The Philosophy Discussion Forum

There is a perception/belief on the part of some in our society, people who consider themselves to be representing mainstream values, that there is a culture war going on and that their culture and values are under attack by elitist and/or ethnic minority elements. This appears to me a REAL perception however asymmetrical the situation (it is less clear that there actually is a CONSCIOUS attacking side)

What is somewhat peculiar is the perceived attack is taking place in "the arts" (everything from books to film and music, etc.) but what we have is NOT a battle taking place in "the arts" (lets have OUR authors, filmmakers, etc. produce works extolling OUR values) but a political response "lets suppress these works of art that attack our values".

WHY? (why this asymmetry) In other words, allowing the belief "we are being consciously attacked" to be true, why not respond in the same arena?

PS: I judge this older even though the specific values different. Thus in the "Red Scare" period, along with opposing "the reds" in the more political arenas was a campaign in the arts, where the objection was not about the presentation of the opposing politics but VALUES seen as conducive to "redism" Here/now there is no corresponding politics (I don't think there is, but perhaps some of us here do think there is.

if it doesn't happen in a Petri dish, is it really a culture war?

-Imp

WHY? (why this asymmetry) In other words, allowing the belief "we are being consciously attacked" to be true, why not respond in the same arena?

Because one side has better access to the medium than the other.

For example, "woke" Hollywood.

The writers, directors, actors, studios already have an established viewpoint. Trying to get a non-woke movie made is an uphill battle.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 4:41 pm

WHY? (why this asymmetry) In other words, allowing the belief "we are being consciously attacked" to be true, why not respond in the same arena?

Because one side has better access to the medium than the other.

For example, "woke" Hollywood.

The writers, directors, actors, studios already have an established viewpoint. Trying to get a non-woke movie made is an uphill battle.

What is this anti-woke stuff they are trying to make? Is sombeody bringing back Fu Manchu and the Black and White Minstrels?

If you look at Star Wars, as an example, they would like a Luke Skywalker character.

If you look at Disney, in general, they would like an end to the "endless" DEI remakes.

Is it too much to ask?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 4:41 pm

WHY? (why this asymmetry) In other words, allowing the belief "we are being consciously attacked" to be true, why not respond in the same arena?

Because one side has better access to the medium than the other.

For example, "woke" Hollywood.
The writers, directors, actors, studios already have an established viewpoint. Trying to get a non-woke movie made is an uphill battle.

That's not ACCESS. It would perhaps be "access" were it the studios (the business end of things). Even a claim that "production", who is putting up the money to get films made, isn't really a valid complaint (nothing prevents the other side from putting up the money to get what they want made).

The creative end of things, the talent, that's another matter. But look at that complaint. What are you really saying when you argue "all the talented screen writers, directors, actors, etc. are on the other side". Is it valid to argue "unfair" because OUR writers, directors, actors, etc. are inferior in the artistic sense? Unfair because the people who have =chosen to become writers, directors, actors, tend to be people coming from the other side?

I would suggest that if you picked some example works definitely challenging values not easy to see how the opposing case would be made. Take for example The Apartment (1960 -- workplace harassment, sexual and otherwise; the objecting "voice" is that of an ethic minority). Now exactly how would you go about constructing a competing picture? Do you really want to try to defend Sheldrake's morals or the (then current) societal judgment that the proper response to that sort of harassment to quit the job? << I purposely picked something a "woke" issue today -- also because Wilder a director seen as "pushing/challenging societal values" and willing to argue sometimes yes, sometimes no. Look at his other films. For crying out loud, something like Roman Holiday is not challenging mainstream values in spite of secretly written by a blacklisted "red" (Dalton Trombo)>>

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 5:56 pm If you look at Star Wars, as an example, they would like a Luke Skywalker character.

If you look at Disney, in general, they would like an end to the "endless" DEI remakes.

Is it too much to ask?

Oh no. I feel so bad for them. Hollywood never gives them representation and that makes them feel bad...

