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 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?
The whole Jewish conspiracy theory seems like utter nonsense to me, but this seems like even more nonsense, and exactly backwards. The story of the underdog defeating the big dog is at least as old as David and the Goliath, and there was no shortage of such stories between then and the past 50 years. It's just that, in the past 50 years, we've entered an era of endless cultural veneration of the small kid's boot on the big kid's face, forever. We've never had a situation of endless cultural veneration of big kids crushing small kids; it was balanced by the aforementioned underdogs.
Who does David represent and who does Goliath represent? Goliath is an Indo-European name by the way. Aren't you just demonstrating that this practice is thousands of years old and has always defined influential art and religion?
I agree with you that Daniel "Webber" LaRusso vs Johnny Lawrence is a modern rehash of David and Goliath and the esoteric meaning carries forth from that thousands of years old myth. In both of the myths the enemy is the same and the hero is the same, and who they are intended to represent is the same.
More options
Context Copy link
Well it is a Jewish story as well, isn't it? At least it is Jewish enough that I am inclined to allow SecureSignals to give the International Jewry credit for it, because I actually prefer underdog stories.
Currently I find that the story of the big kid beating up small kids finds plenty of traction as long as the big kid has the moral* high ground. I am not interested in watching stories where the big kid beats small kids up simply because he can and that is the entire message. If that means that the small kid in movies will always be coded non-Aryan, I'll take that trade. My hair is not particularly blonde, anyway.
*there is no master morality and slave morality, there is just morality. A definition of morality which is indistinguishable from rule by the strong is simply rule by the strong. There cannot be two distinct concepts that are the same concept. From then on, you can have various degrees of explaining why the loser is sometimes more worthy than the winner and in what ways.
Okay, but your personal opinions and preferences aren't what's being discussed here. It's the lack of diversity in fictional media where, e.g. big kid beats small kids up simply because he can and that is the entire message. I don't know if I'd personally like that sort of media specifically*, but neither my preference for/against it nor yours is really relevant to the reality of the lack of such diversity in the recent media landscape. Which is what I was addressing by pointing out that describing things before as "endless cultural veneration of the big kid's boot on the small kid's face, forever" is wrong.
It seems like you're just saying, "Okay, you're right, but it's a good thing." Which is fine, I don't think anyone has any issues with you thinking it's a good thing. But that doesn't change the reality.
* As always, it would have to come down to the execution, which is orthogonal to the message. Possibly my favorite film of all time is Schindler's List, and I'd personally love to see a film with similar competence in filmmaking that just depicts Nazis crushing the Jews as glorious, which I could rank as better. It's just unlikely, since outdoing 80s/90s Spielberg is very unlikely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh you were subjected to endless cultural veneration all right.
Thankfully I have you to enlighten me on how humiliated and indoctrinated I was by watching an "esoterical symbol" win.
Yes- that wasn't simple Action-Adventure Romp you were watching as a kid, it's a powerful vehicle for esoteric symbolism and the creators know the message they are sending by making use of those symbols.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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