site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32867 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And it was clear in that moment that there's a compelling need, to some extent, for more representation of x demographic, because, for instance, it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you.

I actually think the opposite. It's profoundly unhealthy to care if people look like you, and we should be teaching our kids to not worry about such things. When I was growing up, I consumed media featuring all manner of people - black, white, male, female, you name it. I never cared if they looked like me, I cared if they were part of an interesting story. I think that's the attitude we need to cultivate in kids, not feeding the attitude that "yes it really does matter what people's superficial characteristics are".

Taken at face value, this seems like a strong argument for race blind casting. You* can't simultaneously say appearances don't matter and make a big deal out of casting a non-white actor (or otherwise portraying) for a customarily white character. Maybe you don't need Black Panther, but if you're going to argue for that you ought to be open to black Captain America or Hispanic Iron Man or female Thor. Or, say, black Ariel.

*rhetorical you, not you specifically

It's an argument for race blind casting in some cases, sure. But not all. While I don't care about the race of characters per se, I care a great deal about adaptations being faithful to the original. So, no race swapping established characters, but yeah original characters can be whatever and it doesn't bother me.

While I don't care about the race of characters per se, I care a great deal about adaptations being faithful to the original.

What does that mean, though? There are certainly stories where changing the race of certain characters at the very least demands some justification, but there are plenty where it does not. Does it really make any sense to insist that Hamlet only be played by Danish actors? Was it a problem that Tom Cruise played the role of a Japanese man in Edge of Tomorrow? (Or, if you want something more recent, basically everyone in Bullet Train).

I don't think that it's particularly complicated. If the character is described a certain way in a book (or other source material), then they should stay that way in an adaptation. And yes, that goes for making characters white as well as making them black. The sword cuts both ways. I was annoyed that the Wheel of Time show felt the need to take white characters and make them black, but I would've been equally annoyed if they had taken the black characters and made them white.

I think you're overthinking this. It really is quite simple.

So there's no legitimacy to complaints about black elf OCs in Rings of Power or black Ariel?

I think you're overthinking this. It really is quite simple.

In principle it's not that complicated. In practice it doesn't seem quite so straightforward. I see this argument advanced when it comes to changing a character's appearance, but it tends to get applied in very selective and arbitrary (and one sided) ways. No one complains when adapters change, e.g. a character's hair or eye color, height/physique. Recasting a customarily white character tends to provoke a far stronger reaction than vice versa (nobody complained about Neeson or Hardy in the Nolan Batman films, for example), but also concerns about authenticity/fidelity go out the window if the casting choice is sufficiently cool (approximately no one complained about SLJ as Nick Fury or Jason Momoa as Aquaman, despite them bearing virtually no resemblance to their character's original appearance).

I do recall people complaining about Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher in the movie, since the character is supposed to be a behemoth and Tom Cruise is more... petite. There was much celebration when the character in the TV show was played by a big guy.

Yep, I definitely remember those complaints. I hadn't read the books and I thought (and still think) Cruise did a really good job in the movie, but having seen the series now I definitely see their point. Cruise did as well as he could for a guy his size, but only for a guy his size.

I mean, Tom Cruise is going to kill it in anything. If they had put Andrew Garfield or such in the role, it would have been a much bigger issue.

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