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 -
I see this somewhat regularly and I really dislike this style of comment, written like a Roman general giving a speech to the senate.
On a surface level, get a grip! You aren’t fighting a war. Most anybody here engages with politics to is to squabble on the internet and maybe vote.
On a deeper level, I think it really reflects a polarized view. The battle-lines are drawn, and you’re rallying for a cause. But in reality these issues are often not as polarized in the public as you might think. There is room between ‘change nothing’ and ‘blow it all up’.
There is a number of people on this forum who clearly would like to see it as a place for smart right-wingers to organise and rally, rather than a carefully tended neutral ground. Unfortunately, the mods don't seem terribly interested in acting against it unless directly called out for inaction, so the only way to reduce it would probably be to persuade the majority on a grassroots level that it is not in their interest either.
Indeed, it's quite disappointing what this place has become. Good posters like TracingWoodgrains have been banned or moved on. Shitposters from CultureWarRoundup have moved back in, telling us constantly how we have to hate the outgroup with every fiber of our being, and any notion that we should try understanding them is akin to betrayal. The mods are apparently asleep at the wheel. Zorba, the original creator of the site, hasn't posted in 3 months, and hasn't really participated that much in nearly a year.
The shitposters from the CWR never left, although I suppose they used to be better behaved.
Yeah and I don't do it constantly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you think you made a good attempt at understanding the outgroup you described in your post?
Yes, they're fully in the tank for conflict theory. Look at a post like this and try to disagree.
Aside from FC's point, how does conflict theory see any notion that people should try understanding their opponents as akin to betrayal?
Did you read Kulak's post? His general idea is that allowing for discussion just legitimizes evil people who think things like that it's OK for people to rape white girls.
Did you read mine? I'm asking about conflict theory not Kulak, FC already gave you a response why he's not a great example for you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
...Kulak is your example of a typical poster? With a post about how he doesn't post here any more?
Kulak is a particularly blatant example but plenty of people here are working off the same template.
I am a reasonably prolific poster who has argued for some time that Conflict Theory offers clearly superior predictive power. The difference between kulak and myself, I believe, is that I am capable of communicating on the spectrum this forum is designed for, and he is not. If you need an example of posters being "all in" on conflict theory, I think I'm probably one of the better picks. There are others, but most of the ones more extreme than me tend to get argued against and modded fairly frequently.
I think using my posts would work less-well, though, because I generally don't write unhinged rants arguing for ceaseless war of all against all, and I generally try to back up my arguments with solid evidence. Likewise, people who appeal to all the great old posters who used to represent Blue Tribe here tend to not remember how some of these pivotal conversations actually went on the Blue end. People don't remember the chronic advocacy for lawless violence, the defenses of the indefensible, the absurd behavior, and the blatant trolling campaigns when it's their side doing it. I miss the old days, and I'm dedicated to trying to keep the conversation running as long as possible, but if you think the breakdown is the fault of nasty right-wingers, I think you are mistaken.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a bit like our conversation on "classical liberals". You're operating on broad categories that possibly include me, but pick extreme off-the-wall examples that are a poor fit to the category.
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
I agree with this sentiment. I broadly align with the right wing but don't like the turn this place has taken since the move off of Reddit. I think we would all be much better served by actually looking more for heat than light, and having less right wing applause lights.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
On the contrary, they are fighting the culture war, and what's a war without some war crimes?
More options
Context Copy link
You flatter me. I have a sophist's love of rhetoric: but if politics is serious - if it is about human life - then it should be taken seriously. I find it less moral to equivocate, to pretend that there is a difference between 'save some lives' and 'save all'. Removing the room for argument is the only way to reduce the size of government otherwise you are merely a ratchet on Leviathan's appetite.
‘Removing the room for argument’
That’s already been done. I don’t know all the details, but Trump seems to have direct authority over USAID. In theory, he/DOGE could take even a cursory look at what programs they fund and make some decisions from a rational basis. But it doesn’t seem like they have a real methodology, it’s just ‘XYZ is corrupted by the woke left, burn it all down’.
I’m fine with making things more efficient, when it comes to aid programs, grants, and regulations, I want people to be arguing over the merits. What I don’t want is for it to be all-or-nothing situation. It doesn’t have to be that way, it would be better if it wasn’t, and I simply don’t agree with your framing.
