#objectivism

[facts-i-just-made-up]

Lead toxicity was so common in the 1900s that it became the one of the most widespread poisons to the human brain, second only to Ayn Rand herself.

[omegaphilosophia]

Objectivism vs. Subjectivism: Exploring the Philosophy of Universal Truth and Standards

Objectivism, when contrasted with subjectivism, is the philosophical stance that certain truths or values exist independently of individual perspectives, feelings, or cultural biases. Objectivism posits that reality and knowledge can be grounded in an objective, external framework, allowing for universal truths or principles that apply regardless of subjective interpretations.

Here’s an overview of key aspects in objectivist philosophy:

1. Metaphysical Objectivism

Reality as Independent of Perception: Metaphysical objectivism holds that reality exists independently of our perceptions, beliefs, or consciousness. There is a world "out there" that is structured and consistent, irrespective of individual viewpoints.

Contrast with Subjectivism: Subjectivism argues that our experiences shape reality, while objectivism asserts that reality remains unaffected by individual thoughts and emotions.

2. Epistemological Objectivism

Objective Knowledge: Objectivism asserts that knowledge is possible through reason, observation, and empirical evidence, and this knowledge can be universally applicable. Objective truth is something that can be approached and verified through logical and scientific methods, rather than being dictated by personal or cultural biases.

Universal Standards of Truth: Objectivist epistemology holds that through rational inquiry and consistent methodology, individuals can come closer to objective knowledge that transcends subjective perspectives. For example, scientific inquiry is often seen as an objective process, seeking truths that hold regardless of who performs the experiment.

3. Ethical Objectivism

Objective Moral Standards: In ethics, objectivism argues that moral truths exist independently of individual opinions. Ethical principles are seen as objective standards that apply universally, rather than being based on personal or cultural preferences. For instance, some argue that principles like "do no harm" have objective validity beyond subjective interpretations.

Contrast with Ethical Subjectivism: While ethical subjectivism argues that moral values are shaped by individual or cultural perspectives, objectivism claims that some ethical truths can be discovered rationally and apply to everyone equally.

4. Aesthetic Objectivism

Standards in Art and Beauty: Objectivism in aesthetics suggests that beauty and artistic quality are not merely “in the eye of the beholder,” but can be judged by objective standards, such as form, symmetry, and harmony.

Critique of Aesthetic Relativism: This view challenges the notion that art and beauty are purely subjective experiences, proposing instead that some aspects of artistic appreciation are universally recognizable.

5. Objectivism in Politics and Rights

Natural Rights and Universal Principles: Objectivist theories often emphasize natural rights or universal principles that should guide society. This includes beliefs that individuals have certain inherent rights and that laws and systems should reflect universal standards of justice.

Rejection of Relativism: Political objectivism opposes relativistic views that claim rights and justice vary between cultures, proposing instead that certain political ideals, like individual freedom or justice, are universally applicable.

Objectivism, as a counterpoint to subjectivism, argues that reality, truth, morality, and beauty are not simply personal or cultural constructs but are grounded in universal standards that can be discovered and understood objectively. By championing rationality and empirical evidence, objectivism seeks to transcend personal biases and achieve a shared understanding of truth and value, aiming to establish a coherent framework for ethics, knowledge, and rights that can apply universally.

[nynnph0]

my babygirl ryan :3

i made his pose a combination of comstock and cohen, and only realized that after i was done with it LOL

[geekysteven]

[victusinveritas]

[aprilsinclairesq]

Dagny Taggart is on TikTok!

[quotelr]

Neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

[xtrablak674]

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Back in the day I would have already ripped Monkey55Boy four assholes, but I don't argue on the internets anymore, you never actually accomplish anything, and more important minds aren't ever really changed in web-based arguments.

Attention broad statement follows, queer whyte mens take little to no thought about the things they say on others post. #FullStop They have been indoctrinated like the rest of us to believe whiteness is the norm, and all the rest of us are aberrations, albeit science and history make it very clear the first humans on the Earth were very melanated and located in the part of the world that is now known as Africa.

Whyte men will other you in less than a nanosecond of seeing you. I wanted to give this dude the benefit of the doubt, so I took a look through his profile, where there was no clear evidence of how he actually looked or his ethnic origins. But there was something telling in his favourites, they spoke to his clear affection for white skin, notwithstanding I did find a couple of brown men and one Black man amongst the favs, but predominantly his favs were other whyte mens.

There is one other consideration I can give Monkey55Boy this particular platform has moderated most people of colour right off of it. With out overt knowledge the creators and moderators of the platform have placed a higher value on European aesthetics and on heteromantic norms, anything that deviates from that baseline is more or less written off as pornographic no matter how high the artistic value. I had left for about ten years or so for this same issue because it made it very hard to present any kind of intimate work that was scrutinized through a different lens then like-work that center whyte-female beauty and aesthetics.

But I was black on the platform, and generally speaking my position on comments is non-response and disregard. I don't generally block anyone or engage at all, allowing them to baste in their own ignorance. Why should it be my roll to enlighten folks who have drank the white supremacy Kool-Aid and never questioned the hierarchy and value system of our very Puritanical Christian society? America has a clear caste system whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, and those of us who do not fit into the "in-group" are automatically delegated to the "other" category, which is essence means they are less than.

This is why we can’t have nice things. The experiment called the internet has failed because the people who created it infused all their very human values and biases into its development. Even after so much time has passed, they have never considered the existence of other perspectives and stories that are told from a different understanding of the world. As long as these issues are at the core of the internet, things will not change, women will not be safe, Black and people of color will be exoticized and othered, and any people who are neuroatypical to differently-abled, or perform gender in a non-traditional way, will not be giving their full personhood just treated like ornaments in a bowl of vanilla ice cream.

[Photo by Brown Estate]

[vvatchword]

Reading BioShock: Rapture (Part 3: The Prologue’s Prologue)

<- Part 2: John Shirley and the Front Matter || Back to the Beginning || Part 4: Going Down ->

And so I begin with the prologue—at long last.

Oddly, despite the trash fire that is everything else, it starts out perfectly fine:

Sullivan, chief of security, found the Great Man standing in front of the enormous window in his corporate office. The boss was silhouetted against city lights. The only other illumination was from a green-shaded lamp on the big glass-topped desk across the room, so that the Great Man was mostly in shadow, hands in the pockets of his crisply tailored suit jacket as he gazed broodingly out at the skyline. It was eight o’clock, and Chief Sullivan, a tired middle-aged man in a rain-dampened suit, badly wanted to go home, kick off his shoes, and listen to the fight on the radio.

