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 -
TERF WARS
Hogwarts legacy, a high budget Harry Potter video game releases in a few weeks, and discussion around it has quickly evolved into another highly charged political issue for many within the gaming sphere.
As background, Harry Potter was created by J.K. Rowling, who in the last number of years has gotten a vitriolic amount of criticism by hard coded members of the blue tribe. Rowling is what is referred to in leftist spheres as a “TERF,” a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In other words, she is a traditional third wave feminist, but does not acknowledge trans women as being equally legitimate as biological females. Criticism of Rowling began in 2020 when she exposed criticism of certain linguistic tendencies that she had progressively seen engross within her social circles. An article was posted on Devex with the headline…
Rowling took to twitter to attempt to point out some of the inconsistencies in reasoning that she believed these social beliefs couldn’t reconcile with established feminist/progressive worldviews. She began by explaining that ‘people who menstruate,’ used to simply just be called women. And after receiving a bit of criticism herself she extrapolated on the details of her argument.
After the obvious storm of vile that came as a response to this, she then went further in extrapolating her views in an entire blogpost that went into fairly meticulous detail around the entire trans issue as well as major problems that she sees may come as a result of it. I highly encourage you to read it, if not for the argumentative qualities than simply because of the sheer balls of the entire debacle, It wouldn’t be out of place if it was placed on this very culture thread.
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
Instead of being silenced or somehow intimidated by threats from these cultural forces, she points out that this is primarily one of the motivators of her immediate dislike of the community in general, including their constant use of hyperbole and slurs. The bitter criticism she received did not in any way overwhelm her, but instead made her far more resolute and ingrained to her worldview. She had become more fervently anti-trans since then, to points which are often hilarious. One may lose sight of the grievances often expressed by the left towards public figures, simply due to the sheer amount of it that is consistently thrown into public discourse. But it is important to point out that J.K. Rowling is a legitimate opponent of transgender ideology. Her most recent books have delved into themes that are consistently similar to the themes she has espoused. One book is literally about a detective trying to solve the case of a male serial killer who dresses up as a women in order to fool and kill biological women. Rowling gives extremely large donations to many charities who are their ideological enemies, as well as essentially banning transgender people from using any of her own charities that help victims of female abuse.
Before delving into the responses to this and the subsequent reactions, it is important to give context to what J.K. Rowling encapsulated during the prime years of her Harry Potter authorship. While harry potter is just popular in general, Blue Tribers LOVE Harry Potter, and at one time they >LOVED J.K. Rowling. Rowling’s influence in the early to mid naughts and 2010s cannot be overstated. In fact in many circumstances and social circles people began to read her novels because of her political affiliations, to support those who seemed to have blue coded interests in mind. Harry Potter had become synonymous with feminism and leftism in general, and as a result also became trumpeted by many in the early transgender movement. It isn’t simply because of her opposition to these ideas that she receives the amount of backlash that she does, but because of who she is. She at one point was one of the most influential feminists in the world and was a huge contributor to the cultural power that allowed it to influence so much of society, even in places like academia.
The responses to this given that context is frankly hilarious. It has been quite a long time since the progressive cultural zeitgeist has had such institutional opponent, particularly one that had for so long been such an icon of their movement. It is like if Luke Skywalker had joined the empire at the end of ESB.
This debate is continually devolving as it nears its release, and discussion about the game has been banned on multiple websites for its divisiveness.
https://www.ign.com/articles/hogwarts-legacy-discussion-banned-from-resetera-forum-site-over-jk-rowling-controversy
It had led to an incredible amount of confusion towards that side of political isle, as regular attacks they are so used to employing, that are usually widely successful, seemingly have no effect on Rowling in the slightest. All they can resort to leading up to the release has been reputation destruction and hostility to those who plan on buying it. The most popular tactic used is guilt by association, who claim that if one buys Hogwarts Legacy, they are therefore inherently transphobic. Another important distinction you may notice is the difficulty many are having with disassociating themselves from what was probably their favorite intellectual property. There seems to be a desire to remove Rowling, but still somehow retain possession of the franchise itself, something that is frankly impossible. Take this for example, where fans removed Rowling’s name from her books before reselling them.
https://nypost.com/2023/01/13/reseller-removes-j-k-rowlings-name-from-harry-potter-books/]
Of course, everyone knows this is impossible. Rowling was wise enough to retain full possession of her intellectual work, and anything, and I mean anything relating to Harry Potter must be directly approved by her and she receives a good sum of the profits as well. Amusement parks, toys, video games, streaming sales, everything. Rowling is Harry Potter. Many now are used to franchises they once enjoyed being influenced in one way or another by these cultural elements in their favor, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the rings, etc. It is highly ironic that a property is receiving so much backlash not for expressing any pro-red views, but simply because the creator does not agree with one of the fundamental viewpoints that have become synonymous with the left.
On the right, this has had an equally hilarious reaction. While certainly not as fervent or significant of a response, many have taken to supporting Rowling and expressing a desire to purchase Hogwarts Legacy as a form of protest. This includes everyone from Neo-cons to White nationalists.
It seems as if hardcoded Blue Tribe members are learning certain facts about modern cultural society that red tribe members have slowly learned throughout the decade or so. Cancel culture does not work on legitimate financial elites. It does not matter to what ends you try to smear Rowling with, she is and will always remain extravagantly wealthy and beyond any real financial or cultural danger. It is my guess that Hogwarts Legacy will sell extraordinarily well, for it looks to be a genuinely good video game, to the point where even those who are not familiar with Harry Potter may be attracted simply due to its quality. It is already the most pre-ordered game on Steam at the moment has no sign of slowing down. I suppose now that I am not making any particular argument in any way, but It is interesting to see a political force that is usually so successful seemingly work overtime for years on one particular target and see nothing but a proverbial scream into the wind.
