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 -
So earlier this week I tried to have a discussion about the common complaint here that modern, western culture is deficient and should be overthrown because it is extremely bad at creating beauty. I tried to argue that this particular judgement depends on aesthetic preferences that aren't as universal as its makers seem to think and gave a particular example of one of my own preferences (that is shared by many I know IRL) that actually judges it as exceptionally good.
The response was pretty shocking. There are some topics here that I know will provoke a lot of heat---immigration, racial identity, trans issues, etc. I never suspected this to also be one of them. The sheer amount of anger in the replies and the subsequent to emotional arguments and strawmanning was crazy--I really did not know it was this controversial. On second thought however, this aesthetic judgement really is the core objection a lot of the far right has towards the modern world and a lot of their policy suggestions to fix it that otherwise seem bizarre to me make a lot more sense when viewed as based on their particular aesthetic preferences. Therefore, questioning these preferences is really questioning the foundation of their political identity, much more than talking about immigration might be.
I'm therefore interested in polling this forum on the issue. I think it helps with the strawmanning to be very precise and try to clarify it into a dilemma. Pretend god offered you a trade: all future advances in science and math that aren't directly useful for technological advancement will stop. In exchange, the supposed squalor of the modern, western physical environment will be fixed---think replacing all of suburbia with stuff that looks as nice as your favorite ones of these. Would you take the trade? [Edit: maybe a better option would be changing all brutalist buildings to things that are as nice as cathedrals?] Now I know that "directly useful for technological advancement" is a very fuzzy, but please try to answer the question in its spirit---we're trading away only the aesthetic value of these advances, not their material and practical effects.
I would also be very interested in the correlation between the answer to this question and people's political views. I personally would be strongly against the trade (the same as most people I know IRL) and I'm a pretty standard American liberal.
(EDIT: on second thought this was a very unclear post missing too much context. See here for clarification---hopefully this helps to anyone still looking at this).
I think it’s a false dilemma only because a culture that doesn’t see itself as worth making beautiful is one that won’t exit for long.
Beauty in the built environment is a symbolic way of saying that this culture and this place is worth making beautiful. I think you can see this with religion the most clearly. In the early days of religion, you had big, bold beautiful cathedrals, chalices and bowls made of precious metals and jewels, ornate vestments, and so on. And it was a reflection of the way (at the time Catholic) Christianity saw itself and the world. God was worthy of the absolute best. In modern times, Christian churches are often placed in strip malls or reclaimed businesses, built to be functional but not much else. And I think it’s leading to at least some of the decline in religious interest. God has been reduced to something unworthy, something that only deserves the cheapest of materials, the most banal of music and to be squeezed in next to the Orange Julius and Xist Fitness and a cheap cafeteria.
The same can be seen in our art in general. We simply no longer take ourselves seriously. We don’t see our culture in a way that makes it worth taking seriously. I’m personally a fan of the older Star Trek, and to me the entire thing has devolved into the same self-parody that plagues much of movie and TV making. No gravitas, no sense that anything is at stake, no big ideas. Fuck putting in effort, or making it seem like anything matters. Instead, make it a giant spectacle. Turn Spock into a cursing gen Z emo. Turn it into a musical. Write stories that reference cartoons. Write stories that make no sense on any level. And it’s impossible for anyone to watch that because why would you take something seriously that doesn’t take itself seriously.
Why would someone feel inspired to to something wonderful in a culture that sees itself as unserious and unworthy and banal?
Have you considered that they just find different things worth taking seriously? The value of buildings as a way of indicating a place's worth is intuitive, perhaps, but not the only way.
I think so, obviously people will differ on which parts of the built environment or what art is worth making beautiful. But I thing the general trend in the west that people around these parts are hitting on is that this is a pretty generalized trend, we don’t think anything in our culture or civilization is worth the effort of beautification or even just taking seriously. I tend to agree with the Chinese criticism of western culture— that we are simply an unserious people. Nothing has worth or use or deserves to be taken seriously.
And thus to me is a huge problem because an unserious people cannot and will not do anything of note. Why would they, the environment screams at them that they live in a throw away society where everything is built cheaply as possible and made to break or be thrown away? Why contribute to culture when it’s cheap tawdry memes and spectacle and self parody all the way down? When the prize winning art looks like the artist puked paint on the canvas, and the best music is forgotten quickly, and so on, it says everything worth saying about us. A person who doesn’t believe they deserve good things would be considered possibly depressed, or at least to have issues with their self worth. I would submit that the general ugliness of our environment, our shitty art and so on say the same about us. We no longer believe that we deserve such nice things.
As a cohesive unit? That's fundamentally impossible. Do you think the Chinese youth take their leaders as seriously as those leaders take themselves? The next generation is always going to make jokes and generally trivialize what came before, that's their job.
There exist many people who can and do serious work, you're just not seeing it.
Do you like fiction? Ever want to read an entirely serious work about Rey and Kylo from the new Star Wars trilogy going from enemies to lovers? Go to AO3, you'll find your serious fiction. Do you like music? I'm sure there's some heartfelt song out put out by a black rapper about his struggles growing up on SoundCloud.
Yes, these things get memed. Yes, people do eventually grow tired of them. But just as many people hold these things near and dear to their hearts. They just don't get up in arms when someone makes a joke about it. Memes and self-parody don't stop serious things from existing, often within the same minds as well. The folks on the noncredibledefense subreddit made waifu art of Perun (a military analysis channel), but they'd be the first to tell you they take his words seriously.
"Where are my statues and buildings?" you ask. But those are your standards for what indicates a culture's self-esteem. The people you think are doing nothing are doing what they think is serious. Statues and buildings have a permanency and impact that are matched movies and TV shows. Which is more beautiful and serious, the original Star Wars trilogy or the Golden Gate Bridge? While I don't have the answer to that, the former was referenced in literal Chinese propaganda directed at their youth.
I’m thinking more of the cultural creatives and tastemakers and educational establishment. The people who design things — the architects and artists and writers obviously would bare the responsibility of having created ugly, cheap, art. The filmmakers are doing the same things with movies. They don’t care for the craft of filmmaking, there’s no thought to telling a coherent interesting story, it’s just spectacle and effects. And most of it is yet another franchise film that goes nowhere, but with plenty of room for the next 3-4 movies. Nobody’s going to look back on this generation’s films the way they look on the originals and Classic films of earlier eras.
But those largely are not art movies in the first place! They're not trying to be either! The MCU might be defended by fans as serious art, but it's a kid's spectacle to its core. You want serious movies that are trying to be art? Try movies like VVitch, Midsommar, or Tar.
I can hardly think of a more anti-elite attitude to movies if the ones that win box offices and several awards each year are flashy spectacles that the public at large seems fine eating up.
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