6 ms·

Economic, educational, reputational ... it's hard to think of a dimension that the current administration is not destroying the US on.

by xnx 2y ago

sanderjd 2y ago
Well, so far, they have just waffled on whether or not to drastically defund the military.
armini 2y ago
“A nation is not lost because of the actions of the wicked, but because of the silence of the just.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
- thrance 2y ago
  Good quote put pretty ironic coming from the guy that ruined France economically and demographically for the next 100 years, and left it to lag behind the UK and the other Empires of the 19th century.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    A coalition of monarchies did gang up and wage war on the French republic, to stop their crazy ideas from spreading. Kind of parallel to France demanding Haiti pay them compensation for slaves being freed. In both cases we'd generally look more kindly on republics and freeing slaves from the modern perspective, and maybe put more blame on the people trying to undermine them.
    - thrance 2y ago
      Slight nitpick, but France was no longer a Republic in Napoleon's time. It had become the First French Empire.
      - Tainnor 2y ago
        That's not a "slight" nitpick. While we can be grateful to Napoleon to bring modern law and scientific advances to the rest of Europe, he certainly didn't conquer it in the interest of democracy.
        ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        It's an incorrect nitpick. The post I replied to said Napolean ruined France compared with nearby empires. I said the nearby empires were hostile to revolution and so keen to keep a Franch Republic down. Wikipedia says: > As early as 1791, the other monarchies of Europe looked with outrage at the revolution and its upheavals; and they considered whether they should intervene, either in support of King Louis XVI to prevent the spread of revolution, or to take advantage of the chaos in France. Austria stationed significant troops on its French border and together with Prussia issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, which threatened severe consequences should anything happen to King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette.
        thrance 2y ago
        Ok but did he have to go as far as Russia? Couldn't he just consolidate his forces instead of getting drunk on conquest and waging war all the way to eastern-most Europe?
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        Napoleon was a French military officer from 1785 to 1800. During that time, France was a monarchy and republic, before becoming an empire when he rose to political power and directed its military as ruler. So, all of the above in his time?
        thrance 2y ago
        Ok but as a French, we don't really think as 1789-1804 as "Napoleon's time". His empire was and remains what he his most remembered for. He's literally referred to as "l'empereur" (the emperor). I don't think I need to expand on how his Empire wasn't really democratic, or a republic.
- RandomBacon 2y ago
  That's probably exactly what the other "side" is thinking. For example: They think that allowing people with penises to to change in women's locker rooms just because they identify as women is wicked, so they aren't being silent about it. > the locker room situation with Thomas, who although she has transitioned to being female hormonally and identified as a woman, still has male body parts https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/lia-thomas-teammate-situation-is-unfair-and-ncaa-is-discriminating-against-cisgender-women-locker-room-discomfort/ https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/lia-thomas-teamma... The pendulum eventually swings to the other side. (I'm somewhere in the middle with I suspect a majority of people - it's the extremists that are the loudest.)
  - neogodless 2y ago
    So both-sides then? Look I think we should disagree on fiscal and social policy, and be able to deliberate over these issues. And have a system of government that allows for that kind of debate and representative vote. But "one side" is dismantling everything that was still democratic about the United States and turning into a massively one-sided (even one-manned) system of control. So whatever your opinion or mine on social policy no longer matter, because it's all up to the whims of a single person, with no recourse for the rest of us.
    - markus_zhang 2y ago
      The biggest problem is that everyone has their own version of good and bad, so all need to get up and action, to form sort of equilibrium.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - fleek 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - Geezus_42 2y ago
        Is it the democratic process failing, or it being destroyed by monied interests?
ffsm8 2y ago
It's not destroying the US media industry like tv/movies/games. Why can I say that with confidence you ask? Simple! Because they have been doing that for ages before the current administration got to power ( * ´ ω ｀ * )
- Geezus_42 2y ago
  Have you seen the meadia landscape lately? It's filled with absolute garbage and generative AI is going to make to so much worse. They've also done everything they can to delegitimize every reliable source of truth. So I'd say they've done a great job destroying the media industry.
  - HK-NC 2y ago
    Lately as in since the election? Cause for me this has been happening for decades. I'm not even going to comment on the principles of scientific truth considering the nonsense people are peddling today is no better than the bible bashers on the right.
bko 2y ago
[flagged]
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  Reasonable question. It depends, at top level, what the intention is. What the US government thinks it is buying. Is it buying global improvement in research? If so, surely you just hire smartest people out there. In fact it will probably be mostly non-Americans, because even if they come from a much-better-than-average educational system, still, they are something like 4% of global population. Ok, so let's say not this. Perhaps US govt is strictly buying (indirect) improvement to US economy. Well, a lot of these students will stay in the US, find startups, or simply become good taxpayers. Most developed countries struggle to grow or keep their societies steady, US has this funnel of highly skilled workforce - universities. Even better, since these immigrants, if they stay, won't have generated primary education costs, and if they eventually leave, also will cost less in adult life than people who stay in the US all their life. This is about undergrads, really. Postgraduate students are more like hard, underpaid jobs. People come and go, and perform the service of churning out research for an American University. Finally, not sure how much the US govt is paying for these foreign undergrads. Rich undergrads will have to lay a good chunk of their own fees - perhaps all, either via cash or loans they have to repay. I'm not in any way endorsing this kerfuffle, but it's always good to be clear why you are paying for things, as sooner or later someone will challenge it.
- apwell23 2y ago
  > Here's maybe a dumb question serious question, why did you think your question might be dumb?
- rayiner 2y ago
  It’s because Harvard profits from selling fast-track access to american immigration.
  - bko 2y ago
    I get it, it helps to have wealthy foreign donors and you don't have to give them aid. I was more asking why is this acceptable? If its an American university, benefiting from American tax dollars, shouldn't it primarily benefit American students? So many things we just accept at face value and don't question. I never really thought about it before, but it's weird now that I think about it. This is necessarily a scarce resource (by design). It doesn't have to be, they could vastly grow their class size without lowering standards. But they choose not to, to maintain elite status and make their donor class happy. If they wanted to keep their class size the same, they could probably fund it entirely through their $53bn endowment, yet they still charge 50k+ a year. And then they have the audacity to reject thousands of qualified American kids and give their seats to rich foreign kids? Come on
grafmax 2y ago
Cowing Harvard - one of the world’s greatest universities - would mark a pivotal victory for the dictatorship taking shape before our eyes. Dictatorships derive their power from the submission of a society’s key institutions. That’s what’s at stake here.
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Geezus_42 2y ago
    Who responds to polls? Old people, people with an ideological motive, and people who get paid. They mean almost nothing.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - yareally 2y ago
    Where did you get those numbers? That's a little inflated by what pew gathered. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/americans-views-of-deportations/ https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/am...
    - rayiner 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - yareally 2y ago
        I have read lots of your comments over the years and you've had some great contributions, but I don't think this is one of them. What figure from the link supports your comment? 74% support deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes. That's a bit different than what you initially said

Economic, educational, reputational ... it's hard to think of a dimension that the current administration is not destroying the US on.

by xnx 2y ago

Economic, educational, reputational ... it's hard to think of a dimension that the current administration is not destroying the US on.

sanderjd 2y ago

Well, so far, they have just waffled on whether or not to drastically defund the military.

armini 2y ago

“A nation is not lost because of the actions of the wicked, but because of the silence of the just.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

thrance 2y ago
Good quote put pretty ironic coming from the guy that ruined France economically and demographically for the next 100 years, and left it to lag behind the UK and the other Empires of the 19th century.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  A coalition of monarchies did gang up and wage war on the French republic, to stop their crazy ideas from spreading. Kind of parallel to France demanding Haiti pay them compensation for slaves being freed. In both cases we'd generally look more kindly on republics and freeing slaves from the modern perspective, and maybe put more blame on the people trying to undermine them.
  - thrance 2y ago
    Slight nitpick, but France was no longer a Republic in Napoleon's time. It had become the First French Empire.
    - Tainnor 2y ago
      That's not a "slight" nitpick. While we can be grateful to Napoleon to bring modern law and scientific advances to the rest of Europe, he certainly didn't conquer it in the interest of democracy.
      - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        It's an incorrect nitpick. The post I replied to said Napolean ruined France compared with nearby empires. I said the nearby empires were hostile to revolution and so keen to keep a Franch Republic down. Wikipedia says: > As early as 1791, the other monarchies of Europe looked with outrage at the revolution and its upheavals; and they considered whether they should intervene, either in support of King Louis XVI to prevent the spread of revolution, or to take advantage of the chaos in France. Austria stationed significant troops on its French border and together with Prussia issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, which threatened severe consequences should anything happen to King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette.
        thrance 2y ago
        Ok but did he have to go as far as Russia? Couldn't he just consolidate his forces instead of getting drunk on conquest and waging war all the way to eastern-most Europe?
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Napoleon was a French military officer from 1785 to 1800. During that time, France was a monarchy and republic, before becoming an empire when he rose to political power and directed its military as ruler. So, all of the above in his time?
      - thrance 2y ago
        Ok but as a French, we don't really think as 1789-1804 as "Napoleon's time". His empire was and remains what he his most remembered for. He's literally referred to as "l'empereur" (the emperor). I don't think I need to expand on how his Empire wasn't really democratic, or a republic.
RandomBacon 2y ago
That's probably exactly what the other "side" is thinking. For example: They think that allowing people with penises to to change in women's locker rooms just because they identify as women is wicked, so they aren't being silent about it. > the locker room situation with Thomas, who although she has transitioned to being female hormonally and identified as a woman, still has male body parts https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/lia-thomas-teammate-situation-is-unfair-and-ncaa-is-discriminating-against-cisgender-women-locker-room-discomfort/ https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/lia-thomas-teamma... The pendulum eventually swings to the other side. (I'm somewhere in the middle with I suspect a majority of people - it's the extremists that are the loudest.)
- neogodless 2y ago
  So both-sides then? Look I think we should disagree on fiscal and social policy, and be able to deliberate over these issues. And have a system of government that allows for that kind of debate and representative vote. But "one side" is dismantling everything that was still democratic about the United States and turning into a massively one-sided (even one-manned) system of control. So whatever your opinion or mine on social policy no longer matter, because it's all up to the whims of a single person, with no recourse for the rest of us.
  - markus_zhang 2y ago
    The biggest problem is that everyone has their own version of good and bad, so all need to get up and action, to form sort of equilibrium.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - fleek 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Geezus_42 2y ago
      Is it the democratic process failing, or it being destroyed by monied interests?

ffsm8 2y ago

It's not destroying the US media industry like tv/movies/games. Why can I say that with confidence you ask? Simple! Because they have been doing that for ages before the current administration got to power ( * ´ ω ｀ * )

Geezus_42 2y ago
Have you seen the meadia landscape lately? It's filled with absolute garbage and generative AI is going to make to so much worse. They've also done everything they can to delegitimize every reliable source of truth. So I'd say they've done a great job destroying the media industry.
- HK-NC 2y ago
  Lately as in since the election? Cause for me this has been happening for decades. I'm not even going to comment on the principles of scientific truth considering the nonsense people are peddling today is no better than the bible bashers on the right.

bko 2y ago

[flagged]

rich_sasha 2y ago
Reasonable question. It depends, at top level, what the intention is. What the US government thinks it is buying. Is it buying global improvement in research? If so, surely you just hire smartest people out there. In fact it will probably be mostly non-Americans, because even if they come from a much-better-than-average educational system, still, they are something like 4% of global population. Ok, so let's say not this. Perhaps US govt is strictly buying (indirect) improvement to US economy. Well, a lot of these students will stay in the US, find startups, or simply become good taxpayers. Most developed countries struggle to grow or keep their societies steady, US has this funnel of highly skilled workforce - universities. Even better, since these immigrants, if they stay, won't have generated primary education costs, and if they eventually leave, also will cost less in adult life than people who stay in the US all their life. This is about undergrads, really. Postgraduate students are more like hard, underpaid jobs. People come and go, and perform the service of churning out research for an American University. Finally, not sure how much the US govt is paying for these foreign undergrads. Rich undergrads will have to lay a good chunk of their own fees - perhaps all, either via cash or loans they have to repay. I'm not in any way endorsing this kerfuffle, but it's always good to be clear why you are paying for things, as sooner or later someone will challenge it.
apwell23 2y ago
> Here's maybe a dumb question serious question, why did you think your question might be dumb?
rayiner 2y ago
It’s because Harvard profits from selling fast-track access to american immigration.
- bko 2y ago
  I get it, it helps to have wealthy foreign donors and you don't have to give them aid. I was more asking why is this acceptable? If its an American university, benefiting from American tax dollars, shouldn't it primarily benefit American students? So many things we just accept at face value and don't question. I never really thought about it before, but it's weird now that I think about it. This is necessarily a scarce resource (by design). It doesn't have to be, they could vastly grow their class size without lowering standards. But they choose not to, to maintain elite status and make their donor class happy. If they wanted to keep their class size the same, they could probably fund it entirely through their $53bn endowment, yet they still charge 50k+ a year. And then they have the audacity to reject thousands of qualified American kids and give their seats to rich foreign kids? Come on

grafmax 2y ago

Cowing Harvard - one of the world’s greatest universities - would mark a pivotal victory for the dictatorship taking shape before our eyes. Dictatorships derive their power from the submission of a society’s key institutions. That’s what’s at stake here.

rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- Geezus_42 2y ago
  Who responds to polls? Old people, people with an ideological motive, and people who get paid. They mean almost nothing.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- yareally 2y ago
  Where did you get those numbers? That's a little inflated by what pew gathered. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/americans-views-of-deportations/ https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/am...
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - yareally 2y ago
      I have read lots of your comments over the years and you've had some great contributions, but I don't think this is one of them. What figure from the link supports your comment? 74% support deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes. That's a bit different than what you initially said