site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23396 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 19, 2026

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm becoming concerned that our culture is losing basic media literacy. It used to be common knowledge that good characters need to have flaws, not just be perfect all the time. So Achilles had his heel as a literal weakness, but he was also full of moral flaws. If he had just been a good soldier who followed orders without pride, the story of the Iliad would have been boring.

Flawless main characters are such an obvious problem that the original "Mary Sue" short story was just making fun of all the crappy fan fiction where people used characters like that. Usually as self-inserts. It's mind-boggling to me that we've reached a point where professional literary critics not only defend that sort of thing, but they actually criticize anyone who dares write in some flaws for their female characters!

It was bad enough when Star Wars did it. But I thought, "fine, whatever, they're not looking for deep literary characters there, they just want someone to look cool on a green screen and sell toys." But now it seems there's a disturbing number of media following this trend.

All I could think reading this:

Hannah is the best structural engineer at the firm, and the character pays for it. She's lonely, or her marriage failed, or there's a paragraph somewhere in chapter 3 where she wonders what she gave up for her career. Her competence arrives with an invoice billed to her personal life. Now, go find the man in your book who's simply good at his job, and find me the part of the story that details how much he pays for it. Most often, there isn't one. Tony is good at what he does and the book lets that be simple and straightforward. [...] Once the book has established that her skill costs her something, the skill stops being a pleasure and turns into a wound and readers stop enjoying her being good at things and start worrying for her, which contradicts why anybody wanted a competent FMC leading the book to begin with.

Was "does anyone think House is incompetent?". Does it take away from the fun of the show because he has flaws?

I've been rewatching that show recently and "best X in the business but pays for it" is a perfect description of him. The tortured male genius isn't new. I don't stop thinking House is competent because House has a limp or a drug addiction or is, frankly, a cunt. If anything these weaknesses are what make him tolerable as a character. You can't both be an all-knowing genius and get away with being a cunt unless you have an excuse.

Gregory House is obviously a bag of flaws. We start out seeing that he's an asshole. He's also crippled, but that's the least of his flaws. We quickly learn he's also a drug addict. Ethics rules aren't so much guidelines as a checklist of things to violate. He deliberately pretends to be a racist to get one of his subordinate's goat, and deliberately pretends to be more sexist than he is to do the same to his boss, a subordinate, patients, relatives, etc. He's lazy about seeing 'boring' patients (who he insults all the time) and doing his paperwork. He's utterly reckless -- it's typical of him to nearly kill a patient in the process of diagnosing them. How does he keep his job? He's the best in the world... and, as he obnoxiously asserts constantly and is eventually proven right, his boss is attracted to him.

Little of this, however, is actually the cost of his skills. Except maybe the recklessness and ethics violations. You could have a show about a less-flawed House, but it wouldn't be as good.

Little of this, however, is actually the cost of his skills. Except maybe the recklessness and ethics violations. You could have a show about a less-flawed House, but it wouldn't be as good.

But to me the interesting question is where are the female versions of this type of character? I can't think of any off the top of my head, and I suspect a big part of the issue is that people (including feminists) think that Women are Wonderful and would be very uncomfortable with a female protagonist who is so deeply flawed. I suspect that even giving the woman a limp (when there are male colleagues around who walk perfectly fine) would bother feminists quite a bit. The upshot of this is that it would be difficult to prevent a female House from being a Mary Sue type who is extremely annoying outside of the narrative. (Of course the actual House is annoying within the narrative but it's entertaining for viewers.)

I don't think feminists are the issue with that one there- the general lowest common denominator public doesn't want to watch it. Even The Big Bang Theory had to soften Penny's character because test audiences didn't like her.

where are the female versions of this type of character?

I haven't watched all of it, but Bones comes to mind: it ran contemporaneously, and the title character is an autistic-coded female pathologist forensic anthropologist who often rubs the other characters the wrong way. I don't think she was a Mary Sue type, but had to be paired with a cop archetype for the actual "dealing with violent criminals" parts.

I haven't watched all of it, but Bones comes to mind: it ran contemporaneously, and the title character is an autistic-coded female pathologist who often rubs the other characters the wrong way.

So you would say her main flaws are that she is autistic (or at least somewhat autistic) and that she is a difficult person?

