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'm not watching this show because I didn't play the game, have no interest in the entire Culture War angle around that, and the snippets I saw of the Epic Gay Love Romance Of The Ages episode turned me off because they were such treacly romance like a Mills and Boon/Harlequin novel. But this comment makes me laugh, because suppose they follow her around precisely because she has a kindergarten teacher voice?
They've been conditioned from a young age that when Miss says "Now children, come along with me and let's all play nicely", they automatically say "Yes, Miss" and line up (hand-holding optional) 🤣
(My view on the gay romance episode was that it was too much. I don't care that it's two guys, a short reference to 'oh yeah, they're domestic partners' and then get on with the plot, that's fine. I'd be annoyed by an entire episode about a straight romance as well, because this is supposed to be apocalyptic times and who wants to watch forty-five minutes of "I wuv you" "No, I wuv you more" when what you want is zombie gore action?)
Oh come on...
It's beautiful. People living in some horrifying hellscape, and still managing to find humanity there. Nick Offerman's character made a literal refuge for himself, and eventually somebody he cared about to live in. His work, and his masculinity is what kept them safe. We need more of this, not less. I agree that it seems a little tedious to make these characters gay, but...gay people exist. Slightly autistic sexually confused (I mean because it was implied that Offerman's character suppressed his homosexuality and never acted on it) dudes are the exact type of person I'd expect that have elaborate zombie preps.
My critique for the people who think that telling stories like this is pointless: what is the point of the broader story? None of it is real. It serves no utilitarian purpose at all.
"Some dude and a kid go to Montana" - is that really the whole story? I don't think so.
It's an entire episode around a romance/relationship, is what makes me go "yeah, no". As I said, I'd be the same way if it was two straight people, two lesbians, or any combination of the genders/orientations/numbers that we are not allowed to deny are just as valid nowadays. Part of it being about Bill and Ben find love and partner up, sure, why not? As you say, that's human life for the vast majority of people: having a romantic relationship, long-term or not.
An entire "from soup to nuts" about how Bill and Ben met, fell in love, fell out of love, fell back into love, lived together, broke up, found 'can't live with you, can't live without you' and got back together till death (or zombies) did them part? No thanks, if I want that I'll go watch Pride and Prejudice or summat (which I won't, because I have no interest at all in romcoms, romances, or the likes).
I think people are objecting because it was specifically two guys and it was done for Representation. That's an entire other argument over what is "messaging crammed in to serve the ideological purposes of the day" versus "for pete's sake, gay marriage has been legal for years, are we still getting worked up about seeing two non-straight people treated the same as the conventional straight couple would be?" I do accept that there is a valid point for the second view, but on the other hand introducing two characters who are only there for the purposes of This Week's Plot and won't be seen again (if that's the way it's set up, as I said, I don't watch this show) does seem heavy-handed messaging. But one man's meat, as they say!
Man, spoiled kids these days and their arc-plots. A few decades ago we had a special term for a television episode where the main characters interacted with guest characters who were only there for the purposes of that week's plot, would never be seen again, and wouldn't affect the show's setting or future episodes in any way: we called that "a television episode".
I'm not sure what changed that, exactly. There are lots of technological developments that made an arc-plot easier to follow, but the change greatly postdates VCRs and predates streaming services. At some point we went very quickly from "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (where seeing the Borg again was a Big Thing and IIRC seeing Picard's flute a second time started a writer's room debate) to "Babylon 5" (where if you missed a block of episodes then God help you with the next one). But B5 was always on the verge of cancellation; maybe it wasn't until DVRs became popular that shows started safely assuming their viewers never missed an episode.
You're forgetting X-Files. They literally had a term for it: Mytharc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Very well said. I found the Offerman episode really lovely and it fleshed out the world.
I was disappointed with Ellie's romantic backstory, but that's because it missed the opportunity to show how a teenage female friendship can be so intense and all-encompassing without having a romantic element. That's the kind of story that doesn't get shown enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link