Hacker News Reader

I'm pretty sure that neither money saved today or tomorrow are factors in these cuts. This administration is out to grief science and scientists--it doesn't matter if it saves money or costs money. The whole point is hostility to science. It's not an economic decision.

  > This administration

I'd like to draw your attention to the last line of [1]

  >> The people that want to just take the money are well aware of this tendency...

Do you think I'm talking about "the administration" or "the people who support the administration"?

If you can't differentiate then we'll only be able to talk past one another

> administration is out to grief science and scientists

Is MAGA messaging on these NASA cuts?

My impression is these cuts are being done in the background. The beasts being fed are the military-industrial complex (specifically, its rotation from legacy providers to Silicon Valley) and ICE.

Grievance politics amplified by an assembly of the most astoundingly dumb people you’ve ever seen behind a podium

That’s it! That’s the strategy!

This apologia for the cuts would be more persuasive if they didn’t come in concert with record-breaking increases to the pentagon budget and historic deficits. There’s no calculation happening here with present or future value, they’re lavishly funding things they like and decimating things they don’t. You don’t place a reality TV ‘star’ as the director of any agency you care about.

  > This apologia for the cut

What gave you the impression I was in favor of the cuts?

Sanewashing would be better word ... it is kneed jerk tendency with anything republicans and especially Trump related. Even when what they do is clearly crap, people find ways to rationalize it and make it sound better then it is.

Sometimes better amounts to "still bad" as in here, but it is still a bunch of claims that make Conservatives lead by Trump sound much better then what they actually are.

And you don't think understanding how people delude themselves is good to 1) convince them 2) not fall prone to the same traps?

I'm not excusing anyone. But you are picking fights with people on your own team. So maybe pay closer attention to what people say and not just signaling. Personally I want to fix things, not pick random needless fights. I want to stop chaos, not create more. Picking fights is just what Trump wants you to do

> And you don't think understanding how people delude themselves is good to 1) convince them 2) not fall prone to the same traps?

I think that if you project wrong motivations on them, you wont understand how they "deluded" themselves nor prevent yourself to fall for the same trap. If their motivation is "scientists are liberals and I want to hurt them" or "I want actually Christian conservative religious state and these institutions are threat to that goal", no amount of theorizing about money saving will get you to the understanding.

If you want to start with understanding someone's motivation, you can not start by projecting best most palatable motivations on them. Nor should you start be projecting worst ones ... but that is NOT where we are or were for years.

For years, conservatives and especially Trump had best possible motivations projected on them. And it only served to their benefit. The whole center ended up not believing their goals, even as they stated or wrote about them regularly. The whole center was busy policing those who actually listened to conservatives and very accurately predicted what they will do. Again and again.

> Personally I want to fix things, not pick random needless fights. I want to stop chaos, not create more.

You are not stopping the chaos by making what is going on more palatable by sane washing it. It just empowers the chaos.

> Picking fights is just what Trump wants you to do

No, Trump want us all to act like republicans do. Never argue with him, enable enable enable. Praise him and kiss his behind.

You're right that's there's a breath of opinions and values but you're wrong to be applying such a broad brush, especially when painting with hate.

If you hate Trump so much I highly suggest not supporting him

This is nonsense. Of course we want to be richer tomorrow than we are today, but we're plenty rich today. We -- the United States -- do not have a cashflow issue. We can meet all of our current obligations -- or could if there were any effort at efficient redistribution at all. The US federal government is maybe the least cashflow-constrained organization in human history. We want the $10 tomorrow, without any question whatsoever.

I'm failing to see what you're arguing against from my comment. What did you think I was arguing?

jacobolus wrote:

> The cuts to NASA as well as NOAA, NIH, USGS, USDA, FWS, DOE, etc. are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value

You, in reply, wrote:

> The real issue is essentially: which would you rather have, $1 now or $10 tomorrow?[1]

I'm saying you're wrong. There is not a choice to be made. We want the $10 tomorrow. No rational person can disagree with this if the person making the choice is the US federal government, who can spend money into existence. If we have some use for $1 now, just spend that $1 into existence too! Then, tomorrow, we'll have the $10 too!

If you agree with the cuts, you must logically agree that they are a bad investment: that $1 today will net us 75 cents tomorrow.

That wasn't my argument? I think you should look at my last paragraph. It starts with "I'm pointing this out because".

  > We want the $10 tomorrow.

Previously I didn't state my position. You *assumed* my position. So allow me to tell you what it is: I agree, $10 tomorrow is better

  > No rational person can disagree with this

You really should read [1]

Actually, you really should read my whole comment and be careful to not read things my comment doesn't say.

To circle back,

  >> miscommunication due to different assumptions about what we want

A corollary to this is "miscommunication [frequently] happens when we make inaccurate assumptions about the position of others". Let's not go putting words in other people's mouths.

I understood your point. I just couldn't fathom any reason it was in this specific discussion other than as a way to legitimize the cuts as one of several "choices" that could be made depending on the assumptions or predilections of the party choosing. In this case, there are no choices to be made (one of the "choices" is literally better in every way and only a fool wouldn't take it), so any suggestion that there are "sides" to this "argument" is de facto an argument in favor of the cuts, regardless of what you claim to believe.

I understand now that you are just making a semi-wanky abstract point about the nature of rhetoric and descisionmaking for its own sake, and I apologize for misunderstanding this.

I appreciate the apology, even with the snipes. I hope you now can fathom a reason, even if it's hard