From what I remember of the first few seasons, yes. But it has been a while.

From what I remember of the first few seasons, yes. But it has been a while.

I'd never even heard of or watched the show, but I watched a couple clips just now on YouTube and I'm not really seeing it. Her big flaws (being obsessed with her work and easily distracted) kind of reminds me of Bella Swan of Twighlight's big flaw: That she is clumsy. Maybe link to a couple clips to show me what you are talking about?

Its been at least a decade since I saw it: I don't remember any specific scenes.

Jessica Fletcher? OK, maybe it's only me who'd want to punch her at least three times an episode.

Black Widow from the Avengers. Any number of "La Femme Nikita" type characters would work. They all do tend to be portrayed more sympathetically than House, though House is an extreme among male characters. So it probably can be done, but it's harder to do.

Jessica Fletcher? OK, maybe it's only me who'd want to punch her at least three times an episode.

I never watched Murder She Wrote, not even once. However out of curiosity I just watched a couple clips on YouTube, and I would say that based on this limited sample, she is more annoying to viewers than she is narratively annoying. By contrast, Dr. House is narratively annoying but entertaining to viewers.

Black Widow from the Avengers.

I watched a couple clips of her as well, and I'm not seeing it there either.

To be sure, I am going by very limited samples . . maybe link to a couple clips?

Black Widow is written as a person haunted by the evil she’s done suggesting her internal goodness.

Black Widow is written as a person haunted by the evil she’s done suggesting her internal goodness.

Would you mind linking a couple clips of her showing what you mean? TIA.

does anyone think House is incompetent?

Isn't it a semi-recurring theme in the show that he can't get (some) people to take him seriously? The audience isn't shown him that way, though, from what I remember. The conflict is often "mad genius vs. The System".

It's the opposite. The conflict is that everyone knows House is a genius and he gets special privileges because of it, including getting to be an asshole to people.

His direct boss is shockingly tolerant of his bs on the grounds that he's irreplaceable, other people are not.

I've been rewatching that show recently and "best X in the business but pays for it" is a perfect description of him. The tortured male genius isn't new. I don't stop thinking House is competent because House has a limp or a drug addiction or is, frankly, a cunt. If anything these weaknesses are what make him tolerable as a character. You can't both be an all-knowing genius and get away with being a cunt unless you have an excuse.

It's an interesting thought experiment: What would happen if somebody made a television show or movie with an equivalent female character. An extremely capable professional but a very difficult person with a drug addiction and a limp. I don't think people would go for it, even feminists. Because women are supposed to be Wonderful.

I think that if the networks tried to make a gender-swapped version of House, it would be difficult to resist the temptation to (1) soften her difficult personality and make her more sympathetic; and (2) take away the drug addiction since it's a red flag of poor character. In short, it would be difficult not to make her something of a Mary Sue.

The more subtle example is Wilson, who is a pretty nice guy (at least on the surface) and considered almost saintly because he works in paediatric oncology, one of the toughest jobs there is. And he is a pretty decent guy - except in his personal life. Multiple marriages and divorces, mostly caused by his inability not to cheat. His most solid and long-lasting relationship is his friendship with House, and there are explorations during the series of how maybe this is kinda messed-up co-dependent that is not so good for either of them.

Multiple marriages and divorces, mostly caused by his inability not to cheat.

Well yeah, because he's a giant slut [denotation only]. Which is the entire reason he even can function in oncology; if I recall correctly, that's stated more or less explicitly even outside of the traditionally sexual (there's one episode that's explicitly trying to get him to put out a different organ to fix a friend and long-term patient).

Interestingly, I think that's also what allows him to get along long-term with House. Both of them are in it for the love of the game (and receive the love through the game of driving back physical reality [House, stereotypical male trait] and driving back emotional reality [Wilson, stereotypical female trait]). I feel as if the larger conflicts in that series arise specifically when the foundation of that relationship breaks down, or at least that's the impression I get from the clips.

Weakly held opinion: perhaps the reason that neither men nor women can tolerate depictions of women with female character flaws is because it exposes a strategic liability that hurts them more than men would be if acknowledged? Maybe the framing should not be "Women are Wonderful" as it should be "the consequences of Women Not Being Wonderful are way more destructive than they are for men, thus, the trade-off human instinct makes for men always being flawed punching bags is that they're the only ones who may be Great in the end"?

Maybe that's the root of why female characters doing that (re: "Mary Sue") feels so uniquely uncanny vs. the male version of this, which is... well, Superman?

If that is the case, the issue with Modern Day Media is fundamentally a reflection of Modern Writers growing up in a Modernity that [for various reasons] is no longer able to naturally instruct Modern Humanity about why that compromise was made.

Then, the vanity of modern generations decried can be properly seen as rational- for when that compromise is no longer base reality, other concerns, like claiming that 'oh, you just want that because it's your instinct, and so we'll put all our effort solely into owning the Cons shitting on the Lesser Human Beings'... well, that makes sense too, as does the inevitable rejection of their works when they go bankrupt (for human instinct is ultimately what makes stories resonate).

[And then, due to the fact women use 'is already aware of that knowledge and bold enough to capitalize on it' as a differentiator between men, women cannot instinctively self-moderate on what they choose as a filter. So, by the time they figure out they need to be screaming that from the rooftops to get men to finally approach them... it's too late.]

...oh, wait, maybe that's why progressives feel no dissonance when calling themselves liberals, isolate 'Ref 1', because that's what liberals are famous for doing, and they interpreted the reason why we did that purely as hatred for the old ways (and... not going to pretend it's not some of the time) rather than the pride and joy that comes from doing a new thing.

and there are explorations during the series of how maybe this is kinda messed-up co-dependent that is not so good for either of them.

An observation one could perhaps make of any successful marriage. (Maybe marriages that don't have those flaws are not stable solely because they don't come with their own continually/tacitly acknowledged costs simply because otherwise there's no strongly defined right and wrong with respect to the other partner?)

I think the co-dependence for both of them is that House has someone he can't drive away (Wilson always comes back, always sticks around) and he can feel superior in that he's the one trying to loosen up Saint Jimmy out of his staid, conformist lifestyle (and not that he needs someone, he doesn't need anyone, not him!) and Wilson can feel superior in that "well at least if I am pathetic with my failed marriages, I'm not as pathetic as House who is still pining over his ex-wife".

It's a great friendship, but it's not necessarily good for them. Both of them enable one another's worse impulses because they are so terrified (in different ways) of being alone, they can't drive away the one person who will tolerate them and stick with them even after seeing their ugly side.

I didn't watch much of the show and don't know what the ending was, but I think they do sort of do a Butch and Sundance ride off into the sunset ending?

There's no need to detail how much a man pays for it in his personal life: the societal standard is that men are deficient in their personal lives so it is assumed by default even without being spelled out. It is only detailed for Hannah because it is exceptional in her case.

There's no need to detail how much a man pays for it in his personal life: the societal standard is that men are deficient in their personal lives so it is assumed by default even without being spelled out.

Yeah, I think this is part of what's going on. In television, movies, etc. when men suffer it's not really noticed. Not the way it's noticed if women suffer. People (including feminists) have blinders to men "paying the price." So to feminists, it seems like only women "pay the price."

It reminds me of the criticisms of early James Bond movies. People (including feminists) were outraged that the movies depicted women getting killed. Even though far more men got killed than women.

Umm... Luke got his friends tortured and lost his arm and Anakin literally fell into evil (and lava)

Luke got his friends tortured and lost his arm

Yes, but it wasn't only that. At the beginning, he's portrayed as kind of a whiny brat. And immediately encounters men (Ben and Han) who are superior to him in various ways. Even at the end of the movie, Luke needs Han's help to blow up the Death Star. At the beginning of the next movie, Han rescues Luke who has been stranded in the middle of nowhere on the ice planet. Probably there are other examples as well.

Feminists don't only object to female characters being flawed, they object to female characters being seriously harmed; defeated; outsmarted; humiliated; made to look immature; and so on.

So that's how you end up with really annoying Mary Sue type characters. It's not only that they have little or nothing in the way of flaws. They are also annoyingly superior to everyone around them. They undermine the opportunities of other characters to shine.

I was just thinking of the sequels (Ray). I guess I should have said that explicitly.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats