site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25089 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 16, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I always found the decision to write the Slate article rather weird. It felt like grabbing the spotlight for herself. If I were her*, if the story features the guy as a creep, then it clearly isn't my story. After all, he wasn't a creep. It's a weird reflex insecure people carry to show their whole ass under broad accusations, like people getting upset at someone being called dumb or ugly because it is mean to dumb or ugly people, as though anyone who isn't wildly insecure would group themselves under the categories "dumb" or "ugly."

Alternative hypothesis: the story is actually deliberate propaganda against a particular type of guy (and against a very specific guy, once you're familiar with the details), and arguably even a particular type of girl, and it's reacted to accordingly. It's a little bit like someone wrote a ficitional story about Jews murdering Christian babies, and drinking their blood, and when understandably people got upset you counter with "Well, do you murder Christian babies and drink their blood? No? So the story is not about you". Bonus points for the characters closely resembling a particular Jewish family.

Or to take a less inflammatory example, given tomes upon tomes written about various types of representation, and how they're problematic, it seems par for the course to point out the problematic nature of this particular representation. Especially since, again, it seems to closely resemble very specific people.

While certain details made it identifiable to those close with Nowicki, Roupenien did change many details; Nowicki's argument is that Roupenien did not change enough of them.

And when all her friends are swarming her with text messages asking if this story is about her, maybe she has a point?

That's an...odd...response to the supposed invasion of your privacy. Taking what would have been a private fun fact and making it into the first thing any new employer, romantic partner, etc will learn about you.

That's where the story being propaganda comes in. Maybe she didn't like the looks she was getting when dating the guy, and she doesn't like the idea of the story making people treat other women the way she was treated?

The interesting thing about the story is the internal monologue of the hypo-agentic and anhedonic protagonist, not any particular plot point lifted from Nowicki's life or not, which most anyone would understand bore only a vague similarity to any real person.

For what it's worth, regardless of the (dead) author's or most people's interpretation of Cat Person, I found it a very strong and interesting work of fiction. Not so much as a critique of men along the lines of "the guy was a creep all along" or whatever, but as a critique of the female protagonist's mindset.

But not only was "the guy was a creep all along" how the "dead author" meant it, it's how most of the audience saw it as well.

To me it is perfectly legitimate to write a story like Cat Person, in which you hear about a scenario and then imagine how you would feel if you were in that scenario.

Is that what she did? Or did she write a story where her ex is a creep, as some kind of release? Because it definitely doesn't look like she just put herself in Alexis' shoes, she also had the male character behave in very particular ways, and of course she had to finish the story with him texting her "whore", just so it's clear he's a bad guy. Writing as release might still be valid, but see below:

To me it is perfectly legitimate to write a story like Cat Person, in which you hear about a scenario and then imagine how you would feel if you were in that scenario. I'd imagine that is one of the most common ways that authors create stories, they hear about a scenario and then they insert themselves into it, how would I feel how would I react what would have made me do something like that. From Lord of the Flies to For Whom the Bell Tolls to The Killer Angels. It's.a long tradition. Jean Ross' Family still takes the time to critique the classic musical Cabaret every time there is a big production of it, "Our Grandmother Wasn't a Whore!" is always good for one or two headlines in a few midwit newspapers; the controversy is the primary reason anyone ever talks about Jean Ross anymore, which lead me to read more about her fascinating life. Seizing the controversy for oneself is seizing a slice of fame from a great work for oneself.

Except this being nothing new doesn't automatically mean the authors are the ones who are right. This was even a point of drama in The Haunting of Hill House, the family was salty at their brother who made bank from writing a story about a traumatic even they all went through. Are their grievances automatically invalid because artists gonna art? I'm not convinced. Apparently neither was the author of the Haunting, since he thought it would make for a good point of drama.

