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 -
I precommit not to watch the sex tape, nor discuss Bankman's intimate life, beyond what has been said, unless it has clear relation to the central issue.
Bankman's actions, for all their clown world texture, have been serious and highly damaging to a large proportion of people I care about, and he (together with Kelsey Piper and other do-gooders) keeps doing damage and saving the face of the project I believe has largely motivated his actions, which is to say, EA-directed centralized «global governance». It may be that he'll be deemed a hero in the timeline where they succeed. And even if this accusation is unfounded, he is not a kid but a major scoundrel.
I refuse to let this devolve into a parasocial relationship with wacky awkward «polyamorous» autistic microblogging celebrities.
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):
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:
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.
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