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 realise I'm a little late to the party, but I want to talk about Tolkien and RoP.
One of the themes of Lord of the Rings is the idea that the smallest, the humblest person can change the destiny of the world, and become a hero. The Hobbits represent small, humble, ordinary people. They don’t lust for power or fame, or aspire to do great deeds. Thus the Ring can’t corrupt them in the way that it would corrupt Boromir or Galadriel, although it can make them covet it as a possession. We see this when Sam willingly gives it back to Frodo, even though we have seen others kill for it having been exposed to it for far shorter periods. Bilbo manages to give it up, after having owned it and been subjected to its influence for 60 years, and Frodo manages to bear it right into the heart of Mt Doom, with the Ring fighting him all the way.
The Ring works by tempting its owners, offering them ways to get what they desire most. The Wizards want to make the world a better place. The Elves want to stop the decay of the world. Men desire power and the ability to defeat their enemies. Dwarves desire treasure. All of them want something they don’t already have, therefore the Ring has something to work with, something to offer them. While Hobbits are content creatures: “But where our hearts truly lie is in peace and quiet and good tilled earth. For all Hobbits share a love of all things that grow. And yes, no doubt to others, our ways seem quaint. But today of all days, it is brought home to me it is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life.”
Galadriel was never some paladin of light. She is the ultimate redemption arc. Someone who had many of the same flaws as Sauron, but who came back. Sauron had a chance for redemption, but couldn't follow through due to his pride. Like Galadriel he was told to come back to Valinor. He didn't want to leave his powerbase or his pride behind however. The character who some consider to be the ultimate hero of the tale, who gets the last scene is not Aragorn the King or an immortal elf. It's the family man with scars, who lost his friend, and who comes home to his family and does the best he can.
It seems Amazon Studios never bothered to understand when they decided they'll make Galadriel a sort of "girlboss" claiming to save the world but with the writers' focus being on her path to glory like most woke cape blockbusters these days. Given how literarily significant Tolkien is world over, its so bizarre that they'd try to pick apart his legacy and crap all over him. Within my reading circle in India, LOTR is a favourite. The supposed racism doesn't even register. The last RoP trailer in regional languages here also got ratio'd on YouTube. I don't know what Amazon was thinking. 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 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.
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.
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 andatypical 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.
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.
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.
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