/lit/ - Literature

Who decides which tests we use and what the conditions for competency as a citizen are?

Why should we give them that authority? Should those who make the standards be held to them?

>>11523094
>Who decides which tests we use and what the conditions for competency as a citizen are?
>Why should we give them that authority? Should those who make the standards be held to them?
all people are entitled to become citizens, the book makes that extremely clear. the government is compelled find something for you to do in federal service so that you can earn citizenship if you want.
there is no "test"
there is the completion of federal service

>>11523065
Don’t forget the part where they fight a pointless war

>>11523135
>pointless war
>enemy empire kills 10s of millions of people...
>fighting back is pointless

It is astonishing how you managed to miss the point of the book and the movie.

>>11523269
oh? please elaborate for me the true point of the book and movie.

>>11523269
>the point of the book and the movie
>the point of the book *and* the movie
fucking wild that you think the book and the film have the same message

>>11523279
No they have very different messages but OP seems to have missed both. You should try reading/watching again they are pretty up front

>>11523286
are you going to tell me what i am supposedly missing? or just gonna continue being a faggot?

>>11523286
its incredibly simple
the book portrays its world as ideal and semi-utopian, bc heinlein at the time of writing was very right wing
the film is by a leftist verhoeven and thus portrays the same world as dystopian, and as a reflection of fascistic tendencies in our society
op is positing that the film is a misreading of the book and saying that there is nothing fascistic about withholding voting rights to people until they demonstrate dedication to society (i disagree but its an okay point, and the film is obviously an overreaction to and a caricature of what heinlein is trying to do)
i doubt op has missed the point of either, he just disagrees with your obvious bias towards the film, and subsequent dismissal of the book

>>11523065
Althought the society in ST is great and all, there are more diferences to ST society than ours than simply the restriction on citizenship.
Their mentality, in general, isen't the same.

>>11523094
>>11523132 gave the perfect awnser

>>11523135
>pointless war
Not only >>11523153 awnsers this, but Rico and Dubois are very clear on the entire nature of warfare. The bugs are a competing species to human survival. If their intencion was to live in peace with the universe, they woulden't
1) keep making skirmishes with the humans, before destroying Bueno Aires
2) Literaly mentaly slave the other species with the book starts talking.
The entire situacion wasen't made by some armchair general who was bored to stick fingers on the recruts ass, they were the result of a series of challenges send by the bugs to humanity. The bugs are capable and have the determination to fuck the human species, and this will come by war or other harmfull ways, like subverting the Federation to get something more favorable for them.
The entire point of the book was to show this state of nature, so you can understand that this situacion wasen't artificialy made, was a natural process where two or more parties (in this case, the human species under the Federation and the bug species) will fight for their own survival and betterment. If we allow the bugs to keep challenging us, subverting us and just capture and kill us (remember, they were poking on human prisioners), they would just get more and more abusive, until they reached a state in with we could all either be dead or slaved, because for them, both are okay, as long as they are okay. And you know what is funny? This is just like international politics! How the fuck are people so ignorant of what war and international (or at the book universe, intergalatic) are? For fuck sake.
Also, this all sounds like some bug propaganda, trying to say the that the bugs aren't pieces of shit species that they actualy are! How many fucking legs do you have, anon?

>>11523269
And what was the book's point then mr?

>>11523323
>the book portrays its world as ideal and semi-utopian, bc heinlein at the time of writing was very right wing
HOLY FUCKING SHIT! WHAT THE HELL!?
>the film is by a leftist verhoeven and thus portrays the same world as dystopian, and as a reflection of fascistic tendencies in our society
The movie? Dystopian? Where?! Tell me! Are people actualy believing in this? I got the feeling you saw the movie after Nostagia Critic review, and just cooked up the dystopian stuff, with is clearly, wrong.
>op is positing that the film is a misreading of the book
It is tho. It's a fun movie, but nowhere near what the book is.
>and saying that there is nothing fascistic about withholding voting rights to people until they demonstrate dedication to society
Alright, mr, then tell me. Is the Republic of Venice a fascist state? Because voting rights were limited.
Oh, and let's say, Tang China, was Tang China fascistic?
Was the Muslim Empire before it colapsed and after Ali a fascistic state?
Was fucking the first decades of the USA a fascistic state?
Was the Soviet Union a fascist state?
People always come up to ST and say this garbage.This is always the strawmen people bought about fascism in ST, this only proves people don't have a clue of what fascism realy is.
>i doubt op has missed the point of either, he just disagrees with your obvious bias towards the film, and subsequent dismissal of the book
Fun you talking about bias mr, "if voting rights aren't universal, it's fascism"
Fun fact. ST was a must read in military academys in the US for some time... Is the US military a fascist organization then?
Or better yet, tell me the fascistic nature of letting people choose to serve their country, because oh boy, what a fascist dictatorship they live in, giving me choice and allowing dissent inside their territory, oh the horror, Heinlein is the next fucking Mussolini right?

>>11523065
>you can only have a voice in the system once it's brainwashed you
>brainwashed anons like this
checks out

ONE
MAN
ONE
VOTE

>>11523450
Bug propagandist, dismissed.

>>11523363
i wasnt replying to the person you think i was replying to my guy, i wasnt criticizing op, just mildly disagreeing with his definition of fascism, which is an ill-defined word

i agree that the film is an overblown and hysterical screed, albeit a fun watch, but obviously the problem with op's post is he presents people "earning" the vote as something that is self-evidently fair, and assumes there's an obvious criteria for this in serving in the military. and in any case, why not just support the military draft (which i do)

>>11523323
True I prefer the movie, at least most of it.

I guess the op just missed all the implied information of living in such a society as well as the way the soldiers are effected and changed by the war.

I felt like these were made obvious in both book and movie but I guess if you just skip over all the social parts and only pay attention to the cool guns and army stuffs maybe you would miss them

>>11523363
You're losing it OP get off wikipedia and try reading the book again

It's not fascism, it's democratic fascism.

people forget that the most important and defining characteristic of fascism is a dictatorship.
starship troopers is patently not a dictatorship.
i think the biggest problem with the book is that is was released just before vietnam became a big deal in the US.
the only people who would criticise it were limp dicked faggots that were whipped into a hysterical unthinking, unreasoning, menstruating frenzy by vietnam.

>>11523527
>I guess the op just missed all the implied information of living in such a society
tell us all this implied information.
im waiting for you to actually make an argument supported by evidence.
proip: your emotions are not evidence

>>11523512
>but obviously the problem with op's post is he presents people "earning" the vote as something that is self-evidently fair, and assumes there's an obvious criteria for this in serving in the military. and in any case, why not just support the military draft (which i do)
With isen't true. The movie the original idea and made something vitriolic out of it, to earn citizenship, a person must do federal work with includes military service as a alternative, but isen't the first option for many. The point in federal service and earning a citizenship is the based on the notion that said person will sacrifice her time or even life in order for the political body to survive. This is nowhere as problematic as it seens at first hand.
The book is very clear about how giving rights of everything to everyone without realy caring for what truly mean a right destroyed civilization under opressive regimes, and also, this notion that you are entitled to some right, is just wrong. First, because like in nature, you aren't entitled to anything, and second, because this notion of right, dosen't realy exist, this a legal make belief that we as a society cooked up for ourselfs and believe just because we need social stability to live.
Both also where tools and notions that develop in a time where there were no such thing as entitlement of rights to anyone other than a thin layr of society. This rights fest that we live now-a-days is a consequence of the french revolution. I aint saying that this is bad, but if you take now-a-days, people are full of rights, and majority of these rights are either misused or never delivered by tthe gov, so to me it seens pretty on point when Heinlein wrote about the failure of democracy as a world-building thing. People were just too entitled in the past of the book, and in the end, their egoistic and toxic behavior resulted in their own downfall. This without touching on the subject of personal responsability, with the book also touches it.
Heinlein in majoirty of his works always made this point of that you should have some knowledge to be able to survive in the wilderness. Heinlein was always advocating for a responsible collective, but without giving up autonomy.
>>11523527
I ain't op, first all.
Second all, >I guess if you just skip over all the social parts and only pay attention to the cool guns and army stuffs maybe you would miss them is exactly what one would say, to say that the war was pointless. The movie is way more brainlet, is just satire or a dumb action flic, with I like, don't get me wrong, but isen't true to the real message of the book.

