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 -
That's complicated.
About a third of normal USAID funding was just outright 'soft' stuff, as a program category: economic outreach, democracy, education, 'hearts and minds'. It wasn't necessarily used for bad purposes, but it could get assigned to outright random stuff, and no small part of it was outright democracy-as-liberal-favoritism. And it could be pretty overt, so this is where you get eg anti-Orbon funding passed through as fortifying 'free speech'. That said, while there were a lot of degrees of freedom with this funding, it wasn't infinite. That's why the claimed Ukraine plot supposedly involved trying to get a construction grant and then cycling the money around: they couldn't just write 'fuck Trump' on the grant application. On the other hand, oversight is incredibly weak, so 'ask for a giant construction grant and don't do anything with construction' is more plausible than it sounds at first glance. And some of the democracy, rights, and governance work is just 'regime change'.
Another two-thirds were at least ostensibly focused on central program targets: HIV care, TB medicine, nutrition, anti-malaria efforts, critical infrastructure, that sort of thing. Some of that's required by statute to go directly to medicine buys or palliative care, but it's mostly the stuff that USAID proponents wave as the goals of the program. So from those headline numbers, it's most legitimate charity on top than sketchy slush fund underneath.
((There's also a few years of Ukraine-specific funding; it's both far enough out of scope and unusual that it's even harder to break down.))
... but it's not clear how real the headline numbers are. There's a lot of HIV care funding that went to, as an example, LGBT de-stigmatization efforts. There's an epidemiological argument, since it's hard to get people to go to a testing clinic if they're going to be lynched afterward, but it's also conveniently the exact political target that a lot of the program leads wanted, regardless of how much of "don't get patients lynched" they actually needed and how much was setting up posters for a cause they supported.
And virtually every USAID program was metered and scored on gender equity. Even for core programs, it's hard to tell how many were using actual outcomes as a metric, and how many were like NASA, where it'd be nice to have a working spaceship or a functional bit of infrastructure, but the program is more focused on making sure spending got to the right people and anything else was a plus-up.
The uglier question is deaths. Most USAID slush fundy stuff was just inefficient, or, at worst, one of those matters where the negative ramifications were three or four steps removed: even if USAID funding to an anti-Orbon movement precedes a riot, it's not really responsible for the deaths. Giving an al-q affiliate five million bucks isn't direct, and you could theoretically imagine counterfactuals where it doesn't matter, but it's a lot closer.
The difficult one is whether a lot of USAID money made its way back to political causes directly. People are making a lot of hay out of DNC funding shortfalls and a stunning drop in support for left-wing politicians in many parts of The Global South, and that's some evidence, but it has enough alternative explanations that it still feels reaching to me.
More options
Context Copy link