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 -
My facebook has been ablaze with the War of the Rings of Power, and by that I mean Amazon putting out tons of propaganda to indicate that everyone is racist for not liking the the Rings of Power, followed by half of the people saying no that doesn't make us racist, and the other half saying they just don't like it because it's a bad show. A similar thing is going on for the Little Mermaid, too. Alas, that these evil days should be mine.
The thing that strikes me is that no one is saying the obvious. To me, and I'll guess to many others, I really don't mind diversification of media. Or, that is to say, I wouldn't mind it, if it weren't for the fact that it's now the norm, it's practically mandatory for any show that doesn't want to be cancelled by internet SJWs, it's crammed down my throat everywhere, and it's turned into a major moral issue where half the audience browbeats the other. I feel like I'm being subjected to someone else's religion.
But that woke audience always comes back to "Why are you against black people playing roles? What are you, racist?" Well, no, I honestly don't think I'm racist. But in the position I'm put in, I get that I am taking actions that a racist would. The only difference is that a true racist would be against black people being cast no matter what, and I am only against it being mandatory and moralized. But since we live in this world, where it is mandatory and moralized, does that mean that there's nothing that would really satisfy me short of black people not being cast?
I don't quite think so. Another point that the woke audience comes to is "They clearly just thought that Halle Berry was the best person to play Ariel". And really, I think the answer to that is, no, they clearly prioritize diversity casting. She is black and they want to cast lots of black people because it scores them points with the woke crowd (and possibly also because it drums up controversy, which may be good for business). And then on top of that, they thought she'd be fine for the part. I don't know how I can prove that, but it just seems evident to me that diversity casting for its own sake is something that is being given high priority. In some limited cases, it's possible to prove it, such as with Ryan Condal, the showrunner for House of the Dragon who indicated that they cast black people to play Valerians explicitly for the purpose of diversity-washing. However, I'm guessing that Condal regrets saying that outright, because it's not a good look. It gives the other side ammo and also casts doubt as to whether the people hired really would have earned the spot on merit alone.
At this point. I don't really know what it would take to convince me that most castings of black people are not just to fill a quota. But this puts me in a tough spot, because I don't really want to be racist in action, even if I know I'm not in thought.
Much has been said on that in the past. Me recently on exploiting the story to convey a different message, Pageau making basically the same point exactly 25 months ago, my first post here on the purpose of storytelling (and other discussions around those posts of course), that's just what's comes to mind on the spot.
What I want to know is, do black people even like this sort of diversity&representation?
Pandering to black people (and other minorities) is a legitimate tactic. There's over a billion of them globally, more than whites in fact, and over 40 million in the US. If they act like a classical self-interested minority with Talebian skin in the game, i.e. sleep on a yet another movie with a pretty white girl MC, whereas white people won't boycott black Ariel (white people are, as often shown, the only group with an almost-nonexistent general ingroup preference and have no skin in the game), then it's only prudent to give them what they want.
Do they want it? Clearly they were crazy about Black Panther. Black Panther is, aside from being a better-than-average and more imaginative capeshit title, a coherent movie inherently valorizing black people. Not something with random canonically white characters that got race-swapped to make a political point. I don't expect any mass demographic to have discerning tastes, but surely they ought to feel somewhat more connection to a story about their people than to a story featuring their phenotypes.
Same for other demographics. The Chinese were, if memory serves, turned off by Shang Chi and thought it's stereotyping them as ugly, and not too happy with Mulan either. On the other hand, there was some angry noise about Scarlett Johansson and whitewashing in that unfortunate GiTS adaptation, but maybe that was just woke journalists. Did «Pacific Islanders» appreciate Jason Momoa in Aquaman? (For what it's worth, I did. A superhero movie, it seems, can only be interesting when it's unapologetic silly kitsch on steroids, or a deconstruction/an almost classical movie loosely inspired by source franchise, like Nolan stuff or Joker.)
Did «Hispanics» love Alita? Did South Asians appreciate Raya?
I will strongly dispute the idea that Black Panther is coherent. Various pieces from the movie: (spoiler warning!)
As we have seen in real life, being a semi-hereditary monarchy on top of natural resources leads to a nation skilled in science and technology.
