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 -
I'm not interpreting this movie from a left-wing perspective at all - my self-described political position is populist distributism, and my personal view is that the left/right distinction is increasingly and effectively meaningless in the modern day, a relic that is slowly being replaced by the far more meaningful distinction between populism and elitism. Of course, the fact that I believe in HBD, oppose immigration in nearly all forms and am not a fan of Islam means that I wouldn't be welcome on the left anyway - do you seriously believe that a reading of the film that could uncharitably be described as "cuckservative pornography" would be acceptable in a left-wing context?
Irrespective of that, I think my interpretation of Children of Men is actually right wing - if you accept that Trumpian conservatism is right-wing, and while I'm very open to the idea that Trumpism is not actually a conservative ideology, I think it most definitely qualifies as right-wing. I make no bones about my distaste for the conservatism of the era, but I also think the movie is actually a perfect encapsulation of those values.
"Your people are not having children - this problem cannot be fixed and trying to do is a waste of time. But these other people are having kids, and if you give them your values then you don't need to feel bad about not having or mistreating your own children, because it is your beliefs that really matter and not your own posterity."
The only way I could make this a more pure summation of the conservatism of the time would be to somehow work "go get involved in forever wars in the middle east and support the outsourcing of productive industry" into it! My view of the conservatism of the time is that the Republican party was the manifestation of the values of conservatives, and a vehicle for them to effect political change and have their views represented, but that manifestation was co-opted by others who directed those desires for representation into little more than a cover for graft, venality and military adventurism which was not in the best interests of the party's base.
It might not be a coincidence but it absolutely confirms my own reading - how many of the immigrants conservatives were throwing open the doors for in those days were coming from socialist or marxist countries? The conservatives are given a windmill to tilt at, and the unsophisticated base (just to be clear I am not targeting conservatism specifically here - the base of both wings is relatively unsophisticated) eats it up because a significant portion of the conservative identity of previous years was defined by opposition to communism, socialism and marxism.
Yes, and the answer that Children of Men offers is the same weak cuckservatism that was crushed in the eyes of the public by the Trump campaign. "The ending of your bloodline and people is not something that can be stopped. The Key to Tomorrow is refugees and immigrants, and you should give up your life to make sure they continue to have kids in the hope that they remember and carry forward your ideology." The wages of this view is death - what more can be said? If you're a believer in HBD then the utter futility and fecklessness of this view is made even clearer by an understanding of the genetic foundations that underpin political beliefs and positions. Oh, look, the name of his dead child gets reused for the one he saved - what a perfect summation of the cuckservative position! Sure, none of your children will be around in the future, but you get to make sure that the people who dispossess yours keep using some of the names you used, and they aren't on the side of your opponents in the culture war. That is the end that those conservative principles were headed towards, and I think it is a wondrous blessing for the world (and, to say the least, the conservative base) that such a suicidal ideology has been demolished and a Trump tower built on the ashes.
The very premise of the movie is a giving up of hope for the future - the British are a defeated, dying people who have no hope of restoring themselves. There's no dealing with or grappling with the question of why, or any attempt to reverse this - their posterity has been given up and abandoned, and this is one of the background assumptions underlying the entire movie. They don't even get worldly riches or comfort in exchange for the trade! They're just dying out, and don't you dare ask questions about why or how - THAT is hopelessness, a refusal to even begin to analyse the existential problems facing you because you believe that there is no possible answer.
Theo at no point earnestly cares about anyone other than himself in the movie. He is not a heroic man who is moved to care about others, but a defeated man who jumps at the opportunity to perform the role and identity that he created for himself, even though the original motivating reason for that role is no longer present. He cares about Key solely to the extent that doing so allows him to revive and perform his own identity, and this is something more important to him than his own actual physical life. Self-sacrifice is a powerful concept and deserving of respect in the right context - but this is not that context. Unmoored and disconnected from his own dying culture, he gives up his life in the preservation of another because he has no real values and no hope for the future at all, viewing the act of giving up his own life for the sake of another as a noble deed worth doing despite the lack of context which makes self-sacrifice worthwhile.
More options
Context Copy link