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 -
On the use of anecdotes and “lived experiences” to contradict statistical data.
Say for the sake of argument that you’re arguing with a left-leaning individual (let’s call him “Ezra”) on the issue of police bias. You both agree the police has a least a little bit of bias when it deals with blacks, but you disagree on the root cause. Ezra contends this is due to structural racism, i.e. that laws are created in such a way such that blacks will always bear the brunt of their enforcement. He further contends that local police departments are often willing to hire white men with questionable backgrounds in terms of making racist remarks. This inherent racism exacerbates issues of uneven enforcement, and in the worst cases can lead to racist white police officers killing unarmed black men. While you agree that black men are arrested at disproportionate rates, you claim the reason for this is more simple. Black men get arrested for more crimes because… black men commit more crimes. You cite FBI crime statistics to back this up. In response, Ezra says that the FBI data you cited is nonsense that doesn’t match up with reality, but rather is cooked up by racist data officials putting their thumbs on the scales to justify the terrible actions of the criminal justice system on a nationwide basis. After all, Ezra knows quite a few black people himself, and none of them have committed any crimes! And while none of them have been arrested, a few of them have told him stories of run-ins with the police where they were practically treated as “guilty before proven innocent”. In short, Ezra’s lived experiences (along with those of people he knows) contradicts your data while buttressing his own arguments.
Do you think Ezra’s lived experiences are a valid rebuttal here?
Yesterday I made a post on the partisan differences in economic outlook. The three main points were that 1) the US economy is doing fairly well, 2) Republicans think the economy is doing absolutely terribly, much worse than Democrats think, and 3) that most of this perception difference is because Biden, a Democrat, currently occupies the White House. I initially thought I was going to get highly technical arguments quibbling over the exact measurement of data. Economic data is highly complex, and as such, reasonable people will always be able to disagree about precisely how to measure things like unemployment, GDP, inflation, etc. It’s not particularly hard to cherrypick a few reasonable-sound alternatives that would tilt measurements one way or the other. For instance, how much of housing costs should be calculated in the inflation of consumption prices? Rent can be seen as pretty much pure consumption, but homes that are purchased also have an investment aspect to them. As such, the current inflation calculations use “owners’ equivalent rent” to account for this. Most economists think this is overall the better way to calculate inflation on this particular measure, but again, reasonable people could disagree, and getting a few of them on record saying “the current measurements are faulty” is an easy way to throw doubt on data. While I did get a few of these types of comments (example 1 , example 2), they weren’t the majority of the responses by a long shot.
Instead I got plenty of arguments about “lived experiences” which people claimed as disproving the data I cited. These weren’t quite to the level of “Chicken costs $5 more at my local supermarket, therefore all economists are liars with fraudulent data”… but it wasn’t that far off.
Don’t believe me? Here’s 9 examples:
WhiningCoil says inflation numbers are “literally impossible to square with the lived experience” of housing costs going up, or the prices of staple foods doubling.
haroldbkny says inflation has been unprecedented in all his “life experience”, and he hasn’t seen the wages of anyone he knows growing to match it.
Walterodim says it’s “incredibly obvious” that people have “personally experienced much sharper increases in prices” than officials claim, and that officials must be “cooking the books”.
JTarrou says his personal standard of living went down, and that he’s paying “a third higher to double on most normal expenses (energy, groceries, etc.), and as such my national metrics smell of “statistical bullshit”and that “economic metrics are bullshit statistical lies”.
JTarrou further claims that economics is staffed by people who “all drank the same koolaid”, and that while anecdote is small data, it’s the only data he’s sure “isn’t horseshit”
HlynkaCG says he “has receipts” and linked to a 2 year old post where his local price of cheap meat went from $5/lb to $6.75 (a 35% increase) whereas the national meat price index at the time had only gone up by 9.5% over that period.
SlowBoy says recent economic events have been like “receiving Biden’s twelve inches”, and that the data are all gamed by lying government officials.
No_one implies people are waking up to statistical lies by linking to a Tweet of someone who went to their local grocery story where the cost of meat has jumped from $10 to $16.
freemcflurry says he makes more money than he used to, but “things just feel shitty”; the prices of chicken breast as his local grocery store doubled from $2/lb to $4/lb, and there are now masses of homeless people in his city walking around “like zombies with festering sores all over their skin.”
To be clear, a few of these above examples don’t say that their anecdotes prove economists are lying, and are instead using their personal experiences to say how economic conditions feel worse, although they were typically at least ambiguous on whether they trusted their own experiences over economic data at the national level. On the other hand, there were some who were quite unequivocal that economic data is fabricated in whole or in part since the things economists say don’t match with how the economy seems in their personal lives.
Going back to the example of bias in policing that I mentioned earlier, I’d say that the vast majority of people on this forum would say that you can’t really use “lived experiences” to contradict data. Anecdotes aren’t worthless, as they can give you insight into peoples’ perceptions, or how the consequences of data can be uneven and apply more to some locations than others. But at the end of the day, you can’t just handwave things like FBI crime statistics just because you know some people that contradict the data. As such, it feels like a rather blatant double standard to reject “lived experiences” when it comes to things like racism, only to turn around and accept them when it comes to the economy.
