But only the public data is salvageable. I can't imagine the extent of the internal damage. "Interesting" lesson on how painless and deadpan digital autodafé are..
Scary how fast USA is sinking into dark ages.
roenxi 29 days ago [-]
Looks like an admirable effort, although I assume this is all happening too quickly for them to put out a list of what is actually disappearing. It'll be an interesting topic to revisit in a few months.
walrus01 29 days ago [-]
They already deleted the main USAID YouTube channel, likely so news media can't easily pull any public domain footage of projects in various developing nations.
The USAID Office of Transition Initiatives (USAID/OTI) began its program in Haiti in January 2010 as part of the post-earthquake response, supporting short- and medium-term activities aimed at stabilizing Haiti through support for community revitalization, improved governance, and economic strengthening.
somenameforme 29 days ago [-]
Whether this is a great or awful example probably depends on one's views of USAID. They were associated with the Red Cross there in the high profile failure that managed to spend more than $1.5 billion to ultimately build a total of 6 permanent housing units. [1] While that was definitely more Red Cross than USAID, the video also makes no secret of what one of the major issues with USAID is. It uses the pretext of aid, but generally has the goal of manipulating the politics in other countries, which often leads to conflict. Quoting literally from that video,
---
... the following november the election represented a potential flashpoint for instability but also an opportunity for haitians to determine their own future. usaid coordinated the first televised presidential debates and supported voter education campaigns including a mobile strategy using text messages to help with political awareness ...
---
Ironic because it's rather clear who USAID was endorsing [2] because his opponent (who lost) [3] ran specifically on a platform of a "more independent Haitian state, one less reliant upon and subject to foreign governments and NGOs." The USAID (and Bill/Hillary Clinton) backed candidate was roiled in numerous claims of corruption, subsequent vote rigging, backing Haitian criminal gangs, and was ultimately sanctioned by the US and Canada for involvement in cocaine trafficking into the US. Incidentally, as the video also mentions, USAID spent their money not on the people, but the government - they built the units for this lovely fellow's government to reside in as the Presidential Palace was severely damaged in the quake.
You can’t just walk into a third world country and expect the candidate pool to be a bunch of noble laureates (we barely have such a candidate pool in the West). Logistically, I would try organize via the government too for maximum effect.
Nonetheless, your investigation is important. We need way more testimonials to get to the bottom of these things. Are programs like USAID a grift, or are the people cancelling it the grifters, or is the answer the dreaded middle?
This is the only way we’re going to re-find the spirit of this country (because it is absolutely absent at the moment). Americans have always been proud of programs that carry the legacy of the Marshall Plan.
I don’t want to get rid of a program just because it failed, anything can fail. We need to know if the people getting rid of these things even believe in goodwill and charity. They may not, in which case debating the finances and accounting is the obvious distraction.
This is less about if we have the money in the room, and more so about did we put people with the right fucking hearts in the room.
An uncharitable person will fight goodwill even if it’s free.
somenameforme 28 days ago [-]
I somehow don't get the impression that his opponent, an older lady and the widow of a former president, was exactly into gangs, drugs, and the like. And similarly, I find it difficult to imagine that we couldn't vet the USAID candidate, a musician, to find his ties to such. Wiki apparently states he was well known for "cursing on stage, cross-dressing as well as using homophobic slurs." What a great guy to spend US taxpayer funds to promote. But the reality is that it's not about finding a good person, but about finding a person who will fulfill US interests.
By the way the same thing was true, to a smaller degree, of the Marshall Plan. 5% of all its funding went straight to CIA front organizations [1] helping to ensure Europe developed in the "right" way. The same thing continues today where USAID was doing all it could to try to undermine Hungary. It's like all this rhetoric about democracy being about the will of the people suddenly becomes meaningless when the will of the people is not equivalent to the will of the US. And I don't think this is conducive to a stable world order, to say the least.
USAID, the UN, and these other NGOs often make life worse in the receiving country. This is very hard for Americans to grasp because we're so charitable individually and thus feel our nation should be as well, but these NGOs interests are not aligned with the average American and they're certainly not aligned with the receiving country's. One need only look at the stability of recipients of USAID money v those countries that have refused.
Charity is great but when it comes from NGOs demanding cultural subjugation to American culture and restrictions on how the money works, this leads to resentment, instability and war.
Of course, most Americans would probably not just want to hand out money willy-nilly without any restrictions.
Thus, in my opinion, the entire premise of USAID is flawed, save for a select few endeavors to a small cadre of countries.
The entire diplomatic purpose of USAID is to build up good will abroad, but that's simply not working. No amount of money handed to whomever is going to change the fact that, within recent history, America has undertaken several pre-emptive wars and managed them poorly.
Xen9 29 days ago [-]
Even with all the social & economical issues within & outside of the U.S., they should in my view occupy the power vacuum for the time being. The real issue is then not that U.S. is evil, but that you cannot both be the tyrant playing zero sum with China & Russia, and the gentleman.
Security wise U.S. cannot even if they can intervene with socially bad policy except to prevent widespread civil arrest etc which is why CIA exists. U.S. pre-emptive wars were good for the military-industrial apparatus that keeps them in power & made sure others can't get those places. In global strategy terms, I suspevt Web3 & DeFi should be seen as an economical third party that reduces Chinese & Russian share of the Western economical pie at times dollar weakens.
The public can never understand that you need to be "though" to win because might makes right in statescraft & geopoli, so the U.S has to censor the internet including inside NATO to prevent economical ties' risk of dying due political pressure. It's understandable. If the game is played classified, and most humans hesitate to pull a gun's trigger, they have no idea about the world inside the entities that protect them. They cannot see that it's a very very zero-sum world, hobbesian world.
This is different from human history because WWII ±25 years we boiled over the techno-industrial pot, and nowadays all of the seemingly evil work of US & its agencies is, actually, necessary for the survival of mankind.
troyvit 29 days ago [-]
I've heard lots of bad about USAID from people directly involved in it too. I've heard lots of good as well fwiw, and your points about NGOs demanding cultural subjugation to American culture can't be more spot-on. It's incredibly difficult to provide assistance without actually creating more harm.
IOW I probably agree that the premise of USAID is flawed. However wiping it off the face of the earth over a matter of days is a massive over-reaction to the problem and is going to kill people short-term that didn't need to be killed if we had decided to take a deliberate approach to dismantling it.
> The entire diplomatic purpose of USAID is to build up good will abroad, but that's simply not working. No amount of money handed to whomever is going to change the fact that, within recent history, America has undertaken several pre-emptive wars and managed them poorly.
That is just so damn true. We do such a fantastic job of creating enemies of America.
know-how 29 days ago [-]
[dead]
misja111 29 days ago [-]
Does anybody have an example of federal data that has disappeared already? I'm interested what kind of data it's about.
diggan 29 days ago [-]
Examples:
> At the Department of Justice, a database detailing the vast array of criminal charges and successful convictions of January 6 rioters was removed, according to a report from Donie O’Sullivan and Katelyn Polantz at CNN
> Several pages on the Center for Disease Control have also been removed, including information on LGBTQ+ rights, HIV and adolescent health, reports Will Stone and Selena Simmons-Duffin from NPR
This wholesale purge of data is an effort to rewrite history. Hopefully the Internet can mostly remember.
mandeepj 29 days ago [-]
> Several pages on the Center for Disease Control have also been removed, including information on LGBTQ+ rights, HIV and adolescent health, reports Will Stone and Selena Simmons-Duffin from NPR
A federal judge has already ordered to restore that data
> At the Department of Justice, a database detailing the vast array of criminal charges and successful convictions of January 6 rioters was removed, according to a report from Donie O’Sullivan and Katelyn Polantz at CNN
Like it or hate it, they're all pardoned now and don't have a criminal record.
dubbel 29 days ago [-]
If I interpret [1] correctly, then they still have a criminal record?
"Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record. Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record."
Pardons are usually forgiveness. They add to the record rather than erase it.
tlogan 29 days ago [-]
As far as I know, all data related to “gender” (in addition to sex), “sexual orientation,” and race has been removed. Some of this data will return in a revised form, but unfortunately, some will remain excluded due to Trump’s executive orders against DEI and transgender-related policies.
grey8 29 days ago [-]
To preface: I randomly stumbled upon this because I looked up info.
... and saw that at least this page containing information regarding an USAID grant is now 404ing.
So, are the feds saving money on hosting costs?! What's the point of this.
guff_se 29 days ago [-]
This is not an objection against saving hosting costs, it is the fact that the original data is not saved or backed up.
To understand our future we need to know our past.
Saving shelf space in the library is not a good justification to burn our history books. If you don’t like having them up, you can put them in the basement. Storage costs hardly anything.
guff_se 29 days ago [-]
This is of course a deliberate move. By actively destroying ideas and work you don’t agree with, rather than archiving it, you make it harder for the other side to realize their vision.
It’s a kind of scorched earth strategy.
watwut 29 days ago [-]
It is easier to claim "everything functions better then before" if you destroyed data about how to worked before and have under control what is said about now.
exe34 29 days ago [-]
Chocolate rations can increase from 60g to 40g if you don't have a record of how much you got last week.
lazide 29 days ago [-]
Especially if done from the official archives, since you can then claim any copies are ‘fake news’/forgeries.
computerthings 29 days ago [-]
As Hannah Arendt said, the difference between traditional and modern lies is like the difference between hiding it, and destroying it.
> Moreover, the traditional lie concerned only particulars and was never meant to deceive literally everybody; it was directed at the enemy and was meant to deceive only him. These two limitations restricted the injury inflicted upon truth to such an extent that to us, in retrospect, it may appear almost harmless. Since facts always occur in a context, a particular lie – that is, a falsehood that makes no attempt to change
the whole context – tears, as it were, a hole in the fabric of factuality. As every historian knows, one can spot a lie by noticing incongruities, holes, or the junctures of patched-up places. As long as the texture as a whole is kept intact, the lie will eventually
show up as if of its own accord. The second limitation concerns those who are engaged in the business of deception. They used to belong to the restricted circle of statesmen and diplomats, who among themselves still knew and could preserve the truth.They were not likely to fall victims to their own falsehoods; they could deceive others without deceiving themselves. Both of these mitigating circumstances of the old art of lying are noticeably absent from the manipulation of facts that confronts us today.
-- Hannah Arendt, "Truth and Politics"
josteink 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
actionfromafar 29 days ago [-]
Maintaining systems is an operational thing, not an administration thing. Are you saying purges of federal data is something routine after a US transfer of power?
p3rls 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
cguess 29 days ago [-]
The difference is those were private platforms not giving a soapbox to certain politicians that were quite clearly violating private terms of service. This is the federal government deleting taxpayer-funded content, data and studies. They are not similar in any way and to imply otherwise is a disingenuous comparison.
p3rls 29 days ago [-]
[dead]
harimau777 29 days ago [-]
At least in recent history, there haven't been mass purges of information when a new administration came into power. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened in isolated cases, and that would of course be wrong, but nothing like what we are seeing now.
hiddencost 29 days ago [-]
This is totally unprecedented.
mschuster91 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
bloomingkales 29 days ago [-]
It is important to note that pre-WW1, Germany was considered to be one of the most sophisticated societies in the world. That's where everyone worth a shit with a mind wanted to be. It's quite curious how the best were corrupted.
mschuster91 29 days ago [-]
That was due to the loss of the war and the followup economic devastation brought by the reparation payments that caused a lot of issues in the economy at large, followed by the 1918 flu pandemic that also caused serious issues (and with 25M dead, even more death than WW1 itself!).
One might be tempted to again draw parallels to today's situation in the US, with the US having lost the war in Afghanistan as well as everyone having suffered through years of Covid.
CamperBob2 29 days ago [-]
One might be tempted to again draw parallels to today's situation in the US, with the US having lost the war in Afghanistan as well as everyone having suffered through years of Covid.
Not disputing your point, but what blows me away is just how unapt your comparison is. We didn't 'lose' the war in Afghanistan. We chose not to fight it aggressively and eventually got bored with it, and then Biden let himself get rope-a-doped into following Trump's plan for unwinding it. Whatever, no biggie, we're over it.
And COVID was nothing like losing a world war. The very notion is ridiculous. Inflation in the US during COVID reached 12%. Inflation in the Weimar Republic reached 12 digits.
And yet we voted like a country with no options left. Like a country that had been destroyed and saddled with the bill by the victors... like a pariah nation full of desperate, starving people with nothing to lose. We fell for the first con man to come along waving a Bible and blaming somebody else.
What would things be like in America now if we actually had faced a genuine crisis like Germany's post-WWI downfall? My guess is, we're about to find out... because that's what we just voted for.
mschuster91 28 days ago [-]
> And COVID was nothing like losing a world war.
I compared Covid with the 1918 Spanish Flu, and that comparison is fair to make - if not by the death count, at the very least by the economic consequences. In fact the economic consequences of Covid are worse than those of the 1918 flu because the world is far more interconnected now than it was back then.
> What would things be like in America now if we actually had faced a genuine crisis like Germany's post-WWI downfall? My guess is, we're about to find out... because that's what we just voted for.
The thing with inflation is, of course the pre-WW2 inflation was ridiculously higher in numbers. But the consequences in the life of the wide masses - struggling to survive every day or at least every payday - are pretty similar. And that's why people don't necessarily vote "for the 47th", they vote "against who is in power currently" - a pattern we see across the Western world, with some countries falling to the far-right, while in others like Poland or the UK the far-right actually loses.
The key thing that makes the US and to a degree the UK unique is that both countries only have a two-party system. The UK got lucky, they got the authoritarians in power while the crisis was ongoing so they elected a democratic alternative, the US got the shorter end of the stick and now has to suffer through the 47th's period instead of having an actually social-democrat, Green or even a moderate Conservative third option.
pjc50 29 days ago [-]
Presumably this is being downvoted by idealogues, but it's absolutely correct. A couple of years ago I went to an exhibition in Munich on this subject, of surviving material from the era.
It was a German doctor of the 1920s who pioneered the idea of giving trans people what was effectively a doctor's note against police harrasment, an ancestor of the modern paperwork transition process.
matwood 29 days ago [-]
You have to have enemies to unite an army around.
exe34 29 days ago [-]
any idea why this is such a big deal to Nazis? I know they go after other people too, but it's really eerie watching it replay scene by scene.
llamaimperative 29 days ago [-]
Scapegoating politically and culturally disempowered groups is super useful to such movements.
Notice how literally every single problem in our country is “caused by DEI” now?
It helps because it’s easier to solve fake problems with fake solutions instead of real ones.
zmgsabst 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
llamaimperative 29 days ago [-]
I wasn’t shaming anyone for condemning DEI, I was shaming them for being bad at solving problems.
zmgsabst 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
29 days ago [-]
n4r9 29 days ago [-]
I guess OP is referring to stuff like Trump's baseless claims that DEI was a factor in the recent plane crash. I hope we can agree that that's an absurd position regardless of our own perspective on DEI.
zmgsabst 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
n4r9 29 days ago [-]
A single person's allegation of being passed over is a long way from proving that DEI policies contributed to staffing shortages. Moreover the audio from the recordings shows that the helicopter was warned and advised to avoid the plane, suggesting that staff shortages were not a crucial factor.
zmgsabst 29 days ago [-]
It’s a class action, ie, not a single plaintiff.
If you want to discuss the helicopter in particular, there’s also questions why a pilot who had been in multiple desk jobs for multiple years was flying a high risk route like that — and the possible reasons the military promoted her and allowed her to attempt this with questionable competency.
skulk 29 days ago [-]
Playing the victim is also another page right out of the Nazi playbook, thanks for bringing that one up too!
zmgsabst 29 days ago [-]
Yes — the people the US Supreme Court ruled were illegally discriminated against are just “playing victim”.
fzeroracer 29 days ago [-]
I'm curious, what would you call banning transgender individuals from the military then?
zmgsabst 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
n4r9 29 days ago [-]
> There’s lots of disqualifying psychiatric and personality conditions
Looking at your link, I can see how the conditions specified there would make someone less effective as a soldier. I can't say the same for gender dysphoria.
ocuild 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
n4r9 29 days ago [-]
Back in the 60s homosexuals were insisting that their sexuality was legitimate and demanding that everyone else accommodate this belief. Many at the time viewed it as a false belief contrary to biological law. That was wrong then, and this is wrong now.
ocuild 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
exe34 29 days ago [-]
I've met plenty of trans men and women that I wouldn't have known they were trans if they didn't tell me. What kind of effort are you thinking about in this case?
What about the women who are really butch? Or the effeminate men? Would you want them excluded too, or would a genital inspection be considered sufficient to qualify them?
ocuild 29 days ago [-]
The broadest one is that new definitions of woman and man have been imposed which not just accommodate people who sometimes manage to successfully masquerade as the opposite sex (like some of the people you've met) but the ones who do not do so at all. According to these new definitions, merely stating that you're a woman or man (or somehow, neither) is enough to make it real.
This has been used to rewrite law and policy so that any man who claims he's a woman can, with impunity, impose himself upon spaces that were only ever intended for women and girls.
That's a huge change and has significant impact on the female half of the population, wouldn't you agree?
n4r9 29 days ago [-]
> any man who claims he's a woman can, with impunity, impose himself upon spaces that were only ever intended for women and girls
The military policy (that I assume you're defending) is to ban anyone with a "history of gender dysphoria". Your points would have a little more weight if the situation was like in 2018 when individuals could serve under the condition of being stable for 18 months in their identified or assigned gender. But not much more weight, since that is still a lot weaker than what you describe.
fzeroracer 29 days ago [-]
I think you're avoiding the point. These are individuals that have otherwise already passed military training and fitness tests to determine whether or not they are able to participate and function as soldiers. They are actively a part of our military and being thrown out.
zmgsabst 29 days ago [-]
I can’t find anything to support that.
The order as quoted refers to new joins:
> “Effective immediately, all new accessions for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria are paused,” Hegseth said in a memo dated Feb. 7 and filed on Monday with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
Which is consistent with Trump’s order from his first term that allowed transgender troops already serving to remain.
The only quote on current troops I found was:
> Hegseth said individuals with gender dysphoria already in the military would be “treated with dignity and respect,” and the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness would provide additional details on what this would mean.
Do you have a source for that claim?
fzeroracer 28 days ago [-]
Yes. That was part of one of the recent executive orders he signed [1] which was dictating not only that care for transgender individuals in the military should cease but also that expressing a different gender identity was not compatible with being in the military. It's not even particularly vague about it. The military issued guidance against the executive order to not take adverse action, essentially only adopting the bathroom bill portion of it [2].
Fascism is rooted in ideas of purity, paternalism, and natural order. Moreover it needs one or more marginalised groups to be a focus of hatred for the general population. Transgenderism threatens all of those ideas and is therefore an especial target of hatred.
harimau777 29 days ago [-]
Gender non-conformance emphasizes the idea that individuals have the power to define their own identity and way of life. Even if authoritarians don't care about gender specifically, they still don't want people getting funny ideas about self determination.
Specifically fascist authoritarians are likely to be concerned about gender non-conformance because their mythologies often often emphasize a society that's organized around men who can go to war and women who support them as homemakers.
defrost 29 days ago [-]
They had complicated feelings about their little trouser nazi sig heil'ing everytime they went to the Weimar cabaret.
There's been a few posts on HN suggesting reading Timothy Snyder. When the Nazis began labeling "enemies", they kind of didn't know where to stop. So it was Jews, non whites, gays (today it would be all lgbtq), communists, the list was big. When they invaded Poland, they ran into combinations of things they hated, so now they were dealing with Jewish Communists (whereas in Germany they were just Jews, or in Russia, they were just Communists). Their evil just combined and combined into a form where they had to hate everything ...
> The struggle for total domination of the total population of the earth, the elimination of every competing nontotalitarian reality, is inherent in the totalitarian regimes themselves; if they do not pursue global rule as their ultimate goal, they are only too likely to lose whatever power they have already seized. Even a single individual can be absolutely and reliably dominated only under global totalitarian conditions. Ascendancy to power therefore means primarily the establishment of official and officially recognized headquarters (or branches in the case of satellite countries) for the movement and the acquisition of a kind of laboratory in which to carry out the experiment with or rather against reality, the experiment in organizing a people for ultimate purposes which disregard individuality as well as nationality, under conditions which are admittedly not perfect but are sufficient for important partial results. Totalitarianism in power uses the state administration for its long-range goal of world conquest and for the direction of the branches of the movement; it establishes the secret police as the executors and guardians of its domestic experiment in constantly transforming reality into fiction; and it finally erects concentration camps as special laboratories to carry through its experiment in total domination.
and
> Any, even the most tyrannical, restriction of this arbitrary persecution to certain opinions of a religious or political nature, to certain modes of intellectual or erotic social behavior, to certain freshly invented "crimes," would render the camps superfluous, because in the long run no attitude and no opinion can withstand the threat of so much horror; and above all it would make for a new system of justice, which, given any stability at all, could not fail to produce a new juridical person in man, that would elude the totalitarian domination. The so-called "Volksnutzen" of the Nazis, constantly fluctuating (because what is useful today can be injurious tomorrow) and the eternally shifting party line of the Soviet Union which, being retroactive, almost daily makes new groups of people available for the concentration camps, are the only guaranty for the continued existence of the concentration camps, and hence for the continued total disfranchisement of man.
> The next decisive step in the preparation of living corpses is the murder of the moral person in man. This is done in the main by making martyrdom, for the first time in history, impossible: "How many people here still believe that a protest has even historic importance? This skepticism is the real masterpiece of the SS. Their great accomplishment. They have corrupted all human solidarity. Here the night has fallen on the future. When no witnesses are left, there can be no testimony. To demonstrate when death can no longer be postponed is an attempt to give death a meaning, to act beyond one's own death. In order to be successful, a gesture must have social meaning. There are hundreds of thousands of us here, all living in absolute solitude. That is why we are subdued no matter what happens." [Rousset]
[..]
> The concentration camps, by making death itself anonymous (making it impossible to find out whether a prisoner is dead or alive) robbed death of its meaning as the end of a fulfilled life. In a sense they took away the individual's own death, proving that henceforth nothing belonged to him and he belonged to no one. His death merely set a seal on the fact that he had never really existed.
> This attack on the moral person might still have been opposed by man's conscience which tells him that it is better to die a victim than to live as a bureaucrat of murder. Totalitarian terror achieved its most terrible triumph when it succeeded in cutting the moral person off from the individualist escape and in making the decisions of conscience absolutely questionable and equivocal. When a man is faced with the alternative of betraying and thus murdering his friends or of sending his wife and children, for whom he is in every sense responsible, to their death; when even suicide would mean the immediate murder of his own family — how is he to decide? The alternative is no longer between good and evil, but between murder and murder. Who could solve the moral dilemma of the Greek mother, who was allowed by the Nazis to choose which of her three children should be killed?
> Through the creation of conditions under which conscience ceases to be adequate and to do good becomes utterly impossible, the consciously organized complicity of all men in the crimes of totalitarian regimes is extended to the victims and thus made really total.
[..]
> If we take totalitarian aspirations seriously and refuse to be misled by the common-sense assertion that they are Utopian and unrealizable, it develops that the society of the dying established in the camps is the only form of society in which it is possible to dominate man entirely. Those who aspire to total domination must liquidate all spontaneity, such as the mere existence of individuality will always engender, and track it down in its most private forms, regardless of how unpolitical and harmless these may seem. Pavlov's dog, the human specimen reduced to the most elementary reactions, the bundle of reactions that can always be liquidated and replaced by other bundles of reactions that behave in exactly the same way, is the model "citizen" of a totalitarian state; and such a citizen can be produced only imperfectly outside of the camps.
bloomingkales 29 days ago [-]
Thank you for that. You quoted the author of the phrase “Banality of Evil”:
Arendt's book introduced the expression and concept of the banality of evil.[15] Her thesis is that Eichmann was actually not a fanatic or a sociopath, but instead an average and mundane person who relied on clichéd defenses rather than thinking for himself,[16] was motivated by professional promotion rather than ideology, and believed in success which he considered the chief standard of "good society".[17] Banality, in this sense, does not mean that Eichmann's actions were in any way ordinary, but that his actions were motivated by a sort of complacency which was wholly unexceptional.
computerthings 29 days ago [-]
I wanted to quote much less, but it proved difficult, since wanted preserve some kind of "self-containment" of the point. It always feels wrong to take one of the many "quotable bits" from her books, because thinking one knows what there is to know is treacherous, doubly so with this subject. The whole book is very much worth reading, now more than ever.
It is presented as an attack against the left, which is popular with proponents of the current administration. Trying to analyze it at the object level is pointless - this is, chiefly, a political move toward political ends.
soco 29 days ago [-]
Reminds me of that tweet where someone was complaining how difficult is to combat the arguments of the left because these tend to be based on facts.
lazide 29 days ago [-]
Really it’s just an attack against any truth/data found inconvenient. Why argue when you can just make it not exist?
0xEF 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
matwood 29 days ago [-]
I think we're about the learn how effective the internet really is at remembering. Here is Rubio talking about how great USAID is not that long ago...
Not he says it's a criminal organization they've been trying to get rid of over multiple administrations.
Obviously they want to scrub all the past.
lazide 29 days ago [-]
We’ve always been at war with East Asia.
christkv 29 days ago [-]
I view it more like a battle between two groups of the elites. The left/right prism is a distraction. Personally I think both political parties got taken over by what we used to call the Neo-cons. The Republicans underwent an internal revolution that sidelined the Neo-cons inside it. So I view this as a battle between one group Neo-cons vs this new group represented by the current administration.
I don't have an opinion if that is better or worse, only time will tell. Demolishing USAID etc. should be seen as purging their political enemies and their supporters who's been nesting in the public structure for a couple of decades.
llamaimperative 29 days ago [-]
I can help here: the group who is canceling life-saving treatment for millions of people, including 566,000 children, as part of a purge of “political enemies” are the bad ones.
29 days ago [-]
WhyNotHugo 29 days ago [-]
For a political leader who makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims where data contradicts him, removing that data makes his claims a lot harder to refute.
matwood 29 days ago [-]
> What's the point of this.
"Who controls the past, controls the future."
29 days ago [-]
washadjeffmad 29 days ago [-]
It looks like you're getting some knee-jerk downvotes because some people are likely misreading your exasperation with what practical utility removing the data could possibly serve as "So [what], the feds are saving money on hosting costs?! What's the point of this [thread]."
That's not your fault, and I'm sorry.
4ndrewl 29 days ago [-]
So, we're saving money on shelf space by burning those books. What's the problem?!
rizky05 29 days ago [-]
[dead]
zo1 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
anon7000 29 days ago [-]
It’s because you frankly have a pretty petty, small-sized idea about what the left’s goals were.
To you, the goal is to fucking burn out everyone you disagree with, and to change the government to actively persecute those who aren’t in the in group. It’s super aggressive, and by your own admission, not really what the leftists were doing.
The liberal ideas are pretty goddamn simple. There’s a place for everyone, as long as you’re not hurting someone or making them uncomfortable. That really sums up a large part of cancel culture. Yeah, it means you’ll get a lot more flack for being a dick.
But we don’t try to get rid of consumer protections, weather forecasts, social safety nets (and those safety nets provide benefits to anyone, even if they got cancelled, by the way), and the like just because our feelings got hurt.
But I know for a god damn fact that my children would be safer in a liberal future.
Some of the info taken down includes stuff about protecting women from harassment and abuse. Would my daughter be safer in your world. I mean a solid 90% of cancel culture is people who were absolutely horrid towards the women in their lives. You want to make crass jokes again? Or not get called out for wandering eyes and hands? Yeah, I’m sure ignoring that widespread problem will protect our daughters.
4ndrewl 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
29 days ago [-]
harimau777 29 days ago [-]
I think that some of the issue may be your framing. Even if Trump is just enforcing his executive orders, it is possible that the orders themselves are anti-democratic.
If Trump's executive orders were simply changes in policy then they might still be bad but they wouldn't necessarily be a threat to democracy. The issue arises in that his executive orders go beyond that to attempt to attack worldviews that he doesn't like. "Gender non-conforming people cannot use a given bathroom" is a policy. "There are only two genders" is a worldview. Even though I disagree with both of them, the second is a much more anti-democratic.
misja111 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
zo1 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
hiddencost 29 days ago [-]
[flagged]
enaaem 29 days ago [-]
What do Trump supporters here think of this?
junek 29 days ago [-]
I doubt they think much, in general
snakeyjake 29 days ago [-]
There are two types of Trump supporters.
One type thinks that the data being disappeared is "trans DEI libtard lies".
The other type believes that the federal government should collect no data because it is stealing a Job Creator's god-given right to act as a middleman in all aspects of human culture and charge money for access to that data (because that's, somehow, more efficient).
soupbowl 29 days ago [-]
Nice! Now do Biden/Harris supporters.
Rhapso 29 days ago [-]
Sure, most Biden/Harris supporters are ultimately "centrists", like most trump supporters. They spend their life struggling to juggle costs of living and responsibilities of adulthood. They participate in a society that demands they use all of their energy physical and cognitive to just survive and they reasonably outsource their judgement regarding larger scale policies and politics to trusted leaders of their community. They then believe and do what those leaders tell them.
The other type of Biden/Harris supporter has the privilege of time and energy to spend examining the situation critically and recognizes them as just supporting further corporate control behind the guise of bureaucracy instead of "strong men". But they vote/evangalize for them anyway because at least they don't actively advocate for harming people out of spite.
snakeyjake 29 days ago [-]
No.
Every time someone says or implies "bOtH sIdEs" a hungry child gets kicked out of a free and reduced school lunch program and called a parasite.
Can you believe we are having to write articles like this in America in 2025? It’s embarrassing, but alas, we have to do it.
tlogan 29 days ago [-]
Trump supporters are mostly quiet on this topic. If anyone speaks up, they tend to get downvoted.
I’m not a Trump supporter but try to be intellectually honest. A while ago, I posted that Atlas Plus would be back, and now it is [1], but I was heavily downvoted for saying so [2].
I don't think there as many "Trump supporters" as one might think. His plan to defacto take ownership of Gaza or to relocate Gazans is overwhelmingly negatively received. So that's pretty clear that people are forming views based on actions, rather than a cult of personality or party. And on that, I do support these actions - but in both directions oddly. From an earlier post in this thread somebody linked to some examples of what's being taken down. Here [1] is one of the CDC pages that's been removed.
It has the CDC doing everything from encouraging schools to push DEI hard, to getting kids to create student-run clubs based around their sexuality. I think that's quite inappropriate, but that's also one of the many reasons I think this needs to be preserved. We somehow went from good common sense ideas like equality of opportunity and allowing same sex couples the same rights under marriage, to gradually shifting into equality of outcome or, as per this page, having kids run clubs in school about sexuality, at the CDC's beckoning no less?
It's all just quite odd. I think people in the future won't believe this stuff was happening to this degree, and so I think it's extremely important to preserve it, and to try to learn from it all. At worst it can simply serve as a very important time capsule. It'd be nice if, at some point, societies could stop bouncing between extremes (or even worse - staying at one end or the other) and maintain a more stable center.
So to focus on the main question of what trump supporters think about this stuff: it's pretty much what you wanted and you're happy with it.
somenameforme 29 days ago [-]
Well I do wish Trump's staff was preserving the sites themselves. It seems logical in the internet era that the complete history of federal sites should be permanently archived.
Scary how fast USA is sinking into dark ages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcla7WoWIpQ
The USAID Office of Transition Initiatives (USAID/OTI) began its program in Haiti in January 2010 as part of the post-earthquake response, supporting short- and medium-term activities aimed at stabilizing Haiti through support for community revitalization, improved governance, and economic strengthening.
---
... the following november the election represented a potential flashpoint for instability but also an opportunity for haitians to determine their own future. usaid coordinated the first televised presidential debates and supported voter education campaigns including a mobile strategy using text messages to help with political awareness ...
---
Ironic because it's rather clear who USAID was endorsing [2] because his opponent (who lost) [3] ran specifically on a platform of a "more independent Haitian state, one less reliant upon and subject to foreign governments and NGOs." The USAID (and Bill/Hillary Clinton) backed candidate was roiled in numerous claims of corruption, subsequent vote rigging, backing Haitian criminal gangs, and was ultimately sanctioned by the US and Canada for involvement in cocaine trafficking into the US. Incidentally, as the video also mentions, USAID spent their money not on the people, but the government - they built the units for this lovely fellow's government to reside in as the Presidential Palace was severely damaged in the quake.
[1] - https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Martelly
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirlande_Manigat
Nonetheless, your investigation is important. We need way more testimonials to get to the bottom of these things. Are programs like USAID a grift, or are the people cancelling it the grifters, or is the answer the dreaded middle?
This is the only way we’re going to re-find the spirit of this country (because it is absolutely absent at the moment). Americans have always been proud of programs that carry the legacy of the Marshall Plan.
I don’t want to get rid of a program just because it failed, anything can fail. We need to know if the people getting rid of these things even believe in goodwill and charity. They may not, in which case debating the finances and accounting is the obvious distraction.
This is less about if we have the money in the room, and more so about did we put people with the right fucking hearts in the room.
An uncharitable person will fight goodwill even if it’s free.
By the way the same thing was true, to a smaller degree, of the Marshall Plan. 5% of all its funding went straight to CIA front organizations [1] helping to ensure Europe developed in the "right" way. The same thing continues today where USAID was doing all it could to try to undermine Hungary. It's like all this rhetoric about democracy being about the will of the people suddenly becomes meaningless when the will of the people is not equivalent to the will of the US. And I don't think this is conducive to a stable world order, to say the least.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Funding_for_CIA_...
Charity is great but when it comes from NGOs demanding cultural subjugation to American culture and restrictions on how the money works, this leads to resentment, instability and war.
Of course, most Americans would probably not just want to hand out money willy-nilly without any restrictions.
Thus, in my opinion, the entire premise of USAID is flawed, save for a select few endeavors to a small cadre of countries.
The entire diplomatic purpose of USAID is to build up good will abroad, but that's simply not working. No amount of money handed to whomever is going to change the fact that, within recent history, America has undertaken several pre-emptive wars and managed them poorly.
Security wise U.S. cannot even if they can intervene with socially bad policy except to prevent widespread civil arrest etc which is why CIA exists. U.S. pre-emptive wars were good for the military-industrial apparatus that keeps them in power & made sure others can't get those places. In global strategy terms, I suspevt Web3 & DeFi should be seen as an economical third party that reduces Chinese & Russian share of the Western economical pie at times dollar weakens.
The public can never understand that you need to be "though" to win because might makes right in statescraft & geopoli, so the U.S has to censor the internet including inside NATO to prevent economical ties' risk of dying due political pressure. It's understandable. If the game is played classified, and most humans hesitate to pull a gun's trigger, they have no idea about the world inside the entities that protect them. They cannot see that it's a very very zero-sum world, hobbesian world.
This is different from human history because WWII ±25 years we boiled over the techno-industrial pot, and nowadays all of the seemingly evil work of US & its agencies is, actually, necessary for the survival of mankind.
IOW I probably agree that the premise of USAID is flawed. However wiping it off the face of the earth over a matter of days is a massive over-reaction to the problem and is going to kill people short-term that didn't need to be killed if we had decided to take a deliberate approach to dismantling it.
> The entire diplomatic purpose of USAID is to build up good will abroad, but that's simply not working. No amount of money handed to whomever is going to change the fact that, within recent history, America has undertaken several pre-emptive wars and managed them poorly.
That is just so damn true. We do such a fantastic job of creating enemies of America.
> At the Department of Justice, a database detailing the vast array of criminal charges and successful convictions of January 6 rioters was removed, according to a report from Donie O’Sullivan and Katelyn Polantz at CNN
> Several pages on the Center for Disease Control have also been removed, including information on LGBTQ+ rights, HIV and adolescent health, reports Will Stone and Selena Simmons-Duffin from NPR
From https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2025/feb/04/the-fight...
This wholesale purge of data is an effort to rewrite history. Hopefully the Internet can mostly remember.
A federal judge has already ordered to restore that data
https://fedscoop.com/federal-judge-orders-hhs-cdc-fda-to-res...
https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1icstrv/the_de...
Like it or hate it, they're all pardoned now and don't have a criminal record.
"Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record. Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record."
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions
... and saw that at least this page containing information regarding an USAID grant is now 404ing.
Look at this:
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/...
It is a letter from republicans about the USAID grant some report to be "for spreading atheism in ethiopia" (it's not).
They quote this link in the footnotes:
https://www.state.gov/statements-of-interest-requests-for-pr...
This now leads to a 404.
> Moreover, the traditional lie concerned only particulars and was never meant to deceive literally everybody; it was directed at the enemy and was meant to deceive only him. These two limitations restricted the injury inflicted upon truth to such an extent that to us, in retrospect, it may appear almost harmless. Since facts always occur in a context, a particular lie – that is, a falsehood that makes no attempt to change the whole context – tears, as it were, a hole in the fabric of factuality. As every historian knows, one can spot a lie by noticing incongruities, holes, or the junctures of patched-up places. As long as the texture as a whole is kept intact, the lie will eventually show up as if of its own accord. The second limitation concerns those who are engaged in the business of deception. They used to belong to the restricted circle of statesmen and diplomats, who among themselves still knew and could preserve the truth.They were not likely to fall victims to their own falsehoods; they could deceive others without deceiving themselves. Both of these mitigating circumstances of the old art of lying are noticeably absent from the manipulation of facts that confronts us today.
-- Hannah Arendt, "Truth and Politics"
One might be tempted to again draw parallels to today's situation in the US, with the US having lost the war in Afghanistan as well as everyone having suffered through years of Covid.
Not disputing your point, but what blows me away is just how unapt your comparison is. We didn't 'lose' the war in Afghanistan. We chose not to fight it aggressively and eventually got bored with it, and then Biden let himself get rope-a-doped into following Trump's plan for unwinding it. Whatever, no biggie, we're over it.
And COVID was nothing like losing a world war. The very notion is ridiculous. Inflation in the US during COVID reached 12%. Inflation in the Weimar Republic reached 12 digits.
And yet we voted like a country with no options left. Like a country that had been destroyed and saddled with the bill by the victors... like a pariah nation full of desperate, starving people with nothing to lose. We fell for the first con man to come along waving a Bible and blaming somebody else.
What would things be like in America now if we actually had faced a genuine crisis like Germany's post-WWI downfall? My guess is, we're about to find out... because that's what we just voted for.
I compared Covid with the 1918 Spanish Flu, and that comparison is fair to make - if not by the death count, at the very least by the economic consequences. In fact the economic consequences of Covid are worse than those of the 1918 flu because the world is far more interconnected now than it was back then.
> What would things be like in America now if we actually had faced a genuine crisis like Germany's post-WWI downfall? My guess is, we're about to find out... because that's what we just voted for.
The thing with inflation is, of course the pre-WW2 inflation was ridiculously higher in numbers. But the consequences in the life of the wide masses - struggling to survive every day or at least every payday - are pretty similar. And that's why people don't necessarily vote "for the 47th", they vote "against who is in power currently" - a pattern we see across the Western world, with some countries falling to the far-right, while in others like Poland or the UK the far-right actually loses.
The key thing that makes the US and to a degree the UK unique is that both countries only have a two-party system. The UK got lucky, they got the authoritarians in power while the crisis was ongoing so they elected a democratic alternative, the US got the shorter end of the stick and now has to suffer through the 47th's period instead of having an actually social-democrat, Green or even a moderate Conservative third option.
It was a German doctor of the 1920s who pioneered the idea of giving trans people what was effectively a doctor's note against police harrasment, an ancestor of the modern paperwork transition process.
Notice how literally every single problem in our country is “caused by DEI” now?
It helps because it’s easier to solve fake problems with fake solutions instead of real ones.
If you want to discuss the helicopter in particular, there’s also questions why a pilot who had been in multiple desk jobs for multiple years was flying a high risk route like that — and the possible reasons the military promoted her and allowed her to attempt this with questionable competency.
Looking at your link, I can see how the conditions specified there would make someone less effective as a soldier. I can't say the same for gender dysphoria.
What about the women who are really butch? Or the effeminate men? Would you want them excluded too, or would a genital inspection be considered sufficient to qualify them?
This has been used to rewrite law and policy so that any man who claims he's a woman can, with impunity, impose himself upon spaces that were only ever intended for women and girls.
That's a huge change and has significant impact on the female half of the population, wouldn't you agree?
The military policy (that I assume you're defending) is to ban anyone with a "history of gender dysphoria". Your points would have a little more weight if the situation was like in 2018 when individuals could serve under the condition of being stable for 18 months in their identified or assigned gender. But not much more weight, since that is still a lot weaker than what you describe.
The order as quoted refers to new joins:
> “Effective immediately, all new accessions for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria are paused,” Hegseth said in a memo dated Feb. 7 and filed on Monday with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
Which is consistent with Trump’s order from his first term that allowed transgender troops already serving to remain.
The only quote on current troops I found was:
> Hegseth said individuals with gender dysphoria already in the military would be “treated with dignity and respect,” and the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness would provide additional details on what this would mean.
Do you have a source for that claim?
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prio...
[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276...
Specifically fascist authoritarians are likely to be concerned about gender non-conformance because their mythologies often often emphasize a society that's organized around men who can go to war and women who support them as homemakers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdM36y-Dkyg
https://archive.org/details/TheOriginsOfTotalitarianism/
> The struggle for total domination of the total population of the earth, the elimination of every competing nontotalitarian reality, is inherent in the totalitarian regimes themselves; if they do not pursue global rule as their ultimate goal, they are only too likely to lose whatever power they have already seized. Even a single individual can be absolutely and reliably dominated only under global totalitarian conditions. Ascendancy to power therefore means primarily the establishment of official and officially recognized headquarters (or branches in the case of satellite countries) for the movement and the acquisition of a kind of laboratory in which to carry out the experiment with or rather against reality, the experiment in organizing a people for ultimate purposes which disregard individuality as well as nationality, under conditions which are admittedly not perfect but are sufficient for important partial results. Totalitarianism in power uses the state administration for its long-range goal of world conquest and for the direction of the branches of the movement; it establishes the secret police as the executors and guardians of its domestic experiment in constantly transforming reality into fiction; and it finally erects concentration camps as special laboratories to carry through its experiment in total domination.
and
> Any, even the most tyrannical, restriction of this arbitrary persecution to certain opinions of a religious or political nature, to certain modes of intellectual or erotic social behavior, to certain freshly invented "crimes," would render the camps superfluous, because in the long run no attitude and no opinion can withstand the threat of so much horror; and above all it would make for a new system of justice, which, given any stability at all, could not fail to produce a new juridical person in man, that would elude the totalitarian domination. The so-called "Volksnutzen" of the Nazis, constantly fluctuating (because what is useful today can be injurious tomorrow) and the eternally shifting party line of the Soviet Union which, being retroactive, almost daily makes new groups of people available for the concentration camps, are the only guaranty for the continued existence of the concentration camps, and hence for the continued total disfranchisement of man.
