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 -
But there have been white celebrities hit with similar charges and gotten away with it, ie. the multiple rock stars who at least have been accused with statutory rape (or have admitted it). Bowie, featured in the article, is a good example: when he died, sure, there were some stories about how Bowie was actually problematic for this, but the clear majority of things written about him were about his genius, charisma, changes in styles, trailblazer status etc. On the other hand, when Michael Jackson died, there was comparably more stuff about pedo allegations, even though the courts had found him innocent.
I think the fundamental difference here isn't race, but simply coolness. If you're a famous athlete, rock star etc. you can beat the allegations in the court of public opinion; on the other hand, dweeblord extraordinaire Woody Allen and the unmitigated weirdo that was "Wacko Jacko" era Michael Jackson had a considerably tougher time. In recent years Jackson's musical talents have once again resurfaced as his main defining factor, too, since the Wacko Jacko stuff that was omnipresent when I was a child is no longer remembered as well.
Well, the more obvious answer is that there's more money to be made from King of Pop than Wacko Jacko, since the man himself is dead, but his music lives on.
More options
Context Copy link
Jackson was the King of Pop and defined coolness for some years. I think he had a tougher time because the way he behaved around kids openly (e.g. the existence "Neverland Ranch") made people seriously suspect the allegations were true, and messing around with little kids is more unacceptable to a wider variety of people than screwing underage groupies.
Same sort of thing goes with Allen; once you're fucking your girlfriend's adopted daughter (even if it's 100% legal), you trigger an 'ick' reflex and lose a lot of that star immunity.
Also, in general, Jackson's weirdness had eclipsed his coolness in public perception years before the biggest pedo allegations hit, which primed people for believing them and making them a huge part of his public perception.
I just remembered a figure who was - as far as I've understood - undeniably considered very cool in his time, yet is now remembered basically for one thing only: Ike Turner, remembered now chiefly for abusing Tina.
Ike Turner's situation is unique, though. He had been out of the public spotlight for 20 years when the movie What's Love Got to Do With It came out, which portrayed him as a serial abuser. He then responded in possibly the worst way possible: He went on TV and called the movie a hack job while answering questions in such a manner as to suggest that every horrible allegation in the movie was completely true. If he'd have just kept his mouth shut it would have been forgotten about completely, but he had such an erratic personality that he became fodder for comedians and sketch comedy shows. Ike Turner impressions became a thing. It didn't help that he trashed Tina's solo career as well and held himself up as one of the true greats of rock and roll, which is technically true, but he's not exactly on the level of Little Richard or Chuck Berry. He finally offered a half-assed apology on Roseanne Barr's forgotten daytime talk show in 1999 (he only apologized under serious pressure from Roseanne), and after that point the music establishment basically forgave him and allowed him to join in on all-star specials and the like.
Sure, but this whole thread basically consists off examples of white celebrities who have got away with shit and black celebrities who haven't, followed by "Yes, sure, but that's an exception... and that... and that... and that..."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Or as I put it, jocks and class clowns can get away with bad behaviour, nerds can't (even if they did nothing wrong).
Plenty of bad behavior happens among the Silicon Valley elite. And although journalists attempt to make hay of it occasionally (ew gross why is that nerd having orgies with recent high school graduates), most people shrug and look the other way.
As much as I find the statement itself reprehensible, I think there's a kernel of truth in an infamous quote from a former president:
High status lets people (almost exclusively men, in this case) get away with a lot, in part because people are willing to put up with more to be with someone high status: Christian Grey's romance plays don't work for anyone who isn't a hot, young billionaire. The quid pro quo is implicit, and rarely spoken about, although I seem to recall a few blow-ups in recent memory where it seemed part of the drama involved (by deceit or misreading) mistakes about how high-status one party was.
And nobody really complains because it's hard to declare that behavior with "groupies" (for lack of a better word) is categorically non-consensual.
I think that one is more because "consent" (which in reality means "the prostitute gets paid for her work", which is why women who work this way push so hard for "non-consentual" to mean "I regret it because I sold at a price that was too low/the
jianjohn could have afforded more, and State power should be used to fix my mistake") can't actually cover the cases where it's the women who are trying to put a notch in the bedpost as an end in itself (there's no real exchange of goods going on there, it's nothing but risk for the woman biologically speaking, and it devalues her product [so to speak/for those that care]- 'having fucked a rock star' must be a serious intrinsic reward, and when we consider the average groupie is more likely to try to impress female peers rather than older men at that age, it very much is).It's hard for a lot of people to deal with that because it's (correctly?) assumed to be a malfunction; grown women seducing boys is another one (for the same reason that it runs counter to biology).
It is odd. I had a classmate (in the honors college no less) that was very open and bragged a lot about have fucked Fred Durst of all people (this was 2003 mind you). She was bragging about this mostly to men as far as I could tell. It was very off-putting and it was hard to take her (and the honors program) seriously after that.
So basically, like any man would do if he got laid at 13?
I dunno, I have a hard time complaining about either of those, outside of those who don't ever get over the fact that happened (more difficult for younger people due to both youth and a lack of general opportunity for the sex they want); liberation is good, but sex is still protected/internal or private.
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
Coolness or fuckability seems like a simpler and better classification, though. Rockstars are cool/very fuckable, but generally aren't considered jocks or class clowns, see David Bowie for example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link