Mmmm. Mmmmmmmm

I do like this

I have talked much shit but this is a good start. This is how a BioShock story should start: with The Man Upstairs Himself, Andrew Ryan. Chief Sullivan’s POV—displayed here in third person-limited—is a great choice as well. It leaves Ryan a little more mysterious and less defined, which I like. I think that keeping a character like Ryan mysterious is more akin to the dialogue we’d get during gameplay. We can’t see Ryan’s interior self; we see what he chooses to present to us. And if we have any flaws as human beings, it’s that we assume people are more put together than they actually are, so this is an excellent choice. Don’t ever give your reader a sense of his weakness. Just show him rollin (we hatin)

The two top paragraphs give an excellent sense of his standing and wealth (a chief of security at his beck and call from his ritzy upstairs office somewhere on Fifth Avenue, NYC). There are some factual and historical elements here worth looking up revolving around the locale: what kind of skyline you could see from what part of Fifth Avenue, mostly. For example, what’s the best area of the city to choose so Ryan isn’t just looking out his window at another window? Simultaneously, not every skyscraper or building on Fifth Avenue is going to be ideal for both business and skygazing.

That said, this is relatively simple to handwave away with just the barest knowledge of the area (Sachs! Fifth Avenue!), and I don’t know what kinds of businesses or buildings were typically present. At least this sounds right. (Note from Future Me: do not trust him. He is a hack. He didn’t even use Wikipedia. NOT EVEN WIKIPEDIA)

All of this dialogue is going on during a Dark and Stormy Night, so I spy a little of BioShock’s inherent camp as well, and I approve. Characterization is shown through a combination of body language and inner desires. We have a great feel for Sullivan as a workaday man and his awe of Ryan works perfectly. Very nice. Mwah.

What did I hate about this? This is fine. I mean, I guess it’s a little over-the-top on description, and there’s an ugly little adverb in there, but that’s not so bad. It’s not so ugly that it’s awkward.

Coincidentally, I heard that Ken Levine worked on some pieces for the novel. Several articles mention a “foreword.” Others mention that he was supposed to write a prologue and an epilogue. However, he’s not mentioned as a cowriter, and my version—a first-edition paperback—doesn’t have a foreword. We’ll have to presume everything is John Shirley until it is confirmed otherwise.

Yet sometimes it seemed the tycoon was casting about for a friend he could take to heart.

Oh.

No,,,,

noooooo, no. No,,,,,,,,,

Wrong. Bad. Wrong. Incorrect.

Showing versus Telling

This story goes from letting the mood and dialogue speak for itself to Telling almost immediately. For a brief, blissful second you’re really leaning into Chief Sullivan and then Andrew “Friendship Is Magic” Ryan happens in paragraph three. It’s like Shirley said, “SHIT, I forgot to mention he’s lonely,” and instead of finding a good place to show it, he just shoved a paragraph in there. “There! Done!” slams back wild turkey

So. Showing versus Telling. Writers yell about this a lot, especially the mantra: “Don’t Tell! Show!”

In other words, show the character feeling lonely. Don’t outright say he’s lonely.

Now, Telling has got its uses, whatever anyone says. That said, when it comes to character growth, you try everything in your power not to “Tell.”

This phrase. “Casting about for a friend.” Why is this here. Where did this come from. How does it feel. It literally pops out of nowhere, inspired by nothing. (Equally important is that every subject leads seamlessly into the next.)

Does Ryan seem like he needs a friend? Is that the main point of the scene? No, the point of the scene is Ryan’s political stance and forceful personality. You don’t need to explain every fucking theme at once, it’s okay. Like maybe start with the forceful Big Boss shit and then Ryan goes home and he’s like :( boy it sure is lonely round these parts.

In fact, that would be a great contrast, wouldn’t it?

Imagine this: a scene of the big bad boss man ordering his chief of security to beat the shit out of some strikers in Kentucky. Then show him getting into a nice car by himself. Show him eating dinner at a nice restaurant across from an empty chair, surrounded by diners who all have friends and beloveds at hand. (Show this against a mirror or window. He is not even looking at his reflection.) Show him leaving by himself; he heads to his fine penthouse apartment by himself. Show his driver and doorman as nonentities. Show him surrounded by quiet servants who quietly serve him and quietly leave until he’s sitting by himself with a glass of merlot. Maybe he has a newspaper or a radio sitting next to him. Emphasize that silence and the vast spaces around him.

If you must explicitly mention loneliness, I’d recommend Ryan talking like no one’s on his level. He probably thinks he’s too good for other people, and it’s possible his autism/BPD/trauma is so powerful that he’s on a separate plane of existence. Most Randian Ubermensch are.

Another issue with “Telling” is that it tends to flatten characters out. They become grocery lists of traits. And Ryan should not ever, ever be flattened. He should rise above you like a thunderhead. Do not steal his mystique—that’s literally the most important facet of his character. I’m sure there’s a way to “Tell” that he’s lonely, but this is not the right place or time, and this sounds like he’s a little girl listing all alone in a playground instead of a big bad boss man who sends strikebreakers to fuck people up.

I’m Sorry to Report to You

Ryan asks Sullivan for his two reports.

“Let’s have the report on the strikes first, get it out of the way. The other one…” He shook his head. “That’ll be like hiding from a hurricane in a cellar. We’ll have to dig the cellar first, so to speak…”

what

I’m assuming this line means, “A cellar is inadequate for a hurricane. Therefore I need to build a cellar for the oncoming hurricane.” Which makes. No goddamn sense.

But I also have no experience with hurricanes. To make certain I was not missing some finer point, I went to a friend who has lived in the hurricane lands and asked her questions.

watchword — Today at 6:22 PM FRIEND. I have a hurricane question for you. "That'll be like hiding from a hurricane in a cellar." What does that mean to you To me, it implies that a cellar wouldn't be enough. Admittedly, I've never lived in hurricane country

Salty — Today at 6:23 PM It's very silly, tbh Hurricanes are multi-day affairs And usually we don't have cellars in hurricane country

watchword — Today at 6:23 PM Is this a saying that you know of? Guess where I read it

Salty — Today at 6:23 PM LOL It's not a saying I know, but I can guess that someone confused a tornado with a hurricane

watchword — Today at 6:24 PM I have always gone into cellars for tornadoes what the fuck

Salty — Today at 6:24 PM Hurricanes are like big multi-day thunderstorms, and usually on the coast, the water table is too high to have a cellar or basement

(I found out all of this under two minutes john)

Long story short, this sentence does not make any goddamn sense and it’s the second thing that Andrew Ryan says.

Sullivan wondered what he meant by that cellar remark, but he let it go.

NO. Sullivan do not let him go. Ask him what the fuck that even means. Sullivan? You must kill him sullivan

Instead of killing him, Sullivan tells him about strikes.

“The strikes—they’re still going on at the Kentucky mines and the Mississippi refinery.”

Okay there are two jarring problems here.

First is the specificity. Consider this: these are two adult men, both professionals, both competent in their respective fields, and they are speaking about a situation that has been ongoing for a while. This is a report that Ryan expects, and the implication is that there have been others.

One would expect for Sullivan to have a far more specific insight into the situation—perhaps big players on all sides, perhaps a list of demands from the strikers, perhaps some talk about national, state, or city politics or site layout and all the ways they affect progress. Moreover, when strikes occur, they are often referred to by the name of the city and company they’re part of, and it makes sense that Ryan would have an idea of his facilities and where they are in the country.

