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 -
And if you knew that it wasn't coattail riding but that this specific actress was cast due to being the best at audition? Would that change your perception?
If we knew that, sure, but we know she's not, as diversity has been an explicit, loudly-opined goal of the bloc supporting her. While it's possible she's the best candidate, it's so unlikely as to beggar belief, and I know you don't really think she was. You get what you optimize for, and they're not optimizing for the best person.
Careful with consensus building. You may heavily suspect she is not, but you don't (unless you have access to more information about the casting decisionmaker's internal state)absolutely know. Which you then admit in your next sentence in fact. The director's statement:
"After an extensive search, it was abundantly clear that Halle possesses that rare combination of spirit, heart, youth, innocence, and substance — plus a glorious singing voice — all intrinsic qualities necessary to play this iconic role,” Marshall said in a statement."
Now he might be a liar here. But your own statements contradict yourself. If you KNOW she's not the best choice, then it isn't POSSIBLE she is. You can heavily suspect, your priors might heavily point that way, but if you admit there is a possibility she was chosen because she was the best, then I don't think you can also state you KNOW she wasn't!
But anyway, that is all besides the point. We're operating in the hypothetical where you do know she was picked because she was the best. Given that, would that impact how you felt about it? Or would you still think they shouldn't pick a black actress even if she was the best in audition?
No, I'm quite comfortable saying that when you optimize for X you're going to get X, not Y. If you want to pretend these people are meritocratic, they need to start optimizing for meritocracy, not diversity, very, very loudly.
As for the what-if, my answer is "I reject the hypothetical". If things were different they'd be different. That's not useful.
That wasn't your claim however. Your claim was stronger. That in this case you KNOW she was not the best choice. Yet you also admitted it was possible she was. Your own words contradict themselves. You can indeed optimize for X and still get Y. Perhaps rarely, perhaps less so depending on the extent of your optimization.
I'm just suggesting to adjust your language to hedge a little more in line with the rules of the forum. If you don't actually know something (and you own words indicate you do not) then reduce the strength of your certainty.
For example, I think it is highly likely that pretty much every politician is corrupt, given my direct experience and the various set of incentives involved. But that doesn't mean every single specific politician is. And if I don't have specific evidence for any specific politician I should probably not claim I KNOW they are corrupt. Here at least.
Yes, we know she wasn't the best choice, because we know -- because they say it all the time -- that they're optimizing for diversity. If the world was different, she could be the best. But the world isn't different. In this world, when you proclaim how important it is to increase BIPOC representation in film, we know you're aiming for BIPOC representation in film.
Who is they? Did the director say that? The casting agent? Is this always their priority? Do they never have other priorities that are higher? Remember we should be as specific as possible and not refer to the amorphous "they" here. Making sweeping generalizations is explicitly in the things we are supposed to avoid doing, so as to avoid waging the culture war.
I refuse to believe you've been isolated from all barrages in the culture war and do not see the obvious and repeatedly praised decision to cast the first ever proud negress as a Disney princess, the repetition of turning gingers into blacks, the immediate claims that it's racist if you hate the movie, the teary Twitter praise from celebrities so proud their daughters have someone they can look up to (because apparently they've never seen a minority protagonist before, as if you can't find black leads god damn everywhere).
I am not going to pretend people aren't doing what they're obviously doing. If your definition of charity demands I turn off my ability to recognize patterns I will not be charitable. Find a more reasonable definition.
Not my definition of charity. The rules of the forum, that say you should not generalize. If you make claims keep them specific. Again, I am not denying that you may be right, I am saying that saying you know (and then contradicting yourself) make it look like you are more interested in waging the culture war here than discussing it. Which is explicitly what we are not here to do.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link