site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28484 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 19, 2024

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.

11
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Screenwriters and especially studio execs are dimwits who know bugger-all about science, but have absorbed the notion (from watching Captain Planet and Ferngully as kids) that science is Bad and destroys the environment.

Questions like "why don't they ship the permafrost off to some place where it's safer to melt" and "why can't they buy the stuff they need instead of getting it from pollution" are more "they have no common sense" than "they know nothing about science".

more "they have no common sense"

That's part of "are dimwits".

And so have most of their audience.

I wouldn’t say stupid. It’s that most of them have majored in film and writing and have been working on only that kind of thing and most likely have never met working scientists, business owners, or anyone who isn’t involved in writing and filmmaking.

That kind of insular world creates all kinds of stupid blind spots. They don’t understand science or know anyone who does, so they understand science only on a popular science IFLS level where it’s either terrible and destructive, or it basically shits out gadgets and stands in for magic.

Of course they do the same with politics, history, journalism, and education too.

I think one of the biggest things holding back screenwriting is that insular perspective. Not only does it prevent people from making compelling stories about other subjects, but since everyone has the exact same thoughts about those topics, there’s not really anything surprising. Andy Weir is good at making stories about ordinary working people in space because he studied the physics and chemistry of space and because he likely knows a good number of blue collar workers who don’t think like the elites do.

This same industry will hire sensitivity readers to ensure that they're not making the slightest offense to the most terminally online members of favored groups.

I wouldn’t say stupid. It’s that most of them have majored in film and writing and have been working on only that kind of thing and most likely have never met working scientists, business owners, or anyone who isn’t involved in writing and filmmaking.

That kind of insular world creates all kinds of stupid blind spots. They don’t understand science or know anyone who does, so they understand science only on a popular science IFLS level where it’s either terrible and destructive, or it basically shits out gadgets and stands in for magic.

Of course they do the same with politics, history, journalism, and education too.

I think one of the biggest things holding back screenwriting is that insular perspective

From the purely academic g or IQ or whatever perspective, these people probably don't fall into the category of what people think of when they think of "stupid people." The mere ability to put together a script with a coherent plot and structure that fits a TV show (e.g. each episode presents some self-contained plot point that serves as a piece of the larger season-long plot) probably excludes them from that.

But as the mother of a fictional stupid person always said, stupid is as stupid does. And the behavior you describe is extremely stupid. If you're writing a mostly grounded script that involves some scientific mechanism as a core plot point and will be presented to a broad adult audience, then obviously getting that mechanism to be plausible to a layman adult should be a high priority. Which means checking the science and the typical layman's understanding of the science, so as to make sure that they're not falling prey to blind spots created by their insular perspective. After all, it's common knowledge that everyone has blind spots and that no one has a true grasp of their own blind spots; as such, if getting this plot point to sound believable to a typical viewer matters to the writers, then they would check.

They either didn't check or didn't care to implement what they learned when they checked. This indicates that they either actively chose to write the script in a way that made themselves appear stupid or just didn't care about it.

I think some people don’t know what they don’t know, and when everyone around them has similar blind spots it gets really hard to realize that you’re in one. For example, I’ve never been to Europe. Nobody I know has ever been to Europe, and none of my friends know anyone who has ever been to Europe. So were I to write something about life in Europe, the deficit would be obvious to people who have been to Europe, but not to me, and not to my first level draft readers (who are likely to be people I know personally). Nobody else sees the problem because they have similar low level assumptions about Europe that I do. Then nobody can point out that high tea isn’t really a thing, for example, or that London doesn’t look like brownstone buildings anymore or what have you.

Yes ideally you check. I try to check as well. But if you don’t know that you don’t know, things get missed simply because is sounds right to you.

So were I to write something about life in Europe, the deficit would be obvious to people who have been to Europe, but not to me, and not to my first level draft readers (who are likely to be people I know personally). Nobody else sees the problem because they have similar low level assumptions about Europe that I do. Then nobody can point out that high tea isn’t really a thing, for example, or that London doesn’t look like brownstone buildings anymore or what have you.

Yes ideally you check. I try to check as well. But if you don’t know that you don’t know, things get missed simply because is sounds right to you.