Long story short, proper names would be rattled off left and right, stakes and states would be presupposed or mentioned offhand, and both Ryan and Sullivan would know what they were immediately.

Second, the phrasing is so juvenile that it’s cringe-worthy. This sounds like what a high-school student thinks that businessfolk sound like. “They’re still going on” is such a nothing sentence. Under what circumstances? Sullivan would know what circumstances and he’d start out right where they left off the last time.

If I put myself in my CEO shoes, “they’re still going on” is not something I’d wait up to hear. I’d be like bitch I know, have they been able to ship the scabs in? How about the Elizabethtown situation? How many more did that Pinkerton bastard say he needed? All right. How much? He said he could do it with $XXXX; why hasn’t he managed it? Did they at least take care of that Mulligan man? Why not? jesus christ is everyone a fucking Red-tit-sucking bastard? What do you mean the mayor wants a payoff? What is this, Ukraine?

Except I’d not say “Ukraine,” I’d go look up first-hand accounts and experiences with famously corrupt governments in the Soviet bloc between years 1930 and 1946 that Ryan may have had personal experience with and just replace “Ukraine” with some important city somewhere with a tiny off-hand note that makes it sound like Ryan knows his shit. I probably wouldn’t swear that much, either—Ryan is classy until he’s been pushed to the edge.

But this is just a first draft, too. This is just me making shit up in literally 10 seconds. You come in later and you smooth that shit out. You look up where mines are located in Kentucky, where refineries were most likely to be located in Mississippi, and you might look up what kind of products they make and staff they’d employ at those locations in 1945. Look for pictures and firsthand accounts of related strikes at the time and double-check if the Pinkertons were even still a thing in 1945. Extrapolate, steal, remix, and you’re golden.

Also? This is wartime. Not only was production a completely different monster, businesses were under the heel of the US government at this time. Interesting historical note: most unions had pledged not to strike. In 1943, coal miners were like fuck you, pay me, and a strike began. The government responded by nationalizing all coal mines and threatening to send in troops as strikebreakers. When nationalization and the threat of violence didn’t work, President Roosevelt’s next response was to fucking criminalize striking in war plants or nationalized industries.

Did the coal miners care?

lol no

And so labor gains were made during an unlikely period.

I found this out in 30 seconds of searching from a quality source at the US Archives. Usually I look for at least two separate accounts of the same event just to make sure I haven’t stumbled on some goofery, as well as read documents both primary and otherwise, but if you’re short on time, a .gov website does nicely.

Why Are You Like This Again

Technically, Shirley is overcoming a problem here: he needs to communicate the kind of person that Andrew Ryan is, what Ryan is like in business, and Ryan’s political viewpoints. He doesn’t want to get locked up in meaningless minutiae. Of course, rattling off exact names is a great way to bluff your way out of a situation like this—to look like everything is business as usual, and imply you know more than you do. Despite writing more books than the Bible, Shirley does not know how to do this.

This is that pandering to the lowest-common denominator that I was telling you about. Shirley cannot trust the reader to know anything about the time period, the work of a company president (I’m not using “CEO” because this term was coined in 1984—neat), or anything beyond the most basic comprehension of wartime, unions, and strikes.

I just realized that Shirley is also the lowest-common denominator so good news for all the low-coms out there.

There’s a simple solution, of course: have the strikes be brand new. Then Sullivan would have to share explicit details about what’s going on, since Ryan would be equally new to the situation. There would still be some shorthand in their speech to experiences they’ve had outside of this one, but it would be easy this way. Then you can mention everything by name (“Our mines in Martin County!”) for the benefit of the reader.

The eagle-eyed reader will have noted: yes, that would be easy! but it would also take work. What if u are tired. What if u r unmotivate. Wat if

rather toke

puff puff

Of course, there are ways to ease the reader into these subjects. We’re approaching this work as a standalone, remember? This is one of the strengths of literature—the ability to explain complex subjects in-narrative by bouncing off of other intangible subjects.

Your reader doesn’t have to know everything, but the dialogue should be immediately understandable to them by context alone. And it’s totally doable! I’ve done it! Because you have to do it with all subjects when you’re writing, not just historical concepts! If you’re a writer you’ve probably done it without thinking about it!

Basically, you lead the reader in with easy concepts, then build on that simple foundation with more and more complex ideas. It takes some work and thought, but it’s also fun and interesting and is a great educational opportunity for both you and your reader. I can’t believe I’m writing this

Touchy-Feely

Here’s the problem.

I said in the last installment that I suspected I’d see quick, undigested concepts. I did not guess that Shirley would opt to do NOTHING. No research, not even badly. He didn’t even look at a map. He’s almost purely visual, and in the worst way: he bases his scenes on how he feels about the 20,000 movies he’s seen and conflated in his brain.

I now suspect that he is the kind of writer one is in childhood: the kind who writes solely by feeling. This can be done, and can be done well, but it is also hit-and-miss because you’re not sure WHY you’re doing what you’re doing. This probably explains why he could win an award: because he wrote with his whole dong at some point, took for granted he would be Great Forever, and got complacent.

Because Shirley isn’t here to write about a concept. No, he doesn’t have a concept to explain at all. He writes blindly, with his little feelers bipping and bopping all over. He is a pillbug with Microsoft Word and an internet connection.

Black Butterflies is in two parts: eight stories set in "This World" (what we call reality) and eight stories set in "That World" (where the door swings open into the realm of the surreal, the supernatural). In "This World" we meet a middle-class white woman who turns a mugging by two black youngsters into her chance to pursue glory as a criminal; a cop who knows his partner is guilty of murdering his wife; two hustlers who throw a sadistic and drug-infested party at the expense of their bound and unwilling host (believe it or not, it's hilarious); "a girl who died from cum"; and two bike messengers whose fate is to join hundreds of other people in a freak accident so... —Summary of Black Butterflies by John Shirley on Amazon

This seems pretty cool, actually. I might actually rea

wait

she died from what

Well now I’m definitely reading it. Although I’d bet money it’s edgy 90s bullshit.

You Should Be Ashamed

Shirley just wanted an approximation of Business Men having a Business Talk. He doesn’t take a step back and say, “Ah! I should know what an oil tycoon might talk about to his chief of security in midcentury America. In which case: I should know how the oil business works, I should know what a security officer does, I should know what company presidents do in case of a strike… oh, and I need to introduce some themes: the loneliness of being a great man, the kinds of people Andrew Ryan would surround himself with, Andrew Ryan’s politics…”

In his mind, he sees that scene he’s seen a hundred times before—the one where the lackey has not done enough, and then the Big Businessman says, “You’ve let me down, lackey!” And the Lackey, satisfactorily stung, murmurs: “I will do better, sir.”

But he doesn’t know why he needs it, so it all comes across as nonsense. It’s just the random babbling of a theme generator. This is like AI writing. I mean if you care that little just go into a book published in like, 1940, and steal the dialogue out of that. Nobody reads anyway, just be a bastard, jesus christ. I mean I’ll still hate you but…

I can’t believe this is where I’m at right now: debating myself whether it’s more or less ethical that he did nothing because he didn’t care or was too lazy to steal. I suppose it’s possible that he’s not lazy, just incompetent, but that’s even worse somehow.

