site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You are 100% correct companies don’t go bankrupt because they want to. They go bankrupt because they had a bill to pay and their bank account say 0.

Not necessarily. That is what a strategic bankruptcy is. Chapter 7 means twitter is worthless and the assets that remain sold off to pay off creditors, and musk loses everything. Chapter 11 allows twitter to reorg while giving Musk an opportunity to retain some of his wealth and run the company. Creditors would prefer to get paid than not, so reorg is better than defaulting. let's say twitter is worth $30 billion. $18 billion is debt. that $12 billion does not go away. It does not go to the creditors. unless twitter becomes worthless then musk loses everything . If it thrives, Musk's stake could be worth more when it reemerges. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/06/02/3-bankruptcies-that-actually-helped-investors.aspx

Agree the 12 billion doesn’t go away. But if it’s real then that’s a capital markers activity and not a bankruptcy activity. You just issue new equity to pay off short term cash flow needs and/or to directly pay off debt.

Judges have some leeway to change rates on loan but for the most part their going to wipe out the equity.

And plenty of debt holders do debt for equity swaps and can run twitter so theirs no reason to think the debtors needs to give Musks something to keep the company running. If Musks is in violation of his loan covenents and refuses to raise more capital to make good on his covenents then the debt holders are just going to take the company and go give some equity to the ex-ceo to run the company. No reason to give Musks a stake.