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 am mostly nodding in agreement. Fiction can justify its existence on two counts: it can entertain or illuminate us on the human condition, or sometimes, do both simultaneously. If the audience are knowledgeable of real history, as everyone civilized should, the author who writes sloppy pseudo-history should do their darndenst job at entertaining because bad facts certainly don't illuminate. (One example: I am conflicted on Black Adder the tv series. It definitely is quite funny, but it permeates very mistaken ideas and cliches about every period it covers.)
It is one reason why I have given up on general literary fiction: the authors have tendency to invent human beings who neatly support their preferred outlook framework of thinking about life and such, and both the author and audience have a tendency take it as evidence. Except it is not evidence being fictional. WW2 backdrop has become increasingly common as people who were alive during the whole affair have died. Some exceptionally good authors manage to gesture at real people and real phenomena in distilled and evocative fashion, but it takes life experience to recognize such writing from writing that only appears profound.
Reading too much fiction may have one of the mistakes I committed as a teenager. I prefer real history these days.
All of the above is not to say that good historical fiction doesn't exist. Generally, the best historical fiction is one generation removed at most. It preserves a chance that the author has real idea how the people really felt and acted, but it is not a rule. I recommend Aubrey/Maturin series; it is evident the author studied naval technology, careers and action in great detail. Some of Maturin's escapades in spycraft appear bit more ludicrous, however.
Added to the list!
I think fiction can be really really valuable for understanding psychology and philosophy, but you have to be careful not to take it as the truth about how people behave, or worse about the world facts. I try to keep my intellectual diet quite balanced between fiction and nonfiction, but I'm thinking I should try and stay away from historical fiction in the future, as it really seems to grind my gears.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link