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 -
The latest stupid culture war news: The notorious Good Good golf advertisement. Featuring a country club golf gentleman (fine member of high society) having a manic episode, so excited to try overpriced "luxury" slop, he shoves a lady to the ground. Instead of calling the police, the other players just look on; maybe he's the owner, you know the type, with so much money and so little financial or social awareness that he'd even waste it on, random example, a "Quantum Triple Diamond Driver".
I don't fault lefties for boycotting Good Good, coercing them to retract the ad and apologize. Because they should do it to every commercial: I want every non-monopoly with aggressive advertising to be given this (or the Bud Light post trans ad) treatment, until public and online spaces look even better than São Paulo, Lancy Geneva, and Maine (where billboards are outlawed). At least this ad tries to not be boring and obnoxious; I actually think it's somewhere in the top 1% I see and hear (although not a compliment), thankfully rarely anymore thanks to uBlock Origin, SponsorBlock, and generally avoiding software whose primary function is ad delivery.
And this includes invasive tracking. Recently Twitter sent C&Ds to Nitter and XCancel. This follows Reddit tightening old.reddit and Facebook/Instagram have always been locked down. Thankfully there are always alternatives, right now https://twitterwebviewer.com for Twitter, https://redlib.catsarch.com for Reddit, and https://inviziogram.com/ for Instagram - but it's annoying and contributes to link rot. This is your regularly-scheduled reminder to quit Twitter and the other brainrot social media, and replace them with more productive activities, like maybe, partaking in these "sophisticated" forum discussions on theMotte.
It's a stark reminder that cancel culture is not dead. Your post doesn't walk through all of the fallout from this ad which was posted briefly and deleted quickly. But every new day is bringing more fallout to the brand from various partnerships:
So much for the "Woke 1.0 was stupid we went too far" conventional wisdom, it seems it never left. All the more surprising the hysteria exploded within golf, a right-coded subculture.
The hysterical reaction to that ad shows why gender equality is impossible. Good Good was obviously not trying to portray domestic violence but the opposite: Alexis the girl hanging out with a group of guys as one of them- a friend and a colleague, participating in a dumb skit to promote a driver. The mob interpretation that this ad promotes "domestic violence" implies an inherent, sexually submissive role of Alexis in a polyandric circle or something. She can't roughhouse with the boys because she's a woman, it would be inherently sexually suggestive for her to do so. Whereas someone who truly believed in equality would not anticipate a problem with Alexis playing this part in the script.
There's another layer to this though, which is that much of the hate mob appears motivated by hatred for Good Good itself, a hatred that is in turn downstream from ressentiment towards the "country club" social organization, a resentment which also comes through directly in OP's post mockingly describing Garret as a "country club golf gentleman (fine member of high society)".
Ressentiment towards the Country Club Gentleman has also long been promoted in popular culture, producing endless films where the Country Club Gentleman is the villain, meant to be humiliated by the outsider protagonist who has no respect for the cultural tradition or decorum expected by these social institutions.
The primary driver of this backlash is ressentiment towards Good Good itself, for the crime of being White young-adults making money from filming golf YouTube videos.
Wait for it... wait for it....
Ah, there it is.
Do you agree popular culture and Hollywood has engaged in consistent criticism of the WASP Country Club? Are you just going to point and sputter or participate in the conversation?
Point and sputter? Heh. Dude, you'd be more sufferable if you had some self-awareness and a sense of humor about it. If you can't put hands on keyboard without making it about Jews, just own it.
Making fun of WASP Country Club has been a thing for as long as there have been WASP Country Clubs (i.e., pretentious rich people to make fun of). Dickens did it. Austen did it. Freaking Tolstoy (one of the few people with less of a sense of humor than you who comes to mind) did it. Wodehouse definitely did it. It was not invented by Jews.
Can you elaborate on your argument? I've read Dickens but the mockery of the WASP country club that has been transmitted to me, and everybody else who hates Good Good for representing a "country club golf gentleman (fine member of high society)" has not come from Dickens, or Austen, or Tolstoy, it has come from difference sources, like the one I posted.
My argument is that country clubs are the modern representation of stuffy rich people. Ordinary folk have always loved making fun of stuffy rich people. The stereotype that rich people are assholes and stories about rich people being bested by pliebs is not a modern Jewish invention to subvert the white race. That you need this explained is my point about your Jew-obsession. If a Jew does anything, anywhere, it doesn't matter why he did it or that other people do it too, in your world he did it for nefarious Jew reasons. Story written by a Jew? There's an anti-white message somewhere. Film featuring a Jewish comedian? It's anti-white. No matter how tortured the interpretation, you'll find some anti-goy propaganda somewhere. In this case, there weren't even any Jews involved AFAIK, so you had to reach for a totally unrelated work that happened to have a Jew in it.
MadMonzer is right, and I'd go further, the authors you're citing aren't one tradition.
Austen and Wodehouse were mocking from the inside. Austen was inside the gentry's world, writing for people who knew its rules and her targets are the Mr. Collinses who play the game badly, not the game. Bertie Wooster is affectionate self-parody. The jokes land because the audience knows the rules.
"Stuffy" is the view from outside. If you don't know why the norms exist, all you see is the fence. You know you're outside it, but not what it's for or that it was never built with you in mind. The norms had a purpose, elaborate decorum takes years to fake, it screened for people shaped by institution, when business ran on reputation and a handshake. Understatement, discretion, not talking about money, these keep a small closed world functional across fifty-year relationships. The same code is also a moat against new money.
The insider satire says "this person is playing our game badly." The slobs-vs-snobs stuff says "the game is fake and the players are frauds." Dickens does some of the latter; Austen and Wodehouse mostly don't. Mocking the country club as presumptively illegitimate isn't a continuation of Austen. It's throwing stones from the outside from the 'money can't buy class' set.
That said I'd never seen nor heard of Good Good, it seemed like poor improv or sketch comedy to me. Are we supposed to desire the possessed driver? Is it like the ring from LotR? It didn't make me want to try the driver or see any of their other work. Perhaps someone could like the best example of their work.
Oh, absolutely not. My point wasn't that Austen and Tolstoy and Wodehouse were writing the same thing (I deliberately chose some very unlike authors) - my point was that SS is trying to gesture at a particular theme in fiction being a nefarious Jewish anti-white agenda (even if it's non-Jews doing it, they're only doing it because of Da Joos), and I'm saying it is none of those things. Even if you distinguish between "mocking from the inside" from "mocking from the outside," Jews are not the ones who began the trend of mocking from the outside, and outsiders throwing stones at a structure they consider illegitimate is not a uniquely Jewish (or woke, or anti-white) phenomenon.
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