[mindslight]

I don't see the point of criticizing our research institutions at a time when such criticism is just being used as justification for attacking them to make them worse. Spend time and energy teasing out extremely nuanced points just so the nuance can be ignored and add to the destructive rallying cries? What do you see as the point?

[s1artibartfast]

I don't think our conversation is being used as justification by the trump administration to inform their policy decisions. I think nuanced points are the interesting ones to think, discuss, and clarify, so that is what I want to do.

I dont see some obscure and transient conversation in a forum backwater as meaningful political action. There are no stakes.

To the extent there are policy implications, I would like to define a preferred policy position on a specific issue. I already know my position on $5T of additional debt. What is the point of talking about it?

[mindslight]

It's not a matter of the administration itself reading message board comments to feel justified. That's a straw man.

Rather it's about people reading each others' opinions and continuing to placate themselves with thoughts that these actions are anything resembling reform or serving the general interests of our country.

Policy positions don't exist in isolation - their actual effects depend on other policies. Even if everything you yourself advocate for would work well together, this does not mean all of your desired policies will be taken up as a whole (similar dynamic of my comment two back). Furthermore the specifics of a big-name policy depend on the people implementing those policies, which is why I keep coming back to the motivations of the current gang.

Cut funding to scientific research by half, with the goal that private industry will take up topics adjacent to it (semiconductors, computing, drug research, etc), while significantly shrinking the tax/inflation burden by generally downsizing the government? Maybe plausible. Cut funding to scientific research by half indiscriminately while stifling domestic industry with hefty import taxes and raising taxflation? Once again, it doesn't seem like the goal is reform to further our national interests - regardless of one's political framework.

But even modulo other policies, what do you see as the point of say coming up with the perfect nuanced plan how to reform the public system of scientific funding? The system of last year no longer exists. Today's system won't exist in a few months. Maybe we can talk about how best to pick up the pieces and rebuild when the butchers are gone, but even just thinking we know where the bottom will be is hopeful.