site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   40032 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 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.

A quick report from the world of science and academia.

Strange times indeed. Grant proposals my lab has been working on for months have disappeared. I’m seeing and hearing of several nodes in my network which are in federal positions just disappearing.

I also advise students who are building software products for clients, and of both clients that are government agencies, NASA and US Forest Service, today I have learned that one has essentially cancelled the project at its end stages and the other has been MIA for weeks (Ironically, the cancelled product was a system that would significantly improve the efficiency of a key NASA analysis workflow).

Today I see news that the NSF research experiences for undergraduates, which trains undergraduates to conduct real research and which I personally credit with making me into a scientist, is being shuttered across much of the country.

The grant I’m relying on to complete my PhD is on shaky ground according to people close to the problem, and I fear that funding cuts could affect the only backup plan I have, which is continuing working as a teaching assistant. (A luxurious $15k per year + tuition remission). The key expert on my committee in the tech I’m using is at NASA and I fear for the longevity of his position.

Feels like the government is just dismantling the world I’ve spent my life working to become a part of, and I can’t say that I quite understand why.

I’m in a hard science field with direct applications to societal benefits. I believe that what I’m working on is something many would recognize as important. And I also think there’s a pretty clear link between training people who do this sort of thing (STEM generally) and national wellbeing and competitiveness.

I could understand this all better if it was just Trump doing it alone. Sort of a lower class rebellion against the educated class. But what really has me confused is the fact that it’s being spearheaded by Musk and “tech” people.

When DOGE was first announced I thought, great! I deeply dislike Trump but maybe this will make it actually be quite worth it in the end if we can fix the behemoth of government and make it more efficient. Maybe the country will be able to start to build things again, like the tech guys say, it’s time to build! But what we got was quite different from that hopeful version of me had in mind. SV types spearheading the dismantling of the US institution of science. That was not on my bingo card! Why was this the first move of DOGE? Noah Smith argues that it’s an ideological purge rather than an attempt at efficiency, and I guess that makes sense. Ultimately science funding is quite small potatoes in the federal budget. So why is it among the first major target of the administration and DOGE?

I don’t want to catastrophize here. Science in the US is being weakened and downsized, and somewhat purged for touchy topics, but it’s not being destroyed. I’ll probably be able to pull through and finish my program, at least that’s my current hope.

Yet it seems quite obvious to me that these moves are going to significantly weaken the US against competitors such as China. Science has its flaws, but it’s still the secret sauce of western societies’ success and a key part of the economic engine. I’ve always thought of Elon Musk as a big picture, long term thinker who understands the role of science and technology in human advancement. So I’m at a loss for why he would direct focus onto weakening science in the US as among his first moves if his interest really is with the medium to long term success of the US.

Today I see news that the NSF research experiences for undergraduates, which trains undergraduates to conduct real research and which I personally credit with making me into a scientist, is being shuttered across much of the country.

Someone did a look into science grants being cancelled on the ssc sub and their conclusion was that DOGE or whoever basically just ctrl+f'd "diverse", "underrepresented", and "minority" and axed all matches. This would correspond with why REUs are being shuttered.

Utter speculates that fiscal constraints aren’t the only reason NSF has pulled back on its support for the REU program. “I think NSF was worried about not having enough money, for sure,” Utter says. “But attracting more students into STEM careers from groups underrepresented in science is also a big part of what the REU program is trying to do. And that would have made it a target” for President Donald Trump’s executive order last month banning government funding of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

that DOGE or whoever basically just ctrl+f'd "diverse", "underrepresented", and "minority" and axed all matches.

This feels particularly pernicious because, at least to me, it seems the vibe under the previous administration (and possibly it's predecessors) strongly encouraged sneaking in these terms for effectively opposite reasons to prevent summary rejection by federal funding agencies. There are probably a bunch of projects that, in saner times, would be mostly apolitical, but are going to get sacrificed in this tribal tug-of-war. I guess the folks sneaking diversity statements into particle accelerator funding proposals aren't completely blameless, but I do feel a bit bad for those just going along with the zeitgeist.

Yup, one proposal was for a telescope in Chile, and it had a throwaway sentence about how it could help get more Hispanic students interested. As if telescopes are built in Chile for outreach and not because it has a crazy dry high desert.

And what that one sentence said was "I, the proposer of this project, hereby abandon any claim of being a neutral scientific fact finder, and align myself, and pledge fealty to, the political goals of the Democratic party. " Once you've abandoned your neutrality that way you can't legitimately complain of being treated as a political enemy.

Alternatively, as @jeroboam said in a follow-up to one of my prior comments, there were probably boomercons who just read it in BusinessWeek and actually believed that there was some untapped source of talent that was falling through some magical cracks or something. Over time, more and more people have wizened up, realizing that the magical gainz predicted simply have not occurred. It does take a little time for that realization to cascade (related?). Like, yes, congratulations to you, The_Nybbler, for realizing it earlier (as did I), but it's pretty insane to think that even the most milquetoast versions, at all time points in the cascade, were fealty pledges.

When the scimitar is to one's throat, the sincerity of the Shahada should be downweighted accordingly.

