site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22d ago (text post)   29818 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.

why the distinction?

Museums, libraries, etc., primarily benefit local communities. Why should my tax dollars go to a local library 1,000 miles away: can't they fund their own library if it matters so much to them?

You've replied to my comment here so I do believe you see the numbers there too. $268m/168m taxpayers = $1.59/taxpayer that goes to the IMLS. I would argue that:

  1. $1.59/taxpayer is a very small price for US citizens to help each other, even if it's across state lines or 1000 miles away.
  2. As explained in that comment, most of library funding is already local, and in the case of Alabama, you pointed out that Alabama effectively got $0 from the federal government for 2024.
  3. Since we want to encourage local and regional brilliance, shouldn't that be argument that more funds should be given to states and local municipalities to do what they will? Seems to me like the major funding from IMLS are exactly just that.

I think you’d have to demonstrate that the program in question was of actual benefit to anyone in the public, and in far too many cases the benefits are: promoting progressive values, serving as safehouses for drug users, and occasionally providing something educational to a kid.

The amount per taxpayer is small, sure, but the question is whether the amount should be used to fund other people's libraries. That question remains the same whether the tax is $1.50 or $1,000 per taxpayer.

As explained in that comment, most of library funding is already local, and in the case of Alabama, you pointed out that Alabama effectively got $0 from the federal government for 2024.

Puerto Rico got $2,147,080 and they're not even a state.

And I don't want to encourage local and regional brilliance, I want to encourage people paying for the services they enjoy instead of getting other people who don't enjoy them to pay for it.

How many other distinct topics are you willing to let others obligate you for $1.59 each before you consider it a not-small price below the level worth arguing over?

Ten line items? Hundred? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Naturally, each and every one could use the same defense- it's only a few pennies or dollars.

In time, though, you reach the total government spending / # of residents, which in the US is somewhere north of $30,000 per citizen... or roughly $60,000 per taxpayer, going by your taxpayer estimate versus rough American population.

I would counter-argue that this is the slippery slope argument/fallacy. That I definitely can make a choice that of the various $1.59s line items on a receipt, I want this particular line item to stay $1.59 and/or even increase it. Now let's say the IMLS was not just dismantled but replaced by something similar to the Pittman–Robertson Act I would support it even more.

What?

A slippery slope argument rests on the premise that you aren't already at the bottom of the greater warned costs.

I am not arguing that if you spend 1.59 on libraries, you will spend 60k on more. I am noting you are already spending 60,000.00 on more if you are a taxpayer, of which 1.59 on libraries is one of many, many such 'small' costs.

The attempt to separate 1.59 from 60,000.00 is simply budgetary salami slicing. Who takes issue over one slice of salami?

well, seeing that I feel strongly about this 1.59, then yes I am doing budgetary salami slicing, and yes I am taking issue over one slice of salami. I think it's this exact freedom with which American citizens can feel strongly about their slice of salami that makes Americans great. We can argue over everything, we will fight (reasonably and without violence) over anything, and that's fine. I think this salami is important and I'm speaking up about it. I feel strongly that this slice of salami has great public utility, that decreasing this slice is not good for the American people, now or in the future. I do not feel that America is at the bottom of the warned cost as I can envision far worse use for America's money in far greater amounts (special military operation in Canada, let's say) leading to way more slices of salami being sacrificed than I am comfortable with.

And thus you have abandoned the small-quantity defense, in favor of a qualitative difference defense.

Which is fine. But this is still a retreat from the bailey back to the motte, and still doesn't answer the question you tried to dodge.

Yes, I realize that now and that my initial 3 points weren’t enough. I will now attempt to not dodge your question. I don’t know what the maximum number of line items is. I probably start to get dizzy when things add up to about a few billion dolllars. But I do know my minimums. And that if comparing between two slices of salami to cut, yes I would look for the qualitative difference. And I would find my a way to cut $266m somewhere else than the IMLS without a replacement.

why the distinction?

Madison in Federalist No. 45 wrote that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

The Tenth Amendment explicitly states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Of course, all this assumes that people will be most involved in their localities and states, with only sporadic contact with national-level politics. That theory didn't really survive contact with modern communication and transportation technologies.

Because America is too large. If you look at other nations of comparable or greater size (India, China, even Brazil) regional governors and politicians often have far more control over the local political economy than in the US. Chinese provinces vastly differ in terms of economic and social policy, for example.

Looking at this federal funding data sheet, I am reading that IMLS funding in 2024 was $268 million, with $211m distributed through the Library Services and Technology Act, which based on this 2022 factsheet by the American Libraries Association is the "only source of dedicated federal funding for the more than 116,000 public, school, academic, government, and special libraries across the nation."

I would agree that damn, look at that $268m - $211m, there is waste here of $67m somehow. And yes, for the 168million people that live in America that file taxes, they should either get their $0.40 back or DOGE can get it better spent.

But let's circle back to the federal disbursement of funds to libraries. Let's assume that $211m was equally distributed among the states, that's $211m/50 = $4.22m per state. Let's pick a random state, like Alabama, and look at their state budget for 2024. Specifically we can go to page 66 on the pdf (or 61 by the page numbering) to see that $18.3m was the total appropriation and $6.6m of that going to "amount earmarked for state aid to local libraries". I'm going to assume $4.22 would have been extra to the above, which would account for 4.22/(18.3 + 4.22) = 18.7% of funding for libraries in Alabama.

