site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13d ago (text post)   33926 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 11, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Look at just about anything on television or any movie, music, etc. The resounding themes are family is a drag, parents are idiots or don’t care, and that the point of life is hedonistic pleasure which things like family and religion are drags on

Yeah "liberatory" culture and increasing wealth definitely work hand-in-hand on this.

Have you considered that those themes are popular because they contain a very large degree of truth?

Have you considered that having only the negative aspects displayed in media is pretty biased? I get that at least some families have negative aspects to them. Some families are neglectful or overly critical or strict or even abusive. But when looking at the mainstream media shows, I’m finding that you have to look pretty darn far to find a show that has a positive view of family life — present, active, competent parents who love and care for their children and know how to help them navigate through life. Likewise, it’s rare to find shows in which the parents are happily married and aren’t constantly spitting out one-line put-downs of their spouse and who actually seem to like being together. I would personally guess that less than a quarter of families are actually negative forces in each other’s lives. Maybe less than 10% are neglectful or abusive, maybe a bit more common to see people struggling a bit, though generally doing okay. Yet, to watch mainstream media, you have the opposite viewpoint. They show, at best, a Simpson’s style family that features a pair of idiot parents (especially a clueless dad) who don’t seem to like each other much and who are generally unaware of anything going on in their children’s lives or how to handle those issues.

I mean, I think a large part of this is simply the need to generate some type of conflict in order for there to be a plot for each episode. A happy family with two normal even-keeled parents assisting their kids with mundane life situations does not make for interesting TV.

As for TV representations of happy and well-functioning families with parents who are invested in their kids’ lives, I think Modern Family is a good example. Yes, the main dad is presented as a bit eccentric and gaffe-prone, but he’s clearly not a Homer Simpson level doofus, and he’s shown over and over to be a great father who makes a positive difference in his children’s lives. His wife teases him and gets mad at him sometimes - which, I think is realistic, and especially so given the sort of slightly-larger-than-life hijinks involved in some episodes - but she also very obviously loves him, and they’re shown to have a thriving sex life and a real love for each other.

I haven’t watched a ton of TV in recent years and can’t confidently comment on what’s going on in the current landscape, but it seems like Tim Allen’s most recent sitcom Last Man Standing also portrayed a happy and functional two-parent family.

Oh, you touched a third rail for me here, Bro.

Modern Family is satanic. It's a show that makes fun of loser normies to their face in such a way that they, the losers, not only don't get that they are the punchline, but they actually like it.

The Phil-Claire family (the most "traditional" of the three featured) is a weird reverse domme fantasy wherein Claire, without a job, enjoys the success of her pliable and doting husband, Phil, as if it were her own. Phil is apparently a Real Estate salesman of some skill - how else can they afford their home in that part of California? But his success isn't the product of a shrewd and hard-working businessman - he's a human gold retriever who sells houses because he's just so darn nice!

And Claire hates his niceness and quirkyness. She is often, obviously, embarrassed by him. But the living is good and, gosh darn it, she just loves that big old goofball at the end of the day. Even in the infamous "Godfather" episode, wherein Phil is attempted to be portrayed as a cunning genius, it's all tongue-in-cheek and sophomoric. Simply put, Phil offers no real danger, competency, or capability and lustfully pines away for his father-in-law's second bride, Gloria. He's also financially stable and a devoted father. He's in good shape. He has his hair.

Phil is also an awful father despite, you know, being presented as a good dad. His oldest daughter dates a notorious dufus (in whom Phil sees himself) and is speedily on her way to Stripperdom. If I remember correctly, the later season had a literal teen pregnancy arc. The middle daughter, Alex, feels both a lack of attention from her parents and a sense of dread that she is obviously smarter than everyone she shares a home with. Although the show had to pivot once the actress playing her developed, that character was hurdling towards Sarah Lawrence levels of political lesbianism. Finally, Phil's son, Luke, is a profound idiot and bonds with his father, mostly, during his most intense bouts of senselessness. Remember, Phil is a multi-millionaire somehow.

I won't cover the other two families. The two gay men adopting an asian female child is so on the nose that the show makes fun of itself for that. The Gloria-Jay dynamic with the wise cracking Manny is some sort of weird Frasier redux. The eternal craziness of the original mother (name forgotten) is Hollywood stating firmly that yes, once you are old and a woman, the world hates you.