He was paid. He was paid to do this. This is ultimate “have the confidence of a mediocre white man” energy.

Long story short, you don’t have to care terribly much to do this right. I did all of the research above in less than an hour, and it’s been a minute since I’ve read up on wartime industry. I’d be embarrassed to end it there, but there are little ways to cut corners that don’t make you look like a fucking jerk.

At this moment, I feel like I can say, with absolute confidence, with curled lip and disdainful eye, that this wasn’t done right. It wasn’t even done. Shirley didn’t do even a modicum of research. Not even to look up a couple of random towns in a couple of random states. Not even to straight-up invent them.

I’ll just say it: pathetic.

Parasite Expectations

If I spent any time going over all of the dialogue here, I’d end up sharing the contents of the entire page, and I think that is frowned upon in copyright law. However, if I told you everything was wrong, would you believe me? All of the same problems apply: juvenile speech patterns, a lack of specificity everywhere that matters, and constant Telling.

Oh! And a new problem rears its lopsided head: weird fucking tangents. There is a random aside to the shoulder padding in Ryan’s jacket for no reason. I think it’s supposed to give you a material sense of the different era? It’s weird though, and it occurs after unrelated dialogue. It’s akin to those novels where the character gets out of bed and looks in the mirror at her blue orbs.

Note to would-be historical novelists: read midcentury novels and note what jumps out at you as old. Everything sounds pretty much the same as today except no one has computers or cell phones, and there’s some problem-solving that revolves around that, but all you have to do is confer with the Olds in your life if you’re uncertain. Every now and then someone mentions snapping a garter or there’s a random mention of typewriters or talking to a phone operator. Oh, and everyone wears a hat. And it’s rarely a specific hat, it’s just “hat.” Because usually people don’t think twice about the mundane bullshit they have to do until they have to do it, and knowing when to be specific is its own art.

Just fucking read ok. Don’t be a Shirley. He clearly hasn’t read anything in his life.

Buzzwords

After Sullivan shares the poor man’s version of a “But I twied to stwikebweak them, Mr. Wyan,” Ryan says at one point:

“Have you been out there in person? Did you go to Kentucky—or Mississippi, Chief? Hm? You need not await permission from me to take personal action—not on this!"

What is Sullivan supposed to fucking do, run out there and start beating people with a stick?

A new misfortune has arisen: now it’s clear to me that Shirley doesn’t know what Sullivan’s job entails.

I could tell you how this kind of research works but at this point I’m just fucking horrified. This is unbelievable. If you don’t know what a job is like, research it. Have you done it? Oh of course not, you’re a lazy-ass bastard and you have more confidence than capability. But let’s say you give a shit!

Now take your little notepad out, write down all the details you can’t answer, list them in order of importance, and then research them. That’s how it works. There are people on AO3 taking college classes to understand sign language or research historical periods for fanfiction only 20 people will ever read. Tor and 2K paid this man to regurgitate half-baked movie sequences that he couldn’t be arsed to look at a map for.

And it’s even worse than that, somehow. He didn’t just not research. He didn’t even make something up! He didn’t say to himself, “What does a security officer do? Uhhh from my extensive viewings of Die Hard:” and then just invent shit. He just did nothing.

Not only is this nothing like real life, this isn’t a scene as it would exist in a film. It’s merely film-like. It’s the undigested impression of a sequence. It’s the shadow on the cave wall. It’s the writer equivalent of nearsightedness.

Now, if Shirley had been specific, we would be able to say exactly what Sullivan ought to do. But we have no idea what is even happening. Shirley should have asked how strikes work, and what kinds of things a security officer with no moral compass might get up to, and what kinds of vengeance a tycoon might wreak, among many other things. But Shirley does not know. Nor does he care. And besides, it’s just so much fucking work and he’s got to go Geezer Scream at a dive bar for the dead.

Most importantly, this dialogue doesn’t reflect well on Sullivan and it doesn’t reflect well on Ryan. They are not only pretending to be a Chief of Security and a company president, they are pretending to be human beings. Also, both of them now look weak as balls. I am confident I could beat both of them to death at the same time with my bare fists and I am a bag of juice.

Ryan continues:

“Unions… they had their own little army in Russia—they called them Workers Militias. Do you know who these strikers are? They are agents of the Reds, Sullivan! Soviet agents! And what is it they demand? Why, better wages and work conditions.”

I had a history class too. Did this guy share literally anything that he hadn’t heard offhand once? Has he ever opened a book just to learn something?

In any case. This. This is where I knew I was going to hate this book forever. This paragraph sounds like a joke. Is this what Shirley thinks satire is? I’m going to kill myself.

This is the paragraph that settled the back cover summary’s authorship for me. This is the paragraph where I realized, “John Shirley does not understand Objectivism or Andrew Ryan, nor the appeal of either.”

Perhaps this is a great place to work in another aside. Do you like asides? No? Fuck you.

Aside #330,80085,5420695.52

So! Back in the day there was this commentator for Fox News called Charles Krauthammer. He was a legitimately intelligent and capable man and a Pulitzer Prize winner. Fox would set him on a panel with three babies and it was like night and day. The babies with their perfumed cheeks and platinum blow-outs would share their shower thoughts, which were mostly buzzwords and half-digested anger.

Then Krauthammer would start speaking and you felt like there was a miscarriage of justice. How did these three other losers get on this panel? Send them back to fucking preschool. He had this vision of cause and effect over time that the babies were too young and poorly-educated to see. He was connecting dots to universes only he could show you. Like are there more of this man? If there were, leftists would be in trouble.

Conservatives loved this guy because they all suffer from this niggling terror they are all actually very dumb, and it wounds them that intelligentsia tend toward liberal doctrines. But if Krauthammer was smart that meant they were actually smart! (this is its own stupid bullshit but it’s all they have. god bless them. having your head permanently stuck up your ass is difficult work)

I thought about going back to listen to some old Fox News shit for this but I decided to pull a Shirley. I am forced to listen to Fox News every day now and I can’t stand it. It’s probably not what I remember. I liked Krauthammer back when I was a conservative, but I have also been an idiot for most of my life. It is probable that I still am. An idiot, I mean. Look at me NOW. Picking up pennies, gasping for breath in an airtight room, writing this shit for three people and about 10,000 bots. Feed this shit into your AI algorithm and get fucked.

Now.

This Andrew Ryan is spouting shower thoughts. This is not Krauthammer behavior. It’s not even Randian behavior—and like it or not, she was intelligent, in her own way.

But Shirley’s Andrew Ryan is not an intelligent man. This is not a Pulitzer Prize winner. You can tell because all he utters are buzzwords, and the buzzwords are expected to do all the heavy lifting.