I went back and read some of them recently and I think the blue tribe would have to have dropped them by now anyway, even without Rowling. It's true that they're anti-racism to a degree, which was part of the appeal, but there are other aspects that would be very troubling to the left today. For example, government officials are mostly incompetent, petty tyrants. The wizard newspaper prints only fluff pieces and official propaganda. It's not a book with that supports the "trust the experts" style of government that's been a staple of leftism for a long time but has ramped up even more since 2016. Several of the evil characters are fat and the books harp on it as a sign of poor character.
Nah, they went a decade+ without noticing it's a story about armed children in school fighting the government, or that the Slytherins are a better "Jewish conspiracy" stand-in than the goblins. Shallow thinking is endemic, and motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.
The armed children fighting the government is a tasty interpretation I didn't notice. But slytherine as Jewish cabal seems quite a stretch for what is a very basic elitist/racist portrayal.
The Slytherins are an unmanly ethnogroup that uses their wealth and ownership of the media to secretly control the government. The "good ones" are a favor-trading backdealer whose redeeming value is that he's so fame and favor hungry that he is willing to dip into genuine meritocracy instead of raw nepotism, and a creepy villain who is "redeemed" by his pathetic unrequited lust for a
pure AryanGryffindor redhead.I mean, yeah, it's a silly stretch, but it's funny how far you can stretch it to fit.
Do you mean Slytherins or pure bloods? Slytherins obviously aren't an ethnogroup, and to the extent that purebloods are an ethnogroup the analogy doesn't hold up.
The sacred 28 is a list of the 28 truely pure blooded British families. Those 28 families include
The Weasleys.
The Prwetts of which all the boys died fighting Voldemort, and Molly Weasley is the only daughter.
The Longbottom's
The Shacklebolts
The list includes other non-heroic but not Voldemort adjacent families, like Olivander, other plotting backroom dealers like Slughorn and maybe Greengrass.
So even this take doesn't break things down into a unified ethno group. A large amout of the fighting is among the sacred 28.
A Crouch, a Lestrange, and a Lestrange/Black torture the Longbottoms into insanity.
A Longbottom destroys a Horcrux.
Voldemort's side (1/2 Gaunt) killes the Prewetts boys.
Molly Weasley/Prwettt kills Belatrixx Lestrange/Black.
Voldemort Kidnaps an Olivander.
Belatrixx Lestrange/Black kills another Black.
A black betrays Voldemort and steals his Horcrux.
A Shackbolt is one of the cheif enemies of Voldemort.
A Crouch is Voldemort's main government opposition during the war, but his son worked for Voldemort, and his son later kills him.
All of these surnames are in the sacred 28.
So it's no so much an unmanly ethnogroup that uses their wealth and ownership of the media to secretly control the government. So much as it is a part of of ethnogroup hat uses their wealth and ownership of the media to secretly control the government, often against other members of that exact ethnogroup.... actually, on reflection the the intrasect fighting might make it a more accurate representation of modern Jewry, but not in a way that lines with classic sterotypes (that and how secular liberal Jews and Orthedox Jews are diametrically opposed on every political issue is not well known in common discourse).
More options
Context Copy link
I guess all of this just sound like maximally generic effete elite stereotype applied to a specific group. It's essentially a Marxist critique. It's practically a yungian archetype, that you can apply it to a group whose reputation is patterned matched to this archetype is jut not that interesting.
It’s not really even Marxist, it’s a small-r republican critique of degenerate aristocrats.
This reminds me of classical vampires - similarly a (literal) degenerate aristocracy - being interpreted as an antisemitic trope.
More options
Context Copy link
"Effete elite" is part of what Slytherin has going on, but there's stuff like the Slytherin dormitory being in a dungeon, I've seen that called out as based in an antisemitic trope around ghettoes.
Ghettoes are just the part of a city where a secluded minority lives. Jews living in ghettos is a historical fact, making it an antisemitic trope is already a stretch.
But all the houses have their own secluded dormitories - this isn't Slytherin-specific, it's Hogwarts-generic, so the ghetto comparison has no leg to stand on. "Dungeon" is just generic evil.
Adult Slytherins, at least the wealthy leaders*, live in manors. Unless "rich and evil" immediately makes you think "Jews" - in which case I suspect you are the antisemite - they should code to snooty aristocrats.
*Also an important distinction. The Malfoys are rich, but that's about it - the rank-and-file Slytherins/Death Dealers tend to be thugs.
Corrupted pattern-matching finding antisemitism where there isn't any is a rather big problem, but this is one of the more egregious examples.
The antisemitic angle is that, like, one asks "why are the rich evil guys living in squalor?", and while the surface answer is "that's a generic evil trope", the underlying origin of the trope that would have a scheming, wealthy villain who lives in squalor is negative stereotypes about Jews.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know, this all requires someone who seems otherwise quite progressive having a whole lot of knowledge of Jewish stereotypes that I've never heard of before.
In the context I saw it discussed, it was more "this generic evil trope is based on anti-semitism so the series is unconsciously anti-semitic"; this being before Rowling's cancellation the assumption wasn't going to be evil intent.
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