Cyberpunk was an aesthetic created by Ridley Scott in Blade runner and John Carpenter in Escape from New York, based on the outsider youth style from the late 70s (punk) and making that futurisic in a dirty way with rough body augmentation.
William Gibson made it more computer centric.

Along came Steampunk. There's nothing punk about it in any way but it was a new genre because it added high tech to the late Victorian world using steam based technology plus magic. It copies the aesthic of cyberpunk by having people with rough bodymods but based on steam and clockwork.

Then Dieselpunk. Again it wasn't really punk but it was a new genre in need of a name. The high tech was based on the internal combustion engine and simple electronics. It also featured flashy individuals who often had bodymods but powered by the tech of the day. The time for the setting is the 1920s to the 1940s but can be later with post apocalyptic stuff and in that case it does include actual punks.

“Atompunk” is the men's rights group of genres. It is the straight pride month.
It is an entirely unnecessary and meaningless genre that weakens the existence of the other genres.
It's unneeded because the atomic age was part of SciFi already, there's absolutely nothing new there. We already had atomic based SciFi from the 30s to the 60s, you don't have to add “punk” to it.
All it does is say “me too”, basically relabeling normal retro scifi and stealing the thunder from genres that need more recognition.
Atompunk is White pride.

I hate the term “punk”, which is funny because I got a trpg called Yiff punk.
Actually the reason I called it that is the reason I hate the term; I used it as a means to upset the norm of than furry community slowly stripping away its identity for bland, nitpicky hyper realism focused streamlining for mainstream acceptance and wanted to drag it to being a cartoon, and added sex because I thought it was an open market at the time (I was wrong, the online trpg community does not like sex).
I was taking the piss on everything, that is what's missing from those “punk” genres. They are the reporters kicking garbage cans after the Bill Joel Armstrong did it, and it feels hollow and just following trends, they're trying to hard to be the next Haunted Virgin or Killer Crabs.

And Atomicpunk ignores there is already a call back to that scifi works of the pre-1950's, Raygun Gothic. Plus Atomicpunk sounds like a man child trying to live out those Soldiers of Fortune and “I killed a bear with my balls” magazines of yore, missing the point they were huge liars only dressed up in pop culture osmosis of Star Trek and Lost In Space flare.

Would the pre-war world of fallout be considered atom-punk ?

lothar wrote:
Would the pre-war world of fallout be considered atom-punk ?

Post-war too, people basically use it as the classic example of the “genre”.

But in reality it's just basic bread and butter, meat and potatoes Scifi.
I mean, there has ALWAYS been a place for that in standard SciFi, that stuff has never not fitted in, it's basically CORE Scifi.
It just doesn't need to be added to a new sub genre to cash in on the alternativeness of the others that need the “punk” label.

One thing about Atomic age sci-fi is that no matter how dark it may be it is not punk. Not punk. Space opera, Ray guns and rubber suits, post apocalyptic mutant infested wastes but no punk.
People who insist on punk know nothing about the genre beyond video games and never watched Twilight Zone, Outer Limits or various sci-fi of the 1950s and 60s. Total ignorance of people who think it all started with them and doesn't have a long history.
Compare the post apocalyptic setting of Fallout with Things to Come. OMG, pre atomic 1930s Atomic sci-fi. (Wells had already postulated the A-Bomb and a mushroom cloud is shown during the wartime montages, though the movie is from 1936)

I propose the new genre “peplumpunk” that is greco-roman mythology mixed up with really approximative historical reconstruction of greco-roman world where all edifices are already in ruins, plus the punks from kenshiro.

It could actually work, Maciste VS Mad Maximus.

marcorossi wrote:
I propose the new genre “peplumpunk” that is greco-roman mythology mixed up with really approximative historical reconstruction of greco-roman world where all edifices are already in ruins, plus the punks from kenshiro.

It could actually work, Maciste VS Mad Maximus.

With Xena warrior princess and Conan the Barbarian.
Seriously though, it would work for late empire or just after the fall of the west. Could have lots of Goths which with the right take can be very punk.
I actually have a series of Belinda Brandon movies sort of like that setting. Barbarian Sisters where she's a horse warrior from the Caucasus.

How about a new genre called bronzepunk? It's got a Sumerian flavor, featuring Gilgamesh riding around on a clockwork motorcycle…

fallopiancrusader wrote:
How about a new genre called bronzepunk? It's got a Sumerian flavor, featuring Gilgamesh riding around on a clockwork motorcycle…

Reminds me of that owl in Clash of the titans XD
-Bubo <3

I propose Punkpunk. A genre where punks have bodymods like having their arm or a leg replaced with another punk.
Maybe we can connect a lot of punks together into a punk Volton?

Voltronpunk would be great, I have no doubt. However Bronzepunk made me think of the Gilgamesh comic by Lucio Oliveira: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_el_inmortal (no page in english sorry).
This comic starts with Gilgamesh in Sumer, he actually becomes immortal, then there are various episodes in various historical periods (like, Gilgamesh with the conquistadores, during the french revolution etc.), then the story goers into sci-fi, post apocaliptic, and then in space.

Very old styled, but had its cool factor.

That's reminds me of the Gil-gamesh character in Fate. Since he's the first hero and immortal, everything is in his storehouse.

Ozoneocean wrote:
“Atompunk” is the men's rights group of genres. It is the straight pride month.
It is an entirely unnecessary and meaningless genre that weakens the existence of the other genres.
It's unneeded because the atomic age was part of SciFi already, there's absolutely nothing new there. We already had atomic based SciFi from the 30s to the 60s, you don't have to add “punk” to it.
All it does is say “me too”, basically relabeling normal retro scifi and stealing the thunder from genres that need more recognition.
Atompunk is White pride.

I'm sorry but this is such a savage take down that I can't stop laughing XD

Just bravo.

Ugh.

Sorry, better clarify: men's rights groups “unnecessary and meaningless” that “that weakens the existence of the other” groups. It doesn't work that way, only for those maybe, who apply the popular us vs them rhetoric. There are important issues that affect men sometimes just as much, sometimes more than women, but that part is rarely ever mentioned by feminists. It's like when they open up a shelter for abused women and children ONLY and if you're a man trying to escape from an abusive relationship, they say “I don't have to cater to their needs, I've got my own priorities, go open a shelter yourself”. And when someone does, he's “taking away the spotlight from groups that ACTUALLY need it”. Uhuh. Look, you don't have to tell me how many bigoted this-or-that-pilled alphas and misogynists, incels MRA attracts, just like the activism for women's rights attracts a lot of extreme misandrist lunatics. That's the subjective experience they've had and that's what they mirror. But many of the individuals who are actually taking this seriously had their lives crushed by injustices of a system that the rest of the people flat-out refuse to even acknowledge. They were born with a dick, so their lives are privileged enough that they have to take everything quietly? Or just blame it all on toxic masculinity and the patriarchy, when the ones who are the most critical about these things laugh them in the face and dismiss their issues as non-existent or not important? Maybe I'm wrong and I definitely won't change any minds already set, that's for sure, but even if it affects different people in different ways, I still think that most of society's problems are interconnected and affect each other. We can only get things done if we have someone else to point a finger at? Why is it considered so co counterproductive to agree how if something is the issue of a 100 people and out of that hundred only 1 is a man, or 1 is a woman, it's still a 100 people's issue, not of 1 and not 99. I'm not an expert on any rights issue and I've been wrong about things before, that's fine, but I really don't see the benefit of acting like MRAs are just bored brats who do damage all the time for no good reason. Even if many or most are insufferable, the very reason they exist is because apparently who gets discriminated against, harassed, abused and victimized more, who's pain gets validated became a competition for us. And I'm probably a pathetic fucking idealist who knows nothing, but I think that competition is now part of the problem.

InkyMoondrop wrote:
Ugh.