Does BioShock’s Andrew Ryan utter buzzwords? Sure, to expand on concepts. Look at some of his dialogue from the game:

Gregory, don't come whining to me about market forces. And don't expect me to punish citizens for showing a little initiative. If you don't like what Fontaine is doing, well, I suggest you find a way to offer a better product. —“Offer a Better Product,” BioShock

What is the buzzword? “Market forces.” Ryan mentions the market forces, then builds on his ideas of what ideal market forces are. This is also a great baseline for his character. He hates Frank Fontaine. He has known Fontaine is bad news for a long time. He will not stop Fontaine for his success alone.

On the surface, the Parasite expects the doctor to heal them for free, the farmer to feed them out of charity. How little they differ from the pervert who prowls the streets, looking for a victim he can ravish for his grotesque amusement. —“Parasite Expectations,” BioShock

What is the buzzword? “Parasite.” “Parasite” has a specific meaning in Objectivist parlance, as well as BioShock's, and it’s something that Ken Levine built on over time.

Your first thought when you heard this, as a sane person, was to reject it. Levine knew you would reject it. He wants you to hit that cognitive dissonance and wriggle in your seat. He wants you to think.

This audio diary is an expansion on the concept of the parasite. What other parasites are in game, literally and figuratively? What is parasitic behavior? Is this really parasitic behavior? What are the differences between your definitions of “parasitic” and Andrew Ryan’s?

Just because I hate you, here is some shit from Atlas Shrugged:

“Who is John Galt?” The light was ebbing, and Eddie Willers could not distinguish the bum’s face. The bum had said it simply, without expression. But from the sunset far at the end of the street, yellow glints caught his eyes, and the eyes looked straight at Eddie Willers, mocking and still—as if the question had been addressed to the causeless uneasiness within him. “Why did you say that?” asked Eddie Willers, his voice tense. —Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

Throughout Atlas Shrugged, Rand uses “John Galt” as a touchstone. She creates a buzzword, and she expands on it over and over and over. There are over 500,000 words of expansion in this shit. She does not tell you why it’s important. She introduces a sensation of unease and hints that the name is everything.

She does not do as Shirley does here:

“[Buzzword]… they had their own little army in Russia—they called them [Buzzword]. Do you know who these [buzzword] are? They are agents of the [buzzword], Sullivan! [Buzzwords]! And what is it they demand? Why, [buzzwords] and [buzzwords].”

Using a single word or phrase to carry a world of meaning is a fucking privilege, not a right. You must earn it. And if Ayn Rand is kicking your ass you need to rethink your work strategy.

Did You Want the Second Report or

Ryan wants that second report:

“And—the other report? It’s true, isn’t it?” “Both cities are almost entirely destroyed. One bomb apiece.” … “Our man in the State Department smuggled this out for us.”

And then Sullivan gets him some nice glossy photographs. thanks sullivan. u could have killed him sullivan. this could have been short sullivan

This is a rare case of John Shirley doing research.

First of all, photos of nuclear destruction didn’t get out for some time. You can confirm this by looking at the front pages of newspapers. Reporting on the disasters occurred nearly simultaneously in the Western world, but newspapers of the day didn’t have images—Japan was closed to outsiders—so they used drawings and stock art to depict related subjects (the pilots responsible and the plane used, for example) or what they thought the destruction might be like (by quick artistic rendition) or political comics (“fuck u because Pearl Harbor”). Immediate images of the destruction do exist, but it took them a while to get out, and there was also some good old-fashioned censorship (USA! USA!). If you want a good jumping-off point, the Wikipedia article shares a few bite-sized nuggets.

Secondly, reports of radiation sickness—and concepts of atomization itself—were not really in the public consciousness at this point. Nor were they reported until at least a month later.

So yeah, it makes sense that if Ryan wanted to see real pictures and get information he could trust, he’d lean on his power and prestige to get them—it's a great illustration of both, as well. But none of this is explained or implied in any effective way, and I was already deeply suspicious of Shirley, so my very first thought was, “You mean………. the second report…….. was the fucking newspaper”

The part of this that irks me is how many times Andrew Ryan turns to Sullivan for his opinion. I feel like this is wrong and I can’t put a finger on it. I truly don't think he'd ask Sullivan for his opinion except in a hypothetical sense, and I don't think he'd broadcast his mood. My idea of Andrew Ryan is as someone who is extremely controlled. But BSR's Ryan is unpleasantly soft and too obviously unsettled. Why does he care?

I ask this because Randian Ubermensch do not give a single shit about what anyone ever thinks, ever. This is not to say that we should strip Ryan’s humanity away like Rand does, but there’s a way to do it effectively. I know this is true because Ken Levine did it and because I have been the kind of person who understands this particular brain rot.

In any case: this gives us a literal date for this sequence. It would have to be after August 9, 1945, when Hiroshima was wiped off the map, and before images got out (I didn’t look ahead far enough to see who got first dibs because that's not my job). So why wasn’t an exact date given on the front page? Because the first page just says “1945.” Why not “August 10, 1945” or “August 1945”? Like if you’re giving the date give the whole-ass date. Are you afraid of commitment john shirley

Before we go on, look at this. LOOK AT THIS

The Great Man held the glossy photographs to the window so he could make them out in the twinkling light of the skyline.

Shirley is so sold to this image of a silhouette against a skyline that he makes Andrew Ryan try to look at pictures with the light from someone else’s window 17 miles away.

THERE’S A LAMP RIGHT BEHIND HIM. THERE’S A LAMP. DO YOU REMEMBER THE FUCKING LA

I Have to Stop Now

I have been trying to keep these posts under 3,000 words. Every single one has hit 6,000. There is something remarkably cursed about all of this.

I think I’ll start stretching out and covering larger swathes of text eventually. We’re basically setting a baseline: for what kind of writer John Shirley is, for what kinds of flaws he is cursed by, for what kind of work he’s willing to do or cognizant of or whatever.

Look guys. I’m on page 3. It’ll get less dense from here on out. I promise.

At least I am getting a foot up on my own research, right?

right?

kill me

<- Part 2: John Shirley and the Front Matter || Back to the Beginning || Part 4: Going Down ->

[generalluxun]

So just saw an otherwise interesting breakdown of the animation and challenges facing the Incredibles movie when it came out, then the youtuber veers into exploring the 'Randian undertones' of the movie and just...

No?

Like, maybe if your whole concept of Objectivism is a wiki article and a couple brotube videos? Trying to pin Ayn Rand's nonsense philosophy on the Incredibles is fishing for controversy and just plain incorrect.

[evilelitest2]

I just had honest to god AnCap-actual fucking AnCap-go "all trans people and drag queens and who support them are child groomers" at me. Anarcho-capitalistm-the movement where half of them literally, no exageration, in those fucking words, thing Age of Consent laws should not exist and child prostitution is acceptable. Holy fuck.

Yeah libertarians are......lets say very focused on age of consent laws in an way that is a huge fucking red flag. The whole movement is toxic from the bottom up, no wonder so many of them went Fash once Trump showed up (in the US at least)

[spockeye-fierce]

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Objectivism

Objectivism is a philosophy developed by Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand, which emphasizes rational self-interest, individualism, and the pursuit of one's own happiness as the highest moral aim. It advocates for a laissez-faire capitalist society, where individual rights are paramount and the role of government is limited to protecting these rights through law enforcement, military, and the courts.

