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 -
“Citizen Vigilante" - some musings (omega-doxxing myself, hence the throwaway account)
I was 14 years old and bored on a Saturday afternoon at a friend’s house. We cajoled their older sibling into driving us and Shanghai’d a couple girls into a ‘date’ at the nearest movie theater.
Back in those days, one either called Mr. Moviefone for showtimes - please say the name of the movie you’d like to see, now - or just took pot luck when showing up.
And you really didn’t have to call Mr. Moviefone, because pot luck was always something great. For context, that year some of the top movies were: Spider Man 3, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Harry Potter 5, The Bourne Ultimatum, 300, I am Legend, Night at the Museum, National Treasure 2, American Gangster, Blades of Glory, Superbad, Ocean’s Thirteen, Evan Almighty, Beowulf, 3:10 to Yuma, The Kingdom, No Country for Old Men, The Heartbreak Kid, Charlie Wilson’s War, Michael Clayton, Stardust, Children of Men, Zodiac…yadda yadda, left quite a few out.
But on this particular afternoon the terrifically memorable movie we took pot luck on was some generic fantasy action thing called ‘In the Name of the King’ by director Uwe Boll. I don’t remember anything really about the movie except it starred Jason Statham and at one point my friend nudged me and said ‘this sucks, should we just leave?’. My buddy's instincts were spot on as that movie somehow lost more than $50 million back when that was a lot of money and Mr. Boll won worst director of the year.
To this day it's the only movie I ever walked out of after paying for, other than a few years later when watching the 2010 Robin Hood with Russell Crowe, but that was only because the guy working the sound system had it turned up to ‘permanent hearing damage’ levels. More to that story, but for another time.
Anyway, the point being my only previous exposure to Uwe Boll was that his product was genuinely unwatchable. Coming back to the present, you can imagine my surprise in seeing his name attached over and over in reference to the hottest new piece of media to-the-right-of Rosa Luxemburg.
‘Citizen Vigilante’ starring Armie Hammer (yeah, that guy from ‘The Social Network’ who got MeToo’d) is (roughly) about an American who goes to Europe and conducts a highly restrained and well-planned vendetta against foreign gang rapists and their institutional enablers.
The film begins with an extended sequence of a pretty-but-harried mother and her six or so year old son shopping in a typical tiny European grocery store. The boy asks for chocolates and the mother indulgently relents, but when he asks for another treat she says he’s had enough. Her son helps pack up their purchases in their reusable bag while she makes small talk with the portly-but-friendly cashier. As they're walking home, a visibly foreign man stabs her in the neck, and she bleeds out while her son tries feebly to understand what just happened.
This isn’t meant to be a summary of the movie as you can get that anywhere, and anyway it is not that complicated. This is about the cultural implications. I’m gonna make a listicle so you can pick and choose any part you’re interested in discussing:
The movie is passably watchable enough that Mr. Boll must have really learned from his many, many failures to put this together. There are too many Dutch angles, too many quick cuts, the chronology is a mess, the dialogue is wooden, the soundtrack is a crime, but altogether this is a solid 5/10. Although I’m really trying not to be ideologically biased, the acting was quite good (especially the rape victims, which is relevant if a bit morbid), a fair portion of the scenes held some real tension, the effects were up to par enough to not take you out of the story, and, there was a verisimilitude that’s sorely lacking in a lot of contemporary productions.
The topic covered is absolutely explosive, en vogue, and has some pretty undeniable aspects. Regardless of the numbers of victims or perpetrators involved, there is a culture of sexual violence common to non-European countries that’s produced some shockingly poor results. Not just upon introduction, but also with what I will laconically describe as a cheeky bit of help from above along the way.
There’s a recurring motif in the film of social media accounts actively encouraging the protagonist about his work that's been reflected in reality as some fairly mainstream voices have picked up the call. Jack Posobiec is hardly a hard-right figure and he’s been tweeting about it all day.
The movie was ‘banned’ in Germany (the director’s home country) by being denied a rating so it therefore couldn’t be released. What do the kids call the ‘Streissand Effect’ these days?
There’s a door opening here for more media like this. Sometimes righteous movements find odd champions, maybe the guy who is colloquially known as perhaps the worst director of all time just became one? If this is the only cultural response to “One Battle After Another” it’s already firmly in the ‘not bad’ category. But if it’s only the first?
Curious for your thoughts, any signal here or just noise?
It sounds like a pretty straightforward remake of Taken.
It's an interesting affirmation that everyone understands and acts on racist phenomena.
"Taken" doesn't code 'the outsiders are harming us' i.e. whites, but this movie does. So the almonds of some German bureaucrat got activated and the movie is a no go.
It's probably the most ubiquitous and interesting dynamic in western media production and no one talks about it. But the incredible dance around never having the outsider victimizing whites is the greatest commonality all modern movies share. And if that is ever a theme, it's explored in such a way as to demonstrate that whites feeling victimized and acting on those emotions are wrong in some way.
On the flipside there's no shortage of 'brown person victimized by cruel evil white folk' movies.
Everyone understands this. Everyone knows. The only difference is whether ones brain can see the patterns or if it can and chooses to ignore it because 'evil white people' codes as real on some level in ones brain.
My theory is that whites are the most prone to racism (scientific racism pioneered by whites, etc) and so they should be protected from media that triggers their racism.
Depends on what you mean by scientific racism. From my understanding of the term, White people didn't 'invent' 'modern science' because of racism, I would argue. It's because of other factors we generally associate with intelligence, industriousness, agreeableness and so forth. Scientific 'racism' is just a byproduct of that. So whilst there is some racist expression to be found in old 18th century anthropology, I'd argue most of that was also refuted by the better scientists at the time, who could make fact based observations about human population differences.
To clarify the point: Noticing that groups can differ on objective metrics free of 'group bias' is a very not racist thing to do. Even if those differences are 'racist'. Whilst ignoring or arguing against objective reality, based on 'in or outgroup bias' is a racist thing. So ironically, most people who are against 'scientific racism' are acting out a very base racist impulse, since they are not capable of parsing reality past it looking like a slight against their ingroup.
To that extent I'd argue most whites are less racist than other groups. As they are more capable of parsing reality and more capable of entertaining abstract concepts. A good example of this are mock jury trials.
“When racial issues arise in a trial, white mock jurors are on guard against the possibility of prejudicial feelings and maintain the appearance of fairness [...] Black mock jurors, on the other hand, do not demonstrate egalitarianism in any condition.”
On top of that, a lot of research into the topic drives at a similar conclusion:
The study linked above also highlighted that in mock jury trials, the whites are a minority in their racial fairness. At least when compared with American blacks. Who are a lot more prone to racial bias in their decision making.
Considering all of that, I'd say it's clear whites are not being protected from their own racist tendencies, a concept explored in the movie 28 Days Later but are being marginalized, otherized and attacked precisely because they are not racist. This is easily proven by simple logic. If whites were racist, they wouldn't be in this position in the first place.
I haven't watched the whole video (that narrator sounds like AI), but what I have appears to be straight-up schizophrenic delusion on par with A Beautiful Mind. The rest of your post is pretty solid, but, uh, are you okay?
Really? The bad guy is called Major Henry West. I thought it was kind of on the nose.
But yeah, I get it. It's a point that's hard to explain to those who're not big on film in the more pretentious artsy sense. The idea that screenwriting can be intentional in this way goes over most people's heads unless directly pointed out. And even then the concepts here are esoteric and dramatic enough that most don't want to entertain them regardless of anything else.
On top of that '28 Days Later' is 'entertaining' enough and the subtext is marginal enough that you could say it's not intentional at all in isolation. But if we recognize that screenwriting, including subtext, allegories and foreshadowing via various means in film are often intentional, even if they are not always tied to a subtext or narrative, then these things warrant explanation. Even if only to entertain the notion that, by coincidence, we can gleam this out of the film.
A better and more undeniable demonstration of explicit racial subtext in film is the Gattaca review by the same person. There are names and shots that only make sense in that context.
As far as I can tell these are generally 'inspired' by Mark Brahmins work. I find these to be more accessible and less pretentious than the blogposts though.
I don't need to see a video to notice that there's racial subtext in Gattaca. The film's message can be summed up as "even when scientific racism is 100% obviously true and a master race demonstrably exists, it's still false and the master race aren't actually any better than the rest of us, fuck logic". The Wikipedia article cites at least one review pointing out the racial angle.
But I can't even construct a particularly-consistent explanation for 28 Days Later being secretly about white rage. If it's meant to be about racial hatred being good, why are those with it portrayed as literal zombies? If it's meant to be about racial hatred being evil, why didn't anyone involved cash in on belatedly noting it the way the Wachowski
BrothersSisters did?I did not ask you to watch the video to understand that the very explicit theme and plot of Gattaca is about an an alleged genetic inferior proving genetic determinism wrong. When I say subtext and you say subtext we are not talking about the same thing. Which is why I implore you to watch the video. I know it's 25 minutes and I know the guy has a depressing delivery. But it hits on all the notes, especially by the end where the effect of the subtext is contextualized. They're not making movies about Germanic ubermench heroes named Richard Europson who belong to the majority and dab on the minority, after all. Well, outside of Uwe Boll.
As for 28 Days Later, it's about a zombie outbreak and the stories of our main characters and side characters. That's what the movie is about. There's no secret. There's no hidden agenda. But there is subtext!
In case you won't watch the Gattaca video, let me put my definition of subtext to you this way. I don't believe the directors, screenwriters or anyone else were necessarily intentionally making an explicit commentary on how much they hate white people and think they are all one move away from dooming everything through racism and are otherwise beyond saving outside of a baptism through fornicating with brown people. But I am telling you that it's nevertheless the subtextual end result of their work.
The rage virus and those who have it are obviously not good. They are represented by white actors in nigh every dramatic scene. At least until a slave presenting black person uses it to take revenge on his white captors. Then it is good! There's subtext there. Coincidental enough to be intentional? Slavery bad? Revenge justified? Hmm.
Who is good in the movie? What do they represent? Who are they represented by? Is the bad guy called Judas Israel or Henry West? These questions have answers. Decisions were made. What emotionally perturbs the decision makers? What drives them to make the decisions they make? A million different things, of course. But this is what we ended up with.
These stereotypes aren't just racial, they're not just gendered or whatever else. But they are there. Black frizzy hair really is not accepted like straight blonde hair. This is true, at least in many peoples minds. There are also those who want black frizzy hair to be accepted. What kind of decisions would they make?
You could argue, as is often done, that the only subtext to be gleamed from any of this is from the racist who noticed because they are irrationally emotionally perturbed by any positive depiction of a brown person. But by the same token AdLand does exist. The creative output of artsy UK shitlibs being anti-white coded shouldn't be a shock to anyone, and the video linked demonstrates plenty of evidence to that being the case much better than I could ever do with words. It's a visual medium, after all.
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