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 -
Reuters:
Trump orders sweeping freeze for federal grants and loans
Trump order set to halt supply of HIV, malaria drugs to poor countries, sources say
Apparently based on this memo (pdf).
This seems very... crude. The question is if it's purposefully crude, if there's some structural reason it can't be better implemented, or if the person in charge is incompetent.
Also, impoundment? We'll see?
Funding is paused. There is no evidence for negative ramifications of the pause. Democrats are using their agents in the media to depict this as chaotic and bad. That’s because the effects of misinformation linger even when retractions are issued, though there is usually not a salient retraction issued anyway. The intention is to form a negative emotional memory in the consumer’s mind which strengthens for each story. I am filing this under “business as usual”.
Why wouldn’t there be negative effects for abruptly cutting off funding? You know what they say about the absence of evidence.
The net effect absolutely could be positive, but it’s not going to be free. I am certain the media will be blasting genuine sob stories from whatever percentage of Americans were actually depending on this.
As the story of the dog that did not bark in the nighttime reveals, sometimes it is indeed evidence of absence.
To be clear, I expect the dog will bark, but Trump enthusiasts will cheerfully dismiss it as an injured cat.
Abandoning the metaphor—some people were getting money, and if this works, they won’t keep getting money. Even if this is a good thing, they are going to complain and dig up the most sympathetic first-generation college student flattened by student debt. It’s not a statistical argument, just a political one.
We've already learned from coverage of the alleged pet-eating Haitians that calling a cat a dog is "directionally correct" in Trumpworld. Surely the same applies if Peticare cuts injure a cat and I call it a barking dog?
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