site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   34791 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Was the relationship between Justinian and Theodora irrelevant? Of course it’s relevant. The top two figures responsible for this whole fiasco were in a sexual relationship with one another (and possibly others). That matters. It affects incentives. It affects decision making. One of the criticisms of EA is that it’s just a front for nerds to get laid. The fact that the people involved may in fact have been nerds just trying to get laid is a factor that must be taken into account for a proper analysis.

Theodora was a hell of a lot more competent (and allegedly more attractive) than what this lot got up to. I don't think Caroline Ellison actually did much more than "Okay Sam, you want me to sign off on the billion dollar 'loan' to you? Sure thing!" since the bankruptcy filing by John J. Ray is clear that Bankman-Fried was the guy in ultimate control of everything (and boy is Mr. Ray not one bit impressed by Bankman-Fried's comments as reported in Vox):

Finally, and critically, the Debtors have made clear to employees and the public that Mr. Bankman-Fried is not employed by the Debtors and does not speak for them. Mr. Bankman-Fried, currently in the Bahamas, continues to make erratic and misleading public statements. Mr. Bankman-Fried, whose connections and financial holdings in the Bahamas remain unclear to me, recently stated to a reporter on Twitter: “F*** regulators they make everything worse” and suggested the next step for him was to “win a jurisdictional battle vs. Delaware”.

I don't imagine Theodora did a lot of "Oh Justinian, whatever you want is fine with me" in ruling the empire.

Everyone seems to be dismissing the idea that Caroline had any influence on Sam. Is it because people think she’s ugly? No one wants to admit it, but she is in fact “nerd hot”. I don’t want to start unironic normies-will-never-understand-the-thrill-of-pinning-the-weaselposting, but I will if I have to.

I am ashamed to say I understand that reference.

Whatever influence she had on Sam, it does not seem to have extended to stopping him from doing what he was doing, or objecting to it, or leaving the entire project. We don't know all the facts, and what part Ellison and others played is going to be very important. But she was, in name at least, CEO of Alameda Research. She seems to have gone along with being a catspaw for him:

Bankman-Fried insisted in an interview with Vox reporter Kelsey Piper that his claim FTX didn’t “invest client assets” was “factually accurate” because Alameda Research, not FTX, actually made the investments.

Bankman-Fried added that he “also thought Alameda had enough collateral to reasonable [sic] cover it.”

While Bankman-Fried exercised ultimate control and only a few people were permitted to do things along with him, that still leaves a lot of "Why did you do things this way? Why didn't you have structures in place? Did you know what was going on? How could you not know, given the tight links between your firm and FTX?" for her to answer.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats