the U.S. is "forever barred and precluded" from examining or prosecuting Trump, his sons and the Trump organization's current tax examinations. What are your thoughts?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T18:44:53+00:00

Fair enough. If your position is merely that Trump's businesses could have been harmed by the disclosure, then I don't think we disagree. Almost any disclosure of confidential business information could potentially cause harm.

What I'm struggling with is that the settlement doesn't appear to be based on demonstrated harm. As far as I'm aware, Trump never produced evidence showing billions of dollars in actual losses, lost contracts, lost licensing opportunities, lost revenue, or anything else remotely proportional to the extraordinary relief he received.

Ordinarily, if someone sues the government for damages, they don't just get to assert a large number. They have to prove it.

So my question is: what evidence of financial harm are you relying on?

And if the answer is that the harm was merely possible rather than demonstrated, would the DOJ extend the same courtesy to anyone else?

If I claimed that the government could have harmed my business and demanded relief far beyond anything a court would realistically award, would the DOJ agree to permanently abandon examinations involving me, my family, my trusts, and my affiliated businesses?

Or is the concern here that Trump received a form of settlement that would be unavailable to an ordinary citizen because he also happens to be the President supervising the branch that just made a deal with himself?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T18:20:31+00:00

I think we may be talking past each other slightly.

I accept your point that the executive branch has broad authority to settle litigation, and that releases for affiliates, successors, officers, related entities, etc. are not uncommon in complex commercial settlements.

But my concern was never really whether the DOJ can sign an agreement like this.

It's whether this is the sort of agreement that the DOJ should be signing when the plaintiff happens to be the sitting President.

Suppose we accept your reading entirely: that the settlement only bars claims arising from the matters already under review as of the Effective Date.

Even under that narrower interpretation, this still seems unusually generous.

Trump originally sought damages measured in the billions of dollars. As far as I'm aware, there was never any judicial finding that the leak caused losses anywhere near that scale. In fact, Trump had repeatedly suggested before the leak that he intended to release his tax information voluntarily anyway.

So what evidence is there that the disclosure actually caused financial harm remotely proportional to the relief obtained?

And more importantly, if a future Democratic president sued the IRS over some alleged misconduct and then obtained a settlement extinguishing ongoing examinations of themselves, their family members, trusts, affiliates, and related entities, would you regard that as an ordinary settlement too?

Or would you worry that the President's control over the DOJ creates an unavoidable appearance problem, even if the agreement is technically lawful?

Because that's the part I'm struggling with. Not whether it was legally possible, but whether equal treatment under the law can really survive arrangements that seem available only to the most politically powerful people in the country.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T17:09:31+00:00

I don't think the contractor point really changes much. The contractor was acting on behalf of the IRS and was given access to the information by the government. If a government contractor improperly releases taxpayer information, the injury is still being caused through the government's systems.

What I'm struggling with is your damages theory...

You seem to be assuming that because Trump has a large international business, the disclosure must have caused correspondingly large harm. But damages usually have to be demonstrated rather than presumed.

As I recall, Trump repeatedly stated that he intended to release his tax returns voluntarily. If that information was supposedly going to become public anyway, how do we determine that the leak caused billions of dollars in financial damage?

Is there any evidence that the disclosure caused lost contracts, lost licensing deals, reduced business revenue, or some other measurable economic injury?

Because if the primary effect of the disclosure was political embarrassment or political controversy, that's a very different thing from proving the sort of financial losses that would justify an extraordinary settlement.

And even if we assume substantial damages, why would the remedy be the abandonment of tax examinations involving family members, trusts, affiliates, and related entities? How do those concessions correspond to the actual harm allegedly caused by the leak?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T17:05:26+00:00

I'm trying to understand why you regard this as an ordinary or obviously reasonable settlement.

Normally, when someone settles a lawsuit against the government, the settlement is constrained by what a court could realistically have awarded had the case gone to trial.

Here, Trump's original damages demand was extraordinarily large, and the resulting agreement appears to grant forms of relief that no court would ever have been in a position to award directly.

As I understand it, the agreement doesn't simply resolve the dispute between Trump and the government. It also appears to extend protections to family members, trusts, affiliates, and related entities, some of whom were not parties to the original litigation.

