4 ms·

The article is politely calling out the effects of the current regime in Washington and indicating that the government is finding other ways to not give funding

The article is politely calling out the effects of the current regime in Washington and indicating that the government is finding other ways to not give funding to schools they don’t like. I am kinda surprised this wasn’t a prominent conversation point.

0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
MIT started it. They cancelled Dorian Abbot in 2021. Federal funding is supposed to be in the interest of the American people. If you're adopting extreme left-wing politics at the institutional level, and shouting down political views associated with half the country, how exactly is giving you money in the interest of the American people? I wouldn't expect a far-right university to get federal funds. Why should a far-left university get federal funds? Furthermore: The US government is trillions of dollars in debt. MIT has billions in their endowment. I'm not sure a rich institution like MIT should be demanding funds from a government which is deeply indebted.
- intended 5mo ago
  Thank you, I needed that. It is a great reminder that eventually these talking points will always swamp any communication channel. These talking points are such a great example of the effectiveness of organized groups versus individuals in the market place of ideas. It makes me appreciate the early days of the internet even more, and the good fortune to be alive in that moment.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
    I'm not part of an organized group. >It is a great reminder that eventually these talking points will always swamp any communication channel. I notice that some people will respond to arguments by saying: "Oh, that argument. I've heard it many times before." What's interesting to me is that they seem to think simply saying "I've heard that many times before" should suffice as a counterargument. Really, it should be the opposite: If you've heard it many times before, you've had plenty of time to think about it. If the argument is invalid, you ought to have a very good counterargument by now. So where's your incredible counterargument? Seems rather suspicious that you're unwilling to share it!
    - intended 5mo ago
      See, you are in “not even wrong” territory. This is like someone planning a green cheese mining mission to the moon. So when people choose not to engage, you assume that is simply a sign of the fitness of your argument. Not that the argument has fundamental divergences from reality. Having done my tour of duty in the moderation trenches, the only people I would spend the incredible effort to communicate in their terms, with their model of reality, are people I love dearly. When I encounter commenters and nodes of the tree you are a part of, I use it now as a chance to be greatful of what I have. That way at least one of us is better off.
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
        >people choose not to engage You've now written 7 smug paragraphs, yet you claim you are "not engaging". This is annoying. I could literally copy/paste paragraphs like yours into any HN thread on any topic, if I wanted to be insufferable. Please just save yourself the effort next time. If you don't want to engage, then don't engage.

0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago

MIT started it. They cancelled Dorian Abbot in 2021. Federal funding is supposed to be in the interest of the American people. If you're adopting extreme left-wing politics at the institutional level, and shouting down political views associated with half the country, how exactly is giving you money in the interest of the American people? I wouldn't expect a far-right university to get federal funds. Why should a far-left university get federal funds? Furthermore: The US government is trillions of dollars in debt. MIT has billions in their endowment. I'm not sure a rich institution like MIT should be demanding funds from a government which is deeply indebted.

intended 5mo ago
Thank you, I needed that. It is a great reminder that eventually these talking points will always swamp any communication channel. These talking points are such a great example of the effectiveness of organized groups versus individuals in the market place of ideas. It makes me appreciate the early days of the internet even more, and the good fortune to be alive in that moment.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
  I'm not part of an organized group. >It is a great reminder that eventually these talking points will always swamp any communication channel. I notice that some people will respond to arguments by saying: "Oh, that argument. I've heard it many times before." What's interesting to me is that they seem to think simply saying "I've heard that many times before" should suffice as a counterargument. Really, it should be the opposite: If you've heard it many times before, you've had plenty of time to think about it. If the argument is invalid, you ought to have a very good counterargument by now. So where's your incredible counterargument? Seems rather suspicious that you're unwilling to share it!
  - intended 5mo ago
    See, you are in “not even wrong” territory. This is like someone planning a green cheese mining mission to the moon. So when people choose not to engage, you assume that is simply a sign of the fitness of your argument. Not that the argument has fundamental divergences from reality. Having done my tour of duty in the moderation trenches, the only people I would spend the incredible effort to communicate in their terms, with their model of reality, are people I love dearly. When I encounter commenters and nodes of the tree you are a part of, I use it now as a chance to be greatful of what I have. That way at least one of us is better off.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
      >people choose not to engage You've now written 7 smug paragraphs, yet you claim you are "not engaging". This is annoying. I could literally copy/paste paragraphs like yours into any HN thread on any topic, if I wanted to be insufferable. Please just save yourself the effort next time. If you don't want to engage, then don't engage.