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 -
In 2024, there are still those dismissing conspiratorial nonsense?
You are a much nicer and kinder person than I. I think Phillips is a hack, and the media had to collectively go to bat for and masturbate furiously over the idea that someone would shoot up the Joker movie. Because it was about them. They knew it was about them. The idea of the Joker being someone sympathetic, someone driven to the state he was in and acting out - there is a legit fear in the back of every bully's mind that the nerd they shove in the locker one day will show up at school with his crazy aunt's SKS and just go to town. If someone actually did it, they could go "see, we told you that the movie would inspire violence, that's why nobody should ever make anything like this!"
The first movie is extremely explicit; it is a tragedy that condemns the world for its lack of empathy. Joker is a monster of circumstance, and the reason why it resonated with so many is that people understood that feeling - that people only give a shit when you shoot someone you're not supposed to. For a brief moment, they hit on something raw, something real, and it scared them.
What the audience wants, after the arc that Joker goes through in the first movie, is 100 minutes of Joker murdering, torturing, and butchering his way through people. It's social status revenge fantasy. People want a John Wick for their era, not someone who kills over a dog, but someone who murders all those fuckers who don't give a shit. Studio doesn't want to do this because it opens them up to much more scrutiny and potential crazy lawsuits than whatever corporate trouble WB are already dealing with; it's one thing to make a slash/gore horror film if the reach is expected to be 50 million bucks worth of asses in seats, it's entirely another if it makes a billion dollars and teenagers are talking about how much they want to use it as inspiration.
Several explanations seem likely to me for Folie a Deux:
More options
Context Copy link