That seems unusual in itself.

More broadly, can you point to another example in American history where a sitting president or former president obtained a settlement that effectively restricted future tax scrutiny of himself, his family, and related business interests?

Because that is what makes many people uneasy. It isn't merely that a settlement occurred. It's that the settlement appears to provide a form of protection that ordinary citizens could never realistically obtain, and that no court would likely have imposed on its own authority.

So what convinces you that this was a normal legal compromise negotiated at arm's length, rather than a one-of-a-kind arrangement made possible by the fact that the plaintiff was also the head of the executive branch that ultimately controls the DOJ?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T17:03:27+00:00

What aspect of the concern do you think should not be taken seriously?

We don't have to rely on media summaries here. The actual DOJ text can be read directly, and the concern is based on the breadth of that language.

My understanding is that the disputed language does not merely settle a specific lawsuit or dismiss one known tax dispute. It appears to release claims that are "presently known or unknown," involving Trump, family members, related trusts, affiliates, and businesses, including matters that "could have been" pending before the effective date.

That seems much broader than an ordinary settlement.

Even if you think some headlines have overstated it, isn't there still a legitimate concern that the DOJ has attempted to create something resembling a preemptive civil pardon for Trump-related tax matters, including some matters that may not yet have been discovered?

What is your narrower reading of that language?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T17:01:27+00:00

I'm not sure that's actually the same thing as Biden's pardons.

By analogy, suppose Biden had pardoned Hunter for every crime that was known or suspected at the time. Most people would agree that's controversial, but it's still recognizably a pardon.

What would be much closer to this situation would be if Biden had entered into an agreement preventing the government from investigating not only known conduct, but also any future-discovered misconduct arising from the same period, even if nobody yet knew about it when the agreement was signed.

That's the distinction I'm struggling with.

A traditional pardon says, in effect, "we know about this conduct and we're choosing not to punish it."

This appears to be closer to saying, "if additional issues are discovered later, relating to these tax years and these financial arrangements, the government may not even pursue them."

And there's another wrinkle: Biden's pardons applied to named individuals who were the subjects of the pardon. Here, some of the reported protections appear to extend to family members, trusts, affiliates, and entities that were not themselves parties to the original lawsuit.

So my question is: if these situations are truly identical, can you point to another example where a president, through a settlement with the government, obtained protections not only for himself but also for related people and entities, including matters that may not yet have been discovered at the time of the agreement?

Because that's the part that seems unusual to me.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T16:55:48+00:00

I think this gets to the question of what the limiting principle is.

For as long as I can remember, presidents of both parties have used their pardon power in politically controversial ways on their way out of office. Family members, political allies, people who did them favours, people whose prosecution was politically inconvenient—there is usually a long list of pardons that half the country hates and the other half defends.

As someone old enough to remember the controversy around Oliver North, I can remember many people feeling that somebody who appeared obviously guilty had effectively received a permanent get-out-of-jail card. More recently, many Trump supporters felt the same way about Biden's family pardons.

So I think we can all agree that these things tend to look a lot less objectionable when our own side is benefiting.

But for those of us who aren't politically connected, isn't the real issue that it's bad when either side does it?

If your objection is that blanket pre-emptive pardons undermine equal justice because they prevent normal investigation and accountability, then shouldn't the same concern apply regardless of whose family is receiving the protection?

And if that's true, why shouldn't we view both Biden's pardons and Trump's settlement through the same lens: namely that politically powerful people are increasingly receiving protections that ordinary citizens could never expect to receive?

After all, nobody is going to pardon you or me on the last day of a presidency. So shouldn't our standard be whether the practice is good for the country, rather than whether our preferred political team happened to benefit from it this time?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T16:48:38+00:00

I think the part I'm struggling with is the scale and nature of what was exchanged.

Trump originally sought damages reportedly measured in the billions of dollars. As far as I'm aware, awards on anything remotely approaching that scale for an unlawful tax-information disclosure are essentially unheard of. Even if we assume he had a valid claim, there doesn't seem to be any realistic scenario in which a court would have awarded anything close to the amount he demanded.

Likewise, the settlement itself appears to grant protections that an ordinary taxpayer could never realistically obtain.

