site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   31479 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 7, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I got roped into this by a lady friend. Yes, I really feel I need to make excuses for how I wasted two hours of my life on this.

#5 is the worst. The most eligible bachelor in the city, a Marquess with model looks, wealth and a seat in the House of Lords who is fawned over by the most eligible debutantes in an actual scene in this movie. He tolerates being insulted and emasculated by the protagonist before declaring his love for her. At which point she insults him again before telling him she returns his feelings.

#4 was pretty bad too. London police with clubs, swords and pistols unable to contend with the unarmed female trio throughout the film. Why didn't Grail use his weight to just throw her off the catwalk at the end?

I understand this is a Feminist movie, but every time I see women out-brawling men of twice their weight through 'martial arts' I'm reminded of the times I've seen women try starting fights with the wrong sort of man while drunk at the pub.

You can have women beat men in fights with the use of ingenuity, surprise and weaponry, just not hand to hand in a stand up fight. It breaks suspension of disbelief.

Another bugbear was Sherlock's obsequious thanks to the black judo instructor towards the end of the film.

#2 - I kind of expect diverse casting these days, but I really hated them trying to turn Moriarty into a sympathetic figure. She only turned to crime because of how she was treated by the pompous privileged 'real' villains; the white industrialist and Minister of Finance. She had to accidentally have the kind hearted industrialist's son murdered, but she didn't mean to because she didn't know Grail was a blunt instrument even as she used him as a puppet. Convenient that she is incompetent enough to allow her to retain sympathy when necessary despite being a criminal mastermind.

I think I'll skip the sequels.

I'd be interested in "Henry Cavill as Sherlock Holmes" movie, but only if they stripped out the obnoxious brat sister and all the DEI stuff. Of course, objecting to stuffing in black actors for made-up parts for DEI points means I'm a racist, see Rings of Power 😉

A black criminal mastermind? Even a female black criminal mastermind? Go for it, but that's not Moriarty. Invent your own original characters.

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