Here’s a breakdown of the central tenets of Objectivism:

1. Metaphysics: Reality Exists Independently of Perception

Objective Reality: Objectivism holds that there is an objective reality that exists independent of human consciousness or perception. The universe is what it is, and facts are facts, regardless of what anyone thinks or believes.

Rejects Mysticism: Rand rejects any form of mysticism or supernaturalism, asserting that reality is objective and can be understood through reason.

2. Epistemology: Reason as the Only Means of Knowledge

Rationality: Reason, defined as the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses, is seen as the only reliable way to gain knowledge. Objectivism rejects any reliance on faith, emotions, or authority as a means to know reality.

Conceptualization: Human beings form concepts based on sensory input and must use reason to understand the world. Objectivism places a strong emphasis on logic and the scientific method.

3. Ethics: Rational Self-Interest

Moral Egoism: Objectivism promotes the idea of rational self-interest, where individuals should pursue their own happiness as their highest moral purpose. Altruism, or the idea that one should sacrifice for others, is seen as a destructive moral code. Rand argues that self-sacrifice undermines human flourishing.

Virtues of Rationality: Key virtues in Objectivist ethics include rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, and pride. According to Rand, these virtues guide individuals toward a life of purpose, productivity, and personal fulfillment.

Happiness as the Moral Purpose: The ultimate ethical goal in Objectivism is the pursuit of one’s own happiness, which is achieved by living rationally, productively, and in harmony with reality.

4. Politics: Individual Rights and Capitalism

Individual Rights: Rand argues that each person has the right to live for their own sake, without interference from others. The central political principle of Objectivism is that the only moral social system is one in which individuals have the freedom to act according to their own judgment.

Capitalism: Objectivism supports laissez-faire capitalism, viewing it as the only economic system that fully respects individual rights. In a capitalist society, interactions between people are voluntary, and the government’s role is limited to protecting individual rights from force or fraud.

Non-Initiation of Force Principle: One of the fundamental political principles is that no one has the right to initiate force against others. The government’s role is to protect individuals from the initiation of force by others, whether by individuals or groups.

5. Aesthetics: Art as a Celebration of Life

Romantic Realism: In aesthetics, Rand advocates for romantic realism, where art reflects what life can and ought to be. Art, according to Objectivism, should inspire and uplift, depicting the ideal man and the potential for greatness in human beings.

Purpose of Art: Rand sees art as a spiritual need that allows individuals to project their most deeply held values and to contemplate the idealized vision of life. Art is not a tool for conveying societal or political messages, but rather for reflecting the creator’s vision of what is possible and desirable.

Criticism of Objectivism:

Criticism of Ethical Egoism: Critics argue that Rand’s emphasis on self-interest as the highest moral virtue can lead to a lack of empathy and disregard for the well-being of others, which could harm social cooperation and cohesion.

Overemphasis on Capitalism: Rand’s vision of laissez-faire capitalism has been criticized for its perceived neglect of social welfare and collective responsibility. Critics contend that unchecked capitalism can lead to inequality, exploitation, and environmental degradation.

Absolutism in Moral and Political Philosophy: Some philosophers argue that Rand's moral and political theories are too rigid, failing to account for the complexity of moral dilemmas or the importance of social cooperation beyond voluntary exchange.

Objectivism offers a radically individualistic framework, emphasizing personal responsibility, rational thought, and the pursuit of individual happiness within a framework of capitalist ethics and individual rights.

[nynnph0]

has this been done before? probably

[madhogthymaster]

I Played Every BioShock Game in One Month, And I Must Scream!

On January 2nd 2023, I made the sporadic, partially ill-begotten decision to buy all three BioShock videogames. Up to that point, I had never experienced these titles directly save only through cultural osmosis, the occasional meme and, naturally, The Discourse! I would spend the following lunar cycle playing them, writing down my thoughts and posting them on Twitter dot com. Today, after enough time passed for my heightened feelings to reset, I have collected those floating brain bubbles and transliterated them into some manner of structured essay for your reading pleasure - or utter lack thereof. Did I have anything meaningful to add to the conversation on one of the most dissected and dissertated franchises in the history of the art form? You may be the judge of that. It begins.

-

Part One: Atlas Drowned

BioShock. The first BioShock. BioShock the First. "Spiritual" successor to System Shock 2, Bioshock. Yes, that BioShock. This is most certainly not a title that requires any sort of elaborate introduction. Since 2007, there have been many videos, articles, essays, podcasts, and everything in-between, dedicated to its analysis. For better and (decisively) for worse, the concept of Videogame Discourse was birthed from the metaphorical wreckage of this opus smashing itself onto the collective consciousness. I may be indulging in prosaic hyperbole here but the point still stands: it was, and still is, a big deal. You have probably heard it all before: the game is about the Folly of "Free-Market" Capitalism as it drives Society to ruin, the inadequacy of the wealthy to lead, a satirical takedown of Ayn Rand's Objectivism as it unceremoniously flops when confronted with the reality of basic human nature and needs. It's about America, in other words. It gleefully revels in its political stance with the subtlety of a clown-faced vending machine yelling: "Welcome to the Circus of Value!" It might as well be using a copy of Atlas Shrugged to wipe its anus, at this point. That is all to say, first impressions were quite positive and I was enjoying it a lot.

The underwater city of Rapture is a poignantly depressing location: everything from its very name to its opulent Art Deco architecture screams of egomaniacal pretention. It is a monument to its founder's hubris turned into a decadent, decaying tomb for his ambition. It perfectly conveys all you need to know about Andrew Ryan, the founder of Rapture and initial antagonist. He is a rich twat who hated having to pay taxes so he created his own version of a Libertarian Blockchain disguised as a country where there would be "No Gods or Kings. Only Man." He then proceeded to make himself the god-king of his utopia; it crashed and burned along with everyone in it. "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?" he said, indeed.

Rapture is a wonderfully designed world, in that sense. The only elements that clash with the contextual aesthetic would be the aforementioned "Circus of Value" marketplaces. Let me explain. Andrew Ryan, like all demagogues, takes himself super seriously. His entire platform was built on the premise that he's a charismatic genius and everything he says is Gospel. His whole civilization was constructed on the terrible ideas he convinced both himself and many others were actually good. Seriousness, self-importance and overcompensated grandiosity were the building blocks of Rapture, the roots of its aesthetic, the basis by which this society could function - until it wouldn't anymore. As such, the presence of those vending machines, openly mocking the very foundation of Uncle Andy's Ryanworld, feel out of place within the narrative and universe at hand. They have been clearly put there so that the developers could do a little meta-humour, a wink and a nudge at the player, to redundantly point out how absurd it all was. They must have been worried the game was too subtle and some players would not get it... Anyway, this was but a minor complaint. By all means, take it with a grain of salt. Now, I have some legitimate criticism to bring forth.

