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 flogging the FTX crash horse, which if not expired yet is certainly not in the best of health, but I'm currently reading the Chapter 11 declaration by the guy put in charge of putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, and it is prime entertainment.
He is not impressed with how FTX and its web of companies was run, and he makes no bones about it. The recurring refrain all through is "However, because this balance sheet was produced while the Debtors were controlled by Mr. Bankman-Fried, I do not have confidence in it, and the information therein may not be correct as of the date stated" for all the balance sheets he's quoting. He was the guy put in to handle Enron when it was wound up, and he says (reading between the lines and you don't need to do much of that) that the FTX mess is even worse than that:
He throws shade everywhere:
(Translation: Bankman-Fried is a lying liar)
Ouch. As if Zuckerberg didn't have enough problems with the Metaverse already. Is this really the kind of PR he wants associated with it? 😁
What really interested me in all this, though, was the interview/transcript of a Twitter conversation with Bankman-Fried that Kelsey Piper published in Vox the other day. I have no idea what Bankman-Fried is trying to achieve here, but it's pretty plain that he is in a state of denial and is not accepting any responsibility for the eventual outcome. He admits he fucked up, but then shifts into blaming others, including his co-founders, and everyone who advised him to file for bankruptcy. Reading Ray's declaration, it sounds less like "I was advised" and more like "I was told do this or else", but whatever; now he is spinning a story (and I don't know if he believes this himself or was just trying it out on Piper) that if he had toughed it out and refused to file for bankruptcy he would have been able to cover most of the debts and settle up within a month or two:
Considering, according to the filing, that amongst the lawyers he consulted about that, one of them was his dad - ouch again. Sorry Dad, Sonny-boy is lumping you in with the bad advisors who led him astray. But he is in a state of delusion that he could have fixed this, or can fix it. He still can't admit he messed up because he was too greedy and not as smart as he thought he was, and all that rationalist woo about risk and utility maximisation was only a cover for bad decisions and fraud.
I would definitely recommend reading this document to get a picture of what was going on. There is no way, unless he's trying to set up for an insanity plea or operating under impairment due to drugs/mental health problems, that Bankman-Fried can deny it was all down to him. He pretty much owned or controlled every entity that was going on, it was him and literally about three others who made all the decisions, and they seem to have treated the interlocking parts as their own private piggy-bank (e.g. "three loans by Alameda Research Ltd.: one to Mr. Bankman-Fried, of $1 billion; one to Mr. Singh, of $543 million; and one to Ryan Salame, of $55 million"). Then read the Vox article to see how he is admitting all his EA/altruism talk was basically telling them what they wanted to hear so he'd be popular and well-liked and they'd trust him, because getting people to like you is winning and winning is all that counts.
And this set-up was having billions of dollars in investment funding thrown at it, and it was less well-organised than a school bake sale when it came to handling and keeping track of what money was coming in and where it was going.
Keep in mind this is the guy who oversaw Enron's dissolution, so it's not like he's new to corporate malfeasance shitshows.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link