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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Spoilers for Joker: Folie à Deux (2024) ahead
Time for some low-stakes culture war. The sequel to Joaquin Phoenix's Joker movie is out. The first movie was essentially a remake of Scorsese's Taxi Driver with a little bit of supervillain flavour that resulted in a moral panic about how its empathetic portrayal of a mentally ill loner might spark an incel shooting. In the end, no shooting happened and the movie made bank.
The sequel now takes a different approach and turned out to be a musical featuring gay icon Lady Gaga. A bold choice that critics describe as
The Critical Drinker, a, uh, heterodox critic went a step further and had the following to say
Internet randos floated memes to the same effect. First, a plot summary:
And now for some red hot culture war schizophrenia:
And while I think the above conspiracy theory gets the motivations and machinations of the ominous they hilariously wrong, there is something to be said about a Zeitgeist that sees anything enjoyed by (white) men as something in dire need of female supervision.
A small kink in that explanation: The second movie was written and directed by the same people. So, what happened?
It’s possible that the director/screenwriters/producers believed that the 2019 film produced a moral panic and they didn’t want blood on their hands. Perhaps they believed that they might be perceived as responsible for some incel-inspired shooting or violence against the state? So, they had to make a sequel to defang Phoenix’s Joker and make his character weak and pathetic. “Look at your ‘hero’ now, you filthy incels!”
The production studio, believing this same ridiculous notion, merely did a cost-benefit analysis. “Which will lose us less money: a box office bomb or a lawsuit and reputational damage of aggrieved families of the Great Incel Shooting of 2024?”
So let's say you're Todd Phillips in 2019. The movie you made makes a ton of money but it's liked by the wrong people. You are afraid you may inspire a shooter. I suppose "Quick! Let's make a sequel that will take 5 years to produce!" is one way to try and address that fear but it is not a very prudent one.
Not wanting to be known as that incel movie guy is perhaps a better explanation for that kind of behaviour.
If a shooting were to happen, it would have happened in between the first and second movie coming out, at which point the second movie would have been cancelled anyway. Just not making a sequel would have been cheaper.
I suppose that sounds right. Maybe they always wanted to produce a sequel sooner but were delayed due to COVID/production hell, etc.
Also, maybe they legitimately wanted to make a good sequel? Just one that fundamentally alters the Joker’s character, and it took time to arrive at something satisfactory to all parties concerned. (Except, of course, to the audience.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link