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 -
Last night I watched the absurdly stupid and awful-looking surprise hit movie of 2022, the Tollywood epic RRR. While slogging through this 3-hour parade of xenophobic melodrama, incoherent action, and kindergarten-level sentiment was a struggle, it did make me wonder about two ideas that Iāve always thought should be in direct conflict with each other but arenāt treated as such: āAnti-Colonialismā and āOpen Borders.ā
As I understand it, the principle behind āAnti-Colonialismā is that Group A is never entitled to move into Group Bās space and take it over, replacing Group Bās preferred culture and/or method of governance with Group Aās preferred culture and/or method of governance, thereby subjugating Group B as second class in their own space. However, this school of thought seems to be most popular among the same political/intellectual cohort that also champions very loose immigration controls, commonly referred to as āOpen Bordersā (even though that phrase suggests no control whatsoever, whereas the reality is probably something closer liberal immigration controls). With an āOpen Bordersā mindset, there is no stopping Groups B-Z from moving into Group Aās space and altering its culture or assuming control of its institutions if any of those Groups does so with enough numbers or organization. āOpen Borders,ā on principle, refutes the very notion of any groupās ownership of any space, which more or less dismantles the paradigm of āAnti-Colonialism.ā How do these two ideas co-exist in the same mind without producing uncomfortable cognitive dissonance?
It seems uncharitable to suggest that the salve for this cognitive dissonance is simply racism; or, to put it how I suppose the āOpen Borders Anti Colonialistā would think of it, āintersectionality.ā That is, the principle behind āAnti-Colonialismā is not really the wrongness of generic groups subjugating each other but rather the wrongness of one static āBad Groupā (that happens to be largely defined by skin color/geographical origin) subjugating other Groups (of other skin colors), who by the nature of their subjugation and opposition to āBad Groupā are thereby āGood Groups.ā āOpen Borders,ā too, is a policy only sought after when the same āGood Groupsā are immigrating into the space of the same āBad Group,ā rather than vice versa. These are intended as strictly one-way ideological roads, and not as equal-use roadmaps for Groups A-Z.
I donāt get the impression that this intersectional solution to the āOpen Borders Anti Colonialismā knot is oft-contemplated by the typical āOpen Borders Anti Colonialist,ā who rather thinks of both notions as having sprung from the same well of humanist good intentions. Is the racial/intersectional question actually essential to this paradigm, or is there some other less invidious key that unlocks the conflict between āOpen Bordersā and āAnti Colonialism?ā in the progressive mindset?
Iāll hand this to RRR: It aptly confounds Western culture-warring by presenting its own set of ideas that may be difficult for some Western progressives to reconcile: It pits noble indigenous revolutionaries against the cartooniest of all racist villains and does so with a strident rallying cry against gun control. One of the protagonists has the stated goal of āputting a rifle in the handā of every colonial subject, and suggests that a bullet only attains its true value when it kills an immigrant (or, in this exact case, any white person).
Absurdly stupid? Yes. Awful-looking? Only if you're expecting Hollywood-level SFX/CGI and aren't used to South Indian cinema approach to 'realism' in stunts etc. (which is basically "physics is for wusses, does it look cool on-screen?")
Look, I'm Irish, any movie which portrays British colonialism as the baddies is going to have some sympathetic attention from me š
Think of it as nationalist mythology, every country has its own foundation myths. Do you think an American movie about the Revolutionary War is going to be any more concerned about "Redcoats Bad"?
Yes, but that is in response to the Head British Baddie declaring that the value of a bullet is more than the life of a native. Exploration of where this line comes from in Indian movies here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link