site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 1, 2024

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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are they a reliable narrator on the matter? I can certainly imagine a bunch of constraints on how endowment money is used, but it also seems true that there's just always going to be a lot of pressure to just acquire more no matter how rich they already are.

In any case, I still think it's super weird that middle-class people give even a penny to their schools. I understand if you have enough money to get your name on a building or an endowed professorship or can swing the politics of a department, but I genuinely don't get what someone gets out of giving a few hundred bucks to a school.

I wondered about that, and I've lost the link long ago, but they claimed to be on the accountancy or financial management or whatever of Harvard, and that the perception of "you've got a huge endowment, you must be swimming in money" was not correct. All kinds of baked-in running expenses and loan repayments and the like meant that they can't just get their hands on the endowment as it is and use it up, and that the income generated is not keeping up with the demands on it.

As you say, this may well be motivated reasoning and not reliable, but it was someone trying to explain why Harvard couldn't just give $$$$$ to disadvantaged students etc.

Sports, mostly.

What the hell does someone get out of giving a couple hundred (or thousand) bucks to a school with a Big Ten Network contract pulling in tens of millions? I just don't get it. I get spending money to go to a football game, but I have no idea why someone picks up a call from their alumni org and replies that they'd be happy to cut a small check.

Often, some (often overstated)level of influence over minor traditions that may be important to them, personally- this was how the same UTA was previously talked out of getting rid of its fight song 'the eyes of Texas are upon you' at least once. Alternatively, frequently better opportunities for either networking or a notionally better chance at getting sporting tickets or something like that.

Realistically, most alumni don't donate, and a good chunk of those who do are donating to specific organizations affiliated with the school(eg the marching band) or have too much money to know what to do with anyways.