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 -
This is probably much pithier than it should be, but perhaps "equal rights means equal wrongs." That is: I think an important key to writing a good female character (any character, of course, but right now it seems most salient here) is to let her make mistakes, and let them be her own fault. Agency has its downsides as well as its upsides (with power comes responsibility, culpability, blame.)
But this runs into a problem: basically any given flaw can be construed as a harmful stereotype by someone motivated to find such things. Characters belonging to demographics that have many defenders are much riskier to write for public consumption than are characters that belong to demographics that don't.
I've recently been blown away by Better Call Saul and specifically how compelling the character of Kim Wexler felt in that it so completely ridiculed 99% of recently written female lead characters.
And yeah it seems it just comes down to this, Kim actually has character development, her entire arc revolves around a real struggle with honesty and playing with the truth, which is thematically appropriate for a lawyer show, and she actually has a legitimate hard time with failures and losses, and falls and trials before she can redeem herself in whatever ways she still can.
In other words, she's actually human and not mere propaganda as Orwell would put it.
Notice that Kim is also a very competent lawyer and likeable person, and this is recognized and remarked upon by almost everyone that encounters her.
If that was all there was to her then she'd be Mary Sue-ish. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with depicting your characters as competent and well-liked! That's not the issue! First it helps that you show their competence rather than having everyone else gush about it, and second they have to struggle with actual problems and even make mistakes, even if said struggles and mistakes are invisible to all but the audience.
I loved that in BCS the only people that knew Kim's personal struggles and demons was herself and Jimmy (and us, the viewers), as far as everyone else was concerned Kim never did anything wrong and rarely made mistakes.
One thing I loved about Kim was a sort of "uncanny valley" about her that made her so close to being a Mary Sue and appear as one to so many characters within the show. It was to the extent that even I as an audience member who got to watch her darker parts felt confused as to why someone like her was with someone like Jimmy, and I had to constantly remind myself that she really wasn't the perfect hyper-competent well-put-together lawyer that her image made her out to be. Her flaws were huge and significant for the impact it had on so many lives, but also subtle due to her presentation, which I suppose was a common theme with most of the main characters in that show.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link