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 -
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.
In my field, there's a bit of chaos going around, too, but the main cause of it predates the election. In my case, the U.S. Dept. of _____ Office of _____ Research has just decided to totally revamp the grant structure so that now the fundamental units that are being funded are large teams organized based on what sorts of problems they're investigating, but such teams do not now and have never before existed. This was the plan back in October, and we've not gotten word since then except declaring this plan to be official. I don't expect that the administration change has made things easier, but I can say that my case is not primarily caused by this.
That said.
Last month I noted that the facility I work at was planning to hide its DEI department under a paper-thin disguise. The week after the inauguration, though, they were told in no uncertain terms that that wouldn't be permitted, and (as far as I have seen) they caved. Much of the next weekly science meeting was dedicated to mourning their DEI efforts (and after hearing this - hearing how so-very-confused! they now are about what counts as 'DEI' - I certainly believe that a good deal of the chaos is due to malicious compliance. I cannot fail by now to recognize the tactic of wholly emptying out one's head when put on the defensive. ["'Woke?' What is this thing you call 'woke?'"])
And I'm glad I didn't attend that meeting in person, lest I have done something intemperate. I might have stood up and tried to say something like "I think it is wrong to discriminate based on race or gender. I do not think that we should be in the business of discriminating based on race or gender." (I'm sure I would have gotten tongue-tied - but probably would have gotten the point across ["he's an enemy"] enough to be retaliated against.)
Backing up a little, one of the main reasons I'm where I am at all - on the particular small team working at this big facility - is that this was one of the few job openings available in my field that did not require me to submit a Diversity Statement. (I don't know how my PI got away with it; I know the institution we're affiliated with requires it.) If I had had to do so, and actually tried to be honest about my beliefs (see the intemperate sentences above,) I know now and knew then that that would get me a failing grade.
Here's an example rubric - associated with a university I personally have had some connection to - showing what they're looking for in Diversity Statements, and more importantly, what they're not looking for. You get the lowest scores for saying things like you intend to "[treat] all students the same regardless of background." '90s colorblindness is being explicitly filtered against. That's not enough, you see. If you want to be a scientist, you must have the heart of an activist - the spirit of a revolutionary! You must be sure to fit in exactly with the political monoculture.
Now, the purpose of all of this is clearly to advance the ideology by closing all available doors to anyone who doesn't submit to it. But the problem with ensuring that [general you] you're all a bunch of revolutionaries is that sometimes revolutions lose. The problem with ensuring that every one among you is dedicated to Overthrowing The System is that you might be the system already. The problem with welding yourself to something as indispensable as Science is that, perhaps, science might be done great damage in extricating you (to say nothing of the damage done inserting yourself.)
Perhaps my career will be derailed by this. Perhaps my entire field will get torpedoed. But at this level of corruption - frankly mind-boggling when I step back to take it in - I can't say academia wouldn't have it coming.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link