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 -
Give me a break, it was a scathing description of predatory marriage habits among the idle class, like Dangerous Liaisons. They really missed the boat with the “Pride and prejudice and zombies“ thing. It should be called Parasites Versus Vampires, no additions needed.
That's an inane comparison. Dangerous Liaisons is about 18th century French nobles; Jane Austen wrote about early 19th century English gentry. Not the same generation, the same culture, or even the same social class. (Aristocrats are on a completely different level than gentry, kind of like Mid to Upper Middle Class vs. the 1%.) Not the same themes or messaging, not the same stories. You're just throwing anything "European, pre-Industrial, not about orphans" into the same bucket.
Les Liaisons dangereuses is more akin to Pamela, both being 18th century epistolary novels written by men about the travails of virtuous women at the hands of depraved aristocrats, though Pamela has more moralising in its conclusion in the particularly English style (Pamela marries her reformed rake) while the French novel has a morally unhappy ending (everyone ends up in a bad ending, villains and heroines both).
Austen is not at all in the same sphere. Much more subtle gradations, less rakishness (Wickham is a cad but he's nowhere near the kind of wealthy, socially secure seducer as in Pamela or Les Liaisons) and a more naturalistic exploration of society in a narrow band.
More options
Context Copy link
Are you going to list all the differences, that would no doubt make the comparison more inane, as only identical things can be compared. One's an epistolary novel written by a man. Perhaps why the author was less deluded about the moral caliber and empathy to be granted to its vain, snobbish and useless protagonists. The similarity is the preoccupation with the sexual schemes of rich people who felt entitled to everything while never having worked a day in their life.
How many Jane Austen novels have you read? Because I've read all of them, and what you are describing sounds like none of them.
Definitely the majority of her work.
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