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 -
Is it rational to care or even know about propaganda in otherwise good media?
Imagine a person who doesn't know anything about Soviet Union and the concept of communism that decides to watch some movies from there. In the process of watching soviet cinema he will encounter not only direct propaganda of communism and Soviet Union itself but something more subtle, small, background details that show when and where this film was made and that it passed the eye of always hard-working socialist censors.
I think some already guessed where it goes. I was this person in relation to modern American progressive liberal views that are so common in Hollywood and general intelligentsia of United States. Without knowledge of internal us politics your mind just skips over all of the deliberately put messages in movies: specifically chosen race and sex of good characters and of evil ones, non spoken but painfully obvious and politically compliant moral of the story, slogans and signs hidden in plain sight. Many parts of it can be seen without the deep dive(the existence of same-sex relationships is the big one), in Russian, word "повестка"(agenda in English) come to represent all of the most obnoxious signs of progressive propaganda(or again just the existence of gay characters, there are living strawmans and steelmans like in any other social group), but majority of local and subtle things go over the public heads.
Of course there is a big difference here - modern progressive censorship and propaganda is not(at least not directly state-based) it emerges from a self organizing space of intellectuals who are very close to each other ideologically, but this is not very important to me personally if the outcome in the media that we consume is the same. From society-level point of view I am very grateful that there is little to no threat of state censorship in the US and America became the global cultural hegemon, not China or USSR/BigAutoritarianRussia.
And after I started noticing propaganda I saw small signs of it in almost every high-budget product. I am not only talking about the cinema here. To the point that I started to asking myself this question: "Was I wrong in learning this new information about american coming and goings if this information is useless to me and at the same time genuinely negatively affected my ability to enjoy modern media?"(As an example I can bring up Spiderverse films). Is it better to just ignore other cultures' political context to peacefully enjoy their best fruits? Knowledge is valuable by itself but the question is how much?
Yes, it is rational to care about propaganda in movies. From "The Logical Fallacy of Generalization from Fictional Evidence":
And from "Boycott people who hate you":
And that's just for adults who are aware they are watching propaganda. As @WhiningCoil says, it is ten times worse if you have children. From "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out":
The Amish understand this very well, which is why they do not have televisions:
I don't have children (yet; growth mindset!), but if I did, I would endeavor to make sure they did not have access to over-the-air television or streaming media like Netflix. Rather, I would take advantage of the decades of existing work that @quiet_NaN points out and provide them with a library of titles composed of classic Disney movies (Snow White, Pinocchio, etc.), Don Bluth Movies (The Land Before Time, The Secret of NIMH, etc.), and Studio Ghibli movies (Laputa: Castle in the Sky, Spirited Away, etc.). As Gwern says, "Culture Is Not About Esthetics".
More options
Context Copy link
I think it makes a world of a difference. Contrary to common belief, Netflix, Disney and Marvel is not an exhaustive list of the cultural palette available in the western world. While it is true that the big productions cater to the wokes, you have also access to countless hours of movies which were made in the last century and are not particularly woke by modern standards. It is not like TNG is blacklisted because it does not have enough openly gay characters. Even in recent and big productions, I think that there are quite a few which are not terribly filled with woke ideas. I don't think there was a very high concentration of gay characters or racial justice themes in either "The Man in the High Castle" or "Game of Thrones". I don't think either got Cancelled over not being on message enough.
Personally, I can deal with some catering to the wokes just fine. Season one of "The Last of Us" had this rather sentimental gay couple episode, but I don't think I would have liked it better if it was a straight couple. "American Gods" had that "Vulcan's town of cracy gun nuts" episode, which basically hit you over the head with their political message, but whatever.
For award-winning SF&F literature, I think nowadays you earn points by being good and by being woke. The implication there is that among award winners, there could be a negative statistical correlation between being woke and being good. All else being equal, I would thus rather read the book whose Wikipedia "critical reception" section does not mention it being praised for racial justice or LGBT themes in the first sentence, even though I have enjoyed stories with non-binary main characters before.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think this is actually that different from the situation of normie grill pill Americans trying to enjoy franchises they grew up with, but where the messaging has taken over the characters and story.
The main thing is that, recently, it isn't "otherwise good."
But also, I don't think most people are able to set their BS thresholds consciously.
Personally, I'll put up with a fair bit if the actors, costuming, makeup, and lighting are good. Still, I'm about to give up on Neil Gaiman adaptations, because while I enjoy the aesthetics, the LGB relationships have become just about the whole thing. Also, the Strong Females of Marvel (still enjoying Loki though; hope they don't pull anything extra dumb in the last episode...). The nonsensical ethnicities in Wheel of Time would doubtless be obvious to anyone, anywhere, but I'm basically willing to overlook it, because this season the acting, music, and costuming were basically good (and as a non book reader, the plot was intelligible, all things considered, unlike season 1). Which I think is more the median American position -- it's forgivable to mess with races and sexes a bit in the name of The Culture, as long as you're actually making an effort in general.
What did you make of Rings of Power? I only watched the first episode myself, and didn't go back to it because I was told they weren't making the effort in general to faithfully reproduce Tolkien.
I ignored it altogether, and didn’t try to watch it. I also didn’t try to watch the last two hobbit movies, because they seemed bloated. We did just rewatch the 1970s animated Hobbit with the kids this week, which was fun.
That was a mistake. Hobbit 2 was close to greatness, and 3 was tolerable. Both were considerably better than 1. It isn't the book, but it was worth it.
Good to know, maybe I'll give them another chance. I liked the 2001 - 2003 LotR trilogy a lot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The greatest adventure - is what lies ahead. Today and tomorrow are yet to be said.
Great soundtrack.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, boy. I am actually looking forward to the second season, if they do eventually release it (they made a lot of big noises about it was being filmed and was coming out so yah boo sucks to you critics of the first season) not because I think it's a great adaptation (I could write a very long post on that one) or even that I think it's a good TV show (again, I could write a lot on that) but because the first season was so bad, I can't wait to see if they can top the stupidity.
They're giving some good indications they might be even dumber second time round, but it's hard to say, as all the trumpeting publicity has somehow died down and we're not getting much unless we go searching for it.
Can they outdo "I am going to swim across an entire ocean non-stop", "I took a pyroclastic flow to the face and walked it off" or "Our main character and Big Heroine is actually a sadistic genocidal psychopath, why won't you cheer for her?" in the new season? I want to know!
Most Sensible Character in the First Season: Horsie what runs away from them all.
Character I Liked Best in the First Season: Evil? Have you looked at Galadriel?
They Changed The Actor, Now It Will Suck: Good move jumping ship but he was the best thing in it.
Dirty Little Psychopaths: Leave members of your group behind to die and then later laugh about it. Are we sure Galadriel isn't really a Harfoot?
Who Needs Supplies, Transport, or Weapons When You Can Just Stroll There?: Khazad-dum and Eregion are just down the road from each other.
Who Needs Supplies When You Can Just Teleport There?: Lucky the Big Dang Heroes Numenorean Army knew just where to go and just when to arrive, isn't it?
Bigger On The Inside: We started off with five ships for our rescue/invasion fleet, but then two got burninated. Luckily, three is all we need for the horses, soldiers, supplies and so forth, because Numeorean advanced technology includes the secrets of the Tardis.
Dey Tuk Er Jerbs!: Yeah, you heard me right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You know, as an adult who grew up in the 90's, a lot of the demoralization propaganda just makes me roll my eyes. When I got to the 3rd season of Disenchantment and they made the main character gay, I roll my eyes and say to my wife watching next to me "because of course she is." Usually happens 3 or 4 times every single show we watch. More or less every episode of The Fall of the House of Usher had an absurdly on the nose progressive propaganda moment.
As an adult, it's eye roll worthy. Sometimes you can see past the politically motivated characters or plot points. Sometimes you can't.
Considering the media we'll expose our children to however, it gets scary. If a person uncritically consumed current popular culture, you get the Nashville school shooter mentioned below. Brain turned to mush, on a path to mutilation and sterilization, hating everything and everyone. There was nothing I saw in that manifesto that isn't constantly beating me over the head in modern pop culture.
I'm reminded of some joke about the difference between a cult and a religion. A cult is all made up by people. In a religion, all those people are dead. We're coming up on generations that have only known demoralization propaganda, and who's parents have only known demoralization propaganda. Whatever kayfabe social signaling hating cis white males, normal women, or wholesome white families used to mean, the people uncritically consuming it and signal boosting it now don't understand it's only supposed to be insincere virtue signaling. They're ready to start pogroms now.
No, they’re not. I would bet money that we don’t see anything that could be considered a “pogrom” in the next…five years? Ten? I dunno, make your offer.
That’s not to say there won’t be violence! I just feel like your read on the motives is completely off. You’re acting like dumbass Palestine protestors are about to start lynching people. No! They’re going to keep marching around and getting pepper sprayed. I found one death, probably from getting bludgeoned by a counter-protestor. Is that a pogrom in action?
Or, to take a step back. Would you say Nybbler’s example, the Detroit riots, were a pogrom? What about Floyd/BLM or Ferguson protests? Because if so, I think you’re using too broad a definition. Unrest in the US is about getting something, not driving someone out.
More options
Context Copy link
Basically this?
More options
Context Copy link
Are you using a definition that isn't
?
Doesn't need to be organized, as riots rarely are. Just a racialized carnival of violence.
Do you think there are going to be violent riots with the aim of massacring or expelling cis white men in the United States? What percentage of cis white men do you expect to be killed or expelled?
AGAIN?
Of the 43 killed in Detroit (the city with the most deaths that summer), 33 were black. It seems pretty misleading to characterize the "Long, hot summer of 1967" as a pogrom against cis white men.
And yet the white people (including the men) were driven from the cities. Just because it doesn't look exactly like a classic pogrom doesn't mean there isn't some violent expelling going on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know about the entire united states. But many Democrat run cities seem to be at a pre-pogrom boiling point with all these massive pro-Hamas rallies. The fact that our borders are completely open, and illegal crossings are at record highs even from the last record highs doesn't bode well either. And if you've been following the activist ringleaders, their rhetoric makes few distinctions between "whiteness" and "jews" when it comes to what "privileged colonizers" deserve.
Wouldn't be the first time white people were extirpated from the societies they built, won't be the last. There is a massive population of invaders and collaborators who believes white people deserves to be eradicated.
Do you think more than 0.1% of white people will be killed during a riot in at least one of the 1000 largest US cities in the next 10 years?
Let me illustrate my expectations by going over some historical pogroms.
So just 14 Jews killed, but the message of "Your kind isn't welcome here" is clear. Moving onto 1881
So that's the trigger. Here are some of the excuses made during that time.
Man, the more things change, the more they stay the same, huh?
Only 40 casualties. And the results...
I'd say historically, pogroms weren't about murdering even a significant proportion of the population. That's why it's not called genocide. Instead, they are about instilling fear through the much beloved stochastic terrorism, so that they leave. Historical pogroms also aren't a single event, but a steady roil of targeted racial violence with peaks of mob violence, and occasionally lethality. The role of the state seems to alternate between inflaming tensions with racial rhetoric, and being incredibly passive aggressive towards defending the rights of the unwanted citizens.
Frankly it's a state of affairs most Democrat run cities are already in, in their racial anti-white libelous rhetoric, and their slaps on the wrist, if any enforcement at all, for racially motivated anti-white hate crimes.
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
It really is getting like that now with modern media consumption. The last 10 years have been terrible for 'diverse' casting/characterization and hamfisted political admonishment. As you say, sometimes you can look past it, sometimes you just shake your head and stop watching.
AI media generation on demand can't come fast enough (assuming you can jailbreak it to generate more traditional content; presumably you won't be able to generate shows and movies with
non-progressive'problematic' themes with commercial software).More options
Context Copy link
Agreed.
Propaganda is a thing because it works.
If all you're looking for is enjoying yourself then knowing as little as possible and even being able to selectively forget things as time goes will be your greatest asset.
Me? I could not enjoy a picture with a black Queen of England or another 'racist cops abuse innocent minority, real culprit was enemy-of-the-day' trope. Even worse, when it's blindingly obvious that the film-makers specifically hate me, as a person.
I don't want my children to fit in with that crowd either, or we would not be able to get along.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is the other side of the mind-kill coin you see out of media analysis through a feminist/queer/whatever lens. Suddenly the lens becomes blinders and it becomes simple to find any grievance, perceived or otherwise, to condemn the show (or praise it if you can claim certain characters are X-coded)
More options
Context Copy link
Responding to this statement directly, I think the answer is "obviously yes". Even if it's not pervasive or all-encompassing, it still impacts society by reinforcing the notion of what's acceptable, who's on top, etc. Symbolic cultural statements push the Overton window. It goes like this:
Motte: Symbolism can be ignored if you don't focus on it too much.
Bailey: I'm creating an excuse for this symbolism because I like it and agree with it.
A recent example was Starfield having pronoun selection in the character creation screen. Reddit deployed the usual motte and bailey in the comments, but would almost certainly have had a much different reaction if it was symbolism they disagreed with, like "it's OK to be white".
(Not saying you're personally guilty of the bailey here by genuinely asking the question, but it's clear many people are on other sites like Reddit.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link