Is 18.7% a lot? Maybe. Is 81.3% a lot more? Absolutely. We can see that a lot of library funding is already dominated by local spending. I don't see how libraries are examples of where there is federal overreach or forcing the hand of states in terms of state-federal relationships. In fact if we look at the budget of Alabama on page 6 of the pdf (or 1 by the page numbering), the state had on hand 8.8b + 3b = $11.8b, which is then supplemented by 18.6b + 15b = 33.6b from elsewhere. This is the total inverse relationship where local funding is dwarfed by federal funding.

Actually, I found this pdf from Auburn University at Montgomery from 2022 which on page 7 has a diagram of 2019 funding where it shows 0.9% of Alabama funding for libraries was from the federal government. That in 2022, Alabama received $2.7m, which is way less than the $4.22m assumption I made above.

I can understand where you're coming from with regards to the balance of powers between national/federal and regional/state actors or the power of the purse and the carrot/stick strategy every administration uses against the state governments. But in this particular situation about library funding, I don't see how it holds water.

Let's assume that $211m was equally distributed among the states

It is not. They make their largest grants to state libraries, but they don't distribute it evenly. In 2024 they didn't even give Alabama state libraries a grant at all! California got $15,705,702 for their state library system, the only grant that went to anybody in Alabama whatsoever in 2024 was $184,876 to the Alabama African American Civil Rights Heritage Sites Consortium.

Here's the full list of 2024 grantees under their "Grants to State Libraries" program:

California State Library $15,705,702

Texas State Library and Archives Commission $12,512,132

State Library of Florida $9,533,426

New York State Library $8,125,215

Pennsylvania Office of Commonwealth Libraries $5,891,819

Illinois State Library $5,736,330

State Library of Ohio $5,448,084

Georgia Board of Regents $5,162,498

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources $5,089,381

Library of Michigan $4,788,124

New Jersey State Library $4,506,420

Library of Virginia $4,289,358

Washington State Library $3,948,629

Arizona State Library $3,804,635

Tennessee State Library and Archives $3,689,581

Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners $3,642,371

Indiana State Library $3,589,836

Missouri State Library $3,338,467

Maryland State Library Agency $3,332,465

WI Div. for Libraries and Community Learning $3,230,831

Colorado Department of Education $3,218,246

MN Dept of CFL/Library Development & Services $3,165,524

South Carolina State Library $3,028,013

State Library of Louisiana $2,726,161

KY Department for Libraries and Archives $2,708,198

Oregon State Library $2,597,695

Oklahoma Department of Libraries $2,529,938

Utah State Library Division $2,289,874

State Library of Iowa $2,210,343

Nevada State Library and Archives $2,205,502

Connecticut State Library $2,164,184

Arkansas State Library $2,157,781

PR Dept. of ED/Public Library Programs $2,147,080

Kansas State Library $2,109,780

Mississippi Library Commission $2,109,457

New Mexico State Library $1,797,977

Nebraska Library Commission $1,746,652

Idaho State Library $1,741,500

West Virginia Library Commission $1,668,036

Hawaii State Public Library System $1,541,630

New Hampshire State Library $1,529,144

Maine State Library $1,526,754

Montana State Library, Natural Resource Information System $1,427,530

Rhode Island Office of Library & Information Services $1,413,623

Delaware Division of Libraries $1,389,442

South Dakota State Library $1,346,956

State Library, North Dakota $1,295,858

Alaska State Library $1,276,792

District of Columbia Public Library $1,256,248

State of Vermont Department of Libraries $1,244,357

Wyoming State Library $1,220,427

Right, I think this furthers prove my point that in terms of "economic and social policy", regional governors and politicians often have far more control over their library system than the federal government.

I agree, which is why they'll be fine if the IMLS disappears. They don't need other people's money to get by.

Very interesting. I'd have expected China to be way more centralised because it's, well, China. Maybe the much larger population plays a role?

According to Wikipedia, this decentralization was instituted by Deng Xiaoping back in the 1980s. Quoting various books published since 2008:

The governance of China is characterized by a high degree of political centralization but significant economic decentralization. Policy instruments or processes are often tested locally before being applied more widely, resulting in a policy that involves experimentation and feedback. Generally, central government leadership refrains from drafting specific policies, instead using the informal networks and site visits to affirm or suggest changes to the direction of local policy experiments or pilot programs. The typical approach is that central government leadership begins drafting formal policies, law, or regulations after policy has been developed at local levels.

After [Deng's] economic reform, China has been characterized by a high degree of political centralization but significant economic decentralization.  The central government sets the strategic direction while local officials carry it out,  including developing the details of policy.

Laboratories of <del>democracy</del> <ins>socialism with Chinese characteristics</ins>

The recent "laboratories of socialism with Chinese characteristics" is correct. As far as I understand, regional governors have great latitude to experiment with policy, with successful cases transplanted into other provinces (as with the original "laboratories of democracy").

But the heightened autonomy also makes sense, looking back further in history. The division of China into its provinces goes back a long way; though the modern system (with adjustments) dates back to the Mongols, many of these territorial units trace their origin to antiquity; going into the 20th century, provincial feeling within China would have been much stronger and more deep-rooted than e.g. the same between US states. IIRC early observers of republican China thought that China would most likely be heavily federalised in large part due to this; even with Maoist destruction of China's cultural heritage, some of this still stays.

And historically while imperial China was theoretically totalitarian, in practice -- especially late into the imperial era, where the bureaucracy was increasingly lean and population increasingly large -- regional leaders had quite a lot of freedom as long as they were sufficiently obsequent to the Dragon Throne. (When central power was weak, of course, even that didn't apply -- see how the Beiyang fleet was snubbed by the other three Chinese fleets during the first Sino-Japanese war, or how during the Boxer rebellion governors of the southern provinces refused to heed the declaration of war on the Europeans and Japanese and withheld knowledge of the edict from their populations.)

Edit: a word

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