Whilst a lot of the conversation has been directed at Brow Sweat Man, his God complex, his insane ambition, his "Chain of Industries" ideology and "Laissez-Faire" economics, not nearly enough analysis was ever dedicated to the other major antagonist of the game, and I can definitely gather why. I will now openly address spoilers for the latter half of the story by discussing the character of Frank Fontaine (aka ATLAS), the de-facto main villain of the piece.

Fontaine is a grifter who played a long con at the expense of the "Kingdom of Reason." He started a smuggling ring that introduced gun violence and religious bigotry to the city, used the malcontent of the exploited working class to start a bloody rebellion, manipulated and killed people behind the scene through various aliases. His corporation is the one responsible for mass producing all the Big Daddies and Little Sisters, the iconic "monsters" of the series running around town. They are a product of Eugenics science based off Nazi Germany's human experiments. I should stress that Ryan approved all this as the city needed exploitable labour in order to run. The reason behind Frank's actions is simple: money, profit, cold hard cash. Andrew Ryan was a wealthy fool hooked on his delusional Capitalist drivel, his "daring vision" for the future of mankind, Fontaine was the reality check. The thematic exclamation point to the game's entire thesis, the depressing yet irrefutable truth behind all the cruelty and horrors caused in the name of IDEAS is good old fashioned Greed. Someone in a position of power will always be there to make a buck out of human suffering.

To be perfectly honest, I find this throughline rather pedestrian. It is the truth of Capitalism, yes, but it is such an obvious statement delivered with such un-earned gusto that it makes the entire game less interesting as a result. Here we have a compellingly detestable villain in Uncle Andy, the "good guy" of his story, a living byproduct of American Exceptionalism, Ayn Rand's poster boy, a poignant satire of the current socioeconomic establishment, being replaced by a basic money-grabbing baddie. What made Ryan so effective is how real he felt: he represented the warped worldview of the out-of-touch, obscenely rich class that rules the planet and that's going to eventually lead us to our demise - much like in Rapture itself. Fontaine, by contrast, is a mustache-twirling cartoon. He acts and talks like a typical videogame villain who doesn't have anything meaningful to say to you other than how smart he is, how he loves money and how he's totally going to get away with it (insert evil laugh here) while sporting the worst accent I have ever heard in my life. His point as a character is moot and the writing is messier as a result. Still, BioShock is a good game, perhaps not as masterfully crafted as many believed it to be, but rather innovative for the time. There is a clever (for 2007) twist right before Fontaine takes over as the final boss in which it is revealed the player's character was being mind controlled the whole time. It's a cute meta-commentary on the unique nature of our interaction with videogames.

Had I played BioShock when it first came out, I would have probably placed it atop a golden pedestal, sung its praises as the best written story in the history of the medium and angrily rejected any criticism towards it in the most obnoxious way imaginable... I think I was trying to make a point but my brain gave up half way through the tangent. As such, I shall conclude this tirade by saying I enjoyed playing this classic title but I have no interest in going through it a second time. Is that fair? Yes, it is.

-

Part Two: Tetsuo The Drill Man

I moved on to Bioshock 2: The BioShockening, a game that didn't need to exist, in many ways. On one hand, it drags the theming of the first game to unnecessary levels of dilution as its message had already been abundantly delivered. On the other hand, you play as a Big Daddy with a Big Drill. There is a new ruler in Rapture, her name is Dr. Sofia Lamb. She took over after the fall of Andrew Ryan's "Individualist Utopia" by indoctrinating its inhabitants into a cult that's equal parts Early Christian commune and Eugenics with an extra dose of fanaticism. Much like with Frank Fontaine, we have a case study as to how an unregulated, isolationist, capitalist state lays the foundations for stochastic terrorism and sociopathic grift - just in case it wasn't already obvious that Rapture is supposed to represent America. I say that but, to be brutally honest, Dr. Lamb's politics or set of beliefs are as undercooked and generically laid out as they can get. I had to interpret and extrapolate what her deal was through context clues more than anything else. It wouldn't surprise me if the game's intent was to comment on Communism instead of everything else I pointed out, which would somewhat invalidate its previous stance on Capitalism and would further bring into question the overall political stance behind the BioShock series... but let us put a pin on that thought, for now.

As far as the gameplay is concerned, I believe this is a slightly better, more refined, more challenging loop than its previous iteration. These titles are both solid First-Person Shooters with light RPG elements but the second one improves upon its many shortcomings. The ability to hold both weapons and "magical gene powers" at the same time is such a simple yet elegant mechanic that it (bio)shocks me it wasn't implemented earlier. The hacking mini-games have been simplified to the point of fruitlessness - and I'm fine with that. The big change comes with the Big Daddy himself and his huge, oversized, dominating drill that penetrates all its victims at full force, making them scream. It singlehandedly redeems melee attack as a worthwhile feature. Did I mention it's a huge drill?

Beyond that, there isn't much to add to The Discourse. To reiterate, BioShock 2 is a thoroughly pointless sequel and it barely qualifies as one. It's a glorified expansion pack that adds nothing of substance to the narrative, lazily resting on the laurels planted by its predecessor. It's a more polished and fun title to play, undoubtedly, but it's otherwise easy to see why it is considered the forgettable middle child stuck between an era-defining first outing and whatever Infinite turned out to be. Speaking of which, it's time to get into that one.

-

Part Three: Infinite Mysery

WARNING: the following few paragraphs represent my initial impressions on the game, left mostly unaltered as I experienced it for the first time back in January 2023.

So, Infinite, BioShock numero tres but technically a prequel set in 1912, the flying city of Columbia, and all of that. All I knew about this game beforehand was that its engine was used to revolutionize 3D pornography for years to come... Do not ask how or why I know that.

Our "Andrew Ryan" for this episode is played by Father Comstock (oh, brother), an evangelical, white supremacist prophet who gathered his "flock" to live in a conferedate utopia closer to the "Kingdom of Heaven" and far above the "Sodom Below." I used to think the first game was unsubtle and heavy-handed with its commentary, impassioned in its righteous indignation if a bit simplistic by the end, but this game takes that sharp edge and slashes the US flag with it, literally!

This game appears to have things to say about American myth-making, the religious zealotry fueling the glorification (and alteration) of history as a means for Power, The White Man's Burden and the dangerously real threat of Christian Nationalism. It seems to condemn it all with the fervor that bespeaks decapitating a cop with a portable blender - which Infinite is all too eager to provide. What makes the experience truly effective is the setting itself: a far cry from the claustrophobic doom of Rapture. The misery of that place served as a remainder that Capitalism is unsustainable and leads society to ruin. That's an obvious statement by this point and, as such, it left me lukewarm on the experience. All it did was reinforcing my beliefs. Columbia, however, is a different beast. It is not the sunken tombstone to the hubris of a rich fool, it is the realm of the "Chosen Race" thriving under the watchful gaze of the deified Founding Fathers. It's a thriving, gorgeous vision right out of Jules Verne's mind, and it runs on the back of slaves.

