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 -
Since my post last week for which I was explicitly not warned at that time, I thought I would address the particulars of the criticism, mainly that,
First, there is nothing stopping anyone from disagreeing, but I figure I should present and defend my thesis.
Donald Trump is guilty of winning the 2016 election, and for this crime he will be hounded by Democrats until the end of his days. The crime of winning in 2016 was the rationale for the Russia collusion hoax, it prompted the Mueller investigation (which produced nothing actionable), it was the reason for his first impeachment (not the appropriate anti-corruption measures he was taking against his likely 2020 opposition), and it is the reason he was indicted last week.
Plenty of people commit plenty of crimes, and I'm sure Trump is technically guilty of many things, but the same can be said of Obama, Bush, and Clinton, as well as she-Clinton and VP Biden, though not themselves Presidents. The same can be said of many, many people at all levels of the legislative and executive branches. Presidents are not prosecuted, and for good reason, until now, so the difference cannot be the scale of the crime, but must be some other factor. The obvious and clear factor, judging on the last seven years of evidence, is that Trump is unduly and irrationally hated by the powers that be, and that he is specifically marked for destruction in a way most others are shielded.
From Victor Davis Hansen:
VDH goes on to list six problems with this prosecution, before 20 examples of crimes that have gone unprosecuted, from the people I've mentioned as well as various spooks and spies.
If we look at the indictment itself, and the person responsible for it, Alvin Bragg, you see more evidence of my thesis.
Here's the kind of thing he chooses to prosecute:
This is the kind of anarcho-tyranny that one would expect when you view the world through a comprehensive lens that allows for understand my claim. That Alvin Bragg doesn't give a shit about the law, he's just there to settle scores and punish those he can find. The law is powerless to help, but boy can they punish when they get around to it. Alvin Bragg, for what's it worth, is another Soros-funded prosecutor. Soros at least gets his money's worth, as every single DA I've ever seen associated with him and his money is using their discretion is release violent criminals and prosecute normal citizens. The man has a type.
Everything about this perfectly fits the model that I've developed over the last seven years for understand what happens to people when confronted with Donald Trump. Trump engenders hatred and revulsion unmatched by anyone in my lifetime, the source of that hatred is his 2016 election win, and that people like Bragg can't help themselves but act on it.
Maybe one day events will not fit this model, but today is not that day.
For those of you who don't share this model, or don't share this view, how can you explain the lack of prosecutions of other executive branch employees in the past? How can you explain the two impeachments and long-lingering investigation? How can you explain the one-sided coverage by once-respectable media outlets? How can you explain anything that's happened since 2016? I didn't use to rely on this explanation, but after a certain amount of time, it becomes the simplest explanation, and I have stopped fighting it.
One thing we should have a discussion on is George Soros someday. I’ve read his books, he’s realistically seemed like an untenured professor type who got out of grad school but was not smart enough to get a job. He’s viewed as a financial market genius but to be honest the quality of market participants was far lower back then. There were guys who were plumbers one day and making $50 million the next year after showing up on stock exchange floor.
I have enough respect for Soros mental capabilities that I just don’t understand what he’s doing in politics. Things like bail reform and ending mass incarceration I was reading today that the Koch Brothers funded those activities too. George Mason and the other think tanks funded by the Koch always supported a lot of reforms. But some of the people he’s gotten in bed with like Chesa Boudin makes it feel like he’s literally bored and running social experiments. Perhaps to test his reflexivity theory on markets. That he could go too far and cause a counter and farther reaction the other direction. The Trump prosecution itself feels authoritarian to me and not Democratic and is reasonable justification for a lot on the gop to give up on the system. And yet Soros backed this guy.
Yeah, I feel like I actually know approximately nothing about the guy. My impression has always been, "Well, he's made a bunch of money, and he leans left with that money, so that makes him a boogeyman to the right, but that could be consistent with a variety of pretty milquetoast actual behavior." The only thing that has sort of shocked me on the topic was reading a translation of Chinese-language publication that was presumably written for consumption by Chinese bureaucrat types, and it just very casually threw in something along the lines of, "...and of course, we have a clear example of financial warfare conducted by George Soros..." pretty much without justification, as though that perspective was just a commonly-held belief for, uh, Chinese bureaucrat types. I'd be pretty interested in a deep dive that actually looks at what he's done domestically and internationally and breaks down why people view him the way they do.
It sort of is, even in the west. They're most likely referring to Black Wednesday and it's not that long ago that lefties were seeing the whole episode as a neoliberal plot to force privatization, dismantle welfare, and whatnot. Of course since populists started hating him, they had to cozy up to him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The most notorious speculator in the world is a hack to you? Seriously?
He is one of the most respected figures among the best traders in the world. These are people who not only beat the markets, they beat the crap out of them. And I'm not talking about the average Goldman trader. I'm talking about the desks that don't even consider taking your money unless you put 10 million on the table, no questions asked.
Everythin was easier in the old days, yes. That's what a loser would say.
More options
Context Copy link
What is characteristic to me about Soros, more than anything else, is that he's funded DAs. Plenty of money gets thrown around for the legislative branch openings, but Soros is synonymous with DA races, and specifically getting DAs elected who then go on to be soft on crime.
It reads to my mind as a market inefficiency he decided to exploit. Better RoI by spending money on the prosecutors so their discretion is your suggestion, rather than trying to fight for lawmakers who then still need to enact the laws you prefer.
This makes him distinct in my mind from other people attempting to spend money to buy results in democratic elections.
Problem with the inefficiency he found is it seems like it’s causing political dysfunction and adding politics into the administrative state.
For markers I believe Millenium and they may have got in from ren tech were Arbing some mutual fund rebalances. Mutual funds lost a little bit everyday. Eventually mutual funds need to prevent that so instead of having a cheap way to do their fund they need add personal to rebalance which just adds an extra costs to system.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One of my casual past time is reading the biographies of famous / wealthy traders and hedge funders. The two major themes I've discovered are first, a lot of these guys (and, as of now, it's only men) are entrepreneurs, meaning that they did something fundamentally different than anyone else. Second is that, failing actual entrepreneurship, they took a massive contrarian position, went all in, and it paid off. You could call the latter group "gamblers" but I don't think that's fair. Warren Buffett - he of the "kindly old man who likes coke" public image - has explicitly said that when you are really convinced of an idea, you should go all in and even borrow money.
It's important to remember that Soros originally wanted to be a philosopher and actually studied under Karl Popper in England. He used a lot of Popper inspired thinking on falsification and applied it to the market. Now, I should point out that this is almost always a stupid idea - trying to transplant an integrated way of thinking from one wholly independent domain to another. But, unfortunately, it sometimes days work incredibly well. Soros' MegaTrade was when he "Broke the Bank of England" in what is now seen as a blindingly obvious opportunity. The Bank of England publicly announced they would buoy the currency vis-a-vis the Deutschmark. What do you do when a sovereign entity announced unlimited support for an asset? You short the shit out of it. That's what Old George did and made about one billion dollars in single day.
I'd argue that, like Buffett, the rest of Soros' success largely came from the fact that he was seen as successful. In public markets, this is especially potent. The Buffett Bounce is a real thing. Also, when you have that much (i.e. billion(s)) of float capital, you have options that other players don't. People don't understand that a "normal" hedge fund cannot simply hold capital out of the market. In a lot of cases, if they don't deploy their capital within a certain timeframe, LPs can take legal action. Soros, Buffet, and a couple others can spend a lot of time hanging out on the sidelines and then bet on the game when its 42-0 in the 4th with 10 seconds left.
On Soros' politics - this is just his billionaire's fantasy. Some rich dudes buy an NFL team because they always wanted to play ball but we're 5'8 and 160 lbs. Soros wanted to be this great philo-political mind, but wasn't, and is now investing in all of the political things! to, in my opinion, brute force his way into that role.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link