Villain: "Ok Mohammed Bin Salman, you've defeated me in this battle to rule our Kingdom and I'm about to die. Here's a historical reference to stuff that happened in Brazil 150 years ago."
The central conflict of the movie is about Trumpian isolationism vs Clintonian internationalism. Black Panther starts the movie rescuing some Congolese women from child soldiers wishing to (presumably sexually) enslave them. But he's unmoved and still wants to build the wall. Then he changes his mind after hearing what life was like in Oakland 1992 (not, you know, Rwanda 1994, one country over from Wakanda) and becomes an interventionist.
It purports to be take place in a foreign country, but the entire country is nothing but vague ideas that American writers saw on the History Channel. For example, it's Africa and they watched a documentary about the Maasai in 1850, so modern soldiers should look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_(film)#/media/File:Dora_Milaje_in_film.jpg Also they watched Animal planet, thought Rhinos were cool and noticed they live in Kenya, so unobtanium doesn't just power technologies like clean energy and lasers but also improved animal husbandry.
This is not a coherent movie. It purports to tell a story about Wakanda, but every single plot line is driven by characters caring more about Americans of the same race as them than their own corner of the world. (And by "same race", I mean US Govt defined race as opposed to Bantu/Nilotic/Pygmy/etc. )
Despite being harsh on Black Panther for other reasons, I decided to revisit this comment to at least defend the film on this specific point:
I don't think this is a fair take on what happened.
T'Challa wasn't unmoved. His girlfriend (who he was rescuing, not slaves - they were a byproduct) was constantly pushing him to intervene. He seemed ambivalent but didn't want to break with tradition and refugees would be a big break.
He specifically raises the issue with another high-ranking Wakandan (if he was unmoved why do so?) long before he changes his mind, and he defaults to the status quo only when he decides he doesn't like either option (either humanitarian aid/refugees who don't fit Wakandan tradition or "benevolent" imperialism, which doesn't either). Either way, events overtake him and he doesn't do anything. It's quite possible he would have done something eventually but the plot happened.
Then everything goes to shit and he discovers that his father - who he idolized - basically killed his own brother and abandoned his nephew to a harsh life in Oakland to maintain secrecy. This undercuts the moral authority of his ancestors as he sees it, and he's not willing to make the same harsh sacrifices - he is even noted by his father to be a
bleeding heartgood man and would therefore find it hard to rule so this character trait predates the events of the climax.Then the side of Wakanda that favored imperialism supported a coup and was totally discredited, so the only remaining voice pushing for intervening was the humanitarian one, and that voice also happened to be in the King's bed. Guess what happened.
It's laughable that he first intervenes in Oakland but the rest is far less tortured than you imply.
I think this interpretation - Black Panther as Prince Harry - definitely qualifies as revisionism (of a form I'm sympathetic to). But it's also quite different from the story the movie wants to tell, I think, which is Black Panther being influenced by Killmonger talking about random historical events in America.
I mean, I don't disagree that Black Panther's tipping point in the films was the revelations about Killmonger. But my second-to-last paragraph is arguing that it's reductive to sum it up as "Killmonger talking about random historical events in America"
Black Panther doesn't take action when he first learned about Killmonger. Or when he first speaks to Killmonger. Instead he dismisses his claim of pan-Africanism. By the time they fight again he's already made up his mind to change. And he does so at the meeting where his father confirms what he did. That is about Killmonger, but it's not about "random historical events in America".
TBH the whole "Killmonger was right" is sort of a self-perpetuating meme , for reasons I think I've laid out (and some that are obvious - of course Killmonger's plan is absolute nonsense*)
T'Challa was being pulled and pushed in multiple directions and was ambivalent, Killmonger's entry was the catalyst for major change. But he didn't get a powerpoint of Black History and suddenly decide to go fix the world. His girlfriend made the argument more consistently and rationally than Killmonger did (and she was actually helping Africans, unlike anyone else in this movie). And what he ends up doing is closer to her plan than Killmonger's (besides the Oakland thing, which could be argued to be familial guilt)
Ironically: your criticism applies better to another character in the film...Killmonger's father. Who goes to America, learns a bit about how hard others have it (not even that hard relative to his neighbors in Africa) and decides to betray his country and family to help them (again: not his neighbors in Africa)
* Why go to Hong Kong first? Seriously...What was the thinking here?
Chinese money probably.
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