The other side of that is that leaving room for arguments just leads to the deed never actually getting done.
Imagine a situation where a patient is morbidly obese. He weighs 500 lbs. if he doesn’t lose weight, he dies. Do you start by “negotiating” about how many cheat days he gets? How many sugary drinks he’s allowed to have? How many times he gets to eat dessert? Or do you hand him a strict diet plan that tells him that if he wants to see 2035, he needs to drink only water, not eat more than 2200 calories a day, and he can’t go over. When you start from the position that the cure is negotiable, you end up coming up with excuses to continue the behaviors or in this case the spending habits because if there are loopholes, then you’ll tend to find ways to squeeze more and more programs into the loopholes and not end up doing any actual cutting. If things that are national defense are okay, everything becomes national defense. Just like if you start allowing people to declare cheat days, every day will eventually meet the criteria for a cheat day.
This is why metaphors are overrated outside of poetry. They tend to obscure at least as much as they illustrate. If you want to stick with the fat guy metaphor, DOGE's "economy" drive is hectoring the patient for eating a salad for lunch while ignoring that he eats two pounds of bacon for breakfast and a box of Krispy Kreme donuts for dinner. You would discuss dieting plans where you step down food consumption and coming up with a plan the patient could actually follow and doesn't harm them. You wouldn't just say "you're going on a starvation diet now, figure it out."
But in actual fact the USG is not a fat guy. Spending is not food. It's not going to drop dead of a heart attack if it has irresponsible fiscal policy. The worst case scenarios involve a lot of economic turmoil, but the US isn't going to collapse because social security becomes insolvent.
Moreover, the US has a lot of tools with which to solve its fiscal problems, but no one wants to use them. Conservative elites are primarily focused on cutting taxes for conservative elites and weakening consumer/labor protections; electoral success dictates protecting transfers to elderly and rural voters. So the obvious solution of trimming entitlements and raising taxes is a nonstarter and instead we get a pantomime of cost savings* as a cover for re-legalizing banking scams.
*high confidence prediction: these will not result in meaningful government savings over the long run and will incur higher social costs
*intermediate confidence: they will actually increase government costs over the long run as even more Federal staff are replaced with more expensive, less efficient contractors
If we can break the katascopocracy and stop funding foreign coups and dictators that's good enough for me.
More options
Context Copy link
The worst case scenarios involve a lot of economic turmoil, in a social context where the taboo on political violence has been trampled to nonexistence. Many millions of people are openly cheering for political assassins at this present moment. Many millions more have already demonstrated their willingness to shred the basic constitutional, legal and social protections of those fellow Americans they consider their outgroup, without apparent limit.
If you think "a lot of economic turmoil" is survivable under these conditions, it seems to me that you are stretching optimism beyond the bounds of credibility.
More options
Context Copy link
I would contend that we are headed for an economic collapse simply because we are spending so much more than we produce in GDP, often by simply printing more dollars. To an extent, we can get away with it for now, simply because we’re the World Reserve Currency and oil is traded in Petrodollars. I don’t believe that’s going to last as long as we think it will, and large amounts of liabilities are going to make the process much harder because we’ll be dealing with several crises at once.
First, Theres the inflation from trillions of dollars that will be eventually dumped when the world switches to Petroleum-Yuan or whatever currency we eventually trade oil in. Then you have people and even entire countries suddenly not getting the expected benefits as they’ve long since become dependent on them. You also have millions of people who have been doing essentially make-work jobs and have few marketable skills.
The combination is going to be a poly crisis that will probably crater the US economy and possibly the world economy as well. Add in people used to the government tit no longer getting their benefits, government workers looking for work with no skills that mean anything outside of the government/NGO environment, now needing help or working minimum jobs, needed services no longer happening because the costs are too high to justify showing up. Teachers get low wages now, but if we have 20% inflation and no teacher can afford to be a teacher.
"Economic collapse" covers a range of outcomes from Mad Max to austerity. If this economic apocalypse described really is looming, then DOGE is in chair of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. A project to streamline federal bureaucracy - even if successful - is not going to cover budgetary shortfalls, reverse the rise of China, or bring back
the 60sUS manufacturing dominance. It's not even going to cushion the fall. Neither is cutting foreign aid to zero.Which bring me back to my point: the US has the tools to manage its fiscal issues, but there is no good faith fiscal conservatism in the US when it comes to Federal politics. There are serious conservative proposals for bringing spending under control, but they have no traction with actual politicians. If you think harsh fiscal discipline is the only way to save America from economic disaster, you should be yelling at your leaders to stop grandstanding over trivial savings and a) raise taxes b) cut entitlements. The 'every little bit helps' excuse is, in fact, wrong.
To illustrate what I mean, we have the current House GOP's budget proposal. Now, it's just a proposal and it probably undergo major changes, but it does demonstrate what I am talking about. Johnson has floated cuts to Medicaid (hey, something substantial!) among other things, but not in aid of deficit reduction. No, the plan is to cash in all of the savings (and likely then some) on tax cuts that will increase the deficit.
So let's not pretend DOGE is about radical measures to save money.
If this analysis is correct, it is a huge argument in favor of US foreign involvement. It suggests we are getting absolutely staggering returns for our role as global hegemon and the fact that it isn't coming in the form of annual tribute is immaterial. Pretty much the last thing you'd want to be doing is running around alienating people by abruptly cutting off trade and aid.
More options
Context Copy link
Teachers get paid fine and they’re always going to to be first in line for government backed pay increases. They’re just a big and sympathetic constituency that thinks they should be paid like doctors and lawyers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, what banking scams are being legalized? (asking for a friend)
The story I'm seeing, is that with the CFPB getting destroyed, banks have free reign to do whatever they want. The fact that banks can't reorder your transactions to extract the most fees from you is attributed to the CFPB. They've also been the ones up Silicon Valley's ass about their crypto projects. The accusation is that the CFPB debanked SV startups trying to get some sort of blockchain based crypto banking off the ground.
The fear is that SV will reinvent banks, but on a computer and with crypto (and hookers and blackjack), but without all the "protections" that normal banks have to provide. Like FDIC insurance, or making sure their mortgage backed securities aren't fraudulent... anyways. They'll all run FTX style scams with their customer's money because they can, and then everyone is worse off, the economy is wrecked, and everyone loses all their money.
I'm sympathetic to the argument, but I also just don't trust the people making it they've so bankrupted their credibility with me, and the things they are willing to spend their political capital on are straight out of a Slaaneshi cultist meeting. So even if they are right, it's just the bad I've accepted I'll have to take with the good.
Yes, that particular reg is in fact the CFPBs. It's their thalidomide, though the prospect of banks screwing you on fees is a lot less convincing than the prospect of babies with no arms. Getting rid of them would bring us back to the Wild West days of... 2009.
More options
Context Copy link
I see -- I struggle to ascribe enough competence to something like the CFPB to think that they'd actually be doing anything useful, but... maybe I guess.
Anyways, can't concerned parties just, like -- not put their money in the SV/hookers/blow banks, and prefer the normal stodgy banks (that steal your money less directly, by being TBTF and F'ing every so often) -- if they are concerned?
I think their fear is that when you have a regulated and an unregulated market, the unregulated market always out competes and destroys the regulated one. So there won't be any "just don't put your money in the silly fake Silicon Valley bank" because they'll earn all the money and just buy your bank anyways. You know... before they lose it all gambling on leveraged Doge-coin futures or giving a few trillion to Democrats.
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
I take this point, and it’s certainly true that this kind of decisive action can be gummed up, but I’m not sure it applies here. It seems like the administration has free rein on program approval, they don’t have to negotiate with anybody.
To extend your metaphor, it’s like if the doctor, instead of establishing a strict calorie limit and diet plan, simply said ‘Stop eating!’. You don’t have to be that harsh, you can take a second to come up with a plan that makes sense to you, and enforce it with an iron hand.
