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 -
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.
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.
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