site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33197 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I forget what it is called, but what does this community think about when a movie takes a character that was white or a male and makes it a different gender or race for the sake of it?

The key point there is "for the sake of it". Unlike others here, I see no problem with swapping done for a reason. Want to tell a story where women are our soldiers and men stay at home, adapting something like the biography of MacArthur? Go for it.

There's nothing wrong with heavily borrowing from existing work, changing some characters, and trying to tell your story. There are more measures by which a film is successful than simply if its world-building is rational when it comes to race or the accuracy of its depiction compared to the original work.

I object to works that are only done in a shallow manner, where the race-swapping isn't the point, but just gets done regardless.

Not every piece of media has to be for everyone. Let the traditionalists have The Northman, let the progressives have black Ariel. Ultimately, they must be judged for more than their ability to pander to the beliefs of their audience.

Not every piece of media has to be for everyone. Let the traditionalists have The Northman, let the progressives have black Ariel.

In principle I'm ok with this, but there are a couple of issues when the rubber meets the road.

  1. A lot of these things are zero sum. The Amazon Wheel of Time show is the only adaptation we're ever going to get. It'd be nice if we could have "one really faithful adaptation for the book fans, and another full of progressive politics for the woke crowd". But that isn't possible due to the cost, so we get only one and anyone who cares is going to fight over their irreconcilable differences in how the show should be made.

  2. An all white cast simply is not allowed in modern day entertainment. So in theory we should be able to have some shows (or movies) be full of forced diversity, while others are all black, and still others are all white. But in practice, anyone who tries to make the all white show is going to be immediately shouted down as a racist. So we aren't allowed to have peaceful coexistence, much as that might be desirable.

A lot of these things are zero sum.

That's an issue of copyright in this case, yes? There's a legally enforced scarcity regarding who can use Tolkein's IP. If there wasn't, the only thing stopping that show is a lack of care from the people who want it. I'm sure there has to be at least one or more fans wealthy enough to sponsor even a less-than-polished show.

And yeah, I get that it's easier to try and shift the culture to be more appreciative of maintaining the original work's details than it is to fight the economic power of IP holders, but you have to at least be willing to do something on your own.

An all white cast simply is not allowed in modern day entertainment.

The Avengers pre-Falcon? You had Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, and Hawkeye. Fury was and is largely a secondary character who just gives people plot hooks.

And even after that, characters like Falcon, Black Panther, and other non-whites played a fairly minimal role in what was going on. They had their moments, but they were not the main stars of phases 1-3, and arguably even after that.

For that matter, Person of Interest ran until 2016 and had its main cast as all white. Or is your argument that there can't be a show where everyone, even the extras, is white? I won't try to argue that. But that position is even more extreme than the type of shows people are complaining about where there's just more black people, not a dearth of white people in any shot. Hell, even Black Panther had white people in it (and not just as villains either!)

For that matter, Person of Interest ran until 2016 and had its main cast as all white.

Taraji P. Henson was one of the main characters in the first half of the show.

You're right, I forgot about that one, or just relegated her to a side character. My mistake.

The Avengers pre-Falcon?

That's not modern. The political climate has significantly changed since then.

For that matter, Person of Interest ran until 2016 and had its main cast as all white.

Most TV shows can't suddenly change their cast when the political climate changes, so you have to count such things from when the series started, not when it ended. Supernatural lasted to 2020 and its main characters are all white. But it didn't start in 2020.

2012 is recent enough that the idea of having more non-white people on staff wasn't some fringe idea. Like, even in the mid-2000s as a kid, I earnestly believed that we needed to include non-white people in more media, and that was an idea given by my public education. Person of Interest started in 2011.

Sure, if you want to argue that there are now people very conscious about the race of the casts in the media they make, I won't argue that with you. But even Avengers: Endgame was written in 2015-2016, released in 2019, and still predominantly features a white cast with no backlash.

Like, people got more on their case for relegating an LGBT character to audio-only than they did the lack of racial diversity in the Avengers, and I don't see people turning on it more publicly or the MCU in general at this point.

It's not an all or nothing thing. The push for social justice casting is stronger now than it was ten years ago, even though it still existed to some extent ten years ago.

And Avengers: Endgame had a white cast for similar reasons to a TV show--the white actors were cast many years ago when there was much less social justice casting, and they're being played by the same actors now that they were played by back when they were cast.

In regards to point two, I think you're looking at diversity in a vacuum. Diversity isn't just about what shows are released right now in this moment, it accounts for the past as well. We have plenty of all white shows historically. We also have plenty of shows where the cast is like 90% white as well. In this context, it isn't surprising that today an all-white show would be frowned upon for diversity reasons while an all black show would be appreciated for the same reasons.

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