>>11523323
good post

>oligarchy and conscription are freedom and democracy

/pol/ pls

>>11523132
So competency plays no part? He bar is set as low as the individual needs?

Sounds like communism to me.

>>11523645
There isen't conscription, deep shit.
Neither oligarchy.
I know it's bait, but I will bit it anyway because I actualy mad at this board on how they buy the fucking strawmen that people build around ST

Now consider this.
Three voting levels:
>Level 1: Gained upon reaching 20 years old with no requirement. Just like today when you are eighteen. Your vote has value of one.
>Level 2: Can be reached when at least 30 years old and have at least two years served in the military/LE/Charity Corps* or did something exceptional for the society. Also must not be convicted of any crime. Women with at least three healthy children and complete family can also apply, since mothers are putting greater bet into the future of the society. Your vote has value of two
>Level 3: Can be reached when at least 40 years old, have at least five years served in the military/LE of some rank. But also is a) owner of land and/or b) creates jobs for X people and was never convicted of any crime. Your vote has value of three.

*Charity Corps; National organization for folks from 15 to 20 who are deployed around the whole country and do not only charity work, but also entry-level jobs like gardening, working crops, waiting or cashier. That way young people get some contacts and experience in working environment, some little extra cash for crap teenagers usually want, learn the value of work and money and also learn basic respect to all kinds of work, since membership for at least one year is mandatory for youngsters from all social classes. Males can skip because of military service, females because of motherhood. Also this would resolve the issue of immigration, as there would be little to no need for outside uneducated workforce.

This model is also much more applicable to reality, since everyone has a voting right still. You are not taking a vote from nobody.

serious question, why has every single criticism of this book been by people who lie or people that didnt read the book?

>>11523970
And what is your take on the book?

>>11524042
yeah. i now believe that the people bitching about it are postmodernists. not one of you have offered a legitimate explanation, because you have none and you are completely uninterested in distributing knowledge anyway.

>people seem to miss that there are other waves to serve that are not the military and the only thing you can't do as a non-citizen is vote and some things take a bit more time to go through if you're not a citizen

Oh no...

Also, both the book and movie were anti-fascist. The movie way, way more so and definitely not as subtle.

>>11523970
>>11524239
The first time the book came out Heinlein himself brag on how majority of people who send him letters regarding the book actualy where complaining less of plot or literary issues and more on the bases of the book being evilz.
So no, it isen't a modern day thing, people simply don't get starship troopers based on their own biases.
It's fun because, Heinlein is the same author of 'Stranger in a Strangeland', with usualy is loved by the same people who hate Starship Troopers.

I came for the badass power armor and stayed because people claimed the book is fascist.

STILL WAITING FOR ANYONE THAT DISAGREES TO POST A RATIONALLY COMPELLING ARGUMENT, BASED ON THE TEXT OF THE BOOK, THAT DISPROVES THE FACT THAT IT IS A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
>we cant
DAMN RIGHT YOU CANT, BECAUSE YOURE FUCKING WRONG. BUT BEING WRONG HAS NEVER STOPPED A FAGGOT FROM OPENING HIS MOUTH AND HEMORRHAGING BULLSHIT FROM HIS MENSTRUATING EMOTIONAL VAGINA.

>>11524757
You're missing the point that Hitler was elected, and that Republics aren't democratic by nature, as The Federalists made perfectly clear.
Ancient Rome was always protofascist. And even in the Imperial Period, was a Republic.

Oligarchy is a dictatorship of the few, and disenfranchising the mass of voters is antidemocratic by definition.

what's so damn great about democracy anyway

>>11524787
This as well

>>11524776
>and disenfranchising the mass of voters
PROVE THAT THIS HAPPENS IN THE BOOK.
>i cant cuz im a faggot
DAMN RIGHT YOU ARE
THE BOOK STATES THAT FEDERAL SERVICE IS OVERWHELMED WITH APPLICANTS, AND THAT THEY HAVE DIFFICULTY FINDING WORK FOR THEM ALL.

MODERN SOCIETIES WITH UNIVERSAL CONSCRIPTION DO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM. FOR THIS REASON I BELIEVE A MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION ARE CITIZENS.

>>11523363
cringe

>>11523065
The Federation is a fascist totalitarian government where every aspect of daily life and society is devoted to the glorification of violence and the military. You must register for the military or else you'll become an unemployed bum or potentially imprisoned for treason.

Also, we don't know if the bugs are evil or just defending themselves. They're portrayed as hostile monsters killing the Humans but how do we know their not just protecting themselves. The only indication we get that the bugs are evil is from the Humans, who depict the bugs as a hostile threat to Humanity that must be exterminated.

It's debatable whether Starship Troopers is pro-militarism or anti-militarism, but you must admit that the Federation in both the book and film is NOT a "democratic republic".

>>11523094
philosopher kings iirc

>>11524835
i cringe at your cringe

>>11523651
Or any society with welfare?

>>11523065
>women are better pilots because they're smarter and their reflexes are faster
lmao

>>11525412
its science fiction anon

>>11525451
more like feminist fantasy lmao

>>11523065
>YOU MUST READ THE BOOK FIRST.
>reading sci-fi with a greasy filipino as the protagonist

>>11523065
Why did you make a thread shouting like that?
All of this is explicitly written in the book.

>>11523094
There is no real test.
You just have to go through military service, which is very different from our military service, EVERYONE has a right to enlist and no one will be rejected.

>>11523651
>So competency plays no part? He bar is set as low as the individual needs
It does, if you don't survive then you voting doesn't matter, although deaths aren't that common.
The point is not that the people making it through have a high IQ or are good strategists , the point is that these people, who have risked their lives in service, have shown the ability to act without thinking just about themselves and as such can be trusted to vote with the interest of more then themselves.

>Sounds like communism to me.
I don't see any connection.

>>11524973
>fascist
No, what does that word mean to you?
>totalitarian
Definitely not, even explicitly so.
It is made clear that tax payers have a very high degree of personal freedom.
>every aspect of daily life and society is devoted to the glorification of violence
Explicitly not, except for one class in school.
It is even explicitly said that most people on Earth didn't care about the war at all and continued living their lives as if nothing happened.
>You must register for the military or else you'll become an unemployed bum or potentially imprisoned for treason.
No, that is obviously false.
You also don't get imprisoned for treason, you clearly did NOT READ THE BOOK, the punishment is death, or in lesser cases public flogging.

>NOT a "democratic republic".
What else do you call a system in which citizens are able to vote and be elected into power?

>>11524757
They can't.
It is literally impossible, because the book is very clear about this. I don't know why this happens but apparently they either can't read or are unwilling to understand it, possibly because they hate the military so much.

>>11523323
the movie was called starship troopers because they had the license and it was close enough to the movie.

>>11523094
This is why you don't trip, I would've replied meaningfully but I remember your cringy ass atheist rants, so now I won't.

>>11523645
Historically, yes.

>>11524787
>>11524792
Both democracy and fascism are meaningless words in discourse, amongst many other words. They invoke rough ideas and little more. This meaninglessness is used to great effect by 'critics' and cultural directors. They can easily be used to frame something as either of them, you need only tear out some static uncontextual particular events -- which can easily be framed as fascistic, democratic, or what have you -- and you have people vocally denouncing or supporting. As emotional reactions are heavily conditioned.

Just dropping this and leaving
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIGHCoVzqtk

Love, /pol/

>>11523617
imma be real wit you cheif i wrote all that having only seen the movie

>>11523065
>>11523363
>I got the feeling you saw the movie after Nostagia Critic review, and just cooked up the dystopian stuff
>Obviously it's a raucous celebration of the necessity of total war and submission to the state
The film contains numerous references to Nazi Germany including the designs of uniforms and propaganda, and in the literal words of the literal director "A satire about how war makes fascists of us all". Heinlein may have meant his material less critically, but if you think Verhoeven was celebrating it you're a fucking illiterate.

