site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   35216 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't follow. Ponzi and Madoff had a clear plan: take a bunch of peoples' money, then don't deliver what you promised, and keep the money.

Well, why didn't they take it, and fly to a country with no extradition treaty then?

You can take Elizabeth Holmes as another example, though I don't think the comparison is fair, since Musk delivers something tangible, but this would be my guess to what's happening with investor money. Generate hype, get money, use it to make something to generate more hype, repeat.

You might be recalling this story:

Nah, it was something else. I'll have to look for it.

It's a market, so "overcharging" is charging more than agreed upon, or using unfair leverage to charge higher than the market clearing price.

Ok, hold up. I don't care whether formally that fits the definition of overcharging, I'm saying that if he's getting the governments to pay him 3x the price tag that he's advertising to everyone else, then that cheaper price tag is arguably fake, and governments are subsidizing it.

You can take Elizabeth Holmes as another example, though I don't think the comparison is fair, since Musk delivers something tangible, but this would be my guess to what's happening with investor money. Generate hype, get money, use it to make something to generate more hype, repeat.

I mean, if the "something" is "deliver the product you are paid for", I think you have defined every public company ever as a scam.

I'm saying that if he's getting the governments to pay him 3x the price tag that he's advertising to everyone else, then that cheaper price tag is arguably fake, and governments are subsidizing it.

Everybody does that though. It's only fake if the cheap price is dumping. If you're not selling the cheap segment to dumping prices, it's just called "not leaving free money on the table." A company that didn't try to segment the market like that would be incompetent as a business.

Quite frankly, you are making outlandish claims with zero support.

Musk had played a key role in two giant public companies. With a third, there are massive institutional investors (Madoff didn’t have institutional backing the way Musk does) with demonstrable technology (ie we see not just the launches but the improvements etc). Is it possible Elon and Co are cooking the books? Sure — Enron happened.

But accusing Elon of being Enron with zero evidence is absolutely absurd

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