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 -
I watched the new Knives Out movie, and while the mystery plot was fun enough, my enjoyment of the movie was severely hampered by politics. I saw the previous Knives Out movie so I knew what to expect, but I do feel like this just went above and beyond. Minor spoilers to follow.
My wife was disappointed that I let politics ruin a good movie for me, but really, I think that the filmmakers honestly don't want you to view this movie as just a fun murder mystery without the context of politics. The movie is all about making a heavy handed political statement.
The movie just seemed like a pulpit for Rian Johnson to talk about how much he hates Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, and various other people. I almost feel like the entire plot is really the secondary goal. The main goal of him making this was to implant and grow a brain worm in the audience that every famous rich person is connected, really part of a cabal that got what they got through no talent of their own, took advantage of individuals and the world at large, contribute nothing, and are evil, vile, worthless, and bratty pieces of shit.
Nowhere in the movie do they ever display the slightest amount of sympathy for anyone besides the detective and the poor black woman who was taken advantage of (major spoiler:or her secret twin sister ). I guess this movie really makes me feel like in order to write good compelling characters, you really have to love them, or have the capacity to love them, or maybe just respect and understand and empathize with them. Rian Johnson clearly does none of this, and his utter contempt for them just seeps through. He comes across like a high school kid writing screenplays to take pot shots at people he hates.
I don't know, I really can't believe that this movie has gotten so much praise. It really irritates me, and just seems like lazy complaining.
Other minor, non political gripe:
The movie came to a screeching halt when they decided to have the entire 3rd quarter of the movie as a flashback. I think small flashbacks are great in mystery stories, but the decision to have over a half hour told in flashback made me feel like it was dragging, and made me want it to just get back to advancing the plot.
Johnson has apparently set his particular calling card as a director to be "All extremely rich people are simply irredeemable fuckups and only obtain their wealth by luck; the only people who are trustworthy, empathetic, or heroic are the salt-of-the-earth working class." No comment on the fact that the working class also correlates with Trump support in the U.S.
He even shoehorned that into STAR WARS of all things.
Which is... FINE, but he ends up making the rich characters into blatant, openly incompetent fuckups, and not just subtly ineffective, nor does he add any other facets to their character. So when he doesn't give them any moments which might allow the viewer to empathize with them and he does minimal work to humanize them, the ultimate effect (to me) is that it feels smug and nasty.
And likewise, I don't even buy that they 'lose' in the end. The irony here is that Johnson wants to have his cynical cake and eat his idealistic ice cream too. That is, he posits a view of the world where rich (but incompetent) people dominate most industries and use their influence to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. There's no way for the common man to strike at them in a way that will matter.
Then, enter Benoit Blanc, who can outmaneuver the rich dummies, see through their deceptions and machinations, and use their own blackened souls against them to arrange for their downfall, then handing that off to the enlightened everywoman to enact the final, decisive blow. Johnson works very hard to make his 'good' ending irrefutable and irreversible.
But to believe that you'd have to ignore the rest of the message that wealthy, connected people are able to use their influence to manipulate outcomes. In this world, shortly after the movie ends, all the wealthy assholes are going to hide behind expensive lawyers, bring in PR firms to spin the story, and while yes they're almost certainly financially ruined for the short term, I rather doubt they will end up serving jail time or losing 'everything.' Okay, the billionaire will probably serve a LOT of jail time for murder (but maybe not) so that's something. But in order to believe that the 'bad' people 'lose,' you have to both believe that all of them were 'bad,' and that they have fully 'lost.' And I wasn't convinced of either by the end. And that's because of the world Johnson set up for us, not my own cynicism!
He wants to push forth the idealistic vision that a smart, educated, clever interloper like Blanc, who champions all the 'right' ideas too, can assist an underprivileged, exploited commoner to win against connected, wealthy idiots through sheer effort and persistence when the stakes are high enough. But then he has to end the movie before reality ensues and the world he posited reasserts and reverses most of the alleged gains.
Side note, whilst I get that destroying the Mona Lisa as a cultural artifact to get some revenge is an iffy message, I think the core idea that the Protag had been extensively and personally wronged by the villains and thus wouldn't give a damn about destroying a mere physical possession was completely valid. A human being was killed, and you're more outraged at the destruction of a tiny little portrait?
That might be one of the few truly interesting points the movie makes.
Also, the real 'twist' wasn't one that the viewer could have reasonably guessed in advance, I think, so I find it a bit bad faith to hide so much from the viewer, rather than merely misdirect their attention so they miss or misinterpret the clues. There were NO clues as to the switcheroo, so the audience was just left in the complete dark until the flashbacks, which recontextualized everything. And that was neat, but a bit unbecoming of an actual mystery story where the audience is looking for clues. But then again, with modern genre-savvy audiences it may have been impossible to fool them if there were any clever clues hidden in plain sight, so perhaps this was the only way to pull it off.
All that said, I still enjoyed it. I don't think one can effectively deny Johnson's pure technical skill as a writer and director.
P.S. people keep saying he's targeting Joe Rogan and Elon Musk specifically, and I see why, but that seems more based on the particular cultural moment rather than the intent when he wrote or even directed it.
The billionaire asshole is much closer to a pastiche of Steve Jobs and other tech founders than Musk in particular. Especially since Musk, of all Billionaires, is not the one who would spend gratuitous amounts of money on a private island with a giant architectural abomination on display. As far as I know, he doesn't own an island, or even a yacht. So 90% of the 'critiques' in this film would roll off him anyway.
The redpill manosphere streamer character also doesn't really fit Rogan. Rogan of course didn't 'lucky break' his way into prominence, he had a lengthy career as a comedian and hosted mainstream TV shows before starting his podcast. And by and large he is known for being a genuine and empathetic guy rather than loudly spouting any particular ideological viewpoint. And given his deal with Spotify, he wouldn't need to cater to some Billionaire's whims to maintain his platform. So again, 90% of the 'critiques' in the film would roll off him.
I genuinely don't think these were the targets Johnson had in mind when writing. He wrote much more generalized sendups of a given cultural archetype and viewers projected the current pop culture bugaboos onto it.
This is a torture versus dust specks argument. The Mona Lisa benefits a huge number of people by a tiny amount each.
So would you accept an outcome where it is never publicly revealed that the Mona Lisa was destroyed, a very convincing forgery is put on display in it's place, and everything continues on as before, with the broader public none the wiser?
People are still, presumably, getting the same benefits from what they believe is the actual Mona Lisa.
It sounds like, morally speaking, this is what you think SHOULD be done to prevent all those dust specks from hitting people's eyes.
No, because I think blissful ignorance is a flaw in utilitarianism and people only benefit here because of blissful ignorance.
It's not a flaw so much so as utilitarianism never claiming to provide omniscience.
If there are deontologists keenly feeling a disturbance in the Force, as a billion art aficionados cry out in pain, then I've yet to meet them.
More options
Context Copy link
So what is the moral harm in the lie, if we assume we cannot un-burn the Mona Lisa?
I will grant for this conversation that we'd prefer the Mona Lisa not be destroyed. But once it is done, you are not in favor of avoiding further harm that would result from people knowing it was destroyed?
Because once it's gone, no amount of money can retrieve it, nor will punishing the parties who destroyed it bring it back.
So what possible benefit is there to publicizing the fact of it's destruction?
Because then people would know the truth. I can't stress enough how unimpressive arguments for noble lies always seem from the outside. The truth makes a powerful enemy and you are forever committed to opposing it once you justify lying. There are some toy examples like the Nazis at the door while you harbor a Jewish family you know they'll kill where lying is worth it but that's using lying as a weapon to fight an enemy you're too cowardly or unable to use more lethal weapons against, it is not a lie that you are deploying on your own people.
I do not consent to reality being fabricated around me because some people I dislike think it is the best for me. These people are my enemies.
That poses the question on the other end, though, if destroying the Mona Lisa was worth it if it serves to expose the ignoble lie that Miles, and not Andi, was the one who created the Billion-dollar company.
You should therefore, at least, empathize with Helen's position where she was literally standing there watching people fabricate a reality around her which wasn't even the best for her in any way. A bunch of enemies conspiring to fool everyone else in order to keep their status quo.
This seems like the ultimate issue with the "torture vs. dust specks" comparison, though. Which principles are we committed enough to that we could justify destroying a priceless cultural artifact? Destroying the artifact causes small discomfort to millions or billions, but not destroying it leaves one person in extreme despair.
If the argument is that we should never destroy cultural artifacts then okay... but does that mean it is okay to allow thieves and murderers to lie their way out of punishment, and to maintain fabulous wealth in exchange for such a principle?
I have not watched this movie so I can't comment on this.
Sure, if that was happening I oppose those people.
The question of whether it's worth it to destroy an artifact for some unit of utility and the question of whether it's justifiable to lie about it to mitigate that utility loss are very different. I don't have a strong opinion on what someone would need to trade the Mona Lisa for in order for it to be reasonable. Consulting the market value of the Mona Lisa($900 Million at last sale but probably much more) and givewell's estimate at the cost of saving a marginal life $4-20k seems like quite a few lives if one were to naively do the math, not that I think that is a very good idea but it's the kind of maneuver you commit yourself to when you try to base everything in the utilitarian arguments. And it's totally useless at comparing something not so easily quantified like the value of truth to a society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're analyzing it using utilitarianism containing the very flaw I pointed out.
The harm is caused by the Mona Lisa being destroyed. Telling people makes them aware of the harm. The fact that people are more upset when they know of it than when they don't doesn't mean that letting them know about it caused the harm, and counting it as though it did is a flaw in utilitarianism.
How?
I'm confused as to what actual loss is sustained by the burning of the Mona Lisa vs. some piece of random art that was not world famous.
Because the main reason the Mona Lisa is important is because of it's fame/notoriety to other people.
And that fame/notoriety isn't diminished by it's destruction.
People value the existence of the Mona Lisa. Destroying it destroys something which people value.
It is a flaw in utilitarianism that utilitarianism fails to count people's preferences being frustrated as a loss when they don't know that their preferences have been frustrated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link