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 -
Based on your review (and having read Chambers), I would guess that the similarity is that both authors very obviously were aiming to write something that exemplified their politics, with telling a good story (or really telling a story at all) being secondary.
In The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet, you cannot go more than a chapter without Chambers going out of her way to inject her politics into the book in a very unsubtle way. Neopronouns all over the place is one example, but worse still is that Chambers doesn't just insert them into the world and let the reader draw his own conclusions. She actually has a scene where the main character has an internal monologue about how she calls some alien "xe", because she doesn't know how gender works for that species and using "xe" is just what Good People do when they don't know someone's gender. Never mind that a character who believes that wouldn't consciously tell themselves to do it (they would just act out their beliefs), Becky Chambers wants you to know how she thinks Good People should act no matter how awkward it makes the scene.
It's like that all over the place in the book. Throughout the whole thing, it's hard to not spot the signs that Chambers wanted to preach, not tell a story. And your review here gives me very much the same vibe.
More options
Context Copy link