The March of Dimes Syndrome

Concept and related theories

  • Commenters link “March of Dimes syndrome” to existing ideas: Shirky Principle, Parkinson’s Law, “Iron Law of Institutions,” and “systemantics” (systems seek self‑preservation).
  • Some argue the label is misapplied: the original charity pivoted to new health problems, which looks like normal mission adaptation, not pathology.
  • Others distinguish two phenomena:
    • Solving one category of problem then finding more of that type to work on.
    • Refusing to admit success and continually tightening standards within the same issue area.

Activism and “moving goalposts”

  • One side: activism often escalates demands to maintain relevance and funding, turning improvement into a reason to intensify rhetoric rather than wind down.
  • Counterpoint: activists naturally move to the “next” problem or to defense of gains; that’s analogous to continuing product work after one feature ships.
  • Some say this is an issue with all institutions and “career activists,” not just progressives; others emphasize it is more an “activist” dynamic than a left/right one.

Culture‑war examples and disputes

  • Thread heavily debates LGBTQ rights, race, and #MeToo:
    • Some accept the article’s framing that definitions of harm and discrimination have expanded (e.g., sexual misconduct, hate groups).
    • Many argue the opposite: rights are fragile and currently regressing, so continued alarm is warranted.
  • There is extended back‑and‑forth over:
    • Whether refusing services for same‑sex weddings is discrimination against people vs. objection to an “event/message.”
    • What counts as inappropriate sexual content in schools vs. exaggerated moral panic.
    • Trans participation in sports as a complex, sport‑specific fairness issue.

Legal, moral, and practical tensions

  • Disagreement over where to draw lines between:
    • Religious or expressive freedom and civil‑rights protections in public accommodations.
    • Legitimate concern vs. manufactured “outrage cycles” in conservative media.
  • Some stress that even if discrimination persists covertly, overt discrimination should remain illegal.

Critique of the article and source

  • Multiple commenters call the piece propaganda from a conservative think‑tank, with cherry‑picked culture‑war examples and strawman descriptions of progressive causes.
  • Others see at least a partial truth in the institutional incentive critique, while rejecting the article’s selective and partisan framing.
  • The origin and neutrality of the term “March of Dimes syndrome” itself is questioned; it may be very recent and ideologically loaded.