nah, they just prefer the attack be very precise here—it’s generally considered kinder here to do what elsewhere would be considered ruthless precise deconstruction. you can see in my comments on the main “we should clarify, fraud bad, actually” post that I’ve been similarly critical of the immune response against criticism of him. in my view, it is generally a good idea to focus on policies, not people, even when describing the problems with a single person’s behavior.
I strong upvoted you back to zero on this comment, though I strong downvoted the main post.
[[As per your request for broader focus, I’ll summarize the arguments presented in the poem, as prose:
Sam’s name should be a helpful reminder that we keep, like Santa Claus, to sustain intellectual humility and due diligence, instead of falling in line behind visionary billionaires and get-rich-quick influencers.
The strategy admitted in an earlier interview was in fact a Ponzi scheme, and that has cost a lot of people money that they planned to have, which is an even bigger upset than just never having gotten it in the first place, because they spend other cash with the expectation of having this in reserve. So, Sam’s money was definitely not coming from a real source of value—it was belated theft. And, even if the siphoning of >$600M from FTX by a ‘hacker’ (known now to Kraken...) was NOT SBF himself, he was the one who installed the backdoor which allowed the siphon to happen, thus he is the cause.
The billionaire/valley mantra of failure, leaving catastrophe in its wake for the little guys, is replayed in WeWork and Nikola and all these others. Elon is currently destroying Twitter, and Zuck spewed cash and crew for the Metablurp. Oh, crap, I was humorous again! I’ll stop there...]]
Hehehe—I am repeatedly amazed by the degree to which your community justifies enforcing odd norms of communication, without addressing the substance of the argument. Consider if, in the extreme, I was downvoted or dismissed for not following MLA formatting, without mention of the content? I see “satire is not the kind of impersonal, vague dialogue we permit” as of a feather; what compassion is there for the betrayal and ruin of so many, and the grim humor we make, to claw our spirit back?
The validity of satire and gallows-humor is secure, tested in dictatorships and academic halls; I do not pretend that your community’s assessment of appropriateness changes it. If I am removed for this, you are well within your rights—and, you brand yourself for excluding what is clearly meant to vent feelings and give release to tension, to reverberate with those in similar moods. There is good reason beneath, too! Reasons presence is not emotion’s absence. Look carefully how well you appeal to the world, when they are only allowed to express themselves to you in the format suiting your approval.
nah, they just prefer the attack be very precise here—it’s generally considered kinder here to do what elsewhere would be considered ruthless precise deconstruction. you can see in my comments on the main “we should clarify, fraud bad, actually” post that I’ve been similarly critical of the immune response against criticism of him. in my view, it is generally a good idea to focus on policies, not people, even when describing the problems with a single person’s behavior.
I strong upvoted you back to zero on this comment, though I strong downvoted the main post.
[[As per your request for broader focus, I’ll summarize the arguments presented in the poem, as prose:
Sam’s name should be a helpful reminder that we keep, like Santa Claus, to sustain intellectual humility and due diligence, instead of falling in line behind visionary billionaires and get-rich-quick influencers.
The strategy admitted in an earlier interview was in fact a Ponzi scheme, and that has cost a lot of people money that they planned to have, which is an even bigger upset than just never having gotten it in the first place, because they spend other cash with the expectation of having this in reserve. So, Sam’s money was definitely not coming from a real source of value—it was belated theft. And, even if the siphoning of >$600M from FTX by a ‘hacker’ (known now to Kraken...) was NOT SBF himself, he was the one who installed the backdoor which allowed the siphon to happen, thus he is the cause.
The billionaire/valley mantra of failure, leaving catastrophe in its wake for the little guys, is replayed in WeWork and Nikola and all these others. Elon is currently destroying Twitter, and Zuck spewed cash and crew for the Metablurp. Oh, crap, I was humorous again! I’ll stop there...]]
And I upvote you, for engaging more thoughtfully than many I’ve encountered here!
Hehehe—I am repeatedly amazed by the degree to which your community justifies enforcing odd norms of communication, without addressing the substance of the argument. Consider if, in the extreme, I was downvoted or dismissed for not following MLA formatting, without mention of the content? I see “satire is not the kind of impersonal, vague dialogue we permit” as of a feather; what compassion is there for the betrayal and ruin of so many, and the grim humor we make, to claw our spirit back?
The validity of satire and gallows-humor is secure, tested in dictatorships and academic halls; I do not pretend that your community’s assessment of appropriateness changes it. If I am removed for this, you are well within your rights—and, you brand yourself for excluding what is clearly meant to vent feelings and give release to tension, to reverberate with those in similar moods. There is good reason beneath, too! Reasons presence is not emotion’s absence. Look carefully how well you appeal to the world, when they are only allowed to express themselves to you in the format suiting your approval.