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 -
What's up with fiction?
I haven't read any since high school English class, but my fiancée does. She often buys the trendy stuff that has won some awards and is (I assume) prominently displayed at Indigo. Hanya Yanagihara and and Sally Rooney are two recent examples.
After asking her about her current book over the last couple years, I have come to realize that all of them are mostly based around the following things:
Sexual abuse, especially molestation
Homosexuality or transsexuality
Main character is black or similar, everyone is racist towards them except the good guy(s)
Main character is disabled somehow
While these plot points are basically mandatory to win a book award now, a lot of "classic literature" is just old books that happened to contain these themes. For example, Truman Capote would not be a big deal had he not been a homo who wrote about homo stuff.
None of this is that interesting, but it is weird how well the title of "literature" and book awards launder what is essentially gratuitous descriptions of homosexual molestation into something tasteful and classy. Is this widely known? I get the sense that this is something most right-wing men just have no idea about.
Boys and men tend to read less. In addition, a lot of institutions involved in publishing and reviewing/rewarding books subscribe to socially progressive ideas, meaning that they're more receptive if a book flatters ideas like "written by a non-white person" or "writing about modern social issues".
The more interesting question is what effect dominates more: a greater population demanding more books of the type they like to read, or a small but powerful group of literary influencers/authorities trying to promote/support social progressivism? Because for all the fire and rage about "woke" novels winning awards for their politics, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that there's something wrong with people democratically wanting more books that fit their tastes.
To be clear, John Ringo and Orson Scott Card and the monster hunters international guy are all publishing lots while being pretty clearly on the right, and James Patterson #998 or similar apolitical suspense/thriller/romance novels from high volume authors are probably the most popular novels in general.
My priors are that most of these awards are intended for whatever’s in vogue among the elite and what actually sells has nothing to do with it, whether that’s books about middle aged English professors contemplating adultery for 500 pages or books about transgenders being oppressed for 500 pages. In days past it would have been the former, but nowadays it’s more fashionable to talk about intersectional crap.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link