5 ms·

If they come for DARPA then we are all in deep shit because that means things are far worse than we could have imagined.

caycep 2y ago
like even more far-worse than the current far-worse?
SequoiaHope 2y ago
In the words of Han Solo “I don’t know I can imagine quite a bit.”
ballooney 2y ago
Things already are that bad, you’re standing an inch beyond where the previous wave washed up to and saying “well if it gets here in the next few waves then suddenly we become in deep shit’ while all around people are shouting at you about the existence of a concept called ‘the tide’. This is happening right now. fight back.
- foxglacier 2y ago
  Come on. Even if all of Darpa is shut down, it will hardly matter. Come back in 4 years and see that the world is still turning but you've used up your hyperbolic panic on a big nothing-burger.
  - hsuduebc2 2y ago
    Just because the world keeps turning doesn't mean it's unaffected. Small shifts today can have huge consequences down the line, and brushing everything off as a 'nothing-burger' is exactly how real damage gets ignored. I wonder-what would actually have to happen for you to stop calling it that? This situation is, at the very least, unusual.
    - foxglacier 2y ago
      For the past 25 years, there have been consistent small shifts towards more government deficit [1]. Aren't those the problem that has to be stopped? I don't know enough about economics but can this really continue forever or is it just exacerbating some painful problem in the future if it's not reversed now? Maybe non-essential for-the-future work like Darpa isn't the best thing to spend money on when you're trying to reduce spending as fast as you can? It can always be re-instated in more prosperous times. [1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-budget-deficit-tops-18-trillion-fiscal-2024-third-largest-record-2024-10-18/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-budget-deficit-tops-18...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
noobermin 2y ago
They already came for NSF and the NIH, how can they not also come for DARPA? Most republicans don't believe in defense or anything like that, they believe in returning money to their investors...I mean campaign contributors who are defense contractors. A contractor makes money selling contracts, whether they affect the actual defense capabilities of the country or not.
- afpx 2y ago
  From what I understand, the funding cuts are primarily related to DEI initiatives. And, generally the administration is trying to align activities with its goals, so it’s understandable that funds will be adjusted. DEI is a target because its goals are steeped in Marxist philosophy, which is antithetical to their own. Also, Republicans (of whom I’m not one) believe that spending should be controlled by the states. It’s not that they don’t believe in defense - they realize it’s more effective to invest in drones and use nuclear deterrence. Those are more effective and cheaper in terms of lives as well as money. This aligns with the US’s new isolationist strategy as it withdraws from the world.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    Do you have any idea of the breakdown? Because everything I've see is that no one knows, and the limited government publications are full of bullshit. Like, if a project studying biodiversity is cut, is that because it is "related to DEI initiatives" because it shared the word "diversity"? How many of the laid-off VA staff were DEI? The laid-off forest rangers? How much of USAID was DEI? The Trump administration says the cut was due to wasteful spending and fraud, not DEI. How do the cuts in DEI initiatives compare to the massive cuts to indirect grant monies? If the Republicans believe spending should be more controlled by the states, they have a majority and can, you know, change the law. We have a representative democracy to help balance national interests, rather than the interests of a king. I don't think we can regard threats to annex Greenland, Canada, or the Panama Canal as part of an isolationist policy. Such threats are more closely aligned with expansionism. An isolationist government would not be involved in international negotiations involving Ukraine, or providing support to Israel, to start. FWIW, DEI is no more steeped in Marxist philosophy than the Freedman's Bureau, public libraries, or the FDIC. As far as I can tell, "Marxism" when used this way is a boogieman term used to scare off any critique of capitalism or its effects, little different than how Republicans sneered that Dukakis was an "L word", castigating the word "liberal." Both terms are used as rhetorical propaganda. Given the influence Marx had on studying "class relations, social conflict, and social transformation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism), it's all too easy to say that any study of those topics must be Marxism, and therefore fomenting a communist revolution.

caycep 2y ago

like even more far-worse than the current far-worse?

SequoiaHope 2y ago

In the words of Han Solo “I don’t know I can imagine quite a bit.”

ballooney 2y ago

Things already are that bad, you’re standing an inch beyond where the previous wave washed up to and saying “well if it gets here in the next few waves then suddenly we become in deep shit’ while all around people are shouting at you about the existence of a concept called ‘the tide’. This is happening right now. fight back.

foxglacier 2y ago
Come on. Even if all of Darpa is shut down, it will hardly matter. Come back in 4 years and see that the world is still turning but you've used up your hyperbolic panic on a big nothing-burger.
- hsuduebc2 2y ago
  Just because the world keeps turning doesn't mean it's unaffected. Small shifts today can have huge consequences down the line, and brushing everything off as a 'nothing-burger' is exactly how real damage gets ignored. I wonder-what would actually have to happen for you to stop calling it that? This situation is, at the very least, unusual.
  - foxglacier 2y ago
    For the past 25 years, there have been consistent small shifts towards more government deficit [1]. Aren't those the problem that has to be stopped? I don't know enough about economics but can this really continue forever or is it just exacerbating some painful problem in the future if it's not reversed now? Maybe non-essential for-the-future work like Darpa isn't the best thing to spend money on when you're trying to reduce spending as fast as you can? It can always be re-instated in more prosperous times. [1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-budget-deficit-tops-18-trillion-fiscal-2024-third-largest-record-2024-10-18/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-budget-deficit-tops-18...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

noobermin 2y ago

They already came for NSF and the NIH, how can they not also come for DARPA? Most republicans don't believe in defense or anything like that, they believe in returning money to their investors...I mean campaign contributors who are defense contractors. A contractor makes money selling contracts, whether they affect the actual defense capabilities of the country or not.

afpx 2y ago
From what I understand, the funding cuts are primarily related to DEI initiatives. And, generally the administration is trying to align activities with its goals, so it’s understandable that funds will be adjusted. DEI is a target because its goals are steeped in Marxist philosophy, which is antithetical to their own. Also, Republicans (of whom I’m not one) believe that spending should be controlled by the states. It’s not that they don’t believe in defense - they realize it’s more effective to invest in drones and use nuclear deterrence. Those are more effective and cheaper in terms of lives as well as money. This aligns with the US’s new isolationist strategy as it withdraws from the world.
- eesmith 2y ago
  Do you have any idea of the breakdown? Because everything I've see is that no one knows, and the limited government publications are full of bullshit. Like, if a project studying biodiversity is cut, is that because it is "related to DEI initiatives" because it shared the word "diversity"? How many of the laid-off VA staff were DEI? The laid-off forest rangers? How much of USAID was DEI? The Trump administration says the cut was due to wasteful spending and fraud, not DEI. How do the cuts in DEI initiatives compare to the massive cuts to indirect grant monies? If the Republicans believe spending should be more controlled by the states, they have a majority and can, you know, change the law. We have a representative democracy to help balance national interests, rather than the interests of a king. I don't think we can regard threats to annex Greenland, Canada, or the Panama Canal as part of an isolationist policy. Such threats are more closely aligned with expansionism. An isolationist government would not be involved in international negotiations involving Ukraine, or providing support to Israel, to start. FWIW, DEI is no more steeped in Marxist philosophy than the Freedman's Bureau, public libraries, or the FDIC. As far as I can tell, "Marxism" when used this way is a boogieman term used to scare off any critique of capitalism or its effects, little different than how Republicans sneered that Dukakis was an "L word", castigating the word "liberal." Both terms are used as rhetorical propaganda. Given the influence Marx had on studying "class relations, social conflict, and social transformation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism), it's all too easy to say that any study of those topics must be Marxism, and therefore fomenting a communist revolution.