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 -
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.
Bro... no.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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).
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.
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 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.
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).
But why does that involve pretending she did put that ending with a very specific purpose in mind?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link