site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29310 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sam Bankman-Fried has been arrested.

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was arrested by Bahamian authorities this evening after the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York shared a sealed indictment with the Bahamian government, setting the stage for extradition and U.S. trial for the onetime crypto billionaire at the heart of the crypto exchange’s collapse.

Bankman-Fried was expected to testify before the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday. His arrest is the first concrete move by regulators to hold individuals accountable for the multi-billion dollar implosion of FTX last month.

There had been some speculation on when and even whether he would be arrested. Just yesterday someone told me to expect it to take two years. So, why right before tomorrow's hearing? And why not wait for him to give more interviews and provide more evidence?

Will everyone who said he would walk away Scot Free because he's in bed with NYT or Dems or whoever please adjust your priors or whatever?

Will everyone who said he would walk away Scot Free because he's in bed with NYT or Dems or whoever please adjust your priors or whatever?

Why? Hopes of him getting arrested fell after the MSM were running what could only be described as kids' gloves stories (if not outright puff pieces), giving ample cover for the "it was just a mistake" scam he was doing. The media is owned by powerful interests in any society, and so how they treat a person is often indicative of that person's social standing (which isn't the same as their financial muscle).

Even leading CEOs in the industry, like the guy running Coinbase, was publicly admonishing the media for going supersoft on him. The fact that many people are surprised over this development is a testament to the extreme deference he was shown.

Moreover, it wasn't just the media. It took the authorities a long time to get to this. They now claim it's a slam-and-shut case of fraud. Newsflash: it always was. So there was likely deliberation, otherwise he'd have gotten arrested weeks ago as his scam wasn't particularly sophisticated, as the SEC now acknowledges.

What made the scales to tip over, we'll never know. But I am not willing to bet that he will be persona non grata forever. He may be stupid in finance, but he's politically savvy. Look at someone like Michael Milken. He went to prison for securities fraud and has now re-invented himself as a benign political benefactor. SBF may still have a few cards to play, even if he gets indicted.

Every once in while we get these triumphalist "this latest happening proves the game is clearly not rigged, where are all the naysayers now!" posts. Half of them end up being proven wrong within a week (the last one I remember was "see, Cloudflare is clearly standing up for free speech! It's not true the wokes control the corporate sector with an iron grip!", and I literally never saw a progressive "please adjust your priors" people adjust their priors.

If the "game" was rigged to an extent that you could avoid jail for large-scale financial crime by bribing a few democrats, there wouldn't be many big fraudsters in jail. There isn't a game that can be rigged or not, there's many very complicated aspects of society, some or all of which may be evil, but each so in complicated ways that allow society to continue and grow - the game is rigged is not a useful way to understand them. It's not just 'the libs/elites are good' or 'the elites are mean'.

Every once in while we get these triumphalist "this latest happening proves the game is clearly not rigged, where are all the naysayers now!" posts.

The person you are replying to didn't claim "the game is clearly not rigged". They are pointing out that the numerous predictions that SBF was not going to be prosecuted were wrong, and predictably wrong. I'm pretty sure I predicted that he would definately be indicted and go to jail. I predicted this because it seemed obvious that his connections would not in fact protect him: the case is too clear-cut, the public too furious, and there's zero benefit to be gained. I can't think of a single example of a democratic supporter being caught anywhere approaching this clearly, for a crime anywhere near as significant and clear-cut as this one, and actually being protected.

I personally believe that the game is rigged. But the way the game is rigged is that things don't get to this point. The rigging works at the margins, not by providing obvious immunity to blatant, high-profile criminals who've been caught red-handed.

SBF was 100% going to get charged. The posters here were reacting to the tender treatment he got in the NYT and Vox right after the scandal, compared to how those outlets and journalist personalities would normally treat a "tech bro scandal" (e.g. Coinbase, David Sacks, Joe Lonsdale). A lack of pure vitriol from journalists was weird, and on the part of NYT, was likely the result of a political editorial decision. But there's only so much damage control anyone can run for massive securities fraud.

Can we get away from the vague, mean-whatever-you want insults a bit?

Others may disagree, but I think this comment would be better with links.

Nope. At worst he gets the Trump treatment of a fashionably late pardon. Best case, an early release. Unless this guy somehow managed to screw over the wrong jews I don't think he will face anything real.

The SDNY is not well known for slaps on the wrist. He is facing serious charges and is high profile. They will go for the kill.

This. SDNY is where very ambitious lawyers go. They plan to then go into electoral politics, or to change teams and make a ton of money as Former Prosecutors representing the types of folks charged with financial crimes. The media attention on SBF surely has them salivating.

Tangent: as someone who enjoys books on financial scandals, remembering reading about a very hungry Rudy Giuliani when he went after Michael Milken, while watching hair die drip down his face in the parking lot of a landscaping business, was wonderfully tragic, in the original theatrical sense.

There's two indictments being read into the records: one is the indictment by the SDNY and one is by the SEC and CFTC. So he's in big trouble.

like many things, amazing how fast sentiment changes. When I made my post this morning, none of those people showed up

Granted, I didn't expect him to be arrested but we'll see if he actually does any time.

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