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 -
You don't need to explain why anyone would hate or distrust Oppenheimer. He's portrayed as an offputting, sometimes dickish person. Really, the question is why anyone puts up with him.
You do have to justify why this guy would take offense and I think they do, at least on a character level (I can't speak to the history). Obviously there's political reasons (which is basically what Josh Hartnett's character is there to highlight in the first hour). But he's also clearly just a thin-skinned, Machiavellian narcissist and the movie is pretty clear on this.
They seed that pretty well. Oppenheimer makes an offhand (rude) comment about his lowly working class background and he flinches. He notably gets annoyed when Oppenheimer says he's "considering" his job offer. He keeps coming back to paranoid tales of people turning scientists against him or how they hate him for being the boss, he seems to have A Thing about the fact that he's a bureaucrat not a scientist. Every individual piece is justifiable because Oppy is an asshole, until it's taken together.
As someone with similar anxious tendencies - unfortunately without the Machiavellian talent - his reaction to the Oppenheimer-Einstein talk actually was uncomfortably legible. Especially the paranoid insanity of"people are reacting emotionally to something in this situation, is it cause they hate me?" . It's a pretty perfect example of that pathology.
You don't even need that final scene. It's basically redundant with Truman and his wife's harsh summations of Oppenheimer's behavior and character.
I found it harder to understand his character and decisions.
Maybe that was Nolan's intention but a biopic imposes more limits on shaping events to fit your narrative.
More options
Context Copy link