#because i feel like this is an example of what hopepunk explicitly is not

[imnotabotdontblockmeplz]

although I do not like to post complaints today my dad said "believing the future won't be a dystopia is a first-world perspective" and I have to say that might be one of the worst takes I've ever heard in my life

[yaoist]

probably because the issue in question is the idea of having a story where terrible things happen constantly, things are not achieved just because the heroes are trying to do them, and states are miserable machines for human suffering. in which case yes a song of ice and fire has more interest in imitating the real world than something like the flash (cited in this article) despite both of them being fictional and having fictionalized aspects. i think pointing out "dragons" is being obtuse about the themes that were being argued in the initial posts.

conceptually what is being litigated is the fact that a song of ice and fire is depressing, violent, and people are terrible - all things where it is more proximate to the real world than many of the examples given in the article. these are argued as things that are bad - because they are not hopepunk which represents things like radical hope, political progressiveness, etc.

Now, picture that swath of comfy ideas, not as a brightly optimistic state of being, but as an active political choice, made with full self-awareness that things might be bleak or even frankly hopeless, but you’re going to keep hoping, loving, being kind nonetheless.

"that's not realistic" isn't even an argument that i'm making it's an argument Made By The Thing I'm Criticizing In The Quotes. the idea that it is moral and virtuous and ideologically expedient for progressiveness to write in hopeful and "comfy" ways despite the explicit contradiction with reality is already, not by me, putting unrealistic depictions on a morally elevated level - hence the making fun of this argument by comparing it to "socialist realism."

i am not "making fun of art that is unrealistic" and to say i am is wildly ignoring the context of this entire post. i'm mad that creating stories that reflect reality is being attacked as some kind of anti-radical pro-misery action. morally impugning art that reflects the depressing and fucked up aspects of reality because they're "cynical" is stupid whiny behavior from people who are mad that art exists that doesn't make them feel "comfy."

principles of feeling hopeful and inspired are being presented as a morally good along with the fact that stories that promote these ideals are stories the article argues are explicitly and specifically acknowledged to be unrealistic!

Now, picture that swath of comfy ideas, not as a brightly optimistic state of being, but as an active political choice, made with full self-awareness that things might be bleak or even frankly hopeless, but you’re going to keep hoping, loving, being kind nonetheless. Through this framing, the idea of choosing hope becomes both an existential act that affirms your humanity, and a form of resistance against cynical worldviews that dismiss hope as a powerful force for change.

people who like stories that make them feel happy and inspired are DESPERATE to constantly come up with reasons why people who write or enjoys things that make them feel even a little depressed are inhuman anti-radicals who hate life, joy, etc