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 was not planning on seeing it; this review has mostly changed my mind. Thanks!
I was particularly afraid that the movie would be a hagiography of the poor maligned Oppie, with an overlay of "trust the science" messaging. A fear amplified by reading some op-ed by Kai Bird (who has some second-degree connection to the movie I think?), about Oppenheimer, ending with a comparison to Fauci. (Would Fauci be flattered to know that he's being compared to "the nuke guy"? I wonder...). Gratifying to hear that it's a more normal movie.
On the other hand, I did not like Interstellar...
This is a good example of why bagging the whole film industry together is so lossy -- yes, there are directors who like to insert overt political messaging in their films, but Nolan (or James Cameron, Wes Anderson, etc.) do not.
As a kid I assumed that since it wasn't obvious the director of Jurassic Park and Raiders of the Lost Ark were directed by the same person, then directors must not matter very much. As I get older I've begun to appreciate that this attitude was naive.
I beg to differ. I'm baffled as to how anyone can interpret The Dark Knight as anything other than an unapologetic defense of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Well, the most sympathetic/moral character in the movie (Lucius Fox) demands that the surveillance apparatus be dismantled. So my interpretation of this was literally the opposite of yours.
Given that The Dark Knight was released at the peak of Democrats pretending to be anti-war classical liberals and definitely not just opposed to whatever Bush wanted, I think my read more likely to be true.
But I do think that the fact this thread has multiple opinions about this movie and the director's intentions for multiple films is precisely why Nolan is great and why I'll watch everything he puts out, even if it all ranges from a bit of a mess (Tenet) to an absolute masterpiece (Inception)
He demands that it be dismantled - after successfully using it for its intended purpose. In other words, "desperate times call for desperate measures", which is exactly how the USA PATRIOT Act was justified at the time of its implementation.
I don't believe Nolan is great, and Inception sucks.
Puts up fists
Fight me, idgaf
Granted that I haven't seen it since it came out, but I remember it being better than Oppenheimer. Still not a movie I'd call "good" without reservation though.
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
Makes sense. I was more concerned about the other influences (I didn't know how involved Kai Bird was for instance), but yeah I've seen Nolan films before and while I've never really liked them, they're at least not political.
Must've blown your mind to watch Schindler's List then :)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I may be bringing my own personal baggage but I think the movie has a very cynical take on scientists, Oppenheimer, and the US government. Literally half the movie is about some deep state worm “manipulating procedural outcomes” to fuck over Oppenheimer due to a disagreement on policy/personality. If there is a villain, it’s the USG. My takeaway is that the rot we see today was fully functioning as early as the 60s. Likely well before that. It’s a bitter pill to swallow for the “IFL SCIENCE” crowd and I think it explains a lot of the mid reviews.
Do you mean audience reviews? Among critics, Metacritic only lists 2 mixed reviews (out of 68) and no negative ones.
I mean the youtube critics I follow. RedLetterMedia, Critical Drinker, etc. I generally have contempt for anyone who gets listed as a critic on RottenTomatos. Audience reviews are a mixed bag but increasingly manipulated such that i dont put much weight on them. The YT shows are generally entertaining for me, however their take on Oppenheimer reveals that they have been so habituated to superhero movies that they are unable to really judge a movie that outside of a particular genre.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link