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 -
The spacex IPO has happened and made Elon Musk a Trillionaire.
There are probably hundreds of potential topics from this story, feel free to go off on your own tangents.
What I am interested in is that this is a company that is building real world things, and not fake internet shit. It feels like a lot of new wealth and investment in America comes from and is directed to the internet. I think one of the main reasons has been that large investors are generally play-it-safe followers. They see which companies are newly striking it rich: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Apple, etc. And they are happy to invest in copy-cats.
I'm hoping the spacex IPO has a similar effect. That investors start chasing new copy cats. But this time copy-cats of spacex rather than copy cats of facebook or google.
I wonder how rich Musk actually is compared to rich men of the past. His company is valued at a trillion dollars yes, but only for as long as there exists buyers for the shares at their current prices. If he attempted to liquidate everything, I highly doubt he would actually end up with a trillion dollars in his bank account. He could borrow against his shares, but good luck borrowing anywhere near a trillion dollars. In other words, I would argue that his ability to convert his valuation into actual goods and services is more limited than what one would expect upon hearing the headlines.
In terms of the resources he owns and controls, he is surely far wealthier than most, but I wonder how he actually stacks up. Does he own land? Private islands? Buildings?
He does own spacex of course. Multiple rockets, Twitter, Grok, and Starlink. Notably, these companies do not contain assets that are anywhere near being worth a trillion. That is what the IPO is for in the first place. To gather the capital necessary in order to expand and grow to the point where the valuation is justified. Besides, to what extent does he actually control the assets of these companies? He is subject to government regulation. He can't just launch satellites whenever he pleases. He changes Grok based on public backlash.
Certainly, the man is obscenely rich and powerful compared to the average person, but I don't believe that the trillionaire title matters as much as what people make it out to.
No man is wealthy who cannot raise his own army.
Who in this world is truly wealthy?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link