site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34434 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023

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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Tech world is really coming off as a bunch of little over paid children right now.

A brand new company consisting of 10 tech workers lacks a mature corporate structure and a full C suite. I don't know what else we expect.

Acting like adults. We are talking about Stanford types probably one older mba.

But also referring to all the VC crying on twitter.

The tech world is millions of people in the US alone and not entirely in silicone Valley.

Because a massive bank lied to them and because incompetent federal regulators didn’t catch it?

Should they just have already assumed the government was made up mostly of completely useless rent seeking tyrants? Keep in mind a lot of them are pretty young and may not have figured that out yet.

Judging by the response to SBF, there are lots of pundits who would likely bite that bullet.

The issue here isn't the government. It's running a business with $millions in cash but not having a person familiar with basic corporate finance to help them manage it, as well as not spending a bit of time on investopedia to learn it themselves.

Banks fail. The government has rules in place as to what happens when they do, they require banks to disclose these rules (e.g. FDIC insured up to $250k) and these rules are enforced. Is it your belief that SVB stopped disclosing FDIC insurance limits? SVB is only minimally a story of government being useless/corrupt - at least, it wasn't a story about govt corruption until Yellen/Biden decided to take money from workers and give it (indirectly) to wealthy venture capitalists.

I mean really, is a safe full of one pay-period worth of physical cash too much to ask? Is this how financially illiterate we have become?

These motherfuckers need to eat shit. CFOs won’t get it until they see Roku employees setting up GoFundMe’s for lunch money.

There was a woman at my grandmother’s retirement home who’d worked in a Saudi hospital in the 80s or 90s. She oversaw their payroll switch from carrying in a literal sack of money to the exotic technology of checks. People weren’t used to working with them, but they were a way more efficient solution than handing out cash.

In this scenario is HQ going to mail me an envelope stuffed with cash or do I have to fly to San Francisco and pick it up?

Money orders only, sorry.

George Bailey will be waiting for you in the Bay Area asking if you can hold out a bit

I mean really, is a safe full of one pay-period worth of physical cash too much to ask?

Yes.

it wasn't a story about govt corruption until Yellen/Biden decided to take money from workers and give it (indirectly) to wealthy venture capitalists.

The money to make depositors (who are mostly employers, not VCs) whole is coming from a fund paid into by banks, not taxpayers.

That’s basically the same thing as taxpayers. People who didn’t invest in shit bank have to pay for shit bank.

And the correlation between pays a lot in taxes and has a lot of deposits is likely quite high.

My mistake on whether the funds will be taken from workers or people who deposit money in banks that engage in prudent risk management.

But I guess going forward, there's no point bothering to put your deposits into the reliable banks.

The money to make depositors (who are mostly employers, not VCs)

Who owns these depositors, and has been furiously lobbying the government to protect their asset over the weekend?

The bank didn't lie to them, they published their 10-K (with a full balance sheet on page 95) that clearly showed unrealized losses on their HFM portfolio of $15 billion that nearly exceeded their owners equity of $16.295 billion showing they were nearly insolvent using market prices on Dec 31, or if they were ever forced to sell. Maybe my expectations are too high but if I had more than a million dollars in uninsured assets in a bank I'd be arsed to read through their annual report and be able to do arithmetic.

Should they just have already assumed the government was made up mostly of completely useless rent seeking tyrants? Keep in mind a lot of them are pretty young and may not have figured that out yet.

I'd argue being young is even more reason for them to know. My wife's boomer parents are still living on in the shadow of their upbringing, where they assume the institutions (at least the ones run by Democrats) are unquestionably good, honorable, trustworthy and competent. The continuous rolling systemic weaknesses and disasters of the last 20 years have done absolutely zero to disabuse them of that notion. Where as, I've seen numerous polls that show young people who've grown up knowing nothing but the the absolute clusterfuck of the last 20 years have record low levels of trust in institutions.

All that said, I found this data point which makes me question a lot of that, and maybe come around to your side.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1078192/trust-government-generation-us/

Some of the data points are funny. Like in 2009 after Obama won the presidency, Millennials had a 43% trust in government. That doesn't last. Biden being elected in 2020 results in a fairly large bump in trust for every generation except Millennials. Weirdly enough the data skips straight from Oct 2015 to April 2017, so we don't get a snapshot of the post Trump trust score.

So I donno, looking over the data, it may be hard to tease apart age cohort from political party in power, with younger cohorts generally trusting D's more, and older cohorts seeming to trust R's more. With the seemingly notable exception of Biden. In fact, when I really look at Millennials on the last 20 years of the graph, they do seem abnormally trusting. Once again, with the giant glaring exception of Biden winning office. What's up with that?

Things started notably unraveling under fairly recently and Biden took the blame.

I’m late GenX, and I took “government” class in high school. I’ve heard Boomers talk about “civics” class, but my cohort and younger talk about “social studies” classes. Not a comprehensive answer, just an anecdote which might be a piece of the puzzle.

Millennial here (or at least definitely somewhere between GenX and Zoomer), we indeed had Social Studies (mostly history, maybe also literature) when I was in public school. When I transferred to a charter school, I had more specific history classes. Didn't exactly have civics.

Back in my day we had “social studies” in elementary/middle and “government” in high school. The former was state and national history. Looks like the current requirements have a “social studies” category including history, government, geography and sometimes economics.

I think it’s a catchall term, not a shibboleth.

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