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 -
This is a double edged sword. Further gaming of the system means more control over the existing institutions, but it also means more numerous, competent and motivated counter elites.
Some people seem to think Harvard can't purity spiral itself into irrelevance because it's so inextricably tied with the existing power structure. But power structures are not eternal laws of nature.
We've seen this with finance, the level of control there is pretty grandiose (the whole idea of an "accredited investor" is ridiculous to say nothing of AML etc) but that's just put a giant prize on building alternatives. And people did and are.
An "accredited investor" is just someone upper middle class or richer. (Individual income >$200k, household income >$300k, or household net worth ex home equity >$1m all qualify with no paperwork). I don't think it is a good rule, but it doesn't constitute a grandiose level of control. Given the purpose of the rule (that an accredited investor is someone rich enough that the median voter will point and laugh rather than sympathizing if they get scammed), the limits are arguably too low. Selling bad investments to dentists is not pro-social, and if it was illegal the people currently doing it would probably find something better to do.
I think the idea the State can just come in and tell you that you're too stupid to use your own money correctly is grandiose in itself. But I'm more pointing generally at the category of financial credentials. The more esoteric the financial product the more weird hoops you usually have to go through to trade it with any reasonable liquidity. And the more hoops, the more opportunities for exception, and therefore power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm pretty sure the idea of "accredited investor" is really defining "investors the SEC allows to do extra risky stuff because the median voter will at best laugh when they lose their shirts." It's a glorified CYA measure so the government can claim "freedom" exists without the bureaucrats getting hauled in front of an angry Congress asking why their sympathetic constituents (retired teachers, etc) lost money.
That's a fair assessment, but it's part of a large swath of similar credentials that are meant to split the market between people that know what they're doing and stupid amateurs. In a way that effectively removes both risk and opportunity from you if you're not willing to jump through hoops.
There's a ton of opportunity in investing in startups early for instance, and a ton of money both to win and to lose (mostly to lose), but protecting your average wagie from getting swindled also means he's never going to make it big. And as with any bureaucratic control, there's discretion to make exceptions, which means there's power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
All being an accredited investor does is make you a target for more scams. That includes those "alternatives", assuming you mean various crypto-related investing efforts (aside from just investing in the coins, not all of which are scams)
Harvard can't purity spiral-itself into irrelevance because it's inextricably tied to the entire leftist power structure. Which is too big and self-reinforcing to fail.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link