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 -
It's not about revenge. It's that activists have systematically taken over the academy and have been trading on its prestige to implement their goals. The result is that it's not at all clear from the outside who is there to just do actual science, and who is an activist doing activism with scientific trappings. Worse, the academy has become completely untrustworthy, so we can't ask the people who would know; they'd just run cover for each other. So, with a heavy heart, we voted for someone to take a flamethrower to the system and we'll see what green shoots come out of the ashes.
I mean, the rational solution to “it’s not clear who is doing actual science” is taking some time to figure it out, and then making changes. I think that’s what a lot of people expected?
The first time Trump was elected was a vote for flamethrowers. Arguably that’s not what happened: there was a lot of noise but he governed somewhat traditionally. The second was a vote against inflation, with the expectation of more of the first (for most voters). I think people are surprised that Trump showed up to work with a double XL flamethrower rather than more of the same as previously.
Doing things slow means people can org size more effectively to fight back and try to run out clock. When the offense is time barred and the defense isn’t, then delay is winning strategy for the defense. And couching the strategy as “be deliberate” is effectively siding with the defense.
More options
Context Copy link
I think people forget that being president is a difficult job, so it takes some time to learn how to actually do things in office. There's no training program, and the executive branch has a huge number of federal workers who have to be trained or hired. Not to mention just forming connections with people. Most two-term presidents accomplish a lot more in their second term than in their first.
More options
Context Copy link
No, the rational thing to do is exactly what DOGE appears to be doing. Axe anything and everything associated with DEI, and then let people resubmit thier grant proposals under the new paradigm.
Those with scientific merit will get reapproved and those whithout merit will get to spend even more time complaining about "right-wing anti-intellectualism" than they already do.
That sounds like a concrete prediction. Care to make it concrete enough to bet on?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And let yourself get lost on a maze of bureaucracy so nothing changes.
Reason is a tool, it's not the right tool for this job. Not anymore.
20 years ago, the scalpel was the right tool, nowadays it's gonna have to be the hacksaw.
There comes a point when a house is so pockmarked with termites and water damage that the only sensible solution is the wrecking ball.
Are there some sections still good and salvageable? Yes. Could you theoretically save sections of the house? Yes but the time and effort needed makes the opportunity cost too high.
Or to put it in more bloody terms it’s like Iwo Jima; eventually you just learn to throw grenades in every cave and light fires at every entrance. Sometimes there’s enemies there and sometimes not. There may or may not be scant civilians clinging to life in the caves.
The rational conclusion is to not care, and go forward in a workmanlike manner and get it done, and quickly. Delays only serve to weaken you.
More options
Context Copy link
Why? The suggestion isn't "have normal grant reform instead of DOGE". Anyone with sense agrees that wouldn't work. The hope was that DOGE would exercise reason, while remaining the same independent group made up of the same free-spirited people. Are you saying that Musk & Co couldn't figure out a rough guess of which programs are good and bad on their own? How would that descend into a maze of bureaucracy?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link