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 -
We're in the early innings of awareness of just how corrupt and awful the global NGO complex is.
NGOs, like universities, were a practical way in which "the left ate the world". While conservatives were fighting over elected positions, progressives were dominating the education and non-profit sectors without opposition. In fact, conservatives were more than happy to help – being in theory pro-education and pro-charity without realizing what that entailed.
With no opposition, a large chunk of U.S. GDP and employment is now tied up in non-profits and universities who often act as change agents, pushing a radical anti-Western view of the world.
On X, someone with the handle Data Republican has been diving deep into the corporate structures of NGOs. It's disturbing how much public money is being spent on things like encouraging illegal immigration. Here's an example.
Theres a good thread on /r/seattlewa that delves into one of the many charities that exist to push homeless and black advocacy. The main one that caught my attention was africatown, and community passageways , where the nonprofits get initiatives sponsored and executed by city admins, but funding is 'external'. The money spent is largely for consultant hour costs with the consultant being the charity staff. As such the IRS form for Dominique Davis, CEO of Community Passageways, lists his yearly income of about 150k for one hour of work per week, while Wyking Garrett has amassed 20m of building assets to manage for his organization and pays himself 250k yet by its own metrics fails to succeed in either placing applicants in jobs or rehab programs or long term shelter, and demand more assets gifted for free since failure is proof of the gravity of its mission.
This is how the state speaks out both sides of its mouth. The state says they are responsible stewarts of tax dollars and are not directly funding these charities, but instead the state is funding specific charity projects that do not in fact effect any change and are just vehicles to extract taxpayer money for admin staff.
By being charities, the money disappears into a black hole, project costs bloated and inflated behind an opaque IRS submission that does no breakdown of expenses.
Fundamentally the charity grift exploits the goodwill of humans, the byzantine arcana of chanting the rituals of bureaucratic doublespeak, and the incestuous nature of charities being unaccountable money pools open for skimming with facilitators and grifters taking their turns at the trough. The left protects its own to dine off the proceeds of others, redefining gluttony as restitution. So long as the left has enablers allowing this definitional warfare to continue, it will always abuse language and procedure to take from others instead of creating for itself. Charities need to lose their fight to continue existing, but they get to choose what losing means.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link