The cop-out argument from here is to point at the people preparing the data and say that they’re the ones at fault. The argument would go something like this: “My outgroup (the “elites”, the “leftists”, the “professional managerial class”, the “cathedral”, or whatever) are preparing most of the data. Data that disagrees with my worldview (like the current economic outlook) is wrong and cooked up by my outgroup to fraudulently lie to my face about reality. On the other hand, data that does agree with my worldview (like FBI crime statistics) is extra legitimate because my outgroup is probably still cooking the data, so the fact that it says what it does at all is crazy. If anything, the “real” data would probably be even more stark!”
This type of argument sounds a lot like the controversy around “unskewing” poll results. Back in 2012, Dean Chambers gathered a fairly substantial following on the Right by claiming polls showing Obama ahead were wrong due to liberal media bias. He posted “corrected” polls that almost monotonically showed Romney ahead. He would eventually get his comeuppance on election day when Obama won handily. A similar scenario played out in 2016 when many of the more left-leaning media establishment accused Nate Silver of “unskewing” poll results in favor of Trump. Reporters don’t typically have the statistical training to understand the intricacies of concepts like “correlated errors”, so all they saw was an election nerd trying to make headlines by scaring Democrats into thinking the election was closer than it really was. They too were eventually forced to eat their words when Trump won.
While issues of polling bias can be resolved by elections, the same can’t be said of bias in our examples of racism and the economy, at least not as cleanly. If someone wants to believe their anecdotes that disproportionate black arrests are entirely due to structural racism, they can just go on believing that for as long as they want. There’s no equivalent to an election-loss shock to force them to come to terms. The same is true of economic outlooks. Obviously this is shoddy thinking.
The better alternative is to use other economic data to make a point. If you think unemployment numbers don’t show the true extent of the problem, for instance, you can cite things like the prime age working ratio if you think people are discouraged from looking for work. Having tedious debates on the precise definitions of economic indicators is infinitely better than retreating to philosophical solipsism by claiming economic data is broadly illegitimate. Economic rates of change tend to be exponential year over year, so if large scale fraud is really happening then it’s hard to hide for very long. There would almost always be other data you can point to in order to make a case, even if it’s something as simple as using night light data to estimate economic output. Refusing to do even something like this is akin to sealing yourself in an unfalsifiable echo chamber where you have carte blanche to disregard anything that disagrees with your worldview.
I took Economy 101 and the measure of inflation seemed like it was basically made-up. One could argue that the average modern poor person in a Western country is immensely wealthier than one 400 years ago due to great technological developments but 400 years ago every single food item was fully organic, non-GMO, non-processed, free of microplastics (perhaps including different types of pollutants)... A physician at the time probably had a live-in cook and nanny to handle all the domestic work. A lot of that work has been automated but you still see billionaires pushing buttons to call elevators for some reason.
Even if you go back a couple years. Somebody who graduated in 2020 probably paid roughly the same price as somebody who has yet to graduate and spent perhaps a full year of watching essentially youtube videos and being forced to wear a muzzle and other humiliating rituals.
Entertainment is cheaper? Are the 2020s versions of Lord of the Rings equivalent to the 2000s? Are the 2010-20s versions of Star Wars equivalent to the previous ones?
Does $1 million spent in real estate in SF or NYC give you the same quality of life than 20 years ago?
Good things those are all nonsensical to worry about eh?
Well this physician has all of those, not that I'm in the West. Might not be feasible on a UK salary, but if an American doctor cared, they could afford the same too. Especially if they're a double income couple.
Presumably because it's an utterly trivial inconvenience? Mechanical lifts were likely far harder to operate safely back then. It's not like it even saves them much in the way of time to tell someone where they're going versus pressing a single button..
I suppose it's really nice that we have access to both eh? Anyone not enamoured by the current Star Wars soyslop can watch the older movies too, and cheaply.
The amount of media available for consumption only tends to increase, and faster than you can watch it all.
You have a live in cook and nanny? What are you paying them, in comparison to your salary?
Well, my parents are doctors who are quite well advanced in their careers.
I think it would be possible for me to hire one personally for about 50 to 100 dollars a month assuming you want them full time. In comparison, my salary is about 600 dollars a month. I haven't checked the latest currency conversion rates, but that's a fair place to peg it.
With double salaries, it becomes significantly easier, not that I particularly prioritize it. Labor is cheap in most of the third world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No they can't. Last I checked, there is not a single available legal source for the original films. In fact, they keep getting remastered even harder unannounced as time goes on.
We're also rapidly moving into an era where physical releases are no longer being considered, and streaming services regularly take down even their own original content, or edit it after the fact such that the original version can never be viewed again.
The long term goal is clear. The bean counters are slathering at the fact that you'll have to pay a monthly for your entertainment, locked in an ever present cycle of consooming. And the thought controllers are excited that you'll be forced to be exposed to their demoralization propaganda because nothing else will be available.
