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 -
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.
Before he responded I was going to say that his dog-whistle was to subtle for me, but I see he has made it plainer now.
While I don't think he's totally off base I think he's neglecting other excluded groups. It wasn't only the Jews excludeed from the country club it was often the Catholics and Negroes too, other loud and emotional cultures. I think it's challenging to attempt to separate the cultural, class, or ethnic motivations for this.
Slobs-vs-snobs is a trope not infrequently depicted in popular culture. I don't think it's an organized conspiracy. Counter examples seems rare Whit Stillman's Metropolitan, is one.
I mean yeah, if Catholics made Caddyshack and Happy Gilmore with Catholic protagonists wouldn't the analysis apply there the same? Wouldn't you agree the film/mockery/criticism is derived from the Catholic perspective in that case? I wouldn't call it an "organized conspiracy" to note that the films in those cases would have been motivated by the Catholic perspective of a cultural conflict, a perspective which they then transmit to mass audiences via popular culture like the very movies that are so iconic.
It'd be from a Catholic perspective but the motivation wouldn't be uniquely Catholic, structural class resentment cuts across all the perspectives to provided the same motivation.
It's 'popular' entertainment and 'popular' culture. The slobs don't want to watch successful people succeeding.
I want to watch Johnny Lawrence kicking the shit out of short whiney Daniel LaRusso, but I'm tall and good looking. I'm not the target audience for much of popular entertainment.
Jews make more movies than Catholics or Blacks so we see more of their class resentment narrative.
If you want to see attractive successful people succeeding watch The Philadelphia Story, High Society, The Thin Man films or the Astaire-Rogers musicals, though portrayals of the successful succeeding are more common in literature than cinema.
Interesting fact about that film is that Daniel LaRusso's (who is an east-coast transplant) character name was originally written as Daniel Webber, implying another esoteric Jew-Aryan faceoff where the Jew wins and steals the Aryan's girlfriend to boot.
No. I want the small whiney kid to get his teeth kicked in.
The writer was Jewish and the story is allegedly semi-autobiographic.
It's a story for the small whiney kid, written by a whiney kid who makes himself the hero of his story.
Yup I misread.
Yes, exactly... These myths in popular culture have esoteric meaning, the characters represent ethnic conflict. In Karate Kid, in Revenge of the Nerds, in Happy Gilmore, in Caddyshack. It's an incredibly common and powerful mode of waging culture war. It matters who the producers have you rooting for and have you rooting against (spoiler they have you rooting for symbolic representations of themselves and against symbolic representations of you). It affects the psychology of the laity.
Every time I think you can't make the Jews look even cooler. Now you're telling me they were the ones who spared me from being subjected to endless cultural veneration of the big kid's boot on the small kid's face, forever?
Oh you were subjected to endless cultural veneration all right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Only if you believe the lie. It's not high-culture, the narratives are rarely truly aspirational and it's fiction.
In reality The Bad News Bears don't win, Moneyball wins.
It's the perpetual shock / surprise that there seem to be so many pederasts, whores and drug addicts involved in the production. They're glamourizing sin, who did you think would be making it.
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
I am interpreting the most iconic and influential cultural artifacts that elevate the Country Club golfer as the villain and the outsider, styled to represent the antithesis of Country Club culture, as the hero.
Happy Gilmore is one example, the other most influential film that explores these themes is Caddyshack where we also see a Jewish outsider, Al Czervik played by Rodney Dangerfield (born Jacob Cohen), come into conflict with the Gentile Judge Smails (played by Ted Knight). Interestingly, Czervik tells Smails he did not come to the club as a guest in order to acquire membership but to buy the club. So there's another layer of meaning there- Czervik is not trying to gain access as a member he's trying to take over the institution. There's no question the film is getting at a deeper message of new Jewish arrivals, "guests", acquiring financial success and coming into cultural conflict with the WASP "old guard"- expressing as a struggle over the control of cultural institutions, and the criticism of those too closely associated with Whites.
It's a much stronger and less useful claim to say that these films "started the trend" of ressentiment towards Country Club golf culture, my claim is merely that they represent it through a highly influential medium. And in both cases the conflict between the Country Club golfer and the low-class or homo novus outsider is ethnically coded as a conflict between Jews and Gentiles, with the Jews winning and the Gentiles being humiliated. It demoralizes those who identify with that culture and moralizes the people who hate it, whether that hatred is derived from ethnic or class resentment.
There's no question that there are many instances of Country Club Critique in other films, like this comedic bit in Better Call Saul where Goodman causes a scene by accusing the Club of being antisemitic. The most iconic and influential films that explore this theme are encoding an ethnic conflict along with a class conflict, and that's largely why they are compelling to this day.
I'm also reminded of the golf course scene from Falling Down, though D-FENS isn't exactly a hero. https://youtube.com/watch?v=x1-axqBZdNk
Haven't seen that but good one. Michael Douglas also kills a neo-Nazi store owner in that one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, George of the Jungle doesn't involve golf, but the villain is very clearly a country club WASP, but I wouldn't say George is coded as being Jewish.
George from George of the Jungle was inspired by George Eiferman. So the character was based on a Jew originally, and the hunter villain is a WASP with an Oxford accent.
Brendan Fraser is not Jewish, although that's a popular misconception because Fraser played the role of David Greene in School Ties:
Of course his identity his exposed by Charlie (Matt Damon) and the whole school turns on him- bullying, Swastikas, etc.
The point is not that all myths or movies feature a "Jew versus Gentile" conflict, but to say "Jewish hero and Gentile villain" is a very common esotericism in film that transmits a certain, particularly Jewish perspective of ethnic conflict into the consciousness of mass audiences. Caddyshack and Happy Gilmore are two examples.
The same phenomenon appears in Hollywood mockery and criticism of Fraternities, like in Accepted, Revenge of the Nerds (who join the Black fraternity (!) to get revenge on Alpha Beta), Animal House, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link