>>11523065
>>11523363
>I got the feeling you saw the movie after Nostagia Critic review, and just cooked up the dystopian stuff
>Obviously this montage of brighteyed recruits being shoved through a sci-fi meat grinder is a raucous celebration of the necessity of total war and uncritical submission to the state. They even get to star in propaganda at the end.
The film contains numerous references to Nazi Germany including the designs of uniforms and propaganda, and in the literal words of the literal director it is"A satire about how war makes fascists of us all". Heinlein may have meant his material less critically, but if you think Verhoeven was celebrating it you're a fucking illiterate.
I'm not sure how someone could miss the intent of the film so badly without being an actual sociopath

>>11525675
>I could have totally fielded your question with my expertise, but, because of X, I have decided to keep this information to myself. Better luck next time, person who doesn't subscribe to my idiosyncratic worldview!

>>11523065
> that unquestioned assumption that something “democratic” is automatically just, and can't be wrong or disgusting
Spotted the poor brainwashed Burgerstani citizen.

>>11527162
The book OP is talking about talks a lot about the failures of democracy thought.
Heinlein is somewhat critical of democracy in general, at least that is the impression I got from the sequences where the history of the world is laid open.

It is even explicitly mentioned that other systems, eg. just academics get to vote, have been tried and failed.

>>11527162
thanks for you meaningful contribution, continental european, whos history is a clusterfuck of nazis, communists, imperialists, monarchists, theocracies, and every other horrific shithole governement that has ever existed.

>>11527248
>just academics get to vote
i cant imagine a worse system. picrelated

>>11527514
>i cant imagine a worse system
That is also the conclusion Heinlein comes to.

>>11523816
level three is retarded
and are charity corps meant to be funded by taxes? that would suck too

>>11523323

I also think that the fact that Verhoven was born in Nazi occupied Netherlands may have had something to do with it.

Heinlein's framework is something like: >Citizenship is earned by being willing to put one's life at risk for your fellow citizens.
>By so doing, you prove that you have ideals that you hold to beyond bare self interest.
>Only those who have such ideals can be permitted to vote, because everyone voting for their self interest leads inevitably to the collapse of society.

Which is fair enough.

But it's also easy to see how Veroven looked at that and saw:
>You earn citizenship by being willing to fight and die for the state.
>A state that values those willing to fight and die for the state above all others will take on a militaristic character.
>The state will always be controlled by those who similarly who idealize violence, as it excludes all but those willing to participate in organized violence from political power.

And for someone who remembers being bombed in WW2 under German occupation, that's starting to look fairly fascist.

The key seems to be the conception of the state. Heinlein, however right wing, believed in the state as the instrumentality of the citizenry. So for him, Federal service, service to the state was service to other people.

For Verhoven? The state was a thing that could slip the surly bonds of the citizens pretty easily. Federal service could therefore easily not be service for fellow citizens, but service to the interests of those that controlled the state.

>>11525706
>amongst

why didn't the superior sci-fi novel get a movie adaption?

>>11529928
That's not Bill the Galactic Hero.

>be me
>Read the book
>The Earth itself is as much of a post racial "utopia" as possible
>World is engaged in galactic politics and war , struggling to survive
>90% of the book revolves around training and disciple , pondering over aspects of war while making a coherent defence for different authoritarian institutions evolving into democracies to stabilize them

It's partially trying to predict the future while examining current political controversies relevant to Heinlein's age (which is still technically ours hence the controversy around the work) than it is about promoting dictatorship, racism, theocracy, or etc other far right politics.

In the new earth we are past racialism due to constant movements of people via modern technology and war, engaged in a greater struggle to maintain our species past the Earth itself. However, because Heinlein also thought democracies would become more authoritarisn from war and eventually form a synthesis between liberal democracy and dictatorship (or just being lead by strongmen and etc other important people) he is somehow promoting Nazism.

Maybe I should remind people not to judge a book by it's cover?

>>11523269
how would you know? you clearly haven't read it.

>>11524973
>i haven't read the book.txt

>>11523065
Ok, it took a while but I listened to the audio book. Unsurprisingly the political theory discussed in the book is much deeper than the ">muh fascism" of the movie. I enjoyed it.

>>11524835
terrible post

>Not reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and going full Libertarian