Masters of self-awareness.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 5:29 pm What is this anti-woke stuff they are trying to make? Is sombeody bringing back Fu Manchu and the Black and White Minstrels?

See, if you even have to ask the question that there indicates how far far gone you are.

And that is a large part of the point I made on the adjacent thread: many people sense a need to recover a ground that has been inundated with currents of ideology and corruption that they understand to be harmful and destructive, and so their first movement is toward a reestablishment of old patters. Just for a quick example when parents of a family decide “We should return to church” because that is how they were brought up and then veered away from.

People tend to antidote the abundance of cultural artifacts they deem corrupted and corrupting by seeking established conventions. (Church, BTW Flash, is a large building in most Occidental cities where people congregated to worship what they understood to be “supernatural powers”. There are likely a few in your own city).

This is one of the reasons I have always referred to Richard Weaver and Ideas Have Consequences. If you find yourself in nihilism’s outcome, it is like having been impelled to travel down a long cultural path into strange jumbled forests but there are no breadcrumbs to follow back. You get lost, you see. You cannot even define ‘the normal’.

You have to rediscover metaphysical grounding which, in fact, is quite an endeavor because re-achieving that ground is far more than merely mental. It is spiritual. And how can this be done when the *surrounding world* is substantially captured in nihilism’s currents? It is a question of lack of reference points.

Yeah yeah yeah, whatever. The Hollwood that Jacobi wants to get back to for "spiritual" purposes ... Ribbles, where are the pies?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 5:58 pm …

It is interesting to attempt to locate films that one might say are anti-woke. It all depends on how one defines “woke” and of course how you define “culture wars”. But as I thought about it I recalled Éric Rohmer’s films. For example Love in the Afternoon. If only because he un-snares himself from a seduction-trap and revalues his relationship with his wife and child.

But in terms of “conservative values” I think the overall issue is one revolving around meaning, don’t you think? Generally, to value and exalt ‘important things’ you have to have been infused with that sense of meaningfulness. I guess it is sort of in the end “how you feel” after experiencing a “woke” production as distinct from one augmenting reflection and understanding.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 6:40 pm Yeah yeah yeah, whatever. The Hollwood that Jacobi wants to get back to for "spiritual" purposes ... Ribbles, where are the pies?

Now now, Flash, get a grip on yo-self!

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 6:29 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 5:56 pm If you look at Star Wars, as an example, they would like a Luke Skywalker character.

If you look at Disney, in general, they would like an end to the "endless" DEI remakes.

Is it too much to ask?

Oh no. I feel so bad for them. Hollywood never gives them representation and that makes them feel bad...

Masters of self-awareness.

Trivializing it is part of the problem.

The creative end of things, the talent, that's another matter. But look at that complaint. What are you really saying when you argue "all the talented screen writers, directors, actors, etc. are on the other side". Is it valid to argue "unfair" because OUR writers, directors, actors, etc. are inferior in the artistic sense? Unfair because the people who have =chosen to become writers, directors, actors, tend to be people coming from the other side?

That's just as intellectually dishonest as what IC posts.

I would suggest that if you picked some example works definitely challenging values not easy to see how the opposing case would be made. Take for example The Apartment (1960 -- workplace harassment, sexual and otherwise; the objecting "voice" is that of an ethic minority). Now exactly how would you go about constructing a competing picture? Do you really want to try to defend Sheldrake's morals or the (then current) societal judgment that the proper response to that sort of harassment to quit the job? << I purposely picked something a "woke" issue today -- also because Wilder a director seen as "pushing/challenging societal values" and willing to argue sometimes yes, sometimes no. Look at his other films. For crying out loud, something like Roman Holiday is not challenging mainstream values in spite of secretly written by a blacklisted "red" (Dalton Trombo)>>

It's 2026.

Do you know what the current culture wars are about?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 7:17 pm Do you know what the current culture wars are about?

Oh now this can develop into something interesting. But you are going to have to make some statements. How do you explain the present culture wars at AD 2026?