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 -
For the past 3 weeks I have been inundated with ads paid for by USAFacts, a non-profit founded by Steve Balmer. In its own words, it's a "...not-for-profit, nonpartisan civic initiative making government data easy for all Americans to access and understand. We provide a data-driven portrait of the American population, US governments’ finances, and governments’ impact on society."
Some of these videos have a considerable number of views. The videos below have 10 million views each in less than a month, indicative of a large budget and a major media push. YouTube ads targeting the US are not known for being cheap, given that it's a high-SES audience. YouTube counts a view as someone who clicks the link and watches at least 10 seconds of the video, at a cost of roughly 10 cents a view. By my estimation, he has spent $2-4 million in promoting these videos, among others, in just a month alone. This is pocket change for him, but my question is, what does he hope to accomplish with this?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JXKLoDXmZNo
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Bl1HRu18X0Y
Although it describes itself as non-partisan, this does not preclude some sort of agenda or motive by its founder.
The 2028 US presidential election is still years away. The content itself is not outwardly partisan and it's hard to shoehorn it into any specific agenda. Perhaps he hopes viewers will become better informed about trade, to dissuade them from voting for the presumptive GOP nominee, that being JD Vance, who supports tariffs? But the ads are broadcast everywhere, not just battleground states. Or he's trying to cement a legacy as a lecturer and public intellectual , similar to Milton Friedman or Ray Dalio, who also have popular economics videos. Between this and Bill Gates' philanthropy, it shows that the ultra-wealthy tend to also be workaholics. They are not content just retiring with their money. The last thing I would want to do is get all dressed up and read for hours scripts for many videos. Sounds really tedious and boring.
I don't think it will work though. The era of the 'TV public intellectual', as exemplified by Donahue and Crossfire which pioneered the format, peaked in the 80s and 90s, before the internet.
There is no such thing as apolitical government data. He has an agenda, and I’d suggest finding it by looking at the types of data he’s highlighting, and especially any sorts of data he’s not highlighted. My suspicion is that he’s pushing a Trump-bad narrative by digging up data sets that make Trump look bad. If the GOP wanted to push a narrative through the data, they can simply put it on their various platforms and move along.
Seems he and his wife engage in philanthropy, and they founded the Ballmer Group in 2015 which both manages his wealth and is a grantmaker for liberal causes:
So yeah, getting persuaded into (or maybe it was his own idea) backing a media literacy initiative to snatch a brand from the burning by informing the Americans at risk of voting for Trump that this would be bad and wrong, here's the right information you should believe, sounds on-brand for the guy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link