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 -
Britta Perry: a Culture War time capsule
One of the fun things about reading old books or watching old movies is how you can be reminded of the way society changes. Obviously this is a somewhat trite observation, but it doesn't really make it any less jarring when something very casually conflicts with the subtle messaging you get every day in the present. Community is one of my favourite TV shows; it ran from 2009-2015 which isn't that far in the past, but I saw a Reddit post the other day that made an interesting observation about the zeitgeist it represented and how quickly we've moved on from it.
The female lead of the series is Britta Perry (played by the wonderful Gillian Jacobs), and in the first dozenish or so episodes of the show she's very much a conventional sitcom love interest: responsible, compassionate, earnest, striver for social justice, the Better Eventual Half of our morally listless protagonist, etc. This of course was bland and boring, so the writers ended juking things up and turning her into a much more interesting character. Rather than being the noble (and unfunny) stock liberal progressive, she became the annoying and semi-incompetent stock liberal progressive. She continues to be smug and overbearing about the same subjects, but she's flipped as a killjoy instead of righteous.
And it's interesting to see what the writers of the time considered to be the most annoying tendencies of white, urban, female, bourgeois progressivism. Yes, of course she complains about the patriarchy, thinks all her media consumption is about making a statement, she has to work her pet causes into every conversation, and she hates cops. But she's also a crusader for civil liberties, a big fan of Julian Assange, outspoken in favour of free speech, and paranoid about government surveillance. Even her evangelical vegetarianism seems notably out of place in 2023.
And of course perhaps what's most glaringly obvious is the subjects she DOESN'T care about: there's barely a mention of race (except for once suggesting they include an Asian member for more diversity!), she famously cares more about animal cruelty than racism, and not only does she never dip her toe into anything resembling bisexuality or gender experimentation, she's even portrayed as mildly homophobic. Until the last episode there's nary a mention of transgender people except for the transfer dance being referred to as the "tranny dance" in season 1 (in 2009, any idea of transgender people being anything other than a punchline was not even dawning in the minds of progressive Hollywood writers).
So this was the stereotypical annoying liberal progressive circa 2010. No mentions of black bodies and trans spaces, a lot of worrying about civil liberties. I guess we never knew how good we had it. I'll leave you with a link to an illicit streaming website which is one of the few places you can watch one of the show's best episodes, which got erased from existence after George Floyd for the crime of adjacent-blackface and features annoying Britta at her best.
I'll add another shoutout to Community, great show if anyone hasn't seen it. It has some pretty hilarious takes on early wokeism.
What I love about the show is that it has complex characters, which really isn't a high bar but seems to be one which many cultural products no longer meet. Jeff, Britta and Annie all have well developed flaws, which is expected as the attractive white stars. But the shocking thing is even the minority characters have flaws! Troy, Abed, and Shirley are all well-rounded people who have good sides and bad, and don't blame all their problems on vague instances of racism. It's truly refrishing in this day and age.
They also managed to have a well-rounded gay character (the 'pansexual imp' Dean) without getting all preachy.
I think the show's strength was that it simply assumed it's audience was on board with the modern liberal package, and so didn't have to convert them. Dan Harmon assumed his audience would be fine with the Dean being gay or whatever, so he was able to focus on funny plotlines that derive from that fact, rather than making his sexuality the point.
To bring it back to the original post about Britta, the finale actually had her imagine the Dean coming out as trans rather than continuing with the vague 'whatever this is' that he was doing before. It can be read as a criticism of the restrictiveness of the trans lobby's ideology if one were so inclined.
Most preachy shows also assume that - otherwise they wouldn't count on the audience to shell out dollars for watching woke tropes - but still preach like crazy. I think the difference is not that. There's two ways of promoting certain ideas in cinema. One is to have human attractive characters to act in accordance with these ideas and make the audience draw their own conclusions. So, if you wanted to promote racial integration, you just feature a diverse cast (hopefully avoiding blunders like casting a black person to play Bjorn Ironside) and make them act like it's normal, without mentioning it. The audience gets the message "racial integration is the normal thing". The other way is to draw attention to this fact constantly, lampshade it mercilessly and have the characters to pronounce wooden monologues about how happy they are that they have racial integration and how it's long about time they had it and how eager they are to have more of it, because nothing could be better than more racial integration. The audience gets the message "they really want to push racial integration on me, at the cost of sacrificing everything that makes movies fun". The Community manages to do the former, while most woke content past about 2016 do the latter with gusto.
What do you mean Anne Boleyn wasn't Afro-Caribbean? 😂
So objecting to the casting of Bjorn ironside or Anne Boleyn on the grounds that "but they weren't black" is racist, you bigot!
But Henry was white and, what amused me most, so was their daughter, Elizabeth. I suppose even for Channel 5 casting a biracial baby for an iconic historical figure would have been that one step too far?
I would love to live in a society where that actually would work - i.e. we don't fret about eye color or foot size of the actor not matching the same of the role. Maybe one day all the race stuff would be so trivialized that it would sound like complaining "we know from this obscure portrait that Anne had green eyes but this actor has brown eyes!" - but we're very far from it right now, unfortunately. Moreover, we're so far from it that the mere access to this idea is now gated by the wokes - you can only do race switches in a particular woke-approved manner with an explicitly stated woke goals, otherwise it's "blackface" or "whitewashing" or some other thoughtcrime.
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