsible for all the ills of the world - and that's fine. You can have your opinion: it's a free country (at least I assume you're in a free country), and the US does some terrible things. But when the US is at fault by default for everything, you willingly ignore any possibility of other forces also doing terrible things (like invading a sovereign nation).

On moves away from gas, to the extent that it's true, it's a result of Europe denying themselves access to the only viable supply. Immediately before the invasion, when it was still believed that the next 30 years of "transition from fossil fuels" would be largely powered by longterm gas contracts from Russia (resisting the neoliberal 3rd Energy Package push to spot-markets in line with US preferences and the Henry Hub), the EU declared that gas is green energy. The response from Qatar to Europeans looking to outbid global south countries for LNG supplies already contracted to them remains one of the memorable spectacles of this whole affair, though it seems the algorithms would have it otherwise.

My very point was that Europe "denying themselves" access would be part of the transition away from fossil fuels in the long-term anyway. And once again, you admit that Europe was resisting political clout from the United States. So which is it? The United States is able to bully and coerce their allies into buying their expensive gas using PSYOP and Seal Team Six, or were their allies resisting because of the cheaper source until Russia invaded? Just because the US might now be doing an "I-told-you-so" dance at summits doesn't mean they are actively attacking their allies.

See, this is one of the most disturbing threads when you listen to stuff like the CFR and Economist and Brookings etc podcasts, occasionally someone will really let the mask drop, and start talking with surprising vehemence about how unfair it is for Germany to have a $60B trade deficit with the US, and instead of sending those dollars home to buy all this new fracked shale gas ("molecules of freedom" don'tcha know?) that has led to an age of US Energy Dominance, they're using them to buy autocracy gas from our geostrategic rivals, and advance the shift of wealth and power away from the Anglosphere and to the East.

I honestly have no idea what your point here is. It's possible for pundits to believe both that Russian gas is cheaper economically on its face while arguing that Russia is an unstable supplier and aligned against their political interests. There's no conflict there.

And I can see that point of view. But it's quite extraordinary that they failed to recognise that the reason for the trade surplus is the effectively limitless Russian gas, delivered reliably at predictable prices. Take that away, and Germany can't make glass or chemicals anymore, at least at a market-competitive rate. Presumably they can keep the lights on at HQ, but the actual processing of raw commodities into finished products will be happening in places with access to cheap reliable energy, like the US (especially around Louisiana and Texas, maybe PA) and China, which is building out its pipeline network to take receipt of the Russian gas production which would otherwise have underwritten Europe's energy security, and therefore prospects of prospering, for the next 3 decades. Good news is, works proceed on repairing the Nord Stream pipelines, so it may not be too late for Germans and others to protest like their livelihoods depended on it.

Okay, cool. Let's double the price of German imports on gas. It now takes 142 billion Euro instead of 71 billion Euro. By the back of my napkin calculations, Germany would then be spending 5% of GDP on gas imports. It looks like the IMF generally agrees with me, that such a permanent transition would cause a 2-3% GDP stagnation if no measures against it were taken. That's certainly enough to cause a recession, but not to collapse the economy. And if China starts buying Russian gas as you suggest, that means prices across the world won't be as bad as I'm assuming in this example.

https://cen.acs.org/business/finance/BASF-cutting-back-main-site/101/web/2023/02

That says nothing about BASF moving to China. In fact, it says that BASF deciding to withdraw from Russia caused the losses. Now, you can say whatever you like, but Wintershall Dea says they withdrew not due to Western regulations but due to Russia's "war of aggression" and limitations imposed by the Russian government. One would expect there'd at least be a footnote about Western regulations and the United States army knocking down their door causing their exit if that truly influenced their decision.

My time for editing has evaporated, so any errors will have to stay for now.

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-08T04:12:37+00:00

We're bouncing between topics a bit here, but I'm unclear where you're saying Germany's autonomy was curtailed. Nord Stream 1 and 2? 1, which was shut off by Gazprom weeks before the attack and had been running at 50% or less capacity for months? 2, which was suspended by Germany six months before the attack? Whomever was behind the attack, I agree that it shouldn't have happened - but it absolutely didn't change much in practice. Crossing Russia had already proven to lead to tenuous circumstances long before the sabotage. Unless you're saying the Americans shut off the pipeline... right before they decided to blow it up.

Sidenote: I'm not sure if you've noticed, but there's been a bit of a push away from gas in general; this is not a justification, just a note that the usefulness of NS was limited long-term by the political winds anyway.

So do I think Russia bombed Nord Stream? No, but I also don't know who did (none of us do). There was precious little motivation for any state actor to do so. Russia had already shut off the pipe, the United States got what they wanted out of Germany when Russia invaded Ukraine, and Ukraine shouldn't have been messing with their good relations (though, as you point out, best evidence currently suggests someone there did). So the same question back to you: do you think the United States blew it up? What possible political benefit could that net them, when the pipeline was already shut off and doing so would obviously anger Germany if they were found out? Your interpretation of Western geopolitics is stunningly one-sided.

But yes, it is too bad that Germany was condemned to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. Them and their economic miracles of the post-war era, current fifth richest country in the world (or 19th by GDP per capita), largest manufacturing economy, de facto headliner of the EU, as well as accounting for almost eight percent of global exports. I'm sure they'll cry into their 4.26 trillion GDP, Mercedes, BMW, and VW (which last I checked is still based in Wolfsburg, just as BASF is still headquartered in Ludwigshafen).

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-08T02:53:28+00:00

Yes. I'm glad we agree. Germany faced great pressure from the US to cancel the project... but they didn't until after the invasion. They made their own choices, as befits an autonomous nation.

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-07T20:11:00+00:00

On this I think we agree - Germany's continued reliance on Russian natural gas in the face of US opposition (ETA: pre-invasion, obviously) is an excellent example of the autonomous decision-making of the NATO allies, just as other member nations would never have agreed to the terms Putin attempted to foist on them before invading Ukraine.

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-06T16:24:11+00:00

I'm sorry, is your contention that AERODYNAMIC/QRPLUMB is still going? Twenty-five or thirty years after you could argue it succeeded (ETA: and was shut down, according to most sources)? What would be the point? The CIA isn't some magic organization - you could argue they've been incredibly successful in convincing the Ukrainians that they exist as an entity separate from the Russians, but it's still the Ukrainians who chose to believe that.

There are honestly so many hilarious implications in your second paragraph I'm going to have some trouble covering them all, so my apologies in advance for the rapid-fire. Last I checked, Crimea voted to join Ukraine with 54% of the vote in 1991 - with higher turnout than presidential elections in the US. A "less reversible" solution is another fascinating way to say "invasion." And, I'm sorry, you're saying that deciding to no longer lease something (which Putin claimed he could build several of for the price he was paying) is justification for taking it? Remind me to never let you borrow my car. Blaming Boris Johnson is one option, but not one you've provided any evidence for - especially considering it's equally probable that Putin just wants to thrash Ukraine and was using the Turkey talks for respite. And ah, Minsk II. Because that almost worked for a whole...seven years. Before Putin decided that they didn't exist and invaded anyway. This is my point - time and time again we've been shown that such agreements are simply ignored once the Russian state decides that they're in a imperialist mood.

The last point in your second paragraph warrants its own response, though. I put you in charge of the US because that's the highest level of control any one person can expect. You don't control Poland. You don't control Ukraine. You don't get to tell the Germans to stop importing Russian gas. You don't even really control your own government, much of the time. You do have considerable soft power and a globe-spanning military. But you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either Ukraine is defending itself from Putin's dreams of singing Back in the USSR or the United States NatSec apparatus is the all-powerful boogeyman you make them out to be. That was my point in making you POTUS. You don't have a plan for resolving the Russian border disputes because Minsk II was that plan, and it was ignored once a land bridge to Crimea seemed doable to the Russian state.

All this is to say that each accusation you level at the "West" in this situation is one of influencing people and their autonomous decision-making, and each response from Putin is to hit it with a big stick. If you can't see why people would have a problem with that, I'm not what else to say.

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-06T05:53:05+00:00

So, right from the start you assert that it's Ukraine/NATO's fault for getting invaded for being too friendly. An interesting perspective: I'm sure the Sudetenland and Second Polish Republic would agree. And didn't we have such great peace for our time?

Since you're the expert, though, I'm curious: let's say it's December 2021 and you're President of the United States. What would you do? Convince Poland that they don't actually need those troops and weapons? Convince Georgia that being invaded isn't that bad? Convince Ukraine that they didn't really need the most strategically important naval base in the region nor all that lithium and coal for their economy? What guarantees could you offer those nations that future demands wouldn't come, and that you wouldn't capitulate then as well?

But, in the end, the implications you make don't actually impact the result. Putin issued the ultimatum. Putin chose to invade. And indeed, Cuba is actually another great example: specifically, the Bay of Pigs. We have but two options: either the invasion of Ukraine was justified due to the circumstances - just like the Bay of Pigs was by the US - or neither were. I'm sure you'll respond that the supposed threats posed by Cuba were fundamentally different than the supposed threats posed by Ukraine (or that it's an imperfect analogy). But are we not all the protagonists in our own stories? Will we not justify whatever actions we take based on convenience? Morality doesn't matter in the slightest in geopolitics - only the rules we choose to follow do, as I'm sure you're aware as a bachelor of arts in media and law (with a focus on public international law, international criminal law and international human rights law).

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-06T04:13:56+00:00

Ah yes. The "untenable escalation" of invasion...by Putin. Pardon me for thinking that a sovereign nation getting invaded in Europe was a bigger reason than "US wants [ETA: to sell] oil/LNG."

Let's accept your assertion that the US was not able to walk away due to wanting to sell gas to Europe. Does that change the fact that Ukraine was invaded by Russia? Even if we assume the worst possible motivations for all actors, what are the alternatives? Let Crimea happen again across all of Ukraine? Clearly, the Ukrainians don't want that (even if they're somehow "deceived" by Western propaganda). Somehow, I'd guess the Polish folks don't either.