But as you demonstrated, you were able to predict all of these problems that would arise from your own blind spots. As such, if you did decide to write a story that took place in Europe, you are now equipped to at least avoid and possibly mitigate these problems. The biggest insight I'd say you presented is that because everyone has unknown unknowns, it follows that it sounds right to you should, by no means, be the bar by which you decide if it actually is right for your story. Knowing all this, if you still decide to just proceed based on it sounds right to you instead of researching with actual Europeans or Europe experts and, as a result, you fail in your goal of writing a story that presents a believable description of a story taking place in real-world Europe, then I would describe that as, at the very least, acting stupid.

Of course, a writer probably doesn't have the time and energy to do this kind of checking for every possible unknown unknown or even every plausible one. But if the details are as important as to be pivotal to the main plot point of the story, it seems stupid not to prioritize getting that right.

I mean I’m able to predict that I don’t know those things because in that case, it’s a known issue for me. I’m also not exactly up to speed on a lot of other topics, including things that I think I know. And if everyone around me has the same blind spots and misbeliefs about a given topic, the chances of something getting on the screen that’s obviously wrong to an expert, or even a layperson interested in the subject goes up quite a bit.

I’ll be the first to tell you I don’t know much about the law. Most people don’t. The problem is that because of the popularity of legal shows and crime dramas, most people think they know the law. Any draft readers will have the same ideas about the law you do. And so it gets into police and crime dramas where most people think that’s how the law works. Any knowledgeable lawyer or even anyone who’s been in a real courtroom knows that the courtroom scenes of most crime dramas are bunk. Jury trials don’t work that way, at all. The lawyers are not allowed to pontificate as they do in crime dramas. The rules of what kinds of evidence and testimony and questions you can ask are far stricter than what TV has taught American audiences about criminal law. It still shows up on TV every week.

I mean I’m able to predict that I don’t know those things because in that case, it’s a known issue for me. I’m also not exactly up to speed on a lot of other topics, including things that I think I know. And if everyone around me has the same blind spots and misbeliefs about a given topic, the chances of something getting on the screen that’s obviously wrong to an expert, or even a layperson interested in the subject goes up quite a bit.

Right, and that phenomenon of getting things wrong due to being around people who are similarly ignorant as oneself is also common knowledge. I'd wager, for instance, that most Hollywood writers would characterize Evangelical Christians in red enclaves as suffering from this (some of them might think "Oh, those poor ignoramuses might fall prey to echo chambers, but a smart cookie like me is safe," which would be a stupider act than everything else I've written about combined). If there are some details that are important to get correct in one's script for the sake of keeping the audience invested, then it seems rather stupid to me not to avoid this kind of echo chamber effect by intentionally seeking out advice from people outside one's social circles, ideally from actual subject-matter experts.

The rules of what kinds of evidence and testimony and questions you can ask are far stricter than what TV has taught American audiences about criminal law. It still shows up on TV every week.

I'd argue that part of the phenomenon here is that American media and American audiences have created a sort of fictional system of law shared within these various media properties that relies on just-barely-plausible suspension of disbelief that both the creators and the viewers have decided to agree upon in order to make things more entertaining. I categorize the legal systems we see in these shows in the same bin as the trope of a knock in the head being a reliable way to reliably make them lose consciousness for a few hours without any other health implications or sounds of explosions in space.

Funnily enough, one of the many pieces of criticism against the recent Disney+ show She-Hulk: Attorney at Law seemed to be how unrealistic its legal proceedings were. Perhaps they were no less realistic than what we normally see in legal shows, but maybe the show probably didn't respect the agreement of suspension of disbelief and just threw up there whatever was convenient for the plot, which was what lost viewers. If that's what happened, I think that would be stupidity; you don't need to check that the legal system in your script is accurate, but you do need to check that it is believable to your audience, which means checking what constitutes believability to your audience.

The calibre of people here is higher than your average writer. Plus we actually care about plots and rationality of characters. Writers might not care, they figure out the plot to fit whatever they want to say.

"Somehow Palpatine returned. Despite him apparently resurrecting from the dead, we shall spend absolutely zero effort thinking about how we might kill him permanently."

I find it darkly amusing that this is also largely how the writers of new SW stories think about their political opposition. "Somehow, racism has returned. Despite racism managing to defeat our almost total control of western culture, we shall spend absolutely zero effort thinking about how to actually resolve the problem, and instead double down on the same policies that failed last time."

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats