site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33194 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've seen exactly one episode of this show, and it was the second to last one. And it was...okay! We got character moments--the orc nationalist was really acting his heart out. Galadriel was a huge bitch, but it seemed intentional rather than tone-deaf, and I actually enjoyed having a Lawful paladin dropped into the setting. Costuming looked pretty good, reminiscent of Peter Jackson without being identical. There were plot revelations and set-piece battles, and all of it was absolutely dripping in dramatic (expensive) visuals.

It would be easy to pick out things I didn't like, too. That whiny child is a moron who only lowers anything resembling emotional stakes. It replicated one of the biggest failures of late Game of Thrones, teleporting armies, in spectacular fashion. The MacGuffin is not just a weapon but a spooky key for the local...public works project? Really? And I'm sure there were plenty of direct contradictions to the Sauron/Númenor timeline of Akallabêth.

From the sound of it, I watched the only decent episode, and most everything previous constituted about 1 episode worth of plot points. There are about 5 characters who make any actual decisions (Galadriel, Halbrand, Adar, Arondir, and Bronwyn; I guess technically Theo). Elendil and Isildur get a pass, as it looked like they were actually developing their own subplot, but everyone else exists to populate the setpieces. The Harfoots and Magic Meteor Man are nowhere to be seen.

In other words, if that's all the consequence of the first five (?) episodes...I'm not surprised they were incredibly dull.

Galadriel is not a Lawful paladin, so I don't get who you are referring to.

Adar is indeed the one sympathetic character in this mess so far.

The visuals are expensive, but the rest of the show doesn't live up to them. It is probably personal taste, but I think the costuming looks bad and the armour is terrible; they have Celebrimbor decked out in a bathrobe I used to have about fifteen years back (mine was blue not green) and the villagers all get to wear mud, except Bronwyn who gets a nice bright blue dress because she is the only person who matters.

They've gone far beyond contradicting established canon to making their own shit up. Now we have Sauron proposing marriage to Galadriel - so what, his motivation for ring-crafting was because he wanted to make engagement and wedding rings?

It's (bad) original fantasy, with the names from Tolkien pasted on. If they dumped any pretence at "faithful to the lore", it would be better, but they lie about that, too.

The most offensive part has been the use of "you're a racist white supremacist" as the general response to all criticism. The show has proven it is not faithful to the lore and they lied about everything, but criticism means you're a racist white supremacist:

Payne looks particularly distressed by the topic. “The spirit of Tolkien is about disparate peoples who don’t trust one another and look different from one another finding common ground in friendship and accomplishing big things,” he says. “That’s the spirit we’ve tried to inculcate into every single comma and period in the show. That this aspiration would be offensive to people and enrage them … it’s very hard for us to understand. What are they protecting? I don’t see how people who are saying these things think that they’re fighting for good. There’s a line in episode seven where Galadriel says every war is fought from without and within. Even if you’re fighting for something you think is good, if you do something worse in that fight, then you become evil. I don’t see how people who are saying these things think that they’re fighting for good. It’s patently evil.”

So I am patently evil because I think Payne is a whiny little pissbaby liar who couldn't write his way out of a wet paper bag, has admitted to being a ten-year loser who couldn't get one script made and had to get J.J. Abrams to use his influence to get them hired, and has consistently lied about being faithful to the text and to canon. Well, boo-freakin'-hoo, you pasty-faced talentless hack.

(What? I'm just being Sauron, being complexly evil in my origin story as they invent a romance for him between him and Galadriel to explain why did Sauron go bad - he's an incel!)

In that single episode, Galadriel was totally a paladin.

  • Heavy armor and equestrian skills

  • Lots of followers despite actively pissing people off—must have a high charisma score

  • Generally a huge zealot

  • Pragmatism code of conduct won’t let her allies kill prisoners

  • Crusading to kill all orcs just because they’re Evil^TM

  • Not even worried about failing her saving throw vs. ash clouds.

Lots of followers despite actively pissing people off—must have a high charisma score

A high Charisma score would be represented by not pissing people off. Charisma isn't a magical force that compels you to like the unlikeable. It's what makes people likeable. That said, yes, Galadriel would be a badly done D&D Paladin.

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