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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Keep in mind this is the guy who oversaw Enron's dissolution, so it's not like he's new to corporate malfeasance shitshows.
Yeah, and he still said "I never saw anything like this". I think he was used to, even in corporate hokey-pokey, if they were cooking the books they at least kept books. FTX etc. had a mess where nobody was keeping track of anything, so they probably simply lost money by sheer stupid carelessness and not deliberate fraud in some instances. They can't even figure out how many people worked/are working/were working there, since there wasn't proper records kept. Any hog, dog or divil could be a disgruntled employee who hacked those missing millions.
I swear, you have to be really smart to be this dumb. This all reads like the very worst strawman of the rationalist/rationalist-adjacent/EA Bay Area types. They thought they were too cool for school, and that learning off some game theory and some problems about one-boxing strategy meant they didn't have to do boring old traditional usual corporate and business stuff. They were making millions with cutting-edge finance of the future! They were smarter than the average bear! They had thrown out conventional social morality around relationships and all that jazz, they were building the new model of community, why have tedious stuff like "have to have an expenses claims system in place" when you can have kewl fun emojis instead?
Honestly, I'm reading the Chapter 11 filing and you wouldn't let a bunch of six year olds in a kindergarten carry on like this. How the ever-living purple people eating fuck did this selection get people anxious to hand over billions to them????
In future this Bahamas luxury compound of idiocy is going to be what I point to when responding to "legalise drugs! nootropics are fun and healthy! what harm does it do anyone to hack their brains?" talk.
I bet a movie is already in the works. Reminds me of Rogue Trader, or War Dogs or similar films.
Young dodgy maverick gets into $industry and makes bank by not playing by the rules until things spiral out of control. The hedonistic lifestyle and law eventually catch up to him. Audience feels good that Icarus is punished for his audacity. The End.
Edit: Just saw Tanista beat me to it. You just know Hollywood is already on this.
I haven't watched a Hollywood movie in ages, but if they make one about this, I'll make a point of watching it.
I just hope they don't try to romanticise any of this shit (e.g. Bankman-Fried was just a guy who wanted to do good but went down the wrong path).
I want sweaty, chubby nerd Bankman-Fried slapping on stimulant patches and downing nootropics while playing League of Legends in his beanbag seat while he's supposed to be keeping track of where the hell the payments are coming in, and giving permission via "personalised emoji" to some mook in chat asking can they have half a mil to do shit without even knowing if this mook actually works for him or not because nobody knows who works where.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This whole thing is almost too perfect.
I don't know how to describe it other than I can almost feel the beats in Adam Mackay's inevitable film with every new headline.
TIL that the man who wrote and directed The Big Short also wrote and directed Anchorman
More options
Context Copy link
Casting suggestions? Who is "Hollywood ugly" enough for the Caroline Ellison part? Ordinarily I'd pick Tatiana Maslany for the "quirky oddball smart girl" part (as distinct from the "manic pixie dream girl" which is, or was, Zooey Deschanel) but she's too pretty for this role. You need someone who is the female version of a chinless wonder, but I don't know any actresses who look like that.
Suggestions for Bankman-Fried and his unfortunate friends/unindicted co-conspirators 'Gary' Wang and Nishad Singh and Ryan Salame, who haven't appeared in any photos over the stories in the media so far as I can see, also welcome!
If America Ferrera can be Ugly Betty I don't think this is a problem.
PS. maybe she can just reprise the role.
Oh, that's a good suggestion!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Josh Gad for SBF
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think she's ugly so much as just goofy looking, but my first thought was to put Maisie Williams in some BCGs
Maisie is good too, but a bit too pretty. Though I guess they could ugly her down for it. Caroline Ellison is plain; she has thin, fine hair which she really should cut shorter, her face is small and underdeveloped, she has a not very tall, average body (she's not fat but she's not curvy in the hourglass lingerie model style) and those glasses are not doing her any favours for the shape of her face. She's not ugly but she is plain.
Bad take IMO, but I’m a sucker for girls with long hair.
Long hair suits thicker hair. When your hair is as fine as hers, it ends up looking stringy as here. Cutting it shorter (even shoulder-length) lets it 'thicken' up and would go better with her shape of face. She would look a lot better with this kind of styling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I do feel bad judging her on her looks, because outside of "Okay Sam, my on/off boyfriend, you want me to be in charge of a trading firm? That you basically use for shuffling money around like a three card trick? Despite the fact that my sum total of experience is 'worked my first and only job to date in a quant firm for six months'? And all I have to do is sign off on whatever you tell me to sign off on? Sounds great!", she may be a nice and even smart person.
But I think most people are wondering about "This guy was allegedly worth billions and this is the type of woman he was dating?" when it comes to her. I mean, I can understand why they would be in a relationship before the whole "making billions upon billions" thing took off, but in general you then dump the first wife and upgrade to a hotter, younger, trophy piece of arm candy. Maybe Bankman-Fried just didn't know that many women, but I'm sure there were plenty of hot Bahamian women who would have been delighted to date a rich guy. It does look like they all just stayed in their own little bubble in the compound, which is part of the entire downfall.
More options
Context Copy link
Might have something to do with it being public knowledge now that she's already into freaky shit?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link