site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35024 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 2022

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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I know I keep on about this, but what in the ever-lovin' heck is Bankman-Fried doing? All those jokes about meth aren't looking like jokes anymore.

First, he claims he donated as much to the Republicans as he did to the Democrats. Okay, I knew that FTX donated to both sides, but (1) I thought it was Ryan Salame who did it and (2) the donations to the Democrats were larger. I realise that political donations are a matter of self-interest, and he/they/it supported Republicans who were crypto-friendly or working on regulation of that industry:

FTX US donated a collective $500,947.30 between December 2021 and September 2022, according to FEC records — the majority to GMI PAC, a crypto-focused group which primarily supported the Crypto Innovation PAC during the 2022 midterms.

Crypto Innovation PAC backed Republicans Michelle Bond — who lost the New York Republican primary for the House of Representatives in 2022 — and Rep. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma. The group also donated to Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C., and Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., all of whom have been vocal crypto supporters.

(He also donated to Beto O'Rourke which, with backing Carrick Flynn's campaign, just demonstrates he has no instincts for no-hopers in a race).

But he's really going mask-off if he were just lying/spoofing/being a con man all along:

Bankman-Fried said he did so to avoid media criticism, rather than for regulatory reasons.

"Reporters freak the f*** out if you donate to a Republican," he said. "They're all secretly liberal and I didn't want to have that fight, so I made all the Republican ones dark."

He is also running his mouth off to every reporter who rings him up, doesn't he have lawyers telling him to shut the hell up? Or is he trying to muddy the waters even further, claiming (relative) poverty and remorse? I have no idea at this stage if he has any coherent plan in place or is just doing stream-of-consciousness rambling. I sort of get the impression, though, that he's beginning to like his infamy; after all, if you can't win at being the best, being the worst is a sort of victory instead. Not just any common fraud, he's a really big deal. Maybe this is why he's talking about how all the EA and Democrat supporting stuff was a sham, what you 'have' to say to get people to listen to you; he's painting himself as this larger-than-life rogue and scoundrel.

Says he's down to his last $100,000.

Says he has no idea what happened to the Twitter shares Alameda Research bought.

Occam's razor would suggest he's just a not particularly bright conman whose appetite for risk is off the charts. There's no 4-D chess here, just an idiot shooting off his mouth.

I don't think that SBF is unintelligent. His dump stat is clearly Wisdom--he's not an idiot shooting off his mouth; he's a fool shooting off his mouth.

Who's more foolish, the fool or the fools who clap for him?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats