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 mean, yeah, this is kind of a central premise of fantasy in general. It's simply set in a world that's not accurate to real life. I don't care about that, I just care that the world follow its own internal rules rather than break them in order to make certain groups even more wrong. In a world where people's belief creates gods, you have to justify why the largest group on earth somehow hasn't created a god. In a world where gods are powerful beings that people believe in, you have to justify why (at the very least) no god has filled in for the (for some reason) nonexistent Christian god in order to gain more influence.
EDIT:
I think the big thing is that if you are trying to set something in the modern world, ideally your magic system explains to an extent why the world exists as it currently does. If Jesus is just another source of exorcism points, why is Christianity by far the biggest religion with a strong tradition of exorcism? Why is Christianity so much bigger in general, with such different beliefs? Presumably if gods were real then religions which believe that multiple gods exist are going to outcompete religions that assert that there's only one god; adherents to the latter are going to be getting smitten left and right.
I don't attribute malice to these authors at all, I think they just have stories that they want to write that aren't 100% internally consistent, which is fine. The issue is when they build these worlds which aren't accurate to reality, then use them to make points about things which are accurate to reality. In a world where all gods are real, Christianity would be vastly different than it is in real life. But take your world where all gods are real, then plop Christianity down in the middle of it unaltered, and of course it will look silly because that belief system wouldn't have grown in that world organically.
Iirc, the reasoning was explicitly Doylist. Wildbow mentioned at some point that it seemed likely to turn into giant flaming culture wars and so he decided to just kind of ignore the entire glaring topic.
I figured, and he's done a pretty good job with that aspect of it altogether, but he's still very much fighting against Christian morality without really addressing the source of that morality. As one example, how about marriage? Marriage is literally a vow, generally to love and protect your spouse, but I haven't heard of a single practitioner getting forsworn due to a divorce. So maybe practitioners don't make the same vows? It raises all sorts of questions because you really would expect marriage to be just as if not more significant than a familiar. People should get forsworn for cheating on each other all the time.
As another example, hospitality is a big thing in-story, and to break hospitality is to invite loads of bad karma if not worse. How about responsibility to your family? This should be just as important but the universe seems to care very little for it, not penalizing parents for mistreating their children or children for rebelling against their parents.
So, totally separate from the whole god question, the nature of the universe should be inclined towards very traditional morality but isn't, and my assertion is that this is simply because Wildbow created an internally consistent magic system and then slanted it slightly to be more progressive. There's no way that a magic system that wants people to fit into clearly defined roles would like people being genderfluid or polyamorous.
btw I edited my previous comment just as you added that one, if you want to respond to the edit.
I'm pretty sure it's either implied or said planily that practitioners don't make the same vows. Also, there's the "EULA argument", as follows: if no one actually reads the EULA when agreeing to it, then no one is actually held to it.
I assume practitioners are selected for being slightly more able to keep the promises they made. But no doubt there are ones who got forsworn for cheating.
The universe appears to subscribe to the patriarchal model of the family where the patriarch rules and calls the shots and the children rebelling is his problem. That's traditional enough if you ask me.
It doesn't though! I would be fine with that, it would be totally consistent, but if the universe actually worked that way then it would punish people for stepping out of line. A man who treated his wife and children with respect would take a karmic hit for it. In my original comment I mentioned female breadwinners. I think if the universe actually were that patriarchal, then there would be a clear and obvious karmic hit for allowing your wife to enter the workplace.
That's if you assume the universe sees being an iron-fist patriarch as a duty and not a right of the head of the family. When it's the latter, the patriarch would just as well get extra good karma for allowing liberties to his charges.
As for "entering the workplace", honestly this seems such a petty issue in the face of the larger corpus of worldwide tradition.
Obviously this is all a matter of how you approach interpretation. You appear to be aiming to dismantle the Watsonian explanations, while I'm aiming to create them.
OK, I feel like this is just the first objection that sprang to mind for you, because it's quite easy to come up with counterarguments. If you really think the universe sees this iron-fist patriarch thing as the right of the man, then you would expect matriarchies to be karmically penalized quite heavily because the woman is ruling over the man. In fact the story has already included a couple of powerful matriarchal families so we can rule that out.
I don't really want to waste more time on this hypothetical. It's quite obvious the universe is not in fact patriarchal the way you suggest it is.
Yes there have always been some women in the workplace, so just replace that with "women in positions of power" or "women joining armies" if you wish to and my point still stands. Even the rare historical examples of the latter 2 should not exist in this setting, due to thousands of years of tradition from before civilization really existed at all.
Yes, this is what it comes down to. I mostly love the magic system, what bothers me is that it has turned into more and more of a vehicle for a very specific and common modern ideology, and as it has done so more and more inconsistencies have arisen in the text. I have no incentive to continue creating ever more ludicrous explanations for the inconsistencies when it's easier to just shrug and say that this is obviously just how the author wanted it and so that's how it is.
Pointing out the inconsistencies is the easiest way for me to gesture at my main point, which is "this author has built a setting explicitly to support his ideology." The inconsistencies make it much more egregious, because it means the author cares more about the ideology than about the setting, but even if it were perfectly consistent I would still take issue with it. This reminds me a bit of the complaints towards The Cold Equations. Even though that book was perfectly logically consistent, people complained that the story itself is engineered such that its conclusion is foreordained. I particularly like sci-fi editor John W Campbell's complaint:
Work too hard to contort your setting into supporting your ideology and I will get annoyed, whatever the ideology. This example is somewhat more sensitive to me though because the Pact/Pale setting has probably my favorite magic system, and I am watching it get eaten alive by banal, generic ideology in real time.
That works both ways, I'll get annoyed when someone works too hard to dismantle a setting based on their dislike of the ideology it's built with.
The premise and the conflict of the story is that it's hard to break pattern and stereotype - but not impossible. Indeed there wouldn't be much of a story if everyone had to go along with the weight of thousands of years of tradition.
Sure, but I'm not annoyed by the ideology itself, I'm annoyed by the damage it does to the setting. In particular I'm just tired of reading about the sex lives of 14 year olds in an otherwise fantastic book.
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