Forced oaths have value to the forcer; that's why they exist. They shouldn't, but they do. They especially have value when the person being forced has the quality of integrity; they will often prefer to follow the oath rather than surreptitiously subvert it. Thus such an oath should be downweighted, but not ignored entirely.

Which is to say that a Christian or a Jew is wise not to trust those who converted to Islam under the penalty of the sword, not without good reason to believe the conversion was false. They certainly should not trust the falseness of the conversion if the converted insist on performing salah even once their Islamic masters have been vanquished, and object to the removal of "PBUH" and "Inshallah" from their work documents.

On the other hand, as Antioch found out, the sword bearer would be wise not to trust his new converts too far either…

Keanu Reeves character, "Speed", trying to be edgy: "Shoot the hostage. ... Go for the good wound and he can't get to the plane with her."

The_Nybbler, actually understanding edgy: "Shoot the hostage. Once they've obeyed the terrorist they can't legitimately complain of being treated as an enemy."

From "The Rules of Engagement are the problem" by John T. Reed:

Blackhawk Down

In Somalia, bad guys who had the U.S. Army Rangers pinned down in the Blackhawk Down incident would hold a woman or child against their chest as they crossed the street to prevent the squeamish Americans from firing at them. The Somalis would blast away at the American with their guns as they thus crossed the street. Apparently, it worked. I would have told my men to shoot the SOBs through the civilians.

Would that cause the civilians to have a bad day? Sure. But it would be a great thing for the remaining civilians because the fighters would immediately stop using that tactic as soon as the Americans started killing the fighters by shooting them through the human shields.

Like ransom

It’s like ransom. Paying ransom is generally illegal because it encourages continuation of the kidnapping business. If the various governments would enforce their laws against paying ransom to the extent that ransoms stopped being paid at all, the kidnapping business would cease to exist for lack of incentive. Everyone who pays a ransom to get their loved one back is culpable for subsequent kidnappings of other people’s loved ones.

Paying ransom is a classic case of beggar thy neighbor--that is, a policy that benefits the person engaging in it, but which only can do so at the expense of other similarly-situated people. It is a classic example of taking care of number one and to hell with everyone else.

The U.S. and allied soldiers who refrain from shooting where civilian human shields are benefiting themselves by enabling themselves to claim they are great humanitarians who held their fire. But they do that at the expense of the rest of the American and allied military who will be in continued danger from the bad guys in question. Indeed, the bullet that kills the humanitarian soldier who held his fire, or his best friend, may be fired by the bad guy he let escape with his decision not to shoot where he knew or suspected bad guys were--because of the presence of civilians.

Similarly, refraining from shooting at an enemy soldier because he uses innocent (or maybe not) civilians as shields rewards and thereby encourages the use of human shields. It is immoral to encourage the use of innocent civilians as shields. Furthermore, refusing to refrain from shooting at those who use civilians as shields will immediately end the practice which will lead to fewer civilian and military casualties on all sides and an earlier victory in the war. Paradoxical thought it may seem, ignoring the possibility of civilian casualties by shooting at the enemy regardless of the presence of civilians will save civilian lives in the long run.

because the fighters would immediately stop using that tactic as soon as the Americans started killing the fighters by shooting them through the human shields

...

refraining from shooting at an enemy soldier because he uses innocent (or maybe not) civilians as shields rewards and thereby encourages the use of human shields

The absolute key question here is to what extent the applied effects change behavior. It is good that you have found an example where shooting particular hostages (those directly attached to an enemy fighter as a shield) provides game theoretic incentives to change behavior and get to a better outcome. Certainly, there are other situations where shooting hostages randomly is not likely to have a similar effect. So, the question we have to answer is what methods actually affect the game theory such that they are likely to affect change and accomplish our goals. I comment on that here.

It mildly bugs me that game theory 101 isn't a common senior year topic.

Far too many arguments miss the game-theoretical aspects of decisions which nominally have a particular effect in the short term, but which have a very different effect once other actors shift their strategies in response.

"I was just following orders"

The former Commisar a few weeks after the election.

...but didn't General de Gaulle say that all of France was part of the Resistance?

Is the hostage supposed to be pointing a gun at you in this analogy? People can be compelled into causing harm, but that doesn't negate the fact that they are, as a matter of fact, causing harm. Stopping them can be justified on those grounds alone.

Or are you going to argue that the scientists were just following orders?

The hostage doesn't have a gun, but by not resisting, the hostage is enabling a criminal with a gun to get away.

By not resisting, the scientists are (checks notes) noticing that scientific studies done in a Hispanic country might help more Hispanics want to become scientists.

The hostage still isn't coming off as the better of the two here.

Are these scientists the front-line Wehrmacht, or just civilians throwing a quick heil before going about their business? The German public needn't be prosecuted, just shown that the Nazis aren't in charge anymore.

They aren't being prosecuted; they are simply being told that their jobs manufacturing Hugo Boss uniforms and swastika flags for the government are done, and that they will have to find some other form of employment in the private sector. That seems like a reasonable consequence and a proportional punishment.

You can certainly argue about the severity of their actions (including arguing that it's so trivial no punishment is warranted), but they did take those actions and do bear moral responsibility for them.

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