site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 16, 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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This may be a cheap shot, but this is another of the increasingly many Freddie articles that convince me that he's bubbled, and most importantly, needs to get off Twitter and/or Bluesky. I know he says he doesn't have an account on either, but he's clearly reading both of them, and he's overly concerned about or invested in niche cultural or elite scenes that nobody of sense should be paying attention to.

For instance, just to spork a little bit:

This piece by Phillip Maciak on whether Saturday Night Live is too online these days is innocuous enough, generally not wrong. I find SNL hard to enjoy in general, these days; the series is the site of unpleasant tensions between its various historical and contemporary impulses.

Who is actually watching SNL? Is it important? Why is Freddie watching it, and if he is, why is a mediocre comedy show a pressing issue?

You’d think that we could, at least, agree that there’s such a thing as too much exposure to screens and the disorienting rush of online life for young children. But you’d be wrong. Here’s Amil Niazi for New York, and here’s Jia Tolentino for The New Yorker. [...] ther words, they soothe the kind of hip parents who read New York and The New Yorker, reassuring them that what they’re already doing regarding screentime is fine, and anyway, it’s so hard that probably everybody else is already doing it.

Surely it bears some gentle reminder here that most people don't read New York or The New Yorker, and that the tastes of this small, relatively exclusive group of Americans does not necessarily communicate more than the pathologies of that particular set?

In the 2000s there were so goddamn many “uh, selling out isn’t actually a thing” essays. SO many. Reams of them. Every writer you know was busily digging the grave for the concept of selling out, and pretending to be the first to ever take that stance when they did so.

Were they? Every writer I was reading in the 2000s? I can't think of any, and Freddie isn't that much older than me. I seem to remember there was plenty of mainstream entertainment still decrying the concept of selling out - heck, School of Rock is from 2003, and that was sympathetically ranting about the mainstreaming of rock music. Now, twenty years later, I think there are still plenty of people very concerned about selling out - I googled "site:reddit.com selling out" and there appears to be an awareness of what it is and a dislike for it. It may well be true that people writing for prestigious publications don't believe in selling out, but the key there might be the phrase "writing for prestigious publications". Of course the people working for The Man are going to defend The Man! So it has ever been.

But then online life happened, and we were stuck in these various networks and mediums that were fully the product of choices we made, where how we appeared to others was in every sense orchestrated to some degree. Instagram is the notorious example; few of us actually live lives that are composed of nothing but tasteful minimalism, inspiring visuals, and enviable brunch spreads, but that’s how everybody started to present themselves.

Everyone? Really? How many people are actually spending all their time comparing themselves to Instagram models? In this case I genuinely don't know. Statista tells me that about 170 million Americans, or a bit over half the country, is on Instagram. That's a lot. What are the usage patterns among those people? Are they all regular checking Instagram, or is that figure inflated? (It follows Facebook numbers pretty closely and it's owned by the same company - is it just the same account?) I'm not particularly informed here (I have never used Instagram), but my point is just that there are a few more questions I'd ask before concluding that this is actually as ubiquitous as Freddie suggests.

There was plenty of celebrity obsession in the late 20th century; you can certainly find critiques of it here in the 21st. And I’m going by vibes the same as anyone else. But I find it indisputable that in many ways our culture has essentially surrendered to the unhealthy elevation of celebrity to the pinnacle of all human desire. It used to be considered kind of trashy and embarrassing to read US Weekly, but celebrity obsession got laundered in under extremely dubious third wave feminism logic, and here we are in a cultural place where questioning a fixation on celebrity logic will get you called an elitist and a misogynist.

Again, I just ask... is it? Really? Where? By whom? The last I checked, the tabloids like Woman's Weekly at the supermarket checkout were full of celebrity gossip and were still generally perceived as trashy. In what world is he living where the same old celebrity garbage is not low-class?

Relatedly, consider crypto bros or hustle bros or WallStreetBets types. This whole genre of young man, who emerged largely from the Rogan-sphere but whose presence has grown and grown, may partially be defined by stuff like resistance to vaccines or a rejection of woke niceties or the pursuit of abstracted masculinity.

Once more time I will ask - how prevalent is this type of person actually? Is this a widespread phenomenon, or is this just Freddie reacting to a particularly annoying type of person on the internet? There is a very striking gap between the kind of strange person I can run into on the internet (including, alas, in places like the Motte), and in men I meet in real life or on the street, most of whom, actually, I do see with real jobs and families and realistic long-term aspirations. This is just anecdotes versus anecdotes, but my point is - don't let anecdotes based on a handful of personal experiences shape your picture of an entire generation.

Adults used to feel social pressure to not just consume arts and media for children; the vision of a 35-year-old with Star Wars bedsheets was once widely understood to be a sad one. Comic books were for kids - you could certainly read some, especially if you called them graphic novels, but you needed to contextualize your tastes and make sure they were included among other reading habits, adult ones.

How many thirty-year-olds do you know in real life who would not be embarrassed to admit to having a Star Wars bedspread? How many actually read comic books? It might be worth the gentle reminder that the comics industry is not doing particularly well. Movies are one thing, but comics qua comics just don't seem to be a cultural juggernaut.

Go on BlueSky and say “I think it’s good if pop fans challenge their tastes a little and see if there’s stuff the like in more challenging genres,” see that goes in contemporary elite culture.

'Contemporary elite culture' is the key phrase here. I don't know how the BlueSky hive mind would respond to that question - I haven't asked them. But even if they respond exactly the way Freddie says they would, that is a small, highly-selected-for group, and I would be wary about generalising anything about wider American culture from BlueSky.

And so we’re in a world where saying you don’t like Sabrina Carpenter is a hate crime and anyone who knows how to tie a tie is a representative of The Man.

I have never heard of Sabrina Carpenter and have no idea who she is. Is it possible - just possible - that Freddie is taking the habits and rhetoric of a highly rarefied group and generalising them to the whole of the Western world?

On a side note:

Hang on, Freddie was criticising selling out before, and now he's in favour of dressing respectably? Does no one else sense a tension here? Is The Man good or bad in this narrative? The Man is the one who says people need to dress nicely and eat their vegetables and read adult novels and not have bedrooms full of science fiction posters and video game figures; but The Man is also the person people sell out to. The Man is the one who defines popular music tastes and demands conformity with them.

Are we supposed to resist and rebel against The Man when it comes to music or art, but obey and conform to The Man when it comes to fashion or interior decoration? Doesn't that seem a bit contradictory? How do you have both at the same time?