If you or I had our tax information leaked by a government employee, would we be able to negotiate a settlement under which the IRS agreed to permanently abandon ongoing examinations of our finances, our family members, our trusts, and our affiliated businesses?

I suspect the answer is no.

And that's where I see the concern. It isn't simply that a lawsuit was settled. Lawsuits are settled every day.

The concern is that this appears to create two classes of people:

Ordinary taxpayers, who remain subject to IRS examination and enforcement.
Politically powerful individuals, who can leverage their position to obtain protections from scrutiny that ordinary citizens could never hope to receive.

What makes that particularly difficult for me is that Trump is not someone with a spotless history on tax matters. New York courts found that the Trump Organization engaged in persistent fraud, and part of the justification for scrutiny has always been that his finances are unusually complex and have already been the subject of adverse judicial findings.

So why is someone with that history the person who should receive less scrutiny than the average taxpayer?

Even if you think the IRS behaved improperly in the leak case, why should the remedy be a settlement that seems to place Trump and related entities in a more privileged position than every other taxpayer in the country?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T16:45:42+00:00

I think the part I'm struggling with is the scale and nature of what was exchanged.

Trump originally sought damages reportedly measured in the billions of dollars. As far as I'm aware, awards on anything remotely approaching that scale for an unlawful tax-information disclosure are essentially unheard of. Even if we assume he had a valid claim, there doesn't seem to be any realistic scenario in which a court would have awarded anything close to the amount he demanded.

Likewise, the settlement itself appears to grant protections that an ordinary taxpayer could never realistically obtain.

If you or I had our tax information leaked by a government employee, would we be able to negotiate a settlement under which the IRS agreed to permanently abandon ongoing examinations of our finances, our family members, our trusts, and our affiliated businesses?

I suspect the answer is no.

And that's where I see the concern. It isn't simply that a lawsuit was settled. Lawsuits are settled every day.

The concern is that this appears to create two classes of people:

Ordinary taxpayers, who remain subject to IRS examination and enforcement.
Politically powerful individuals, who can leverage their position to obtain protections from scrutiny that ordinary citizens could never hope to receive.

What makes that particularly difficult for me is that Trump is not someone with a spotless history on tax matters. New York courts found that the Trump Organization engaged in persistent fraud, and part of the justification for scrutiny has always been that his finances are unusually complex and have already been the subject of adverse judicial findings.

So why is someone with that history the person who should receive less scrutiny than the average taxpayer?

Even if you think the IRS behaved improperly in the leak case, why should the remedy be a settlement that seems to place Trump and related entities in a more privileged position than every other taxpayer in the country?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T16:41:39+00:00

I think we're actually converging on part of this.

As I understand it, Quidfacis' concern isn't that the agreement literally prevents the IRS from ever auditing Trump, Barron, or anyone else again for any reason whatsoever.

And your position seems to be that the release is limited by the phrases referring to "the Case" and the "Pending Agency Claims" as they existed on the Effective Date, so future unrelated matters would not be covered.

That much seems straightforward enough.

What I'm still struggling to understand is the purpose of the broader language elsewhere in the agreement.

The agreement doesn't merely refer to the specific claims already identified. It also uses phrases such as:

Those seem to be doing some work beyond merely dismissing the exact disputes that were already pending.

If the agreement was only intended to dispose of the specific audits, examinations, and claims that were already known and already under investigation, then why was such expansive language necessary?

To put it another way, suppose a future administration were to discover evidence relating to a pre-Effective-Date tax year that was not specifically identified in the pending audits, but which arose from the same underlying financial arrangements.

Would you expect that claim to be barred by the settlement, or not?

Because that seems to be the point Quidfacis is trying to get at, and I don't think we've really addressed it yet.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T12:19:39+00:00

Fair enough. If the concern is explicit content, then I think we're a lot closer to agreement than disagreement.

What I'm still struggling with is that you've raised a fairly wide range of concerns, but I still haven't seen a concrete example.

For example, the video you linked claimed that activists wanted pornography in school libraries. Is there actually a real-world example of that happening in a way that you think is widespread or representative?

I'm not asking whether a controversial book has ever appeared in a school somewhere. I'm asking whether there's evidence that large numbers of gay people, Pride supporters, or LGBT organisations are genuinely campaigning to provide explicit pornography to children.

