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 -
A lot less. And it’s not entirely a liquidity thing. Google was able to replace CEO’s. I think meta could probably replace Zuckerberg and people wouldn’t assume it changes company trajectory. Tesla/SpaceX value is like 75% Musks is smarter than everyone else and knows how to do innovation. It think based on the quality of Starlink as a platform that SpaceX is probably worth 500b without Musks. Tesla has a similar premium.
If an 80% holder of Pepsi stock decided to sell it would be a liquidity issue. And Pepsi stock isn’t going to crash if they change the CEO. SpaceX stock would crash 75% if he died but all his stock was in trust for all his kids that were banned from selling for 20 years.
All of the richest guys year “X” have similar issues evaluating as Musks. Pompey could just lose in battle and the new Emperor takes his assets etc.
I sometimes wonder how much the valuation of those companies (and hell, the entire stock market) is impacted by the pure actuarial odds of Musk getting into a fatal accident or straight dropping dead.
The valuation of Berkshire Hathaway continuing to rise even as Warren Buffett reaches ancient age is a hint that maybe it is less than we think. But that's a very different industry.
Buffett stepped down
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link