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 -
Why is Peter Thiel Moving to Argentina?
Some Irresponsible Speculation
Billionaire Investor and ideologue Peter Thiel has publicly announced that he is moving to Argentina. Among a grab bag of explanations that included nuclear war and AI risk, along with the obvious implications of the California wealth tax on his residency, Thiel reportedly was concerned about the political direction of the United States. Given Thiel's ties to much of the American political right, what does this tell us? What should our Bayesian update be from this information?
Some possibilities:
-- Get the obvious out of the way: Nothing ever happens. This is a non-event, Thiel is moving for publicity or tax reasons, and the announcements are just him engaging in punditry.
-- Alternatively, none of this may indicate anything because Thiel himself might be stupid/mistaken/prejudiced/insane.
-- Thiel is in deep with MAGA, but thinks that the wind is changing direction, the MAGA project has failed, and he doesn't want to be left holding the bag in America when the left comes back into power. This seems like a sub implication of the action even if he doesn't believe it, because his very act of fleeing and blaming the political climate will tend to reinforce the idea that MAGA has failed and increase the odds of it failing.
-- Alternatively, Thiel thinks MAGA will be triumphant, but Thiel is on the outs with The Donald, and he is concerned about being targeted after Trump turns on him. Moving to Argentina is an attempt to hedge risk.
-- Thiel is a true believer in the Argentine project, and thinks Millei-ism will succeed beyond all our wildest dreams.
It feels like something big for Thiel, who is intelligent and well informed if perhaps nuts, to make this move and publicly announce it is motivated by the state of the union.
Other option: the geo-physical event is coming in the near to medium term and he’s moving to safer territory. At least that’s where my mind went. South America is speculated to ride things out better than North America.
Edit: on a more serious note (not implying the GE is not serious, just less serious), maybe he just realized NZ is a terrible hedge. It seems to me that the commonwealth countries are far more pozzed than the US. It seems hard for me to imagine the government there will be friendly, despite what money can can throw around. As someone else mentioned, if shit hits the fan, they will not let him live the good life while their fake country collapses.
I saw a tweet which read something to the effect of the best hedge for a billionaire against instability is finding a clannish small community somewhere in Appalachia and adopting it. Pour money into roads/schools/businesses, sponsor local events, and otherwise do literally everything you can to engender as much good-feeling in the community as you possibly can. Practice the kind of noblesse oblige Chaucer would have approved of. Live in an estate not a mansion. Total out of pocket cost could probably be kept to the low millions. Of course these people aren't stupid, if you're just phoning it in they'll know and they'll take your money and smile and fantasize about putting your head on a stake, so if you're as an individual completely incapable of caring about anyone other than yourself this may not work very well.
Historically, you have to marry into the local elite and have children recognized as part of the in-group for this to be effective. It doesn't always work but it's the mostly reliable path for outsiders to integrate. YMMV and it may take multiple generations. Doesn't work if you're publically gay, though.
Almost surely won't work in Appalachia if you're out and gay.
More options
Context Copy link
"Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit, because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure ... Benefits are only acceptable as long as they seem capable of being repaid; beyond that point, gratitude is replaced by resentment." - Tacitus, Annals
Perhaps Appalachia is more resistant to this psychological disease than elsewhere? But it's a disease stretching across millennia, and if some subculture really has stumbled into a way to avoid it en masse then figuring out exactly how is probably the best anti-SHTF action imaginable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
New Zealand is even more cooked with the woke mind virus/immigration frenzy than the US/UK. So makes sense not to have that as your exit strat as a billionaire.
More options
Context Copy link
I think a point could be made that all countries are fake.
Also, the number of countries which let billionaires live the good life while collapsing is just about zero. There might be some principled libertarians who would feel compelled to respect the property rights of the rich even in the middle of a collapse, but the average policeman or soldier is not going to watch his family starve while the rich feast.
In democracies, runaway inflation will reliably cause the election of extremist candidates. And dictatorships are even worse -- dictators as a rule do not believe in respecting human rights, so they have no principled reason to respect the property rights of the rich. Sometimes they even expropriate and imprison rich foreigners when they are not collapsing even though it might seem in their long term interests to not do so.
Your best bet in an authoritarian state is probably having close personal ties to the dictator (e.g. through marriage, Crusader Kings style), but even then there is always the danger of an internal coup. It seems hard for foreigners to have collectively enough political clot that the generalissimo feels that he can't throw one under the bus from time to time.
If I was a billionaire, I would still bet on the US. The 1% class is very good at looking out for their own interests. Ideally, I would recommend staying out the culture war and partisan politics. Let the peasants fight about affirmative action or abortion, the rich can thrive both under GWB and Obama.
Your example of Dubai imprisoning rich foreigners for no reason is a bad example. Albert Douglas's son Wolfgang had a company that accumulated ~2.5 million pounds of debt in Dubai. So from Dubai's perspective, they were dealing with a clan of criminal fraudsters who stole from their country and then tried to run away.
The numerous english facing websites and articles dedicated to the release of Albert imply to me that the Douglas family could easily pay the debt but chose media pressure on Dubai over human rights as a reasonable strategy to get Albert released. I suspect they just paid the debts owed after 4 years of Albert getting tortured.
In Western countries debt can't be transferred between family members, but obviously Dubai has a different opinion on the matter.
I mean yeah but 'fairly useless lottery winners being able to arbitrarily suspend legal principles when it suits them' isn't a precedent that's super glowing if you're trying to flee there to avoid the Boogaloo.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you're a powerful political elite while the world is in a crisis rich foreigners with minimal direct ties to your country are the best possible people to make examples out of. There's already an "us vs them" for the ordinary population especially if the country wasn't directly involved in causing the world crisis and them being foreigners means they likely don't have well developed connections with native elites meaning you don't end up pissing off a bunch of them (which could threaten your long term grip on power) when you make an example out of the rich foreigners.
Thiel and Co. need to realise that in the end they are made of the same flesh and blood as the meanest of us. If the world collapses everyone suffers, including them and their current fame means they don't get the cloak of invisibility conferred by (relative) anonymity even ordinarily successful UMC people do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link