Modern Family is not a sincere gesture towards the changing realities of family life. It is a cruel imitation of all the dark patterns of family mis-formation that Hollywood feeds back to the masses to perpetuate a system that's already failed, but still has viewership to capture. We're starting to see this with fat people in health ads and perpetual man-children dating stand-in mom's in Taco Bell ads.

These people hate you, they will say it to your face, and then you will ask for more.

These people hate you, they will say it to your face, and then you will ask for more.

To be clear, I don’t watch TV (I haven’t watched a new TV series since Game of Thrones ended) and I haven’t watched a full episode of Modern Family in probably over ten years. So I may be misremembering it somewhat, or maybe I just didn’t have the political consciousness I have now and I would notice everything you’re pointing out if I were to watch it now with clear eyes.

Bob’s Burgers is pretty good at this.

I mean, Leave it to Beaver managed. It seems obviously doable.

From "The Simpsons and Cultural Decline" by Free Northerner:

The Simpsons family is intact and stable, if slightly dysfunctional, and hold to functional, almost traditional, family values. They all love each other, however much they might bicker. Homer is a flawed man, often selfish or stupid, but still loving and caring towards his family. Marge is shown to love and respect Homer, despite her occasional anger at his flaws. Bart disrespects Homer occasionally, but it is shown as a clear deviancy for laughs; it also clearly shown that he does look up to and admire Homer. The kids fight, but at heart care for each other.

Compare those family values that to the three highest-rated sitcoms of 2013: Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men, and Modern Family. The first is about a bunch of (fornicating) nerds and their slut friend who spend the entire show snarking at each other. The second is about a cad, his divorced brother, and his nephew who regularly snark at each other; the cad is shown as cool, while the ‘family man’ is shown as a loser. According to Wiki, the third is about a blended family, a somewhat normal family, and a gay couple; the ‘modern family’ is so screwed up wiki needs a chart to keep family relations in order.

The Simpsons has a subtext of Homer as patriarch. A few times in the first couple of seasons Homer makes a family decision, whether it is selling the TV to attend counseling, buying a new TV, or choosing a camping spot, to name a few examples. The rest of the family complains or looks unhappy, yet it is not even questioned that, however flawed he or his decision may be, it is Homer’s place to decide these things. The show just assumes the father makes the major family decisions. Other than Duck Dynasty, would any modern show simply assume the father’s position as head of the home?

The show assumes that normal people go to church on Sundays and say grace at mealtime. Prayer is a casually accepted part of the show, as is religion. Does any major show today, other than Duck Dynasty, so casually accept religion as a normal, unremarkable, everyday part of life?

Other, less remarkable, moral lessons are also included. The pro-family/loyalty message of Life on the Fast Lane. How Marge’s sisters constant denigration of Homer is shown as negative, destructive behaviour. In one episode, Marge is casually referred to as Mrs. Homer Simpson.

All this is not to say the Simpsons is a font of traditional values, it is a liberal show, it does have some fem-centrism, and is rather subversive, but it is a good example of just how fast our culture is collapsing. Just a couple decades ago, the Simpsons was a controversial show that was held up by the president as an example of family dysfunction. Yet compared to today’s cultural wasteland, where broken families are common, disrespect and degeneracy are the norm, and the husband as the head of the family is, at best, a joke, it is very tame, almost traditional.

25 years is all it took. In 20 years, will Two and a Half Men and Modern Family be relatively tame and traditional?

If I was looking for healthy and natural family values in modern television, I would turn to anime, where girls still dream of getting married and having a child is still a blessing. The spirit of Shinzo Abe lives on.

Many things are true, but which truths we emphasize is all the battle. Yes, families can be a drag. They can also be tremendously-joyous sources of shelter and respite. Parents can be idiots. They can also be wise and protective. Whether the positive or negative aspects of a particular social relationship get highlighted often follows resource generation and self-interest.

Yes, families can be a drag. They can also be tremendously-joyous sources of shelter and respite.

Yes, there are those for whom families are a drag, and those in the families getting the joy by doing the dragging.

People do not universally experience the same relations in the same valence.

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