site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33245 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I do not think you're thinking clearly about this. Elon does not get different information if he cuts everything now, vs sending out an order to cut everything in 60 days. In both cases, he has to make factual determinations about how important the womens' organizations in Myanmar are.

Are you implying that all these programs clearly star what they're actually doing, and no one will try to hide their operation under a title that's more palatable to the current administration?

I don't understand how immediately freezing funding makes it easier to collect this data, I think that's something that was imagined after the fact to justify the freezes. (And, again, most of the freezes have themselves been blocked, so...)

How do you collect that information without the freeze? USAID refused to cooperate with an audit, that's the entire reason their funding was frozen

I do not think this is true? DOGE staff were inside the USAID building and had access to their computer systems. Freezing USAID doesn't affect their ability to do that.

I do not think you're thinking clearly about this. Elon does not get different information if he cuts everything now, vs sending out an order to cut everything in 60 days. In both cases, he has to make factual determinations about how important the womens' organizations in Myanmar are.

Cool, and I think you're the one not thinking clearly. The idea that the information will be the same is an unproven assumption. USAID can easily pretend that the women's organisations in Myanmar are doing something else entirely, which is more palatable to the current administration.

I don't understand how immediately freezing funding makes it easier to collect this data, I think that's something that was imagined after the fact to justify the freezes. (And, again, most of the freezes have themselves been blocked, so...)

What don't you understand about the entirety of Ukrainian "independent" media, and half of European leftist rags screaming about their funding being cut? We already heard the scream regardless of whether or the freeze has been blocked, so we know for sure that this is how they're funded. You're assuming and/or implying that the information would be just as readily available without the cuts, but you're not making any argument for that.

I do not think this is true? DOGE staff were inside the USAID building and had access to their computer systems. Freezing USAID doesn't affect their ability to do that.

I got it from Marco Rubio, who said it in an interview. I recall another one, where he said it specifically in response to not taking a more gradual approach, but can't find it now. In other words what you're describing is the direct result of the crackdown, not of USAID cooperating.

USAID can easily pretend that the women's organisations in Myanmar are doing something else entirely, which is more palatable to the current administration

I don't think they can, and I don't think being shut down immediately affects their ability to do that. Most of the information was already public (DataRepublican didn't need the freeze to make those websites), and Elon's able to get his hands on the info that isn't public because Trump lets him, not because of a freeze.

What don't you understand about the entirety of Ukrainian "independent" media, and half of European leftist rags screaming about their funding being cut? We already heard the scream regardless of whether or the freeze has been blocked, so we know for sure that this is how they're funded

They would also scream if their funding was going to be cut off in N days! (For the same reason they're screaming even though the freeze was blocked). And it was already public knowledge that USAID funds media across the world, including the individual outlets.

I got it from Marco Rubio, who said it in an interview. I recall another one, where he said it specifically in response to not taking a more gradual approach, but can't find it now. In other words what you're describing is the direct result of the crackdown, not of USAID cooperating.

Rubio says in that clip that USAID wasn't being cooperative, but he doesn't mention it being related to a freeze, which is the thing I was asking about. Like, Trump didn't freeze Treasury funding, but DOGE still got access on Trump's authority, I don't see how USAID is different.

I don't think they can

Obscuring what they do behind a lofty sounding NGO increases their chances of being undetected, and your approach only gives them more time to cone up with better cover.

and I don't think being shut down immediately affects their ability to do that

It is already demonstrated that it did.

Most of the information was already public (DataRepublican didn't need the freeze to make those websites.

Can you demonstrate that the majority of Ukrainian "independent" media was funded through USAID, using only the dataset used by DataRepublican? I doubt even the Ukrainian media itself knew the extent on which they depend on the US.

They would also scream if their funding was going to be cut off in N days! (For the same reason they're screaming even though the freeze was blocked).

This makes no sense. Screaming only increases their chances of being cut, staying silent gives them a chance of being missed, and to regroup without notifying their political opponents.

And it was already public knowledge that USAID funds media across the world, including the individual outlets.

Anyone saying that the majority of Ukrainian media is entirely funded by USAID would be portrayed as a conspiracy theorist. You'd be the first insisting that there's no evidence for such a claim.

Rubio says in that clip that USAID wasn't being cooperative, but he doesn't mention it being related to a freeze, which is the thing I was asking about.

Oh, come on! What do you think he was talking about, if not the freeze, given the date of the interview?

I actually saw him say the exact same thing when asked if Trump's approach wasn't too drastic, and something more gradual wasn't warranted.

and Elon's able to get his hands on the info that isn't public because Trump lets him, not because of a freeze.

Like, Trump didn't freeze Treasury funding, but DOGE still got access on Trump's authority, I don't see how USAID is different.

Like I said in the other comment, by your own staandard this solution has not worked yet.

Trump didn't freeze Treasury funding, but DOGE still got access on Trump's authority

I'll answer the rest later, but for now very quickly - their access was revoked by a judge.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats