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 -
Due to cancel culture and maybe even social media in general would you say its worth shooting for fame?
Back when I was a kid (when tv was the main screen) I guess I wanted to be famous. But I wanted to be famous because when I saw these muscians, actors and comedians I just thought wow their lives are easy and fun and obviously they're rich.
Now it seems like celebrities still have much more fun than the average person but it seems like to keep your position has gotten harder, especially the newer you are.
Is it still worth it?
There are upsides. Back in the day, magazines and tabloid newspapers had a lot of influence over celebrities, because they controlled who had access to the general public. There was a lot of obsequiousness and moral compromise on the part of celebrities to promote themselves with magazines and tabloids. Today, with the internet, it's easy to keep in touch with fans via Twitter, Facebook, and so on, while things like Youtube, Instagram, and TikTok provide paths to fame without going through the traditional press.
If anything this is worse.
The most online celebs can make money without traditional media now, yes. But, in other ways, they have the worst of all worlds; they are directly subject to real-time feedback from fans and the parasocial relationship seems to lean way more in the direction of negativity than the sycophancy that might happen if they only had public interactions.
And, sometimes, they don't even get that much money for their troubles - Lindsay Ellis was driven into depression for an upper-middle class life.
Yes, A-list celebrities get to ignore (or try to ignore - see the Naomi Osaka case for the self-serving attempt to cut out the media using mental health claims) the traditional press more. But they hear from fans more and fans also see them more (previously they made deals with tabloids to keep a lot of this shit out) which increases the burden to conform.
Johnathan Majors is probably going to lose out on tens of millions due to a story that escaped before any of the traditional fixers and handlers could do their work. Decades ago it was more likely to become a story we hear about today "did you know Johnathan Majors assaulted someone 30 years ago and no one reported it?".
But I'd still like to be rich and famous though.
I'm not sure that this is a good reflection of tabloid-celebrity relationships in the past, which seemed to be extremely abusive in some cases, and always with the threat of abusive intrusion in the background.
However, I don't dispute that the situation is bad for celebrities. Personally, I wouldn't mind being rich, but I would happily do without the fame.
I didn't mean sycophancy amongst the tabloids but the fans who "drag" online celebs on Twitter.
I think a lot of people on Twitter are way more toxic to their favorite Breadtuber or streamer than they'd be if they met them.
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