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 -
I think I first learned about her when I was about 9 years old (American public school). They present her as fact, just like everything else in history class, so we all just kind of went along with it, which was often um... less than perfectly factual. As I got older I learned a more nuanced/mature view about the other famous American historical figures. But Tubman just sort of... never came up again in school, so I never really thought about her much until recently. Like you said she really isn't a major figure in our history, so there's no reason to think about her much except as an inspirational figure and culture war talking point.
As a long time civ fan I... don't love the choice, but don't hate it either. The problem with a history-themed game is there's only so many famous leaders to choose from, and the obvious ones like Washington/Lincoln have been done to death. If you want non-white woman as an American historical leader you have to really stretch to find someone who counts. I'm just glad they didn't try to shoehorn in a modern figure like Rosa Parks or Kamala Harris.
When they made civ2 back in the 90s, it was a much simpler game, so they could easily add in tons of leaders. They made the decision that every single civ should have 1 male and 1 female leader, which made for some odd inclusions. For America it was Eleanor Roosevelt. For most of the other civs it was either "the male leader's wife" or "a mythological/religious figure who probably never existed in real life."
As a game they should just do the ultrafictionalized portrayals of ahistorical figures. In Civ Alexander rubs shoulders with Cleopatra and Gilgamesh and whatever other big name just like its right out of Fate Grand Order. In the same vein Civ should not be beholden to true existence or even semirealistic representation. The Japanese turned King Arthur into 6 different versions of big titted blondes, Sid Meier can genderbend MLK into a beyonce lookalike.
That should be left to the Chinese, that's what they do with their unholy Genshin mods for EU4, they just throw down 124 Genshin wonders into a formerly historical game: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3213222906
More options
Context Copy link
Lancer Arthur >>>>>> Saber Arthur
More options
Context Copy link
Hey, most of the versions of King Arthur in Fate are not big-titted. Saber was introduced in the original F/SN visual novel with a mumbo jumbo explanation of why she was the same age as the teenage protagonist. So most versions in the game are teenage and not adult. Visually, the teenage versions are distinguished by not being big-titted.
I will not tolerate this slander against the sacred numbers. The grand repository of interpersonal relationships curated by the loyal stewarts of pixiv and nhentai have assured me that Arthur and Modred and (insert saberface variation n) all are glorious vanguards with terminal weaknesses against phalli of any sort, especially goblin or orcs or black men (which is its own pathology to be unpacked at another thread). Work that into the Civ 6 leader bonus table, Firaxis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thomas Jefferson as the American leader, expect it is this Thomas Jefferson.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link