Alternative hypothesis: the story is actually deliberate propaganda against a particular type of guy (and against a very specific guy, once you're familiar with the details), and arguably even a particular type of girl, and it's reacted to accordingly. It's a little bit like someone wrote a ficitional story about Jews murdering Christian babies, and drinking their blood, and when understandably people got upset you counter with "Well, do you murder Christian babies and drink their blood? No? So the story is not about you". Bonus points for the characters closely resembling a particular Jewish family.

I think a complication in this metaphor is that, as far as I know, Jews murdering Christian babies and drinking their blood was never once actually a thing that happened. But this archetype of creepy man is very much a real thing, and I know of a few guys at the school I went to like that. I am sympathetic to your point, because when the archetype in fiction and also the blogosphere becomes really common, it makes it seem like roughly 50% of guys are like that, and that's like an attack on all guys. But there are a real rough 1% of guys who really are just like that and I think it is important for people, and especially women, to be aware of and slightly on guard against that archetype.

If someone would write story inverting reality, with enough details that it would identify me as being involved - then I would at least try to make clear that they are malicious liars.

This was even a point of drama in The Haunting of Hill House, the family was salty at their brother who made bank from writing a story about a traumatic even they all went through. Are their grievances automatically invalid because artists gonna art? I'm not convinced. Apparently neither was the author of the Haunting, since he thought it would make for a good point of drama.

The Haunting of Hill House was written by Shirley Jackson? Or are you talking about the recent TV series?

TV series. Wanted to read the book but never got to it. I thought the adaption is fairly faithful?

There are two movie adaptations that I know of; the first is a 60s black and white movie which scared the crap out of me when I watched it on TV as a kid, and then a late 90s remake which I haven't seen, but which seems to have taken some liberties.

Looking at the Wikipedia article on the series, it does seem to be loosely adapted - they made the characters into siblings of a family which moved into the house, instead of the original SPOILER idea that they were a group recruited for a paranormal study, hosted in a haunted house. It seems to have mashed together the original builder of the house with the modern family and made a lot of other changes.

The 1963 movie seems to be the most faithful adaptation.

I haven't seen the TV series, but based on this review it seems like a very loose adaptation. Shortly after reading the book I watched the 1963 adaptation The Haunting and thought it was very close to the plot of the novel (but not as scary). I don't read a lot of horror but the novel is one of the better horror novels I've read, worth checking out.

t's a little bit like someone wrote a ficitional story about Jews murdering Christian babies, and drinking their blood, and when understandably people got upset you counter with "Well, do you murder Christian babies and drink their blood?

Isn't this more like the argument had over and over in fantasy and sci-fi circles, where any "greedy race of traders and merchants" (Trek's Ferengi, HP's Goblins) gets called antisemitic, and any violent and stupid race gets called racist against blacks/arabs/whatever? I disagree with it there, I disagree with it here.

I don't really get the obsession on all sides with the ending of the story. It strikes me as pretty milquetoast, neither providing material for a harrowing psychological thriller nor an automatic indictment of character. He used a bad word to talk to a girl who dumped him, that's pretty normal behavior. Hell, my best friend and I used to get drunk and make free online texting numbers just to bother his ex-gfs, when inevitably the new boyfriend would text back threateningly, we would issue a florid challenge to fistfight and then give him an address at an empty house we'd find for sale online in the wrong town. Only two of them were ever dumb enough to actually show up, then text the fake number to call his putative opponent a pussy. It was great fun, normal human behavior.

  • -11

It was great fun, normal human behavior.

Bro... no.

Hell, my best friend and I used to get drunk and make free online texting numbers just to bother his ex-gfs, when inevitably the new boyfriend would text back threateningly, we would issue a florid challenge to fistfight and then give him an address at an empty house we'd find for sale online in the wrong town. Only two of them were ever dumb enough to actually show up, then text the fake number to call his putative opponent a pussy. It was great fun, normal human behavior.

This seems pretty douchy and childish.

Yes. It was. Which can be great fun and is normal human behavior (particularly for a 20 year old male), not indicative of a deep psychological or moral flaw.

Which is my point, people do flawed bad things all the time every day.

not indicative of a deep psychological or moral flaw

I disagree (though maybe it depends on what you meant exactly by "make free online texting numbers just to bother his ex-gfs" - but my assumptions are that it was going into things qualifying as deep moral flaws)

You consider making annoying but harmless pranks against people you personally dislike as deep moral flaws?

"make free online texting numbers just to bother his ex-gfs" does not sound like "annoying but harmless pranks" but rather like "nasty crude harassment"

(possibly it was actually good-humoured prank but "when inevitably the new boyfriend would text back threateningly, we would issue a florid challenge to fistfight" suggests otherwise)

I recall it being more good humored prank, but I'm not going to get into a blow by blow.

I'm thinking that maybe I have a view of morality that is less woke, in the sense that I think people can do bad things and still be fine people generally, and maybe that's where I view the story differently. The prigs who read the antagonist use the word "whore" and say "oh he was an awful man all along" strike me as fundamentally silly. If I was talking to a friend of mine and he told me he texted his ex calling her a whore, I'd tell him that was a dumb thing to do and to get out of his feelings, then I'd get him another beer. I wouldn't stop talking to him because he was now outed as a misogynist, or whatever.

Things I've cut friends off over: borderline sexual assault, stealing from their employer, mistreating their wife, substance abuse issues they refuse to acknowledge. Not using a no-no word or being mean and petty to an ex.

I agree with you that I wouldn't cut someone out of my life just because they called an ex a rude word when they were upset. But I wouldn't just tell him it was a "dumb thing to do" - I'd tell him he was being shitty and that he ought to apologise to the woman in question.

in the sense that I think people can do bad things and still be fine people generally

oh, I fully agree with this one (if someone would claim that they never do bad things - or would claim this about others - I would avoid them as deeply troubled)

Isn't this more like the argument had over and over in fantasy and sci-fi circles, where any "greedy race of traders and merchants" (Trek's Ferengi, HP's Goblins) gets called antisemitic, and any violent and stupid race gets called racist against blacks/arabs/whatever? I disagree with it there, I disagree with it here.

Call me crazy, but I get the impression that especially the DS9 Ferangi were very deliberately taking inspiration from Jewish culture (not in an antisemitic way, though).

I don't really get the obsession on all sides with the ending of the story. It strikes me as pretty milquetoast,

Sure, but the point is that the author knew how the intended audience is going to react to it (given how ubiquitous pop-feminism was/is), and the critics knew that's why she put it there.

Call me crazy, but I get the impression that especially the DS9 Ferengi were very deliberately taking inspiration from Jewish culture (not in an antisemitic way, though).

Huh, I always thought the joke was that they were runaway capitalists, a parody of 20th century Reagan-consensus Americans. We see in the eternal Jew the flaws we hate in ourselves? (Ferengi itself is an antique Persian derived word used to refer to European traders)

Sure, but the point is that the author knew how the intended audience is going to react to it (given how ubiquitous pop-feminism was/is), and the critics knew that's why she put it there.

Sure, but then let's push back on that attitude of simpering prissiness rather than give into it. In the same way that the reaction of Ferengi are greedy >>> They Must Be Jews says more about the reader than it does about the writer.

Huh, I always thought the joke was that they were runaway capitalists, a parody of 20th century Reagan-consensus Americans. We see in the eternal Jew the flaws we hate in ourselves? (Ferengi itself is an antique Persian derived word used to refer to European traders)

I may be out of line as I'm hardly an expert on Jewish culture, but the scenes with the Grand Nagus, and Quark's and Rom's mother felt like they're playing with some stereotypes (again in a harmless gentle ribbing, or even heartfelt appreciation kind of way).

Sure, but then let's push back on that attitude of simpering prissiness rather than give into it. In the same way that the reaction of Ferengi are greedy >>> They Must Be Jews says more about the reader than it does about the writer.

But why does that involve pretending she did put that ending with a very specific purpose in mind?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats