• stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    The more I read, the more I shared the author’s frustration here. The person the author was arguing with was claiming that “punk” can’t exist in a utopia, that it needs a dystopian society to rebel against, so because “solarpunk” is a utopian movement it can’t be punk.

    Which, one, that’s pedantic bullshit that quibbles about terminology and makes no substantive critique of solarpunk ideas; two, it’s wrong, because solarpunk as a genre does have a dystopia it’s rebelling against, and that dystopia is the modern 21st century capitalist West; and three, there is nothing less punk than trying to gatekeep the definition of “punk”.

    Which is to say, the more I read, the more disappointed I was in this article, because there are genuine substantive critiques of solarpunk, eg as an escapist fantasy, as impractical utopianism, and ultimately this whole long article was just an argument about whether we should call solarpunk punk.

    But there were some good book recommendations in it, so that’s cool.

      • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Nah. Tbh it’s just your average Twitter comment thread, arguing over pointless shit, and then one side of the argument reposting the thread on their own website with a bunch more commentary about why they’re right.

        And it’s the side I agree with, but still.