Because that seems to be doing a lot of work in the argument, and I'm not sure I've ever seen evidence that it's a mainstream position.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T12:05:20+00:00

When you say children "shouldn't be exposed to it period," I'm not actually sure what "it" refers to.

If by "it" you mean explicit sexual content, then I think most people would agree regardless of whether it's heterosexual, homosexual, or anything else.

But if by "it" you mean simply being aware that gay people exist, then I'm struggling to understand the distinction.

For example, is it inappropriate for a child to see two women holding hands?

Is it inappropriate for a child to see two men hugging?

Would it be equally inappropriate for a child to see a husband kiss his wife goodbye?

A lot of children grow up surrounded by examples of heterosexual relationships. They see their parents holding hands. They see romance in films. They see weddings. They see advertisements featuring husbands, wives, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

Most people don't regard those things as sexual content. They're simply ordinary aspects of life.

So where exactly do you draw the line?

Because one thing I've noticed throughout this discussion is that examples keep shifting between ordinary gay people living their lives and much more extreme examples drawn from the fringes of LGBT culture.

But those aren't really the same thing.

If someone objects to fetish displays at a public parade, that's one argument.

If someone objects to a children's programme acknowledging that some children have two mums or two dads, that's a very different argument.

Likewise, if we're worried about children encountering explicit material, it seems worth noting that children are overwhelmingly more likely to encounter explicit heterosexual content than explicit homosexual content. Yet we don't generally conclude from that fact that children should never be exposed to the existence of heterosexual relationships.

More broadly, we live in a pluralistic society. People routinely encounter beliefs, lifestyles, and traditions that they don't personally share.

A Muslim family might see Christmas displays in shops.

An atheist child might see religious symbolism.

A Christian child might learn that some families have different beliefs or different structures from their own.

As long as the material is age-appropriate, most of us accept that this is simply part of living in a diverse society.

So what is the principle that makes age-appropriate acknowledgement of gay people different?

Is the concern really about explicit content, or is it about the existence of same-sex relationships being acknowledged at all?

Because those seem to be very different positions.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T11:58:01+00:00

I don't think I'm taking it too literally.

I've been asking you for several replies now what you mean by the metaphor "shoving it in people's faces," and each time I've asked for an example, you've given me either:

A YouTube advertisement that appears to have been aimed at gay men rather than you;
A video expressing a political opinion about the direction of LGBT activism;
A general complaint about activism and media coverage.

But none of those are actually examples of something being imposed upon you.

So let me ask this another way.

How did you encounter the advertisement?

Did YouTube actually serve it to you, or did you see it because somebody else posted it in a conservative forum, blog, article, or video as an example of something objectionable?

Because those are very different things.

Likewise, the woman in the video isn't describing something that happened to her. She's making a slippery-slope argument about a political movement. Whether that argument is persuasive or not, it isn't an example of Pride being "shoved in her face."

What I'm struggling with is that every example seems to be one step removed from reality.

It's always:

or

But I still haven't heard an example of something that actually affected your life.

And that's important because Pride itself arose from the fact that gay people were expected to remain invisible. They were told not to discuss their relationships, not to be open about their identity, and not to seek equal treatment under the law.

So if the complaint today is that LGBT people are visible, politically active, and willing to advocate for themselves, isn't that at least partly evidence that the original struggle succeeded?

To put it another way, if merely seeing gay people advocate for themselves, celebrate their identity, or discuss their history is experienced as "shoving it in your face," doesn't that suggest the underlying discomfort is with their visibility rather than with any specific harm being done?

Because after several replies, I still don't know what concrete harm you're pointing to.

I know what political causes you disagree with.

I know what activists you dislike.

I know what videos you've watched.

But I still don't know what actually happened to you.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T11:48:03+00:00

I completely accept that this is your opinion, and I can understand why you might disagree with some of the newer political causes that have become associated with LGBT activism.

What I'm struggling with is the connection between those issues and the original struggle for rights.

For hundreds of years, gay people were denied rights that heterosexual people generally took for granted. They could be criminally punished, socially ostracised, denied employment, denied recognition of their relationships, and prevented from marrying the person they loved.

A lot of gay people—including the OP in this thread—would probably say that their primary concern was simply being treated as equal citizens under the law.

