Isn't punk inherently reactionary? A reaction against the current zeitgeist of things?
Punk is as reactionary as the hippy-free-love movement was in the 60's. A cash-grab by the suits by selling revolution t-shirts.
At least the popular punk, or the "classic" punk that fart sniffers jerk off to. Take for example the lyrics to "God Save the Queen" by the Sex Pistols - release date 1977. 3 years later the anglos were stabbing the Rhodesians in the back. So much for a fascist regime. On the other hand there's the Dead Kennedy's, which in its heyday would have smashed a bottle over Fantano's head or GG Allin whom Fagtano would have called an incel rocker (sorry, I'll take my melon-head a-logging to his own thread).
YA novels work on YA because it's all style over substance, their worlds would collapse under some critical scrutiny.
For good worldbuilding, take something like Shadowrun for example: cities are open-warfare zones controlled by either megacorps that openly worship ancient demons (Aztechnology) or crime syndicates. Police has been fully privatized and if you don't let yourself be branded by a digital number you lose your rights as a person. Why do people still live there? Because 50kms in any direction you can and will be eaten by a Chimera or impaled by a unicorn. Countries have collapsed so the only remains of civilization are city states. How can you feed that many people without arable land? Hydroponics fuelled by literal magic.
Why not overthrow the demon worshipping megacorp? Because Aztechnology is the world's leader in food exports since they make blood sacrifices for good harvest (kind of, I'm oversimplifying it). When AZ goes into corporate wars there are famines.
This is grimdark, punk and internally coherent.
That's how it is, innit. He really fucking thinks fully automated gay space future hasn't come to pass yet because the neckbeards who make that stuff happen are also the ones holding it back, because somethingsomething white men. Science is magic and is just there, ripe for the picking if the right-minded people come along.
Yet again, Bob suprises me with his ignorance. I know it shouldn't surprise me anymore, but here we are. He really believes he's a thinker, but he has absolutely zero knowledge about how science and engineering works beyond how it is on the silver screen. You'd think his brother could tell him (and also punch him in the face for being painfully ignorant on the subject)...
And of course, Bob's stance on science being the solution for everything crumbles quickly if as troon or minority is to be appeased.
Science right now is hopium. Hope that the billion dollars you have spent year to date will give you a return of investment higher than 0. Now let's talk economics, how many people graduate with an engineering degree per college, per city, per year? How many of them really will bring you the next trillion dollar idea?
And how many of them are Chris Chipman who describes himself as "a engineer".
I detest the "I fucking love science" crowd because they have a paper that proves they can solve an equation (under perfect conditions with Pi =3) but their actual contributions to science is signing a budget, tracking invoices or selling overpriced machinery without guarantee on the repairs.
I have to side with Bob (bare with me) but only by asking the question: if 99% of the companies just need "a guy" and the roles between a STEM dudebro and a BIPOC with a humanities degree is interchangeable why did either of them need to go to college in the first place?
