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 -
Sigh, slow news week.
Dexter and why meta-contrarians suck.
Dexter was a show about a serial-killer that aired on Showtime. It was pretty good, especially the early seasons. The premise, for those of you who don't know, is that Dexter was a "good" serial killer who only killed other killers.
If killers are bad, then Dexter was good because he reduced the number of killers.
You know who would really suck? A meta-Dexter who only killed Dexters.
... and that's how I see meta-contrarians.
"Let a thousand flowers bloom", the contrarians say, considering all sorts of weird and different ideas. "Actually, the rose is already the best flower and you smell bad" says the meta-contrarian, smugly.
Who are these meta-contrarians you ask? They are mustachioed hipsters of the rationalist community. They might dabble in some forbidden thoughts, but they don't take them seriously. Because, after all, the default hypthosis is usually the correct one.
And, yes, the default hypthosis usually is correct. But contrarians serve a valuable purpose, even if they are wrong more often than not! Because not EVERY default hypothesis is correct. And without contrarians we'll never find out which ones are wrong.
So I think it's important to give contrarians a lot MORE grace than people who espouse the default opinion. Meta-contrarians give them LESS grace. And that's why they suck.
I disliked the premise of Dexter (and Lucifer, and the other shows about how the bad guy is really a misunderstood blossom with daddy issues).
Dexter is not a good guy or an anti-hero. He's a killer. His foster-father tried to direct him into "if you must kill, then only kill this set of people" to keep him out of jail. There's a very thin thread holding Dexter from deciding "fuck it, I'll just kill normies for shits and giggles" because he is not doing this to make the world better or punish murderers the law can't touch or any sort of vigilante impulse, he's doing it because he enjoys torturing and killing and getting away with it. He works for/with the police, if he's able to find the evidence that Jim Jimson is really The Moonlight Marauder, he could turn over that evidence and have the courts deal with Jim.
No. He keeps Jim as his own victim because he wants to kill, and this is a policy of self-preservation drummed into him by the foster father: only kill killers, because that diverts suspicion onto others who might have reasons to kill them.
By extension, of course, we the viewers (and readers of the original novels) can enjoy the thrill of torturing and killing by proxy, but absolve ourselves of any guilt or responsibility or wallowing in sadistic impulses by "the victims deserved it, in fact they weren't victims, in fact this is justice".
I think a meta-Dexter who went around killing Dexters while they were still Kid Dexters, before they got going, would be every bit as justified as the Dexter who kills other guys who weren't smart enough to become, or didn't have someone to divert them into being, Dexters.
That's separate from "don't break the bruised reed or quench the smouldering wick" view about contrarians that you're espousing.
I think the show does explore that a little because when Dexter kills and disposes of a body then the case never gets closed because the serial killer just disappears and there is rarely any closure for those who have suffered due to that killer's actions.
There's also some exploration of the idea that Dexter's existence is bad to the extent he inspires other killers to act or attracts them to him to the detriment of those close to him and the city at large.
The big twist reveal in Season 4's finale made this quite stark.
And of course part of why the Doakes/Dexter rivalry was so compelling and fun is because Doakes has a damn point and has Dexter pegged almost from the start but can't get enough evidence because Dexter is that good at covering things up.
"You forget we work for the cops? We love theories! Spin me a story." At least the point was made that Dexter is acting extrajudicially with full knowledge that he could be cooperating with the system.
It is interesting that they never really went with an angle of "The system is corrupt and can't actually stop killers." It really was just "I'm compelled to kill and in order to have an outlet for that urge, I must find people who deserve killing" as the justification.
There needs to be a justification, because if the audience is enjoying watching torture and murder, and yet these are bad things, then we have to put it on the victims: well they are only getting what they did to others!
If it's bad for them to torture and murder because they enjoy it, then it's bad for us to get that same enjoyment vicariously, but if the show makes that point anyway visibly then it ends after the first two episodes ("you are bad people for watching this and you should stop") 😁
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link