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 -
Okay. Let's move into some light culture war. So Jeremy Clarkson seems to be going soft in his old age - he apologized for a column in the Sun newspaper in which he is less than gentle on Meghan Markle. The column is taken down but wayback machine remembers.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221217031028/https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20782114/harry-meghan-netflix-series-truth/
Imo - it is pretty tame even if colorful stuff. And if you are a British citizen with attachment to the monarchy - I think the sentiment is understandable.
And his apology is here.
So it is non apology. Of course the mob is not appeased. At least he didn't try to be more apologetic afterwards.
"At night, I’m unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when she is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant, “Shame!�? and throw lumps of excrement at her.!
I sincerely cannot understand what can make a grown person have such an intensity of emotion for someone who isnt a murderer or rapist og war criminal or the like. Meghan Markle is very annoying, sure, but this is beyond unhinged. I realize brits love their royal family, but surely after all the Diana/Charles escapades and then recently with prince Andrew, they learned to temper their emotions just a bit?
There's two things going on. First, the Royal Family is a real-life soap opera. Victoria, once she ascended the throne at the age of eighteen, worked very hard (especially when she got married, in concert with her husband) to rehabilitate the image of the royal family:
So the tabloids love the royals as fodder for scandal stories which can be whipped up out of nothing. As remarked elsewhere, they were picking on Kate (William's wife) because that is how the media treats the celebrities: build them up, then bring them down. Kate is a commoner, so there were plenty of critics to provide mean-spirited little snippets to the press. Then Meghan came along, and it was a dream come true for the gossip mags: two royal wives who could be pitted against one another in a struggle for popularity! Half the stuff churned out about "sources close to" and "a close friend" and "palace insiders" was invented out of nothing. Like having body language experts watching TV coverage of the couple so they could analyse what Meghan and Harry were really feeling, it's all headline-grabbing nonsense that is the equivalent of the latest plot line in the soaps. Or if you prefer, DOUBLE CLAW GRABBING.
Second, there is indeed insider backstabbing, jostling for influence, and all the rest of it inside the palace. Meghan rocked the boat, and after Diana the monarchy had adapted to make sure they would not be caught out again by someone who cleverly used public opinion to elevate herself above the institution. Meghan didn't realise that there are duties as well that go along with being a royal, and that there is an order of precedence, and that a lot of it is dull, boring "go and shake hands and meet the ordinary people" trips. Her move to the US was a big step in the struggle for influence, and played to where her real base and strength lies: being a celeb on the chat-show circuit and being known in America. She can't do anything like that in Britain (and certainly not after Diana's interview with Martin Bashir) and doesn't have the same insider status.
As said, Kate put her head down and ploughed through the criticism and carping and got on with the job. Meghan behaved like a stereotypical Hollywood celeb.
Third, the kind of thing Clarkson said wasn't really meant to be taken seriously. He has a public image as being, well, a bit of a prick. He is not going to write a love-note to Meghan, and he is going to do something over the top (like the Game of Thrones reference). So it's to be read as being tongue-in-cheek, while also tapping into what irritates people about Meghan. If you honestly think he cares about Meghan Markle to the extent of "lying awake at night grinding [his] teeth", you mistake what he is writing, his persona, and why he is writing it. Like Piers Morgan (whom I utterly detest), he jumps aboard any bandwagon to snatch at popularity. The current bandwagon is "Meghan is an unutterable pain" so that's what he dishes up, with his trademark offensiveness. That's his persona: the guy who makes your blood boil because he doesn't give a fig for the liberal pieties and tells it like it is. But it is also intended to be just that bit over the top, so you shouldn't take him literally and you are certainly not meant to believe he really feels that strongly about Meghan.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link