That's what makes it truly horrifying and infuriating. The fact that it works, that its ruler managed to build a community for "good white Christians" thanks to the power of religious indoctrination and the exploited labour of the "lower races" that keeps it afloat. It is unsettling, bone-rattling, how inviting the city looks at a first glance, its Victorian architecture bathing in the sun as a barber shop quartet entertains curious onlookers. It's a grotesque dream of Dixieland as filtered through Gone with the Wind lenses.

As such, getting to disrupt the perfect little order of this bigoted, racist 19th century style town through acts of wanton violence is INFINITEly more cathartic than killing random junkies in an already disrupted, dead society. Sticking it to an unjust hierarchy by murdering cops and destroying property elevates the enjoyment of playing this title tenfold. It's exactly what was missing from my ideal BioShock experience. It's simply more compelling to defeat that which is yet to be even challenged. Another major element in the game's favour is a main character with actual agency, as opposed to a silent protagonist whose whole deal was his tragic lack of agency. It's much easier to be invested in the narrative when my guy has a literal say in the matter.

I sure hope the game does not somehow ruin everything in the second half. That would be so disappointing...

WARNING: the following are my real, unfiltered opinions on BioShock Infinite.

Do you know what is the most egregious, baffling, aggravating turn a narrative like this could have made after all it's done, after putting out such an inflammatory takedown of the American conservative institutions? Why, Bothsidesing, of course! According to this game's oh so wise writing, when those rebelling against their literal slavers do it by employing Direct Action instead of "the right, non-violent way" then they're just as bad as them. That is how Infinite chooses to frame the Anarcho-Socialist revolution of one Daisy Fitzroy (the only named black character) as she's compared to Father Comstock (the racist theocrat) with the all too familiar adagio of "Both sides are in the wrong." I am seething with rage.

This game went out of its way to pontificate against America's history of bigotry and racism up to including actual horrendous ethnic caricatures to drive its point home. Then it cowardly decided to throw it all away by taking the "Enlightened Centrist" stance. Essentially, the people in charge of the project have demonstrated to me their unwillingness to commit to a difficult subject as soon as it came to addressing the Real American history, opting thusly to an implicit endorsement of the Neoliberal Status Quo. The message now reads: "Slavery was bad but the slaves should not rebel against it! They should debate the slavers in the Market Place of Ideas!" You could take such a blanket statement and apply it to every sociopolitical scenario where there is a clear Oppressor with a clear Oppressed and expect it to be uttered by those who benefit from the Oppression.

I understand this title is more than a decade old but I will unendingly rag on the plate of unfulfilled potential due to cop-out writing. In fact, this whole situation has forced me to reevaluate my thoughts on the first title, as well! All of a sudden, the dichotomy between Andrew Ryan and Frank Fountain (the latter pretending to be on the side of the working class with a "clever" pseudonym) starts to feel like a less immediately obvious form of political bothsidesing. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the game was cherry-picking its themes as if they were somehow divorced from the larger critique on the Establishment. Implying, in other words, that concepts like the "The Invisible Hand", Objectivism and Manifest Destiny could be extricated from the very fabric of American Society when the inconvenient truth is that they are as much a part of it as Racism, Slavery and Genocide. I am not necessarily changing my opinion on that first iteration, mind you, but I do find myself dubious over my initial read given how the series ultimately panned out, with all the poise of a bald eagle covered in blood-soaked feces! It has just occurred to me, as I was writing this down, that Infinite is basically a remake of the first BioShock but dumber in every conceivable way. More over, BioShock 2's main antagonist, Sofia Lamb, was presented as the total opposite to Andrew Ryan (but just as bad) which reinforces the aforementioned Centrist stance the series now appears to champion while serving as a prelude to what would become the profoundly stupid thesis of the third one! It is astounding just how bad Infinite is turning out to be: horrible in a manner that makes me retroactively question my own ability to understand media literacy. This, dear readers, would be the time when I start screaming.

That said, it's not even the worst part. No, the most offensive aspect about any of this is that None of it actually matters, by the end.

WARNING: That Ending.

It turns out Father Comstock and your main character are the same person but from a different timeline when an Important Choice was made because of Guilt which led to becoming a Reborn Christian and the foundation of Columbia. You had a daughter which was taken from you by your evil doppelganger from another dimension and you were left trapped in a pocket world of some kind and then the rest of the game happens. Something, something, Regret. Something, something, commentary on Player Agency. Something, something, you must stop existing in the past in order to erase all the bad timelines, Sonic '06 style. By the way, there are timey-wimey bollocks, in case it wasn't clear. This is garbage and I do not care for it.

To see what this game was actually about, all along, further undermines whatever "political position" was presented to me throughout the diegesis. Depictions of oppression, racism and human suffering very much rooted in actual history were used as a mere thematic red herring. Meaning that there never was any real commentary, it was a "distraction" from the true narrative. Let this thought consume you for a spell. The game will have you slaughter fascist cops as well as recently liberated black men in the same gruesome, sadistic fashion while framing both groups as "equally bad", only to then pull the rug from under you and tell you it was all window dressing for the Real Story, which was about our (white) protagonist being tormented by his bad life decisions. I am beyond done.

The best I can say about the third and final chapter of the thoroughly tainted BioShock saga is that its contentious presence can be applied to a broader discussion about the nature of Art, namely if or when certain lines should be crossed, for what purpose should they be crossed and, especially, by whom. Infinite was built on the foundation of bad ideas and irredeemable execution. It presented a vapid vision of political radicalism from the obvious perspective of White Privilege and managed, bewilderingly, to not have anything to say about said politics, at all! It's the kind of idiocy that should have been nipped at the bud before wreaking untold damage - much like the main character himself. Nevertheless, it is a real piece of media that exists, a piece of gaming history and, like all history, we can learn something from it... Never Again! That would be the lesson to learn here.

-

Part 4: Something, Something, A Conclusion

As I am about to put this series inside the proverbial Tomb of Amontillado, I suppose this would be the right time to enlist my many gameplay pet peeves, my general pedantries, starting with the hacking mini-games: annoying in the first game, pointless in the second. In general, dealing with turrets, cameras and security robots was an unpleasant experience throughout the trilogy.

In the first two entries, some wise guy had the "great idea" of mapping the jump input to the upper button of the controller. I positively loathed that. They finally fixed it in the third game, just in time for it to stain the bed with several more horrible decisions! Why can't I hold more than two weapons at once in my inventory? That is such a backward step compared to the rest of the series!

Infinite must have also been one of the first AAA games to implement the hideous, horrendous, hackneyed sprint feature that would have you press on the left analog stick while the character is moving. Why was this ever considered an acceptable design choice?

I guess there were a few DLC. They sure exist.

... And with that underwhelming post scriptum, I shall now set my sights elsewhere - away from "Great Chains" and "Kingdoms of Heaven." New games await but we will always have the memories.

The memories of the giant drill, specifically.

---

BioShock and BioShock: Infinite were developed by Irrational Games. BioShock 2 was developed by 2K Marin.

You can find Madhog on:

YouTube

Twitter

Bluesky

Blogger (blog archive)

Also, here's a helpful website: https://arab.org/