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 -
Into the Spider-Verse was my favorite movie of 2018. I only found out this year that one of the film's directors was someone whose values are antithetical to everything I believe and as harmful to me as ideas can be. I knew he wasn't returning to direct the sequel, so I thought that meant I could go see it without feeling shame, but I just found out (again, surprisingly late) that he's an Executive Producer on it. This likely means he gets a share of the box office gross, though I don't know how big that share would be.
This presents an e̶t̶h̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ psychological dilemma that feels as though it's ethical for me. This is one of the few movies where seeing it in the theater is very important to me, and I do feel that I'd be missing out by seeing it on my tiny laptop screen several months after release. However, I would feel emasculated if I gave this person any more money than I already have. Is there a way I can have my cake and eat it too here?
I know it's unlikely that anyone here has a better idea "than stop giving a crap about what filmmakers believe," but I'm asking anyway, just in case. There's nobody else on the internet where I'd expect people to be sympathetic to my problem in a way that's more than superficial. Left-wing spaces (as I've experienced them) would say "you should only care about political violence and life ruination if you're the kind of person we'd be using it against," and right-wing spaces (as I've experienced them) would say "these tactics are actually good and we should use them against left-wingers when we're in power" after making fun of me for liking children's movies. I do not mean to imply all left-dominated or right-dominated spaces are like the ones I describe, but that's my expectation of them based on experience, and it's always demoralizing to get those kinds of reactions, so I don't want to go seek them out.
Right now a lot of leftists are hectoring people for buying or playing Hogwarts Legacy. Do you think they have a legitimate argument, just the wrong target, or do you think they are being silly for demanding ideological and ethical purity in their media consumption?
Realistically, if you are not on the left, most of your media is going to be produced by people who probably hold views you dislike. (Also, realistically, this true for everyone, just moreso for people who aren't leftists.) The only difference here is this guy has been more open and in-your-face about it than most. There are probably lots of people with credits and revenue-sharing on Into the Spider-Verse who are just as left as him or more so.
How much energy do you want to invest in trying not to give money to your political enemies?
Money is investment; attention is energy. Framing avoidance of an entirely opt-in loss of resources (and indeed, their transfer to your enemies) as an expenditure unto itself is nonsensical and confused.
So that's a yes to trans activists being tactically correct if directionally wrong?
I mean, I am not one for saying "No ethical consumption under capitalism" because I am not anti-capitalist, but it's basically true that you cannot completely avoid giving money to people and institutions and causes you oppose. Where each person is going to set their line is different, but personally "I won't consume any media made by people I hate" isn't a compelling proposition to me.
I honestly don't understand your argument.
Yes, trans activists are correct, I'd say strategically more than tactically; cancellations and boycotts work. They haven't succeeded with Rowling yet, but she's a uniquely hard target. In what sense are they directionally wrong? I do not care to lecture my enemies on morals and goals, it's a given that we disagree. In any case, the premise of voting with your wallet and denying the other party your capital is of course sound – and morally legitimate.
Strawman (or what's the term). Only God is perfect and complete; you totally can make sure of preferentially supporting people you want to support or at least not giving advantage to the opposite group. The point is not purity spiralling in the manner of religious hardliners with absolute dietary taboos, but changing the battleground in ways you deem preferable. Paying Ramsay is not the same as paying Mel Gibson, although the latter is presumably still a node in the same Hollywood economy. Additionally, boycott sends the message that certain attitudes can be financially detrimental; even if parties which are directly at war are fanatical and don't care much about profits, they depend on many mercantile agents.
Or not. I remember a few years ago some in CWR felt that movie industry might «go woke go broke». Well, this never happened, people keep consuming this trash. Wokes are more principled than conservatives – who, ultimately, would rather pay for their own demonization than be deprived of the experience of watching Marvel kung-fu on a big screen.
My argument is that boycotting things is stupid except in rare cases where your boycott actually has the leverage to pressure the people you are trying to influence. Otherwise, it's just performative. It might make you feel better to say you're not giving money to people you hate, but it has no other impact.
From whence do the rare effective boycotts emerge? Do the ineffective boycotts help build support for the effective ones, for example by "raising awareness"? Progressives have long believed so, proceeded from that belief, and have achieved overwhelming success. What is your evidence to argue that they are wrong?
Class consciousness is useful in an environment of class conflict. Remove the class conflict, and it can be safely left on the shelf. Fail to remove the class consciousness, and it will inevitably proliferate.
The canonical example, the civil rights bus boycotts, worked because the boycotters, being a substantial portion of the bus company's customers, had enough leverage to cause them financial harm.
How many examples do you know of successful boycotts arising from moral outrage?
Arguably the end of apartheid was in part brought about by social pressure on South Africa, but I don't know the history well enough to say that's definitely the case.
Most boycotts, it seems to me, especially the modern form which consists of digital culture warriors screaming about things you shouldn't buy, attract some media attention depending on the issues, but rarely actually have much impact. Conservatives love to say "Go woke, go broke," but where is there any evidence of this? I think this is as much copium as the trans activists I've seen insisting that Hogwarts Legacy is a terrible, low-rated, buggy game, even as it breaks sales records.
Sure, but why did they choose to do so? Was it an idea they developed entirely independently, or was it the end-point of a long influence campaign?
Are we counting only boycotts that actually have to be carried out and materially impact the target's finances? I can't think of a single one offhand. On the other hand, examples abound of shows, games, books, films, shows, websites, podcasts, etc cancelled or censored on threat of bad publicity, either directly or by threatening their partners or providers. These seem to me to be successful boycotts, no?
What evidence there was came from before the 2014-2015 inflection point. Since then, no, I think "get woke go broke" is entirely cope. It's rather the opposite these days, it seems to me. And of course, Hogwarts Legacy is making a mint, it's true! And I have tasks stacking up about art I need to rework for my company's game, because my boss worried that it's too close to the criticisms being leveled at Hogwarts.
The Woke don't always get their way, but they get their way much, much more often than anybody else does. One misses 100% of the shots one does not take; they certainly miss a lot, but given the sheer volume of the shots they fire, they can afford to. They are, observably, winning. That win doesn't look like them tanking a flagpole triple-A harry potter vidya release. It looks like them decisively shaping the entire ecosystem that actually creates such games, the artists, the coders, the designers, the press, and the public as well, such that things that get made conform more and more to their preferences, while things that don't conform tend, on average, to perform less well or to not get made at all regardless of how well they'd perform. And no matter the result of any individual struggle, their faction gains strength and influence for the next fight, always and without fail.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Strong prexistent organization (like, for example, pre V2 Catholic Church), and dedication to the cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Legion_of_Decency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_condemned_by_the_Legion_of_Decency
How many people today would sign such pledge and take it seriously? Few, and if you replaced "indecent and immoral" with "anti-white" even fewer.
Do people sign pledges like that for anti-racism? It seems to me the modern equivalents are somewhat more informal and reliant on creating a vibe, a "room" for people to "read".
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