site banner
PaperclipPerfector  15d ago (text post)   29661 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 17, 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'm not sure how USIP can reasonably be described as a "private" organization given:

The Board shall consist of fifteen voting members as follows: (1) The Secretary of State (or if the Secretary so designates, another officer of the Department of State who was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate). (2) The Secretary of Defense (or if the Secretary so designates, another officer of the Department of Defense who was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate). (3) The president of the National Defense University (or if the president so designates, the vice president of the National Defense University).

Further, in its own 2023 Congressional Budget Justification they request:

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) is requesting $54,000,000 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, equivalent to the enacted FY 2022 level, to promote peace in accordance with its congressional mandate to help prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflict abroad. Throughout its nearly forty years as a public institute, USIP has played a significant role in national security, working in partnership with U.S. departments and agencies to help prevent and resolve conflicts in countries where U.S. strategic interests are at stake.

USIP presents itself as something a little more than think tank, but less than full blown diplomatic corps. Funded by Congress, so non-profit yes. Private? I don't think so. It's an NGO, minus the non- requirement. In the Justification PDF I can find a few reasons why it'd be targeted.

"Recognizing that religious freedom and coexistence are fundamental to stability and peace in all countries, USIP is providing specialized guidance to the State Department and USAID to help strengthen engagement with religious communities and advance religious freedoms in countries facing violence and fragility"

"Committed to building and mentoring a new generation of peace activists, USIP is funding and guiding community level peacebuilding projects led by youth in more than a dozen countries, including in Colombia, Venezuela, Tunisia, Libya, the Israel-Palestinian Territories, Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan."

"Awards: USIP has established the annual Women Building Peace Award to celebrate the role that women play in all aspects of peacebuilding and is renewing the Spark M. Matsunaga Medal of Peace, which has been bestowed on Presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter."

Standard fare. I don't see anything particularly woke in their "classroom materials" though this is unlikely to be a primary function which is supported by the (dated) learning modules.

They do have their 2025 Justification out which is about the same as the 2023 one. 2023 was just the first result. In 2025 they say:

Dialogue: USIP experts currently facilitate more than 100 conflict-related dialogues and informal channels across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Specialized dialogues, the composition of which varies depending on conflict dynamics, are underway in 20 strategically important countries and regions including Cameroon, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Armenia, Mindanao, Papua New Guinea, and Ukraine. “Structured dialogues,” which USIP pioneered a decade ago and are used to reduce violence and build confidence between citizens and security officials, are underway in 14 countries

USIP appears to be general blobbery. Maybe it is CIA spooky, but who can say? Small amount of funding at 55 million/yr to create reports and contribute something to US diplomacy and propaganda efforts. The claim that they maintain active dialogues and "informal" channels in 100 different conflicts sounds substantial. It is a justification after all. Might provide comfortable sinecures for blob affiliates to do think tanky legwork or diplomacy for Congressmen. They might do so in a way that is more convenient, more discrete, or more something than dealing with the State Department. Another set of eyes and ears to the ground with another set of mouths to spread the good word.

Any or all of the above would be on brand for targeting by this administration. Consolidate all the various diplomatic blobbery under the State Department, steamroll resistance, and probably destroy quite a bit on the way.

Would someone from DOGE or the administration be able to articulate why any of these things are bad beyond "they're woke"?

Yes, probably. I hope so at least.

Can they explain why advancing "religious freedoms in countries facing violence and fragility" is against the interests of the U.S. government by citing to specific examples of work that USIP was engaged in on this front or arguing that that USIP was not actually engaged in this work?

Presumably they think that they are either doing a bad job of it or not actually doing this job-- or, they consider this redundant because of other government organs.

but did they analyze the actual work of USIP to see if any of it it aligns with any of the goals of the Trump administration?

I doubt they looked at their work very carefully, no. We can't know. It might be a case where there is not much tangible evidence of their work.

Did anyone from DOGE bother to talk to anyone from USIP about any of the work they actually do to assess whether some projects are worthwhile?

No idea.

The most likely explanation is that when DOGE asked about the work USIP tried to play the "private organization" card instead of answering questions.

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