site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   38254 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They said this is the most expensive show ever and that the future of the studio itself relies on its success, and yet they decide to check the woke quotas instead of giving Tolkien fans what they want. Did they really just not expect this level of blowback? Its so unfathomable to me that the answer is that simple, could it be something else?

I also find it a bit funny because two of their most popular series recently, Reacher and The Terminal List, were extremely successful acting as straightforward adaptations of their source material with all the problematic themes and messaging included.

Compared to the Jack Ryan TV series which seems to have plopped out two seasons and been largely forgotten, and as I recall it was because hardcore Tom Clancy fans picked apart the show's accuracy to real life and the plausibility of the plots (i.e. the things Tom Clancy was famous for) whilst the casual viewers found it too hard to follow and with too dour a tone.

Turns out, many popular things are popular because of certain elements that can be directly adapted to the screen, and trying to wedge in themes, ideas, characters, etc. that weren't present in the original poses a real risk of crowding out those elements and alienating the audience that actually likes the property.

I also find it a bit funny because two of their most popular series recently, Reacher and The Terminal List, were extremely successful acting as straightforward adaptations of their source material with all the problematic themes and messaging included.

I watched Reacher and I don't recall much "problematic" about it except in the sense that a huge white man in a mostly white small town was running around solving crimes.

Even then the show threw some "woke" stuff in by talking about how that town treated black inhabitants.

I mean, Reacher goes around on a vigilante rampage beating up on criminals of various stripes, including some PoC. Guns are treated as a generally useful affordance for protection rather than a dangerous item to be feared and regulated. Small town rural life is given an overall positive depiction (corruption by the local elites notwithstanding) and race relations are actually shown to be overall peaceful and genial.

I think by current standards Reacher himself represents many aspects of so-called 'toxic masculinity.' Doesn't talk about his feelings much, solves problems through application of brute force (precisely targeted, though), and demonstrates active contempt for authority figures or, indeed, anyone who tries to reign in his behavior. Oh, he also gets to rescue some damsels in distress at the end there.

Its not like it actively seeks to trangress current year norms, just doesn't pay them any respect, either.

But Reacher does end up being more about dumb entertaining violence than any real message whatsoever, which is actually quite refreshing in it's own right.

I mean, Reacher goes around on a vigilante rampage beating up on criminals of various stripes

Meh, vigilantism is kind of a weird grey area where you can reason from first principles that "wokes" would be set against it but they aren't, necessarily. Super hero movies are hugely popular, including ones like Batman who are more grounded vigilantes with all of the problems that entails.

Vengeance and violence are also allegedly not progressive values but they sell well and with little controversy.

I think by current standards Reacher himself represents many aspects of so-called 'toxic masculinity.' Doesn't talk about his feelings much, solves problems through application of brute force (precisely targeted, though), and demonstrates active contempt for authority figures or, indeed, anyone who tries to reign in his behavior. Oh, he also gets to rescue some damsels in distress at the end there.

He doesn't talk about his feelings but there're flashbacks that humanize him.

As for brute force: Reacher in the show (and the Tom Cruise movie) uses brute force the way Batman does; after he uses his other advantages of wealth and atypical intelligence to find the Acceptable Target.

In terms of sexual dynamics...not really much there either. Reacher doesn't stick around to raise a family with one woman he does have a sexual relationship with but there's functionally no acrimony and romance doesn't even seem to be that important to the plot of the show.

I'm not saying that no individual "woke" person could take offense - I've seen criticisms of A Quiet Place for allegedly lionizing rural, red state values, whatever that means - but I'm also not surprised that this hasn't boiled up into something more.

Its not like it actively seeks to trangress current year norms, just doesn't pay them any respect, either.

Sure, it's not really "woke" I guess but it's also not anti-woke or "problematic" such that it would be one of the juicier targets.

I wouldn't necessarily enjoy it if it were 'anti-woke' either, is the thing. I don't crave entertainment that validates the opposite of everything SJWs believe, I just want entertainment that doesn't either cram SJW values in where they clearly don't fit OR cowtow to SJW sensibilities to the detriment of its own audience, who may or may not care about such things.

That is, I appreciate works that are 'politically neutral' insofar as the story is able to stand on its own and the messaging isn't overtly designed to push a given ideological lens.

I got a similar sense from Top Gun: Maverick. Somehow that film even managed to downplay the RAH-RAH AMERICAN PATRIOTISM angle! It just wanted people to be able to get some positive emotions and thrills in exchange for their money! And audiences have rewarded the hell out of it, in return.

If there's a reason Reacher isn't a juicy target, I suspect it is because it doesn't have the same cultural cachet of, say, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and of course LOTR so it isn't as valuable a vessel to control. If it does breach into wider popularity, not sure if that'll hold.

If there's a reason Reacher isn't a juicy target, I suspect it is because it doesn't have the same cultural cachet of, say, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and of course LOTR so it isn't as valuable a vessel to control. If it does breach into wider popularity, not sure if that'll hold.

I'd argue that Rainbow Six is probably the more recognizable Tom Clancy IP, though maybe that's not fair to bring in a franchise that Ubisoft continues to milk to this day.

A note on the "Jack Ryan" thing, I thought the first season was very solid and went into the second hoping for more, but it was a dumpster fire. I don't know or care what they changed, but it ruined the show for me. Season 2 was just shit.

Tend to agree. The few bits I liked about Season 1 were gone in Season 2.

I don't mind John Krasinski in the role, and you get the sense that they could have made something realistic, tense, and interesting, but I forgot literally everything that happened in Season 2 less than a week after watching it, and have no desire to follow up on it.

Oh wait, I didn't forget the part where they literally turned the government of the Venezuela-analogue country into a RIGHT-WING dictatorship with a heroic left-leaning female candidate as the country's hope for revival.

Jesus.

Oh god, you're giving me flashbacks. YES. They made not-Maduro a conservative. They couldn't even set it in Chile or something. Wild, wild stuff.

Oh wait, I didn't forget the part where they literally turned the government of the Venezuela-analogue country into a RIGHT-WING dictatorship with a heroic left-leaning female candidate as the country's hope for revival.

...Yup, that was it for me. Doing it while executing a piss-poor retread of Clear and Present Danger, probably my favorite Clancy story when I was a kid, was just salt in the wound.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats