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 thought the exact opposite. The protagonist only killed the nazi guy on purpose, and accidentally killed the golfer. You seriously think he was planning to murder his wife? He had no plan; the ending is basically the dog who caught the car. The guy is just a regular guy who lost everything, his job, wife, house, daughter, and everything he might have worked for in his life. When he snaps, he says exactly what he wants: "I'm going home." He's lost everything and wants to cling desperately to the only thing he knows as happiness.
The petty annoyances aren't about the annoyances, but only an emphasis that the protagonist truly has nothing - that not even a single person in the entire city gives a damn about his existence or circumstances, and won't give him an inch of accommodation or an ounce of sympathy. When you have a place in society, the system working as intended is somehow comforting, even the little annoyances. But when you have no place, they just deepen the wound.
The movie isn't a commentary on society or anything, but a story of the protagonist's downfall. He was a regular guy, with a professional job and a family, just like you once, who lost his place. Even as a violent maniac, nobody gives a shit and he's just a piece of trash to be taken out.
Absolutely. He has a severe temper and the reason she left him was because she couldn't tolerate his emotional abuse and the implied threat of violence. The whole movie is him lashing out at the world that denied him the things he felt entitled to (good job, respect). Of course he's going to lash out at the woman who (as he sees it) denied him a stable family. The fact that he abducts the wife and daughter at gunpoint only demonstrates my point.
Its social commentary may not have succeeded, but it was certainly intended. Quote Wikipedia:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link