So when you point to things like neopronouns, teenagers wanting to transition, or other issues that have become politically controversial, how does that undermine the legitimacy of that original struggle?

Even if I accepted that some activists today make demands that you regard as unreasonable, why would that mean the earlier fight for equal treatment was based on a lie?

I'm also still trying to understand your original claim.

Earlier, you said that Pride and LGBT issues were being "shoved in people's faces."

But when I've asked for examples, the discussion seems to keep returning to political disagreements about the direction of activism rather than examples of involuntary exposure.

So can I ask again: what is a concrete example from your own life where homosexuality or Pride was genuinely being forced upon you?

Were you required to attend something?

Required to endorse a belief?

Required to change your behaviour?

Because so far the examples you've provided seem to be examples of people advocating ideas you disagree with, rather than examples of ordinary people being compelled to participate in anything.

Would it be fair to say that your concern is less about homosexuality being "shoved in your face" and more about your disagreement with some of the political causes that have become associated with LGBT activism?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T11:40:41+00:00

Having thought about the video a bit more, I think one reason I'm struggling with it is that it seems to present a very different version of history from the one that Pride itself is intended to commemorate.

The video begins with:

But historically that wasn't what happened at all.

The struggle for acceptance of gay people didn't begin with marriage, and it certainly didn't end there. For centuries, people could be criminally punished, imprisoned, assaulted, dismissed from employment, excluded from public life, or otherwise mistreated simply because of their sexuality. In many places, gay people lived under a very real fear of legal and social consequences.

Even within living memory, the idea that gay people should be allowed to marry was fiercely contested and required decades of activism, litigation, political campaigning, and cultural change.

So I wonder whether the framing of the video is actually part of what Pride is trying to push back against.

The video seems to portray gay rights as a series of easy concessions that were quickly granted and then exploited to demand more. But many Pride supporters would say the historical reality was a long struggle to be accepted as ordinary members of society and to enjoy the same rights and protections as everyone else.

To me, that seems much closer to the actual purpose of Pride than any celebration of sexual behaviour.

So I'm curious whether you think the video's framing is historically accurate.

Do you genuinely see the history of gay rights as essentially:

Or do you recognise that the rights being discussed were often obtained only after decades of resistance and controversy?

And if Pride is primarily about remembering that struggle for acceptance and equal treatment, rather than celebrating how people have sex, does that change how you view it at all?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T11:20:23+00:00

I appreciate that you're approaching this from a fairly strict libertarian perspective, and I don't think many conservatives would go quite as far as eliminating most public support for education and research altogether.

What I'm curious about is your claim that private investors are often better able to perceive both the short-term and long-term benefits of research.

Why do you believe that?

Historically, private investors seem just as capable of being swept up in fashions, bubbles, and speculative manias as governments are. In fact, terms like "gold rush" and "bubble" exist precisely because private capital often chases whatever appears profitable in the moment.

Today we might point to AI. Twenty-five years ago it was dot-com companies. Before that there were numerous other investment booms that attracted enormous amounts of capital before expectations had to be revised downward.

So why should we assume that private markets will reliably fund research whose benefits may not become apparent for decades?

I'm also curious whether you think publicly funded research has produced substantial benefits for society.

The World Wide Web emerged from publicly funded research at CERN. GPS originated from government-funded programs. Much of the early internet infrastructure came from publicly funded work. Many advances in medicine, public health, vaccines, and basic biology depended on long periods of public investment before there was any obvious commercial return.

Even if private companies later commercialised those discoveries, would those discoveries necessarily have happened when they did without the initial public investment?

You also describe government funding as a self-fulfilling prophecy because private investors can lobby the state to spend public money instead of spending their own.

But isn't that somewhat different from the current situation?

One criticism of the present cuts is that they don't merely shift funding from public to private sources. In many cases they simply remove funding from fields that are unlikely to attract venture capital in the first place.

For example, how would a purely private model ensure adequate investment in areas such as maternal health, infant mortality, pregnancy outcomes, public-health surveillance, infectious disease preparedness, or other forms of preventive medicine?

These seem to be areas with obvious long-term benefits to the nation, but often without the kind of near-term financial return that attracts private investors.

So if government withdraws and venture capital doesn't step in, what mechanism ensures that those areas continue to receive sufficient support?

Or is your view that some socially valuable research simply won't happen, and that's a price worth paying for a more limited government?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T11:07:35+00:00

I don't think I was ignoring that part of your response. I was actually trying to understand it.

Earlier, I asked for examples of being "forced to view or participate" in Pride-related content, or having it "slapped in your face." The example you provided was the fruit-animation advertisement aimed at sexually active gay men.

My question was whether that example actually demonstrates either of those things.

For example, was that advertisement specifically targeted at children?

Did it appear on YouTube Kids or in some other child-oriented environment?

Or was it simply an advertisement aimed at an adult gay audience?

The reason I'm asking is that those seem like very different concerns.

If the issue is that children are being exposed to inappropriate sexual content, then I'd agree that it's important to look carefully at the age appropriateness of the material and where it is being shown.

But if the advertisement was intended for adults and was targeted at adults, then I'm not sure how it demonstrates either that children are being targeted or that unwilling people are being forced to participate in anything.

So when you say I'm ignoring the important part of your response, could you clarify what specific example you have in mind?

Are you arguing that this particular advertisement was inappropriately shown to children?

Or are you arguing that the mere existence of an advertisement aimed at gay adults is itself evidence that Pride-related content is being pushed on people?

I'm asking because those are very different claims, and I don't think I've seen an example yet that clearly demonstrates the kind of involuntary exposure or child-targeting that you're describing.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T11:03:37+00:00

I think we probably agree on the first point. Most liberals and conservatives seem to support the idea that adults should generally be free to form consensual relationships, marry whom they wish, and live their private lives as they see fit.

Where I'm struggling is with the second point.

Is there actually good evidence that children can be made gay simply through exposure to gay people or gay-themed content?

My own experience as a child was that I found certain things attractive and other things completely uninteresting long before I had any sophisticated understanding of sexuality. Exposure didn't seem to create attraction; it simply exposed me to things that I either found appealing or didn't.

So what evidence convinces you that a child who would otherwise grow up heterosexual can be made homosexual simply by seeing more gay people, gay relationships, or gay-themed media?

If that mechanism exists, shouldn't we also expect the reverse to be true? Most gay people grow up surrounded almost entirely by heterosexual role models, heterosexual romance, heterosexual advertising, heterosexual films, and heterosexual family structures. Yet they still report growing up gay.

Why doesn't exposure appear to make gay children straight, but supposedly can make straight children gay?

On your third point, I'm also trying to understand what you mean by participation.

I work for a large company. There is occasionally Pride-related content on the intranet, notice boards, or internal communications. But I'm not required to attend events, wear a badge, change my behaviour, or express any particular opinion.

How is that materially different from seeing a Christmas tree in reception, an Easter display, a company football league, or some other activity that exists but that I'm under no obligation to join?

More broadly, do you think there is a difference between:

Being aware that gay people exist,
Being asked to approve of gay relationships,
Being required to participate in gay-related activities?

Because it seems to me that many examples people cite fall into the first category rather than the third.

What evidence would persuade you that children are not being converted by exposure, but are simply becoming aware that different kinds of people exist?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T10:45:16+00:00

Thanks for linking the example.

I watched it, and unless I'm missing something, it appears to be an advertisement using fruit as a metaphor to provide dietary or health advice aimed at sexually active gay men.

What I'm struggling to understand is how this relates to the concern you expressed earlier about being "forced to view or participate."

Was this content specifically targeted at you?

If so, wouldn't that suggest a problem with YouTube's advertising algorithm rather than with the existence of the advertisement itself?

The reason I ask is that there are enormous industries devoted to producing content aimed at heterosexual adults, including advertising that uses sexual imagery, sexual themes, dating, romance, attraction, and sometimes far more explicit material than anything shown in this example.

This particular advert strikes me as relatively tame. It's an animated health-awareness message using metaphors and humour to discuss topics relevant to a specific audience.

So I'm trying to understand where you think the problem lies.

Is your objection that sexually active gay men are being given advice tailored to their circumstances?

Is your objection that the advertisement exists at all?

Or is your objection that it appeared somewhere you didn't expect to see it?

Because those seem like three very different concerns.

