site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29311 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.

Perhaps a silly metaobservation, but I am somewhat disappointed with a schlubby nerd like SBF being the villain of our time. Fraudsters in the past used to be a lot more charismatic and often partied with the jetset. Even Madoff was known as having a huge stash of cocaine, going to parties with supermodels etc. SBF bagged Caroline Ellison and did a bunch of weird nootropical experiments while playing video games like LoL.

I can't help but feel that our culture has regressed into becoming more boring - perhaps suitable for the hyperdigital age. I know it may sound weird, but I think who the bad guys are in any society says a lot about that culture. And I'm afraid SBF being our villain says a lot of bad things about ours.

Caroline Ellison

As far as I can tell, you're just complaining that Ellison isn't as conventionally pretty as a supermodel? She is impressive in other ways:

  • daughter of two MIT economics professors

  • earned a national merit scholarship

  • BA in math from Stanford

  • In the top 500 of Putnam competitors in three years

  • Went to Jane Street straight out of undergrad, probably earning ~$600k / year

That is an incredible list of accomplishments for a 23-year old. If you're into smart/successful women, she's a clear outlier.

I don't think it's that high for new hires. It shows how the managerial class is cut from such a superior cloth compared to everyone else. How does someone compete against this.

How does someone compete against this.

Firstly you have to define "superior".

How smart/successful can you be if you are persuaded to join a ramshackle operation by a nerdy guy who quit his job and is pushing a line of babble, then the entity you are CEO of (since your co-CEO quit) is up to its ears in debt and only kept afloat by misappropriated funds, and it all comes tumbling down around your ears?

The smartest move she has made, if it's true, is to turn state's evidence against Bankman-Fried in order to cut some kind of deal with the authorities. But even if she avoids jail time, who on earth is going to hire her for any job above, maybe, sweeping the floors ever again?

When ever the topic of Bankman-Fried comes up I'm reminded of something my grandad used to tell me when I was teenager; Don't worry too-much about making a fool of yourself, while any man can do something dumb it takes effort and education to achieve true stupidity.

But even if she avoids jail time, who on earth is going to hire her for any job above, maybe, sweeping the floors ever again?

Well-connected people fail forward all the time

Alas, smart ≠ reliably makes good decisions.

[ Edit: I wouldn't hire her to manage my company's PR or financial records, but I'd definitely hire her to do engineering/research work. ]

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