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 -
Damn what a good summary of Harry Potter and some of the things I love about it and it's message.
What Romantasy would you recommend checking out? Might be a good way to get some of my foreign language hours up?
To be clear, I'm using the term "romantasy" even though my personal tastes are for romance with zero fantasy. I much prefer romances with basically zero fictional elements. The logic of the story all hinges on people talking to each other and resolving emotional conflicts. This to me is the whole point of the genre. (Although, again, the logic of the romance is inherently fantastic, it's all a fantasy, and the fictional fantasy plots about werewolf zombie witches all ultimately reinforce the logic of the core emotional fantasy. What you like is a matter of taste.)
I'm not sure there are really any stellar recommendations here. Half of the appeal of the genre is that there is so much slop that you can read whatever tickles your fancy, and I think you can knock most of these books out in a few hours even if they seem much longer. Emily Henry? Kate Spencer? Casey McQuinston? B.K. Borison? Treat it the way you'd treat going to the zoo or the theater, and if you hate the zoo you'd probably go at least once a decade just to see what it's up to, right?
The high-quality romances are all either quite old (Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice) or romcoms. When Harry Met Sally, Crazy Rich Asians, Four Weddings and a Funeral, etc. The key in all cases is the same, which is understanding that the romance is an emotional fantasy. I.e., in When Harry Met Sally, the titular characters actually meet three times at different phases of their life before they even maintain a relationship as friends. What does that matter? Well, in your life you meet so many people, sometimes for a brief moment, maybe you make a bad impression, maybe it's the wrong time. Ah, but true love, if someone is your true love life and the universe will conspire to put you together, you can't screw it up. You're destined to fall in love. Which is essentially the fantasy at the core of all romance novels: each subgenre and type is just an elaboration on a particular kind of obstacle that commonly frustrates your romantic endeavors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link