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 -
At the time of the original offer I remember there being lots of thinking that this is a brilliant masterplan on the part of Musk on /r/themotte (for the record I was skeptical). That we're into what very much looks like an implosion of Twitter's operations and people are still convinced this is some 1000 iq maneuvering makes me think Musk's cult of personality has a stronger grip around here than I figured. Previously I figured from experience that the typical "Musk-bro" was more a finance type.
Of course there remains an outside shot it gets all turned around, and that the problems with Twitter here are very minor and being blown out of proportion by people who are hostile to Musk and the takeover. But I think there's a good amount of fire behind this smoke.
The man waived his right to due diligence, then started publicly griping about stuff a prospective buy-side would review… during due diligence. Dog that caught the car, on this one.
and then fired the c-suite on the first day for cause
these sorts of things are common in acquisitions
this is all part of the dance, just like his bucking in the chancery court to get Twitter to make statements in response
I used to work M&A. No, waiving due diligence is the opposite of common. There are multiple SaaS providers that offer VDRs for due diligence because exceedingly rare is the transaction that exempts it.
Waiving due diligence then stating conditions within a target company pose enough of a concern you might not want to complete your transaction doesn’t work. The target can hammer you in court. Musk completed the purchase, predictably, just before the judge’s imposed deadline of heading to trial.
Twitter’s board had a responsibility to maximize shareholder value, not make blue checks happy after the sale. Musk was on the hook to (1) pay over the market share price to take Twitter private, or (2) pay Twitter a huge sum in penalties for not completing the deal. At that point, Musk had no leverage over Twitter’s board because either outcome was a win for shareholders.
Yeah, which firm?
I didn't write waiving due diligence is common, I wrote "these sorts of things," i.e., publicly whining, threatening to go to court, going to court, and all other such things because each of them can have a benefit/cost to either party.
edit: wow you made a bunch of edits after I responded
Ah, yes, I’ll just post my CV to this forum where anonymous accounts debate whether or not there are cabals of Jews that have disproportionate power in American society.
And yes, that sort of brinksmanship can have benefits. But given Musk signed away DD, assumed responsibility for mollifying any federal regulators and agreed to sizable penalties for backing out in his offer to purchase, I’m all ears as to what you think those were for Musk. Because in this case there was no incentive for concessions from Twitter’s board.
wow, you made a bunch of edits to your previous comment after I responded
oh yes, saying you worked at CBRE is basically you posting your full name and home address to the internet
this is why I typically just roll my eyes when someone tries to capture some sort of authority with a claim about life experience which isn't immediately obvious from their comments; if you don't want to post a CV, don't attempt to use it to get some sort of air of authority
it's downright goofy someone who claims to have experience in M&A would write your comments because it has no recognition that public comments, legal threats, refusals, lawsuits, etc., are common in M&A, no demonstration of the terminology normally used in these agreements, and no discussions whatsoever in the costs or benefits of any of these tactics
all of these tactics can and are part of the dance and each of them has costs and benefits to accomplish some purpose, even as simple as stalling for time
instead you simply assume Musk is the dog who caught the bumper and "predictably" would close the deal which is why you bought Twitter stock at $36 knowing it would be bought for $55 a couple months later, right?
Why start the story in the middle of the chancery case? Everyone seems to gloss over the timeline in favor of "current thing" hottakes.
Musk semi-secretly buys large stake in twitter over the period of a month. Twitter board freaks out and tells him no way and then engages in a bunch of anti-shareholder behavior in order to stave off Musk. Musk then makes a proposal. Twitter refuses the offer. Corporate lawyers start scrambling to put together a shareholder lawsuit. Twitter agrees to proposal. Musk claims he doesn't want to buy the company anymore due to fraud. Twitter sues him in Chancery Court to force the deal. Musk completes the deal.
We went from Twitter willing to fuck over shareholders to stop takeover to Twitter suing Musk to force him to take the company over and then Musk buying the company he made a no due diligence buyout agreement with and your hot take is he's just been bumbling along? Huh, okay.
Yes. Because the middle bit in between is rising interest rates, declining values for tech stocks, and Musk on the hook for a big payout for a bloated company.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link