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 -
Ooh, looks like Netflix has released "Cuties: Boy Edition". I guess they understand their audience pretty well, and this time they even got free advertising from at least one world leader, so clearly they're doing something right.
We mostly see our dashing police walking intensely towards things while talking about whatever. They don't talk about the plot because there is no plot; they're just cameramen so the audience can see the porn. In the most intense episode, their existence is only implied.
With that in mind, let's look critically at the antagonist. He's cute, but not cute enough that the audience would start feeling anything positive towards him or anything uncomfortable like that (contrast, say, Will in S1/S2 of Stranger Things, purpose-built to be that way). He's made up to look a bit younger in the third episode, though that can be excused by what happens to him in the first, and the audience needs to understand that he's barely legal/fair game. If he acted or looked any younger that would be a harder sell, though this does happen a bit later on.
So let's get into it. We start off pretty strong in the first episode- men with guns sexually humiliate him (or rather, he humiliates himself) in child-coded ways, first by pissing himself and then what happens at the station. Him being forced to strip naked in front of his father (y'know, in case he's hiding a bruise under his cock), and his reaction thereto, is pure fanservice, especially since it's revealed about 15 minutes later that his doing so is completely superfluous to the case; they cut to the video tape and treat it as an open and shut case, which it is.
The second episode is more of the plot happening before our brave cameramen- we see a Stunning and Brave Black Woman #Resisting (£Resisting?) the police [so your vanilla oppression scene], they talk about how the place smells like masturbation (guess they were out of teen spirit that day), and they track down the guy with the Unloicensed Knoife (apparently the antagonist had to borrow one, but I think that was mostly padding). Most of the plot-relevant details are not explained; we're just supposed to know who Andrew Tate is and what incels are. Also, haha, Boomer tech illiteracy- good thing our Ace Detective didn't send the horny heart to his wife, that sure would have been awkward.
The third episode is where the real action happens. The antagonist is made up to be a bit younger in this scene and acts significantly more childish, too (we were told he actually had half a brain, but I guess that was just to set him up as a credible threat; I would have expected a freakout over needles in the first episode far before any of what happens in that room). We see that, ultimately, all the woman has to do to take [sexual] advantage of him such that he commits to her is to bring him some candy sprinkles, wear a lower cut top, and park those tits nice and close (despite her likely being "too old", responds our antagonist to some blurry photos). Maybe he'll pick up a chair once or twice, but he will ultimately commit.
I spent the last 24 hours watching true crime documentaries on 2x before I watched this and couldn't help but notice that nobody in actual interrogations (even when they're interrogating particularly young criminals, and the young criminals themselves) does this. They don't tend to be that sexually charged either. This is 100% "womanly wiles" territory, and takes place in the guise of a therapy-but-not-really session.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Actually, the same is true for said nemesis; my read is that she felt a little guilty about having enjoyed that exchange, which is (I believe) why she has to calm herself down at the end, but maybe I'm reading too hard into it.
The fourth episode is just "everything bad in this show happened because of Men and Their Tempers, daughters are better than sons, the computer makes them evil". Slow-pitch by comparison.
No climax (beyond "I'm changing my plea"), no point (beyond "incel bad"), and no meaning (the means, motive, and opportunity to the driving event are not dealt with in any detail and the victim is a Mary Sue); sounds like a pretty typical yaoi to me.
More options
Context Copy link