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 -
Author, journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin plans to interview SBF on Nov. 30th
https://twitter.com/andrewrsorkin/status/1595517635441090565
SBF confirms
https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1595512579417378837
Even though SBF limited his replies to only people he follows, he is still getting trashed in his comments. Others are livid as well.
Does SBF deserve a platform despite being presumably a major fugitive? Is this ethical on the part of Sorkin?
Why is SBF still free or at least not in trouble?
Regarding the second item, I am guessing the feds are still in the evidence gathering stage. The feds cannot just issue an arrest unless they have enough evidence to build a case that with a near 100% certainty will lead to a conviction or a plea. Kenneth Lay of Enron for example was indicted in June 2004, nearly 3 years after Enron's bankruptcy.
All establishment sources and authorized establishment underdogs seem committed to frame this primarily as a failure of crypto and not of Bankman-Fried and his cronies; the sentiment on Twitter and HN and in other places is also being amplified in this direction (with bafflingly basic takes like «non-custodial wallets are hard what if I forget my password, this is dangerous for clients», so I guess normies have been primed for the next step in their disempowerment).
Bankman-Fried, being a psychopath of some sort, is committed not to admit blame in any nuanced analysis, he'll apologize pro forma for «fucking up», but when going into details he will blame external forces like CZ, insufficient regulation, crypto bros, whatever, indeed, as per OP's link, he intends to spin such schlock about victory stolen from him in the last minute at Sorkin. So platforming him, and promoting his narrative, is in the establishment's interest, even if in the end he only compromises his own defense.
P.S. Me, not long ago, speculating:
An Antisemite in June:
This is only true a priori in a world where economic power is either the be-all and end-all or completely separated from matters of any import – the world where money can, at most, buy you more money. And not, like, unregistered weapons, strategic amounts of compute, or tools for fabricating a stronger sort of COVID. I suppose you genuinely believe, based on a wealth of experience, that this is the world we live in.
But it takes active effort, mainly non-financial, on part of system maintainers to keep the real world similar enough to this nice quantitative image.
I know what normies are, thank you very much. They wouldn't have started to use any data encryption either, if it wasn't forced on them by a tiny minority of humans who can both parse technical writing and care about others (and, of course, spillover damage from normies immolating themselves).
I just believe that people of this sort are a liability for the spark of consciousness and beauty that is humanity; them being endowed with unmerited equal right to weigh in on matters of political power is making this liability lethal; and the class of people who cultivate this vulnerable, exploitable, dependent, atomized mass with the intent to wield them, their childish needs and easily inflated fears against peer competitors is the apex of evil on this planet. Carving out a meaningful niche for sentient human beings where these merry people and their self-appointed psychopathic shepherds cannot infringe upon is hard, probably impossible despite rosy appearances mere decades ago, and that makes my blood boil on a daily basis.
Pardon me this banal pathos.
Maybe not a very skillful one. Certainly not the violent sort. I condede the term may be inapt.
You know, I don't see the smart part. Rather, don't hear it, since we're talking of verbal IQ. It strikes me as a very Hoffmanesque story, specifically Klein Zaches genannt Zinnober, known to all half-decent Russians through Shenderovich's puppet show fable of Putin's rise to power by the grace of Fairy Godmother Berezovsky. But I digress.
Did he get some cool math papers published, or ace Putnam, or what? How is he like Buffett or, say, Simons? In every interview he comes across as an overconfident goofy midwit with shallow takes, whose mom told him he's the smartest boy; his opening capital allegedly originates in a two-bit (and probably illegal) arbitrage; and other than that, it's just «oh, he used to work at Jane Street» and the very pile of brazen schemes that made jaded finance analysts go «bruh», which has now unraveled.
Caroline on the other hand – this girl is verbal-smart. Maybe as smart as you. But, sorry, that's still not quite 26 billion USD net worth smart. They truly needed a ton of chutzpah to pull it off. And chutzpah on that scale has to involve some psychopathy.
I don't know about psychopathy. Well, not inborn psychopathy anyway; maybe their weird trajectory turned them into psychopaths, if such a thing is consistent with the definition. I think they demonstrated some skill in locating the original arbitrage and building institutions around it, and a lot of luck in starting in the opening innings of a massive boom market; but from there, Main Character Syndrome explains the rest. Sure, they crossed a red line when they bailed out Alameda with stolen customer reserves, but all of their nonconformist iconoclasm so far had been rewarded by the universe, and by that point their whole identity was "brash entrepreneurs who do what it takes to bring home wins for the good guys." Who were the authority figures to impress upon them the wisdom of the gods of the copybook headings? SBF's parents were well known law professors at Stanford Law School and apparently they were themselves busy buying $70M vacation properties in the Bahamas: not, it would seem, stentorian voices for discipline and humility. Every signal they got from the world, during their less than three decades on this planet, was reinforcement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link