Except that “doing it on a rational basis” means getting information about the programs, having public criteria, and sitting down with the heads of the various programs. Word of mouth will quickly out what kinds of programs (say defense) that Trump won’t cut. Then suddenly for no reason at all, everything in USAID is defense related. If you cut than later perhaps restore, there’s a good chance of most of the cuts sticking because you didn’t start out negotiating, you started by laying down the law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From Tucker Carlson’s interview with former State Dept. guy Mike Benz, it sounds like USAID was some unholy combo of CIA and the State Department, doing state-destabilization work neither of those relatively above-board organizations wanted to do.
DOGE is basically a Scooby Doo episode where four hackers pull a lever and fall through a trap door into the secret basement of a charity, where they discover the Illuminati are running The Matrix.
“Well gang, let’s pull the mask off this monster and see who it really is…”
“Gasp! It was old Man Kristol all along!”
All sardonic takes aside, it looks like State is bringing all the non-woke USAID charities under its purview.
More options
Context Copy link
After living through the first Trump presidency, this falls on deaf ears. The standard arguments as soldiers rebuttal to anything Trump did, no matter how reasonable, no matter how within the norms of his predecessors, no matter how legally justified was "He's opening himself up to a lot more attacks by doing things this way." But that's just how it looks with you have a media ecosystem that is basically an extension of the DNC, Judges in the middle of nowhere who feel they can exceed their authority issuing national injunctions on spurious grounds, and a bureaucracy hostile to the President as a person, much less his agenda, and a security state that spreads misinformation about it's own commander in chief.
Trump 47 is basically doing things completely different than Trump 45, and still that tired old soldier of an argument "He's opening himself up to attacks by doing it this way" gets trotted out.
There is no counterfactual where Trump is not "opening himself up to attack", except perhaps if he didn't walk away from Butler PA. But it turns out, the best defense is a strong offense.
More options
Context Copy link
How was it supposed to be a slam-dunk? You know that USAID refused to cooperate with an audit, and the only reason we know any of this, is from who started complaining when they lost their funding.
There are some psy-ops to this effect, but I'm yet to see anyone express this sentiment organically.
Aren’t USAID programs and their funding all a part of the public record? The websites not working, but I believe you could previously just search stuff up.
There's a lot of information that gets messy when you try to get more than surface-deep into it. There was a big deal about a USAID grant for 45m to Burma/Myanmar scholarships after DOGE tweeted about it, and these are things you can look up!...
But while there's some funny punchlines involved, it doesn't really tell you that much. IIE got the grant -- which is better than some cases, since domestic grantees in some categories can receive anonymity -- but outside of some joking-not-joking CIA links, that doesn't actually mean much. They're 'just' a cutout, and while they've got a lot of staff, their day staff aren't the ones doing most of the actual spending and day-to-day education stuff.
You can kinda piece together a rough outline by seeing who publicly announces that they've gotten onto a grant with similar numbers around the same time, but even a lot of that falls off the internet pretty quick. It's really easy to go full Pepe Silvia, too.
More options
Context Copy link
So, Mike Benz has been doing a victory lap over USAID. He did this Joe Rogan episode like a year ago before it was in the spotlight, and he's been slowly plodding along over the last who knows how long with his own dinky little podcast or substack or whatever.
To say his profile has exploded is an understatement.
But the thing listening to Mike Benz makes clear, is none of this is as simple as reading the public records. I might only be able to summarize the shenanigans with lots of they, like we know who they are. Mike Benz dives into memos, NGOs, executives, revolving doors between organizations, etc, etc. And somehow, when you stop summarizing everything with they like you are talking about a secret cult, and start naming names and citing specific policy directives, it sounds even more schizophrenic.
Because none of this shit has "Destabilize Hungary" in the memo field of the check. It has nice sounding things like funding the arts, or health, or "training". But then it turns out absolutely all of it actually goes towards people critical of Victor Orban, and attempting to change the culture out from under him such that his positions are unthinkably evil.
"Politics is downstream of culture" often gets attributed to Andrew Breitbart. But it turns out the CIA and USAID have been playing that game longer than Andrew was even alive, including in our own country.
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 is interesting how self-unaware this comment is. You are doing what you incorrectly accuse the OP of - only worse.
My point was that you should have a sense of perspective, and not frame things like you're leading the frontline into battle. I don't see how I'm guilty of that.
I don't think you wrote it in that spirit but I can see how georgioz would interpret the tone of "get a grip!" as an officer dressing down his men.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link