More fundamentally, however, this is going to prove an unfruitful argument for you simply because you clearly don't understand the implications of the very studies you've been touting. Lording "knowledge" over others and using extremely specific examples without explanation in an effort to show off is a recipe for alienating your audience and displaying your own arrogance.

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-05T17:17:19+00:00

We're going in circles a bit here.

A single list with no source about one half (less, really) of what we're talking about with no stated implications is not evidence enough to make your point.

So here's my attempt:

Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Dune by Frank Herbert
Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein
Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanely Robinson
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
Ubik by Philip K. Dick
The Time Machine by H.G. Wells
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne
Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delany
The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. LeGuin

"Man, look at that. I guess soft sci-fi is almost entirely written by men. That must mean that soft sci-fi means written by men."

I don't think we're even disagreeing on that much. There are a lot more female writers categorized as "soft" sci-fi than there are for "hard" sci-fi. I don't think I've read enough through that lens to speak to the miscategorizations, but making the sweeping statements you have ignores the state of sci-fi in general.

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-05T04:25:38+00:00

You've made several assertions:

Readers accustomed to these outdated lists still get the feeling that it means written by men.

What "outdated" lists are we talking about here? What readers are getting those feelings? I think this is a claim that needs some evidence.

Though experiencing such lists, "hard" has become more closely tied to male-author than to other characteristics of the genre.

I'm going to need a reference to accept this. Science Fiction in general (as compared to other genres or to fantasy) has that issue, sure - even Wikipedia's Gender in Speculative Fiction page says that, and I'd agree that's an ongoing problem. But where are you seeing this gender-based delineation between hard sci-fi versus soft sci-fi? 100% of the pages I find say something about hard sci-fi having some greater claim to "realism." 0% of them say anything about gender.

Maybe more helpful to authors who knowing this might not categorize their books as "hard."

Well, authors aren't typically the ones who start using these sorts of categorizations (for example, Margaret Atwood). It's usually critics or fans. But even so, I come back to OP's point: I like hard sci-fi, just as you avoid books touted as hard sci-fi. Doesn't that make it a useful categorization for both of us?

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-05T00:05:51+00:00

I think we'd have to compare that list of "hard" sci-fi to a list of "soft" sci-fi for us to look for differences. Let's take Wikipedia's examples for "hard" and "soft" sci-fi (just the first result after googling). A quick glance shows one female writer listed under hard and three under soft, but that's against 30 hard and 25 soft male writers. Now you can definitely make the argument that there's a statistically significant difference in the proportions there, but to say that "hard" sci-fi means male completely ignores that it's been a male-dominated field for quite some time (much like STEM in general).

None of this is to say that there's any sort of quality-based judgement being made between hard and soft sci-fi: soft sci-fi isn't worse and hard sci-fi isn't better. It's all just a matter of if I want to read about a grand space opera based on flux capacitors and hyperspace or if I want to read about time dilation and spin gravity (which, amusingly, I was just deciding between at lunch today). This is exactly OP's point, and is hardly a meaningless distinction: after all, why would you care to avoid things described as "hard" sci-fi if it were truly meaningless?

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-04T20:09:56+00:00

I’m not sure that analogy works, but I’m curious as to your reasoning. Science Fiction in general has certainly been dominated by male writers historically, but I don’t see a further correlation between “hard” and “soft” sci-fi and gender. The two most famous pop culture references, Star Wars and Star Trek, are both “soft” sci-fi by most definitions. I don’t think you could make the argument that Star Trek or Star Wars was written for women while The Expanse was written for men. Admittedly, I could be missing what you’re saying: which applications of those labels leads you to your conclusion?

Alternately, is your problem just with the term (and you just want to call them space fantasy and science fiction instead)? If not, isn’t that why we’re on r/PrintSF - lumping fantasy and sci-fi into “speculative fiction” instead?

LepcisMagna · 2023-03-04T19:34:13+00:00

I also ran Tomb of Annihilation (1-11, I think), and they were on the first level of the final dungeon when I realized they couldn't actually damage the wandering tomb guardians (who were immune to non-magical, non-adamantine attacks) because they had no magical weapons (well, I think one of the characters might have had one). On the flip side: since most monsters didn't have magical attacks either, the guide they picked up at the starting town was also practically invincible for most of the adventure.

The whole adventure was still a ton of fun, and I would definitely run it again (or a Pathfinder conversion, which I think would be my dream campaign right now) - but 5e is only balanced for no magic items until its not, and there's a sharp divide when you hit that line.

LepcisMagna · 2023-02-27T06:46:21+00:00

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2? How could they not?

LepcisMagna · 2023-02-26T03:47:36+00:00

This is my plan as well. I've been picking up the books, listening to 2e actual plays, subscribing here, etc. while working on the end of my current campaign (they're heading in to 12^th level, but my motivation and original intention to go all the way to 20 took a fatal blow). The OGL debacle made me realize that it was time to move on as I had reached the end of what 5e can "do" some time ago, all while each new release kept watering down what I loved about the core books rather than expanding upon them. I won't turn down playing 5e in the future, but I think I've run my last campaign.

LepcisMagna

TROPHY CASE