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 think it's 100% digital entertainment. Postman started to see this in 70s and 80s with TV, and the quantity and quality of mass entertainment options has only gotten more enticing and more splintered. While part of me thinks it's great that we have so many movies/shows/novels available now, I think it's pretty terrible for shared culture because people don't have a corpus of shared media in common. AI is only going to make this worse, as people can silo themselves into infinite realms of their favorite fan-fic slop that literally no one else in the world has read/watched.
I’m definitely in the Postman camp, although I think entertainment has gotten more stimulating, not necessarily better. Most mainstream movies barely nod at old-fashioned notions like character development or coherent plot, instead going straight for the dopamine hits of explosions and crazy over the top special effect shots and CGI. You can kind of see this in long running movie series, like James Bond. Early James Bond was a spy, sure he was often in danger, but he was more often than not using his spy craft, thinking and investigating. Now, it’s over tge top, and barely bothers with mystery and gathering clues plus Daniel Craig can survive just about anything. Is that better than Dr. No?
But I do think screens are a hyperstimulous that people choose over other less stimulating options. And if you saturate a society in such screens, eventually they sit home and stare at them all the time. I don’t think anyone would choose this. I’ve said this before. If it were simply a matter of screens being better at entertainment, then people would be saying things like “sure hanging out with my buddies and playing basketball was fun, but it wasn’t as much fun as playing basketball on my PS5 against a random guy online.” I’ve never heard anyone yet regret spending time doing non-screen things because it kept them from a similar screen activity. Nobody regrets going outside.
I think honestly if you gave people the option of having the entertainment technology available in 1946, but also having the lifestyle of the same year — lots of real friends, going to dances, playing sports outdoors with your buddies, gathering for card and board games or just dinner, etc. I have a strong suspicion that most people would leap at the chance. There’s a lot to be said for such a lifestyle and the culture and community it creates. So radio plays aren’t as cool as Netflix and you can’t listen to anything at any time. You still have close friends and a community and get more exercise and share an organic culture.
More options
Context Copy link
I think we're slowly (re?)discovering the value of shared culture. A couple generations back technology didn't really allow highly-individualized culture, although it did allow regional variation. Broadcast media has nibbled away at the regional variation for a century at this point, but the niche individuality is much newer, driven by point-to-point technology. It's never needed to be an explicit choice before because we were content-limited, but I think we're starting to see people choose explicitly to watch what their friends are watching.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link