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 -
Didn't Emily in Paris get shit for its unrealistic portrayal of Paris? And that was just a random show. It didn't get 13 Oscar nominations which naturally puts more of a spotlight on things. As I said on reddit on the same topic: people hate Crash, a movie about fighting racism, more than worse movies because it won Best Picture.
My general impression is that the backlash from Mexico is organic and this gave people in America something to rally behind (the lead actress being incredibly unwoke, hilariously so, didn't help*). You've given good reasons for Mexicans to consider this film absurd and, frankly, I don't really have much sympathy. This movie is probably only being rewarded because it's seen as a moral milestone for white libs, so it is fair to note that it violates those standards.
When called on not casting Egyptians in Exodus: Gods and Kings Ridley Scott just said "nobody is going to go watch Mohammed Whogivesafuck" and went about his day. The attack is working on this movie because it's seen in a different light than a purely commercial project.
I hate sounding even a bit like Kulak but these discussions seem utterly pointless to me. A lot of norms around sacrality are basically arbitrary. The group that cares more, that is more intolerant and more willing to fight decides. In the absence of an already unifying set of beliefs you're just gonna have to fight it out.
Roman norms around sacrifice and emperor worship were sacred until they weren't. European countries have free speech norms (a non-arbitrary example) yet the fact that psychos will semi-reliably kill you for drawing Mohammed has set a new taboo. Meanwhile, other groups that theoretically have more power have allowed the statues of their great men and icons of their people to get torn down and tabooed even when it makes no sense.
I don't see any coherent throughline in a lot of the things that happen, but they happen anyway because one party imposes its will.
Things are sacred if you'll pay a price for violating them. This is why warring tribes smashed the idols of their opponents. It was a theological argument: either your god doesn't care about you, or he cannot do anything.
* Although, ironically, she's unwoke in a progressive sense: her hatred of religion seems to universal, it's just her bad luck that she's not capable of managing the cognitive dissonance that comes with pretending brown religions from manifestly more conservative backgrounds are somehow not worse than her native faith. That's a middle class Anglo superpower.
I think these examples misunderstand who actually has power and what they want. The will being imposed here is not that of Muslims in Europe (who would have no recourse if TPTB told them to pack this shit in and actually enforced this) but that of the urban/political elite who gain status by openly deferring to the wishes of violent third-worldists. Broadly speaking, they don't identify with the great men of their history and people.
That just pushes it one step back. How did the patriots lose control of their institutions to self-hating people with a totally different religion? Why can't they be claimed back?
The US is showing that some people are willing to fight back against inverted patriotism but a lot of this stuff happens cause one group of people just seem to care more. Their enemies would be perfectly happy going home and not worrying about the curriculum or other details that much. In fact, they may be so disconnected that the people they'd agree with the most seem insane to them
And, sure , let's grant that high capacity states could, if they marshalled all of their willpower and resources, rid themselves of all of the problems of political Islam. I think the idea that because it started relatively harmless and easy to uproot that it'll stay so is very naive though. At a certain point you're not using them. It's just how life is.
Cowardice is self-reinforcing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Emily in Paris is not a random (terrible) show. It is a worldwide phenomenon, to the point that the actual French president complained that they were moving it to Rome for the next season. By comparison, Emilia Perez is an oscarbait movie that everyone will forget in a couple years.
I stand corrected then. I tried to watch it but didn't stick with it personally.
Also: does Macron always do this, take such a direct, visible hand in cultural products like that? IIRC he interfered in Mbappe's transfer saga too.
Maybe. But right now it jumped into the public's view and it's in the way of some very competitive people getting Oscars.
Don't worry, it is, by all accounts, not a good show.
Not being French, I can't tell for sure, but he's 100% an attention whore drama queen: look no further than whatever is going on in French politics right now: He tried to make a 350 IQ 5D chess move, and ended up furthering the crisis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link