site banner
PaperclipPerfector  25d ago (text post)   27113 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 13, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Here's a 2019 study that looked at 543 couples in advertisements.

Some notes:

Approximately 19% of the 543 couples represented in advertisements were interracial couples. A chi-square goodness of fit test identified that this was a significant overrepresentation from the 10% proportional representation of interracial couples in the US population, according to the US Census

Approximately 59% of the interracial couples portrayed in the television commercials consisted of a white male and a Nonwhite female (WM+NWF). A chi-square goodness of fit test identified that this was not a significant difference from the 55% proportional representation of WM+NWF couples in the US population of interracial couples, according to the Pew Research Center

Approximately 30% of the interracial couples portrayed in the television commercials consisted of a Nonwhite male and a White female (NWM+WF). A chisquare goodness of fit test identified that this was a significant underrepresentation from the 37% proportional representation of NWM+WF interracial couples in the US population, according to the Pew Research Center

The second research question asked about gender differences among interracial couples with a white partner in relation to their actual population. ... To answer RQ2, there were differences in representation, as the combination of a Nonwhite male and a White female were underrepresented, whereas a White male and Nonwhite female were not.

The third research question asked about the positive portrayal of interracial couples, including socioeconomic status (RQ3a), the behavior of characters (RQ3b), and proxemic distance (RQ3c). ... Therefore, RQ3 had mixed results: while there are no significant differences among the portrayal of interracial and intraracial couples with regards to socioeconomic status and character behavior, interracial couples are more often shown at further distances from each other than are intraracial couples

The fourth research question asked about the portrayal of interracial couples regarding the importance of the couple and the para-proximal distance of the couples. ... Therefore, to answer RQ4, interracial couples are not portrayed differently than their intraracial counterparts in 33 relation to whether they were the main character or whether they were shown at closer camera shots.

The fifth research question asked about the prevalence of interracial couples across three networks (Disney, ABC, and Freeform). A two-sample Chi-square test of association revealed that relationship type and network are significantly dependent upon each other (χ² = 9.35, df = 2, N = 543, p < .01). A post-hoc analysis using a Bonferroni correction that accounts for crossnetwork analysis identified that interracial couples are significantly less portrayed on Disney (0.0%) than expected (6.8%) (χ² = 9, df = 2, N = 34, p =.01), while intraracial couples are significantly more represented on Disney (34%) than expected (27.2%, z = 3.0) (χ² (2, N = 34) = 9, p = .01). Disney was the only network with any significant findings.

The sixth and final question asked about the prevalence of interracial couples among different advertisement types. A two-sample Chi-square indicates that there is not a significant association between relationship type and commercial type (χ² = 6.55, df = 7, N = 532, p = .48). Thus, to answer RQ6, there is no difference between interracial and intraracial couples and the types of advertisements they are portrayed in

Additionally, this data was collected from a broadcast market in Alabama, which, as previously identified, was the last state with a standing interracial marriage ban and still has prevalent instances of prejudice against interracial couples.

Unfortunately, the actual raw data isn't provided or summarized in a table anywhere, so we have to go with their analysis only. It also shows the difficulty of actually collecting this type of data, which is probably why there isn't much out there in academic literature on this topic.

To summarize this analysis of 543 advertisements shown in Alabama in 2019:

  1. interracial couples were overrepresented relative to population size (19% depicted vs 10% actual)
  2. A nonwhite male with a white female is underrepresented
  3. Interracial couples are shown to be less physically close than intraracial couples
  4. Disney had a significant underportrayal of interracial couples.

I imagine the rates of interracial couples being shown in advertisements have only gone up since then. The 19% was for advertisements specifically in Alabama, which the paper suggests may have a lower percentage of advertisements with interracial couples for various reasons.

I'm not sure how much interracial couple depiction in advertisements actually matters that much on its cultural impact versus interracial couples in popular media, TV shows, and movies. The most common examples of an interracial pairing that come into my mind are BM/WF and WM/AF, although it could also just be standing out to me due to my knowledge of black females and asian males being the least desired in terms of dating.

Interesting that there are more Asian males on the list than I would have expected (and much less asian females with white males, and in one of them the Asian female ends up choosing the Asian male.). I have heard the complaint that even if Asian males are now being shown as romantic interests in movies/shows they are still not sexualized (e.g. kissing scenes being removed), but at the same time there does seem to be more Asian males in romantic roles in recent titles than there had been in the past. Has east asian cultural exports made Asian males more palatable to a Western audience, or are there more asian males writing in Hollywood now?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats