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 just read about a real life version of the "isn't there someone you forgot to ask?" meme. Woman finds out a guy in his 30s dated a girl 13 years younger. She writes a story with their details, except in her story the guy is a creep. And now they're making a movie based on the story.
This is the short story: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
This is the movie trailer: https://youtube.com/watch?v=J2VukOLSxoY
And this is an essay where the girl in the relationship says the guy was great: https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/07/cat-person-kristen-roupenian-viral-story-about-me.html
Alexis, a senior in high school, briefly worked with Charles at a restaurant. She was a hostess and he was a waiter. They liked each other and texted a lot. They slowly started dating. He was the liberal type who wouldn't own a car because it was bad for the environment. He even asked for consent before he kissed her for the first time. She said he was very gentle and caring and they had lots of things in common.
The only downside of the relationship was the fact that she felt people judged her for it, and that she felt she was growing up too fast by being in love with someone so old. They eventually grew apart and broke up when she was a sophomore in college, after dating for 2 years.
A few years later, Kristen Roupenian has an "encounter" with this Charles, after which she finds out that he dated someone much younger than him. She decides to write a story that includes personal details about him and the girl, including their small hometowns, places they worked at, the place they had their first date at, the way the guy dressed and a description of his house. Except in her story the guy is a creep, bad at sex, a liar and manipulator, who becomes abusive when the girl breaks up with him.
The story goes viral during the metoo movement. Alexis and Charles find out and are weirded out. Alexis thinks the author couldn't have known so many details about her life without stalking her online. Charles said he started questioning whether he was really an asshole and would go through old texts to make sure that was not the case.
A few years later, Alexis finds out Charles died. No cause of death is mentioned, other than the fact that it was unexpected. Earlier in the essay she says he was on antidepressants, so suicide is a possibility in my opinion.
Alexis tries to contact Kristen and she responds via email with a half-assed apology in which she says she shouldn't have included some of the details. Alexis writes this essay to tell her side of the story, but it doesn't change much.
And now they are making a movie based on this story.
Also, these are the pictures of the women mentioned in this post. I will let you figure out who's who.
https://imgur.com/2gApE3K
https://imgur.com/l2cfZtd
I enjoyed "Cat Person" when it came out and thought it said something real and true about the dynamics of modern dating (certainly a vastly better #MeToo story than that account of an awkward first date with Aziz Ansari). I received Roupenian's first short story collection (which includes "Cat Person") as a gift a few Christmases ago and for the most part enjoyed it.
But yes, reading the Slate story sullied the experience for me a bit. I won't go quite so far as to say it was an act of character assassination targeting Charles, but Roupenian could have done a lot more to distance her fictional character from his real-life inspiration.
According to Freddie deBoer the movie is laughably heavy-handed. The minute I heard they were adapting it as a "psychological thriller" I was wary, because the story is nothing like that.
It might be; I have seen the trailer and based on that I would not be surprised. But in that piece, he describes Past Lives as being about "a woman’s struggle over whether to stay with her husband or leave him for another man," which it absolutely is not. Whatever the male lead's hopes might be in that regard, the female lead shows no interest in kindling a romance with him. That really casts doubt on his judgment about film, especially in a piece about lack of subtlety in film, given that "Past Lives is about a woman’s struggle over whether to stay with her husband or leave him for another man" is the most unsubtle take ever; it is what the audience might expect the film to be about, but in fact it goes in a completely different direction. I agree with him that it is somewhat overrated; it is good, not great.
I guess I'll have to disagree with you there because my read of Past Lives was essentially the same as Freddie's. It was obvious to me and my girlfriend that Nora is absolutely crazy about Hae Sung, has never stopped loving him, and would jump at the chance to pursue an actual relationship with him if it wasn't for her pesky husband and career. What was your read of it?
(I joked that perhaps the reason Freddie didn't like the movie as much as I did is because he's subconsciously worried that one day his Korean girlfriend's own Hae Sung will show up on their doorstep and throw his life into greater disarray.)
Well, they reconnect on Facebook 12 years after parting as children, when Hae Sung reaches out to her. After some time, Nora says that she wants to stop communicating "for a while." But she never tries to reconnect with Hae Sung. Twelve years later, Hae Sung tells her that he is coming to New York and would like to see her. Nora never once initiates contact, and as far as we can tell, she never would have.
And see this interview with the director in which she notes that the film was inspired by an incident from her own life:
My read of it was as follows. Nora still retains a deep affection for Hae Sung, as indicated by the fact that she's still thinking about him even prior to learning that he was trying to track her down on Facebook (evidenced by the phone call she has with her mother, during which she discovers that Hae Sung was looking for her). Over the next few months, they text each other constantly, have Skype conversations which last for hours, go on virtual "dates", watch each other's movie recommendations - in other words, do everything you'd expect a couple in a long-distance relationship to do. Both are scared of coming on too strong and getting hurt, so neither of them comes out and says exactly what they feel or want, maintaining a plausible deniability over the increasingly intimate relationship. Hae Sung refuses to commit himself by visiting New York even though he clearly wants to see Nora, and Nora says she's looking up flights to Seoul - do you really even consider flying thirteen hours just to meet an old childhood friend, with whom you've had no contact for twelve years and for whom you have no romantic attraction*? When Nora says she wants to stop communicating "for awhile", Hae Sung asks "were we dating or something?" When he says this, Nora feels like either she's grossly misread a purely platonic relationship, which is humiliating; or she's infuriated by Hae Sung's affected nonchalance and refusal to acknowledge the intimacy of the relationship. The combination of humiliation and/or anger cements her decision to break off contact with him indefinitely. Eventually both of them decide that they need to be "realistic" and not let a long-distance romance get in the way of their careers.
When they reunite in New York, their intimacy and chemistry is immediately obvious, including to Arthur (who barely even pretends not to feel threatened by Hae Sung) and even to passers-by (as demonstrated by the opening scene in which two unseen people watch Nora, Hae Sung and Arthur in the bar and speculate that Nora and Hae Sung are a couple, as opposed to Nora and Arthur). Nora makes no secret of the fact that she finds Hae Sung more physically attractive than Arthur (granted, only when prompted by Arthur). Certain lines of dialogue only make sense in the context of their being old flames (as when Hae Sung observes that Nora began dating Arthur shortly after they stopped talking, and Nora testily retorts that Hae Sung found himself a Chinese girlfriend around the same time - why would she care if she never felt any attraction to him?). When Nora and Hae Sung stand on the street waiting for his taxi, their body language makes it obvious that there's plenty that each of them wants to say to the other, but can't. After he leaves, Nora immediately bursts into tears.
To me, all of the above is entirely consistent with Nora being in love with Hae Sung but staying with Arthur out of loyalty.
*When Hae Sung later flies thirteen hours to see Nora, Arthur correctly infers that Hae Sung is crazy about Nora - the logic cuts both ways, to even consider doing the same, Nora must have had romantic feelings for Hae Sung, at least at this time.
Much of that true, but also not quite on point. DeBoer's claim was that the movie was about a woman trying to choose between two men. Yes, Nora has an emotional bond with Hae Sung -- they were childhood friends after all -- and she might even find him attractive. But there is very little evidence that she ever considered being with him, because they are of different worlds (a big theme of the movie is immigrant identity, and it is very significant that she left Korea at age 12, whereas he never left) and because, and this is the major theme -- she is no longer the person for whom a relationship with him is a particularly attractive option. Hence the discussion of that being a possibility only in a future life.
Interesting that your interpretation of the film was so different from mine, and to me the film never seemed intentionally opaque or impenetrable, like it was knowingly left open to interpretation.
I feel like GDanning's interpretation is very male-brain, for lack of a better term, of the issue. In which he acknowledges Nora is attracted to her prior flame but fails to understand the dance a bit. Stuff like 'If she was so incredibly enamored, why did she never reach out on Facebook' which is like standard female-brain behavior, but mystifying to a male or substantially male thought process.
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