I know it's not legal, but you should just download the Harmy's Star Wars Despecialized Edition. I'm so glad I did.
At some point I acquired a fan edit of the original trilogy that attempted to combined the highest fidelity sources available of the original version. I know there are a ton, and I honestly can't tell you which one I got. But I can confirm I've watched it several times and no longer feel gaslit about how I remember the movie looking and feeling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If I parse your post as you seem to have meant it, watching original Star Wars movies is just consuming, but watching reedited ones is "consooming". Could you clarify exactly what the distinction is between consuming and consooming?
Oh, clearly I consume the things I like, and you consoom the things you like because you suck.
I'm kidding, that's a really good question. To me, there is almost a level of abuse in the average consoomer relationship. Publishers almost treat them like paypigs. Just actively shit all over them, to see how much they can get away with. Kill off their favorite characters, utterly humiliate their demographic repeatedly, all while preaching that it's important to show everybody (except you) being heroic, moral and capable.
There is an element of disposability to it all. The whole meme, near as I know, spawned from a Red Letter Media line like "Don't ask questions. Just consume product, and then get excited for next product".. The full parody video is also worth a watch. Timeless classic IMHO. Consoom RLM, ahem what?
But it's just this endless spigot of low quality, disposable, formulaic entertainment products. You aren't meant to rewatch, there is barely time, the next thing is already on the way. We went from an MCU with 6 movies in 5 years for phase 1, 6 movies in 3 years for phase 2, 11 movies in 3 years for phase 3, to a quantity of films and tv shows on such a compressed timescale it's taking me actual work to add it all up. 9 movies in 2 years, plus 8 6-9 episode tv series?! Jesus fucking christ. It's almost threatening. Like, you enjoyed this franchise. You want to be in the cool kids club and not miss out on current thing. But instead of abusing 2 hours of your time a year, they are abusing probably closer to 100 hours of your time! And it went from the price of a movie ticket to 4 movie tickets and 12 months of an online subscription service!
Maybe it's all a false distinction. Maybe I'm consooming just as much when I rewatch my hard copy of Lord of Illusions every year around Halloween, or National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation during the holidays. Maybe my sense of cultural continuity, enjoying the same "classic" films my father enjoyed, and exposing them to my children as well, is a thin veneer over generational consooming. Maybe reading the original Dune every few years, and finding new things to appreciate isn't any less consooming than picking up the latest Dune novel and giving it a go.
Oh god I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel in my bones there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between consuming and consooming. Maybe phase 1 of the MCU was consumption. Maybe it was on the line of consooming. We're so far past that now in phase 5?!, there is only consoom.
I'd say the difference is personal, not in the product personally. You don't have to watch all the Marvel content. you can watch all of it if you like, or none of it if you like. You can watch the stuff that has your favourite characters and ignore the rest if you like.
I'd personally say the "consoom" prototypical example is from the 80s. Pretty much every Saturday morning kids cartoon was there to sell toys. Transformers, Action Force (or G.I. Joe), Visionaries, He-Man, Care-Bears, MASK, Rainbow Brite, My Little Pony, Thundercats, Gobots, Centurions and probably more. Compared to the shows I watched in the 70s they were much more product focussed I think. To the extent in Transformers that except the main characters, most of the side characters would be left blank in the story until they knew which toy was being sold that they needed to insert. Watch show, pester parents to buy toy, and repeat with the next new show and toy.
Though of course the Hot Wheels cartoon was in 69, so all of those were just building off that.
Possible, but politically unsound.
Is it? I admit I have not noticed that. No-one seemed to care when my answer of "Have I seen the new Antman movie? was Nah, I might catch it on streaming if I have a couple of hours when I am bored one day. Or when I hadn't watched Ms Marvel as I didn't really care about her as a character.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's a phenomenon where a show is created to sell toys but the writers have free reign to do what they want as long as the toys are included in the show. That has resulted in a lot of good children's programming despite the intent being to sell toys.
I'd also point out that it just isn't true that all Marvel movies do well. If some Marvel movies are good, some are bad, and the audience is able to tell the difference and stays away from Eternals, can you really call it consooming?
And I'm skeptical that Han Didn't Shoot First counts as consooming. It wasn't Disney that originally made that change--it was Lucas. Lucas is the creator (or at least a major creator) of Star Wars, and he didn't change the scene to sell more product, he changed the scene because that was his idea, as the creator, for what the scene should be like.
Personally I thought Eternals was a good movie, better than quite a lot of their other offerings, but there we go. I am not sure the product being good insulates it from the claim in any case. Even if I really liked MASK, it seems a pretty good example of consumer culture. It was created specifically to get us to consume more, and not just to see more of the show itself.
Yeah revisions to Star Wars are their own trope, literally - George Lucas Altered Version in this case. He seems to see revising his movies as technology improves to simply be bringing them closer to his vision. He even did it to American Graffiti and THX 1138, which I don't think are great examples of consumerism.
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