> The next decisive step in the preparation of living corpses is the murder of the moral person in man. This is done in the main by making martyrdom, for the first time in history, impossible: "How many people here still believe that a protest has even historic importance? This skepticism is the real masterpiece of the SS. Their great accomplishment. They have corrupted all human solidarity. Here the night has fallen on the future. When no witnesses are left, there can be no testimony. To demonstrate when death can no longer be postponed is an attempt to give death a meaning, to act beyond one's own death. In order to be successful, a gesture must have social meaning. There are hundreds of thousands of us here, all living in absolute solitude. That is why we are subdued no matter what happens." [Rousset]
[..]
> The concentration camps, by making death itself anonymous (making it impossible to find out whether a prisoner is dead or alive) robbed death of its meaning as the end of a fulfilled life. In a sense they took away the individual's own death, proving that henceforth nothing belonged to him and he belonged to no one. His death merely set a seal on the fact that he had never really existed.
> This attack on the moral person might still have been opposed by man's conscience which tells him that it is better to die a victim than to live as a bureaucrat of murder. Totalitarian terror achieved its most terrible triumph when it succeeded in cutting the moral person off from the individualist escape and in making the decisions of conscience absolutely questionable and equivocal. When a man is faced with the alternative of betraying and thus murdering his friends or of sending his wife and children, for whom he is in every sense responsible, to their death; when even suicide would mean the immediate murder of his own family — how is he to decide? The alternative is no longer between good and evil, but between murder and murder. Who could solve the moral dilemma of the Greek mother, who was allowed by the Nazis to choose which of her three children should be killed?
> Through the creation of conditions under which conscience ceases to be adequate and to do good becomes utterly impossible, the consciously organized complicity of all men in the crimes of totalitarian regimes is extended to the victims and thus made really total.
[..]
> If we take totalitarian aspirations seriously and refuse to be misled by the common-sense assertion that they are Utopian and unrealizable, it develops that the society of the dying established in the camps is the only form of society in which it is possible to dominate man entirely. Those who aspire to total domination must liquidate all spontaneity, such as the mere existence of individuality will always engender, and track it down in its most private forms, regardless of how unpolitical and harmless these may seem. Pavlov's dog, the human specimen reduced to the most elementary reactions, the bundle of reactions that can always be liquidated and replaced by other bundles of reactions that behave in exactly the same way, is the model "citizen" of a totalitarian state; and such a citizen can be produced only imperfectly outside of the camps.
Arendt's book introduced the expression and concept of the banality of evil.[15] Her thesis is that Eichmann was actually not a fanatic or a sociopath, but instead an average and mundane person who relied on clichéd defenses rather than thinking for himself,[16] was motivated by professional promotion rather than ideology, and believed in success which he considered the chief standard of "good society".[17] Banality, in this sense, does not mean that Eichmann's actions were in any way ordinary, but that his actions were motivated by a sort of complacency which was wholly unexceptional.
For those for whom audio is better I can recommend this (apart from audio versions of books of course), lots of very interesting discussions of some of her books: https://www.youtube.com/@hannaharendtcenterforpolit8364/play...
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/05/politics/video/kfile-marc...
Not he says it's a criminal organization they've been trying to get rid of over multiple administrations.
Obviously they want to scrub all the past.
I don't have an opinion if that is better or worse, only time will tell. Demolishing USAID etc. should be seen as purging their political enemies and their supporters who's been nesting in the public structure for a couple of decades.
"Who controls the past, controls the future."
That's not your fault, and I'm sorry.
To you, the goal is to fucking burn out everyone you disagree with, and to change the government to actively persecute those who aren’t in the in group. It’s super aggressive, and by your own admission, not really what the leftists were doing.
The liberal ideas are pretty goddamn simple. There’s a place for everyone, as long as you’re not hurting someone or making them uncomfortable. That really sums up a large part of cancel culture. Yeah, it means you’ll get a lot more flack for being a dick.
But we don’t try to get rid of consumer protections, weather forecasts, social safety nets (and those safety nets provide benefits to anyone, even if they got cancelled, by the way), and the like just because our feelings got hurt.
But I know for a god damn fact that my children would be safer in a liberal future.
Some of the info taken down includes stuff about protecting women from harassment and abuse. Would my daughter be safer in your world. I mean a solid 90% of cancel culture is people who were absolutely horrid towards the women in their lives. You want to make crass jokes again? Or not get called out for wandering eyes and hands? Yeah, I’m sure ignoring that widespread problem will protect our daughters.
If Trump's executive orders were simply changes in policy then they might still be bad but they wouldn't necessarily be a threat to democracy. The issue arises in that his executive orders go beyond that to attempt to attack worldviews that he doesn't like. "Gender non-conforming people cannot use a given bathroom" is a policy. "There are only two genders" is a worldview. Even though I disagree with both of them, the second is a much more anti-democratic.
One type thinks that the data being disappeared is "trans DEI libtard lies".
The other type believes that the federal government should collect no data because it is stealing a Job Creator's god-given right to act as a middleman in all aspects of human culture and charge money for access to that data (because that's, somehow, more efficient).
The other type of Biden/Harris supporter has the privilege of time and energy to spend examining the situation critically and recognizes them as just supporting further corporate control behind the guise of bureaucracy instead of "strong men". But they vote/evangalize for them anyway because at least they don't actively advocate for harming people out of spite.
Every time someone says or implies "bOtH sIdEs" a hungry child gets kicked out of a free and reduced school lunch program and called a parasite.
Can you believe we are having to write articles like this in America in 2025? It’s embarrassing, but alas, we have to do it.
I’m not a Trump supporter but try to be intellectually honest. A while ago, I posted that Atlas Plus would be back, and now it is [1], but I was heavily downvoted for saying so [2].
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/about/atlasplus.html#cdc_generic...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42897696#42898819
It has the CDC doing everything from encouraging schools to push DEI hard, to getting kids to create student-run clubs based around their sexuality. I think that's quite inappropriate, but that's also one of the many reasons I think this needs to be preserved. We somehow went from good common sense ideas like equality of opportunity and allowing same sex couples the same rights under marriage, to gradually shifting into equality of outcome or, as per this page, having kids run clubs in school about sexuality, at the CDC's beckoning no less?
It's all just quite odd. I think people in the future won't believe this stuff was happening to this degree, and so I think it's extremely important to preserve it, and to try to learn from it all. At worst it can simply serve as a very important time capsule. It'd be nice if, at some point, societies could stop bouncing between extremes (or even worse - staying at one end or the other) and maintain a more stable center.
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20250122231813/https://www.cdc.g...