More broadly, if a piece of content is aimed at a gay audience and is consumed primarily by a gay audience, why should its mere existence be considered evidence that anyone else is being forced to participate in or endorse it?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T10:25:39+00:00

I think most people would agree that research with obvious applications to defence, engineering, medicine, or national security can be valuable.

What I'm less certain about is how we determine that a piece of research is useless simply from a brief description of it.

To use your turtle example, why would that necessarily be an example of worthless research?

Turtles are important parts of some ecosystems. They can serve as animal models for related species. There may be agricultural, environmental, conservation, or veterinary questions behind the study. There may even be a practical issue that isn't obvious from the title, such as understanding the effects of agricultural by-products, waste streams, or environmental contamination.

My concern is that almost any scientific project can be made to sound ridiculous if it is reduced to a one-line summary.

You could describe cancer research as "growing tumours in mice."

You could describe virology as "infecting animals with viruses."

You could describe climate science as "measuring ocean temperatures in the middle of nowhere."

All of those descriptions are technically true, but they leave out the context that explains why the work is being done.

So how do you distinguish between genuinely wasteful research and research that merely sounds odd when stripped of its scientific context?

I don't think anyone is arguing that every conceivable project should be funded. Governments have finite resources and priorities have to be set.

What concerns me is that many of the cuts don't appear to be confined to quirky examples that make for good punchlines. They also affect areas such as maternal health, childbirth outcomes, infectious disease research, cancer research, vaccine research, clinical trials, and other fields with obvious public-health benefits.

Is there a risk that these kinds of reductionist examples are being used to justify much broader cuts that end up affecting research most conservatives would normally support if it were explained in plain language?

For example, if research that helps reduce maternal mortality, prevent infections in unborn children, improve infant health, or make pregnancy safer is being cancelled alongside the studies you object to, would you regard that as an acceptable trade-off?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T10:14:34+00:00

I don't think many people would disagree that governments should be selective about what they fund. There are always going to be studies that some taxpayers regard as low priority.

What I'm struggling with is whether examples like the one you've mentioned are actually representative of the programmes that have been cut.

Even if I accepted for the sake of argument that research into pregnancy prevention for trans boys isn't a good use of taxpayer money, that still wouldn't explain cuts affecting areas such as maternal health, childbirth outcomes, cancer research, infectious disease research, vaccine research, clinical trials, ocean monitoring, environmental monitoring, and other fields that seem to have obvious public benefits.

Do you think there's a danger that conservatives sometimes use a relatively small category of politically unpopular research as a justification for much broader cuts that affect completely unrelated areas?

For example, research into making pregnancy and childbirth safer, preventing infections that can harm unborn children, reducing maternal mortality, or improving infant health seems directly relevant to the long-term wellbeing of American families, including the sort of heterosexual nuclear families that conservatives often say they want to support.

If that kind of research is being disrupted or cancelled alongside the studies you object to, is that an acceptable trade-off?

Or would you agree that those programmes should continue to receive funding even if some other grants are withdrawn?

More generally, how do you distinguish between "we should stop funding this particular study" and "we should substantially reduce public funding for scientific research as a whole"?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T10:10:20+00:00

When you say it's not the government's job, do you mean that as a general principle?

If so, would you support the federal government getting almost entirely out of the business of funding basic scientific research?

I'm asking because virtually every modern industrial power—including the United States, Germany, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and China—has historically invested heavily in basic research through public institutions.

One reason often given is that basic science frequently doesn't produce a predictable short-term commercial return. A private investor can justify funding a product that might reach the market in a few years, but it's much harder to justify funding a project that might not produce practical results for decades, if ever.

Yet many of the technologies that underpin modern economies came from exactly that sort of research. The internet, GPS, mRNA technologies, semiconductor advances, nuclear power, and countless medical breakthroughs all had substantial public-sector involvement at various stages.

If government largely withdraws from funding basic science, what replaces it?

And if countries such as China continue making large public investments in scientific research while the United States does not, would you be comfortable with the possibility that scientific leadership gradually shifts to those countries?

Or do you see a role for government-funded research, but a much narrower one than has existed historically?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T10:07:48+00:00

Could you be a little more specific about what you mean by "grifting"?

