site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   34483 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie.

Just from listening to your description I think I have a stronger, more workable premise for the movie:

Establish that at some point long ago in Wakanda's history, when we KNOW they were more aggressive and warlike, Wakanda invaded and briefly occupied Talokan to try to secure the competing vibranium resource. But then Wakandan forces abruptly withdrew (or were overthrown) when they chose to dissappear from the world stage. And have Namor actively remember and bear possibly literal scars from this event.

Then you justify why Talokan remained hidden even as other colonizers ravaged their continent. They were uncertain as to Wakanda's status and not wanting to attract their attention.

And Namor re-appears due to concern and distrust over Wakanda's emergence and perhaps wants to attempt a pre-emptive strike while they are in a more delicate position.

Now you've got an interesting new perspective with Wakanda having to grapple with its own brief history as colonizers. You can really dissect the concept of collective guilt and the bearing of grudges across long periods of time.

And then you can have Namor seemingly justified in personal animosity against the Wakandan Royal family since he was personally oppressed by their ancestors, and yet may be able to accept that he is dealing with people who had nothing to do with those previous actions and thus:

A) the sins of the father may not be justifiably repaid by their children's children's children's children's children's children, even if you can directly trace the bloodline.

B) They can become an overall force for good despite past misdeeds.

Surely he is owed reparations, though!

And this doesn't mean you have to drop the real-world race politics either, just have to make the Wakandans contend with their spotless image being a tad tarnished. Or if you want to absolve them, have it turn out that a rogue element of the Wakandan military actually carried out the occupation.

I dunno, seems to make for a more compelling narrative AND solves plot and character motivation issues.

Almost certainly would have made for a more interesting film. But of course, this would never happen because you're injecting even the lightest bit of nuance into the film's social message which is 'colonalism bad, western/white countries bad'. Having Wakanda actually be the one colonising another culture would never be allowed, let alone the message of 'let bygones be bygones'.

Honestly Black Panther is a narrative mess anyway since like even ceding 'they were noninterventionalist' means that they've happily twiddled their thumbs through a boatload of fucked up happenings on the continent.

Without even getting into the whole 'Yes, Compton is the greatest scene of African suffering in the world' hilarity.

Virtually the entire MCU has this problem, since it is increasingly being revealed that various heroes and superpowered beings were in and around earth and either didn't intervene in or actually 'allowed' certain disasters to occur anyway.

At least Steve Rogers has the excuse of being frozen for decades.

That is an interesting option. Especially if you timed the withdrawal to Wakanda's entry into isolation- as in, the reason the oppression/occupation ended was because the evil imperialist/oppressors, at least those on top, recanted/changed rulers to T'Chala's line/entered into their multi-century isolationism. IE, Shuri isn't the direct descendant of the oppressor per see, but the liberator/ones who ended the oppression, and thus create the point that not only are children not guilty of the sins of the fathers, but of course that hatred blinds to distinctions in the out-group.

Though, if you were going this sort of grudge-match, it might make sense that Wakanda is being deliberately framed as the geo-political conflict back drop, not Namor planning an invasion himself. Namor plotting to frame Wakanda, playing on Wakanda's own secrecy and mutual paranoia, would also work well as the set-up, as the backdrop could be a race for evidence before the Americans start a likely ruinous war... which Namor could be setting up to be the spoiler/decisive element in.

Let the surfacers kill eachother, yada yada yada.

Or just have it be HYDRA behind the scenes of everything... again.

That is the ongoing problem, Marvel always has to bring in the fundamentally silly elements of the universe even when trying to be "serious."

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