Sorry, better clarify: men's rights groups “unnecessary and meaningless” that “that weakens the existence of the other” groups. It doesn't work that way, only for those maybe, who apply the popular us vs them rhetoric. There are important issues that affect men sometimes just as much, sometimes more than women, but that part is rarely ever mentioned by feminists. It's like when they open up a shelter for abused women and children ONLY and if you're a man trying to escape from an abusive relationship, they say “I don't have to cater to their needs, I've got my own priorities, go open a shelter yourself”. And when someone does, he's “taking away the spotlight from groups that ACTUALLY need it”. Uhuh. Look, you don't have to tell me how many bigoted this-or-that-pilled alphas and misogynists, incels MRA attracts, just like the activism for women's rights attracts a lot of extreme misandrist lunatics. That's the subjective experience they've had and that's what they mirror. But many of the individuals who are actually taking this seriously had their lives crushed by injustices of a system that the rest of the people flat-out refuse to even acknowledge. They were born with a dick, so their lives are privileged enough that they have to take everything quietly? Or just blame it all on toxic masculinity and the patriarchy, when the ones who are the most critical about these things laugh them in the face and dismiss their issues as non-existent or not important? Maybe I'm wrong and I definitely won't change any minds already set, that's for sure, but even if it affects different people in different ways, I still think that most of society's problems are interconnected and affect each other. We can only get things done if we have someone else to point a finger at? Why is it considered so co counterproductive to agree how if something is the issue of a 100 people and out of that hundred only 1 is a man, or 1 is a woman, it's still a 100 people's issue, not of 1 and not 99. I'm not an expert on any rights issue and I've been wrong about things before, that's fine, but I really don't see the benefit of acting like MRAs are just bored brats who do damage all the time for no good reason. Even if many or most are insufferable, the very reason they exist is because apparently who gets discriminated against, harassed, abused and victimized more, who's pain gets validated became a competition for us. And I'm probably a pathetic fucking idealist who knows nothing, but I think that competition is now part of the problem.

So a lot of what you’re touching on here is related to intersectionality and I can agree with the gist as I understand it. There are in fact a lot of issues specific to men, I should know, I’m trans I remember the weird pressures and things put on me to be one of the guys and it’s shit. When we refer to toxic masculinity as it affects men it isn’t about men being bad people it’s about those pressures of masculinity that are put on young men and the systems that are perpetuated to try and mold men a specific and generally unrealistic way that also perpetuate things like misogyny. I think of any time some dude called me being into anime “gay” or I was expected to “man up” to a situation I wasn’t prepared for.

Problem with MRA is they are seen as being formed under a disingenuous lens, a counter point to feminism that formed during the unfortunate days of gamergate. I know of plenty of current lefty commentators who make a point to try and shift the conversation of men’s issues into the broader conversation because they’re important to the intersectional issues we all face in this broken world. That doesn’t mean it’s always taken seriously though because of that gamergate era stigma around the subject, with the rise of Migtow and Incel culture alongside anti-sjw YouTube and the like. Which is unfortunate because addressing these issues is important to the futures of young men especially. Letting the Logan Paul’s and Andrew Tates of the world dictate the conversation of what men need will just lead to more bad outcomes.

Yeah, I agree. I mostly have experience with local MRAs, who mostly either call out stuff like… UNICEF not promoting the International Day of the Boy Child to talk about issues boys facing (in the past, not sure if they do it nowadays) or legal problems. Some of them are divorced fathers who lost the custody battle. And as far as I've seen they were much more open to explore healthy ways of masculinity and allowing men to be sensitive and stuff - than their audiences, who are mostly conservatives and surprise-surprise: have a lot of homophobia and transphobia going on. It's definitely a problem, that affects activists on both sides: that it's very hard to make the people here more sensitive to the issues. We're a small country with a deeply bigoted and hateful government. That both gets inspiration from Trump and Russia + inspires conservative lawmakers in the US to crack down on trans people harder. I can only imagine how much more toxic the discourse is in the west with those “role models” around you mention.