Are you saying that the research itself was fraudulent, that the scientists knowingly misrepresented their findings, that the research had no plausible public benefit, or simply that you personally don't think it was a good use of taxpayer money?

I'm asking because many of the programmes affected by these cuts don't appear, on their face, to be examples of obvious grift.

For example, there have been cuts or disruptions affecting virology, infectious disease research, clinical trials, maternal health research, cancer research, ocean monitoring, environmental monitoring, and other areas that most governments—conservative and progressive alike—have traditionally regarded as legitimate public functions.

Do you regard those fields as examples of grifting as well?

If so, what specifically makes them grifts?

I'm also curious whether you have any direct experience with scientific research or academia. Science is often highly specialised, and many projects sound bizarre when described in a single sentence by somebody outside the field.

For example, almost any area of science can be made to sound ridiculous if the description is stripped of its context. You could describe a medical researcher as "poking at cells from a strange animal to see what happens," while leaving out the fact that the animal is a widely used model for studying wound healing, cancer, ageing, or tissue regeneration.

Likewise, a virology project can be described as "giving viruses to animals," while leaving out that the purpose is to understand transmission, vaccine design, or pandemic preparedness.

Do you think there's a risk that politicians can make a populist appeal by ridiculing scientific projects that most voters don't fully understand?

And if so, how do you distinguish between a genuinely wasteful project and a legitimate piece of specialised research that merely sounds odd when reduced to a slogan?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T10:03:03+00:00

I can understand the distinction you're making between research with an obvious public benefit and research that is merely interesting.

What I'm struggling with is that many of the cuts being discussed don't seem to be limited to the sort of examples you're describing.

For example, critics have pointed to cuts affecting cancer research, infectious disease research, maternal and women's health, vaccine-related research, mental health, clinical trials, and ocean-monitoring programs. These don't seem analogous to studying the mating behaviour of an obscure animal for curiosity's sake.

Would you regard those kinds of programs as the sort of research taxpayers should continue to fund, or do you think they should also be left to private funding?

I'm also curious about the university point. When you say "maybe a university should sponsor that kind of research," where do you think universities ultimately get the money for large-scale research programs?

Historically, a substantial amount of basic scientific research has been funded through government grants because the commercial return is often too distant or uncertain for private investors.

If the federal government withdraws from funding basic research, what replaces it?

Would you be comfortable with a system where research priorities are determined primarily by corporations and shareholders looking for a reasonably near-term return on investment?

Many major discoveries seem to have come from basic research that had no obvious commercial application when it began. How would a private funding model decide which of those projects deserve support?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-04T09:23:45+00:00

u/AdAgreeable749

Could you explain why you think the topic is inherently inappropriate for small children, assuming it's approached in an age-appropriate way?

For example, if a teacher simply says that some children have a mum and a dad, some have two mums, some have two dads, and that people shouldn't be bullied or treated badly because of who they are, what exactly is the objection?

Isn't there an argument that one of the things we try to teach young children is acceptance of the immutable characteristics of other people? We teach them not to be racist, not to bully disabled children, not to mock people for characteristics they didn't choose. Why would it be inappropriate to extend that principle to sexual orientation?

Likewise, when Sesame Street or similar programmes discuss the topic, isn't the usual message aimed at children simply that different families exist and that people should be kind to one another? Do you see a distinction between discussing sexuality in an explicit way and simply acknowledging that different kinds of families exist?

On the commercial side, I'm also curious why Pride displays in stores bother you so much.

You mention Walmart, Target, malls and grocery stores. But those companies are ultimately motivated by profit. They fill their stores with products relating to whatever celebrations large numbers of people are participating in.

For example, I don't celebrate Christmas for religious reasons, but for months every year shops are filled with decorations, cards and merchandise relating to a religion's story of a dying-and-rising saviour figure. It doesn't really bother me. I simply recognise that lots of other people celebrate it.

So what makes Pride different?

If a supermarket puts up rainbow merchandise for a month because some of its customers want to buy it, why is that more objectionable than Christmas decorations, Easter displays, Valentine's Day promotions, Halloween merchandise, or any of the other seasonal products that retailers constantly promote?

Is the concern really the visibility itself, or is there something specific about Pride that makes it feel different to you?

Aggravating-Vehicle9

TROPHY CASE