Sign into an existing account

and conversely, every dystopia is simply a society too far removed from the one with which we are most acquainted.

We know the pros and cons of the familiar, the ups and downs, the risks and rewards.

But for the unfamiliar state, we lack this knowledge, it is the realm of the unknown, and so we populate it with dragons and other monsters.

Within anything unlike what we are familiar with, we automatically assume the worst case scenario as a matter of course, we see any positives as being facades that hide the dangers and horrors of the new world.

Our world should get it's own movie, depicting it as a dystopia, the political system should be the exact same as the one as in our reality, but as this was the imagination of how a writer from a world in which their society is radically different might perceive our world, since they see theirs as normal and therefore as a better alternative to our (in their world hypothetical) dystopia, all the negatives that exist or could potentially exist in our world are cracked up to a ridiculously absurd degree of fearmongering anti-our-society propaganda.

We'd see a story unfold in such a society that would never actually occur here, dealing with such horrific circumstances as if they were novel and unilaterally evil conditions that MUST be overturned. We'd be presented as a society that is evil and dangerous in an over the top way, Basically, do for our world what our world does for all others when it presents the liberal state as utopian or at the very least the least worst bad option (wherein the flaws of our cultural philosophy are acknowledged) and all others are treated as completely unacceptable options for the way the world may be run.

It is for this that we have "far" and "radical" and "extreme" political views, because these veer too far away from what is well-used to, it questions the world we live in, the dangers of our society are not nearly as fearful, we are aware of them, so they don't scare us as easily.

In time travel stories, often the act of going back in the past is seen as dangerous even in the absence of paradox because we place more risk on changing the past events and bringing a new future into fruition than we do on changing present events and thus bringing us into a new future.

Even though by all logic, the case should be the reverse: in the latter case, you go forth far more blindly, than in the case of the former.

Abuse victims tend to become abusers because of their familiarity with the abuse they are inflicting, for it was inflicted upon them previously, the reason isnt because of their knowledge about how bad the abuse was, but the far more taboo knowledge that came from their prior victimization: how bad the experience of being abused WASN'T. They know the limits of the bad parts of abuse, and they know the upsides as well, for being a victim always carries some positive benefit to the victim along with the pain, and in many cases of self-perpetuating cycles, the last years victim may well count those positives as worth the hell it took to get them, so they count it as a favor that they are visiting the same privileges of their experience upon another generation.