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 -
NGO is UNspeak for any organisation which is neither controlled by government nor a for-profit business. Your local golf club is an NGO.
Banning (or licensing) all NGOs is massively overinclusive for a free country. Even banning political activity by NGOs would shut down Heritage and suchlike. If enforced enthusiastically, stopping or chilling Harvard University (also an NGO) and suchlike from speaking about politically sensitive topics - a list which which currently include meteorology (climate change is a partisan issue), basic pharmacology (using ivermectin to treat non-worm infections is a partisan issue), and increasingly arithmetic (the fact that Republican budgets don't add up is a partisan issue) etc. - would destroy large parts of American science.
A country as rich as America could ban NGOs which accept foreign funding, but that doesn't help much when the largest funders of wokestupid are domestic (I think in the US it is the Ford and Hewlett foundations).
Any country could stop contracting NGOs to deliver government programs, although again you only want a blanket ban if you are planning to move a lot of work back in-house which was contracted for good reasons. The fakecharities project in the UK (run by the libertarian Adam Smith Institute, itself an NGO which has done consultancy work on government contracts) argued that charities that get more than 10% of their funding from the government should be prohibited from engaging in political activity, which might work.
Graham Factor has a nice article(just apply for access, it only takes a day or so to get approved) which includes a part on how de-facto outsourcing of government work to NGOs gives you the worst of all worlds, especially in the context of the police: The same inefficiency as the government but with none of the accountability.
I don't think NGOs need to be banned, but the current reality of government funding of unaccountable NGOs combined with a revolving door between either of them is quite dysfunctional. Nothing raises my cynicism like seeing a high-level government worker being so outrageously incompetent as to lose their position (a tall order to begin with!) due to public pressure, only for them to manage some multi-million government-funded NGO immediately thereafter.
More options
Context Copy link
Not exactly. You have governments using NGOs as part of their own operations. For instance crown prince Mohammad Bin Salman funds MiSK Foundation which in turn funds many activities either directly or indirectly. Similarly Chinese govenment funds Confucius Institute which is one of the web of organizations working under United Front umbrella to project soft power of Chinese government.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link