Try visiting boards you don't normally visit, starting with the 'All Boards' link above. Or request a new board by posting to 'Any Missing Board Requested Here'.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't believe the tension on this board is a particularly difficult problem to solve.
However, I would like to first address the presence of reverse snobbism on this board. Personally, I was born into the upper middle class, and I don't believe I have anything to apologize for. My wife, on the other hand, was born into the lower middle class, and I have never looked down on her for that. So, ultimately, what significance does it hold regarding the class Jim was born into? What strikes me as ironic is that many individuals here, who take pride in having been born into poverty and achieving success, have children who were born into the upper middle class. Should your kids apologize for being born into the upper middle class?
I must admit that I spend too much time on Facebook. Occasionally, I come across women who seem to have a personal vendetta against me and attack me without reason. Please note that I am not making generalizations about all women, but simply stating that the individuals who have targeted me happen to be women. In response, I choose not to engage with them and instead block them, ensuring that they can no longer see me and vice versa.
While I have not come across a blocking function on this board, implementing such a feature would effectively resolve this issue. If someone were to irrationally attack another member, they could simply be blocked. Problem solved. I can't imagine implementing such a feature would be a challenging task.
No. of Recommendations: 5
The sad face by a user's name is an "ignore" feature. I use it, occasionally, and highly recommend it.
No. of Recommendations: 4
While I have not come across a blocking function on this board, implementing such a feature would effectively resolve this issue. If someone were to irrationally attack another member, they could simply be blocked. Problem solved. I can't imagine implementing such a feature would be a challenging task.
It's the frowny face next to the user name. You just click on it.
No. of Recommendations: 8
What strikes me as ironic is that many individuals here, who take pride in having been born into poverty and achieving success, have children who were born into the upper middle class.
The actor Bill Murray said something to the effect of "I grew up hating rich kids. Now I have rich kids living right here in my own house".
No. of Recommendations: 10
What strikes me as ironic is that many individuals here, who take pride in having been born into poverty and achieving success, have children who were born into the upper middle class
I like Shaq's quote on this subject:
'My kids are older now. They're kind of upset with me, not really upset but they don't understand. I tell them all the time, "WE" ain't rich. "I'M" rich.'
No. of Recommendations: 1
A lot of the tension on the board could be eliminated by using that button. This whole 65 post thread could have been avoided. There are always going to be unpleasant people in life and especially online. Unfortunately, in life we are often stuck dealing with them, but in cyber space, we are blessed to have the block button, and should take full advantage of it.
No. of Recommendations: 41
While I have not come across a blocking function on this board, implementing such a feature would effectively resolve this issue
You do this by clicking the unhappy face against the author name when reading any post. You will then not see their future posts.
Authors cannot be banned outright* but it is effectively the same if almost everyone clicks the unhappy face icon upon the same author, as they are then left posting to only themselves. But it remains a choice of each Shrewd'm reader.
However, I would like to first address the presence of reverse snobbism on this board.
Don't worry, it isn't present. As far as I perceive there is no general cultural problem on this board with people belittling those wealthier or poorer - so it is a strawman to raise this as a general concern.
Dealraker - single-handedly - expressed incorrectly that Jim likely can't relate to lower classes. Jim expressed offense not at any class view at all, but at the fact that an assumption was made about his life - Dealraker wording it as matter of fact - that was completely wrong. Jim, perhaps reluctantly, gave examples of living in different conditions not to moralize, but primarily to clearly and absolutely refute the false character assumption. (Furthermore Jim might prefer to not to talk to talk about his life but felt it unfortunately necessary to refute a complete false accusation stated as matter of fact, which would otherwise have risked persisting as a false belief by some readers. This is precisely why making public assumptions about anyone is deeply in bad taste. It pressures one to defend oneself, or otherwise have a lie assumed as true.)
Summary - don't assume anything about anyone, or at least keep it to yourself.
If readers or authors want to *ask* something privately, use the 'Privately email' option above the <Send> button.
Likewise an earlier thread titled 'Criticism of Jim' I viewed as having a very unfortunate title, because it can inadvertently imply that there was some wider concept of criticism of Jim - which is diametrically opposite to reality - as it was *again* actually one person *alone* doing the *character* criticizing, but then discussed as some general concept.
Please don't do this.
What strikes me as ironic is that many individuals here, who take pride in having been born into poverty and achieving success
Okay, but just to be clear this isn't related to what was offensive.
I will end by highlighting attention to the ignore user feature, and that it is really nice. At the former TMF it didn't quite hide the user as their posts would just grey out. At Shrewd'm the posts really go to the outer cosmos.
Have fun with it!
- Manlobbi
* Unlike what is increasingly becoming almost everywhere now, freedom of speech is unlimited at Shrewd'm. That means you can deny the holocaust (which I suppose everyone but the author would view as a factually false view) - and the post is staying up. Reason: If you are in favor of freedom of speech, then it means you are in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you are in fact not in favor of freedom of speech at all. In fact allowing despised views to be expressed in a forum that shows all replies gives an opportunity for the view to be exposed as false. This principle doesn't extend that well to the mainstream news media where replies are not published (you can write to the BBC journalist to correct falsehoods or lies but they won't publish your reply if it "would not do to say"). With such media, news should be fact checked and sadly it no longer is. But the unlimited freedom that is permitted here is especially effective in meeting room, or in such forums that don't differentiate between posts and replies.
No. of Recommendations: 11
If you are in favor of freedom of speech, then it means you are in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you are in fact not in favor of freedom of speech at all.
The world needs more of this.
And more ignore buttons.
Thank you Manlobbi.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 6
Some here may have the length of participation to remember some of the posters of previous boards who were not popular, a tad on the cantankerous (spelling?) side, yet they were pretty much "right" on the investment outcome of their posts. What happened over time was that the Berkshire board became very dysfunctional, led by its leaders.
We got there because of intolerance, utter cult behavior. Nothing more and nothing less. The theme(s) got more and more narrow beginning with Berk is cheap while S & P isn't (something I still pretty much agree with) but tagging along was the "own Berk and a couple other stocks and wait for the big collapse in the market."
Years passed and two things evolved: 1) Berk didn't outperform as we (me included) thought. 2) The stocks chosen by the leaders of the board were simply awful selections.
Variety of thought should be accepted and disagreement as to ideas welcomed. The concept that best investments are often made in a room along isn't a new-new thing, it is simply the test of time proven.
dealrakers hate here isn't new for me. I have been president of the investment club I'm a part of, one begun in 1954, twice. Each time I was elected president was after huge market collapses when the club cult faltered. But during the club cult? Some members despised me, I offered a different view, and I wasn't of course totally right but in the end more right than the cult which of course all members acknowledged begrudgingly as years passed.
On the Brookfield board or the Berkshire board posting on Brookfield, I questioned Brookfield Property for years. If you think the hate for me here is extreme, get past posts on the MF and check that out. In more recent times I've questioned both FFO (free form originality) and DO while stating that interest rates were not certain to go back low like Bruce assure you...that Brookfield's plan value was simply crazy. Brookfield has a debt situation that makes its property business very fragile because of interest payments they say is fixed (?) and propery income that they say is 70% tied to inflation even more uncertain (not tied to inflation). And the subs are in my view not superior, not superior because the parent is constantly slicing out more fees. Investors scream buy the fee business while ignoring where the fees originate. Joe and Bob originated a real estate business and then began a fee business within the real estate business screaming its fees made all of it more valuable. Logic?
Investment boards should welcome thought, and not shut down into a one pigeon hole. Concepts like "return on equity"? Oh my, with long tail insurance entities and stock buybacks ROE is one of the most bizarre mis-concepts available to value anything.
Oh, and by the way, as I've mentioned many times. Sell DG and buy Fairfax. And KMX? Oh lordy.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Dealraker ' What happened over time was that the Berkshire board became very dysfunctional, led by its leaders.' Good morning, you might not know this but years ago , after pounding the table for Buffett to split the Bs 50 for 1 and to authorize a buyback, at material discounts to IV, I was jumped, vilified and eventually cancelled. Yep, the Fools cancelled my posting privileges , no questioning of Buffett would be tolerated. However, Jim, rational walk, Dave Rolfe, and many others were always gentleman, they were never obnoxious , know it all , aholes, etc. As you know Rw , left the boards and started his own business, good for him. The vast majority of participants on this new forum, do not want Jim to leave the building. There is a fine line between , difference of opinion , and abusive behavior. Trust me, been there done that. Think about it , and have a grand day. Thank you.
No. of Recommendations: 6
No. of Recommendations: 13
Manlobbi wrote:
> "If you are in favor of freedom of speech, then it means you are in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
Untrue. This claim is extensively addressed and rebutted by a range of literature, most famously by Karl Popper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_toleranceA great example of what this forum can be. An opinion or statement provided with reasoning, a counter point opinion or statement with reasoning and references.
Then, for me, a period of thoughtful reflection on the merits of each opinion, and usually more research on my part to understand both opinions. Relates to opinions on stocks or other matters.
Thank you to both Manlobbi and Luxmain for expanding my knowledge on free speech. Another topic for family dinner tonight.
Craig
No. of Recommendations: 7
I hadn't noticed a huge problem on this board, perhaps in part because I check in from time to time to only read posts that interest me from an investing standpoint and skip over personal stuff (there's plenty of other places on the internet to find drama). I also use the 'ignore' button.
A healthy debate about DG, KMX and in the 'old days' IBM, etc, is very useful. Jim posts some interesting analyses, as does dealraker, as do others. Perhaps if you disagree with a posted analysis then the emphasis of your rebuttal should be on the analysis and not on the original poster who posted it. The 'culture' will do whatever it does, it seems unlikely to me that posting about culture will change anything. Post about finance.
No. of Recommendations: 27
"...freedom of speech is unlimited at Shrewd'm. That means you can deny the holocaust (which I suppose everyone but the author would view as a factually false view) - and the post is staying up."
Manlobbi
The shadow that is cast by Manlobbi's statement above is that the Shrewd'm posting policy relies on its community to sustain a culture of integrity, civility, humor and where possible humility. Like many on this board, I migrated from TMF. I missed many of the posters on this site before a better forum was built that attracted both old & new favorites. When posters have complimented this site for both the high quality of posts as well as the general warmth of members toward one another, I've found myself nodding in agreement. This is not TMF 2.0.
Rather than tie ourselves in knots over a discussion involving absolutes, a communal mix of goodwill & tolerance will more than enable the free speech adoption to enrich participants learning (& prosperity) rather than poison the pool we're swimming in. I salute Manlobbi for betting this site would bring out the best from each participant in the group and providing the tools to control our individual experience.
There are so many forums out there that seem to cultivate edge and ego. We all need at least one exception.
CmoreBmore
No. of Recommendations: 28
" a communal mix of goodwill & tolerance will more than enable the free speech adoption to enrich participants learning (& prosperity) rather than poison the pool we're swimming in. I salute Manlobbi for betting this site would bring out the best from each participant in the group and providing the tools to control our individual experience."
Amen. What he said.
Anecdote alert:
Around I think 1996 - it may have been TMF 1.0, now that I think about it - I was starting to hang out on my first BB, an investment bulletin board. The topic was use of excess capital by a corporation.
I said something like,
"There's only about five things a corporation can prudently do with extra capital:
1) pay down debt
2) repurchase equity from existing partners i.e. share repurchases
3) capex to expand capacity or efficiency, i.e. make more widgets faster, and distribute them more quickly (or applied R&D to this end)
4) expand the business model to make gizmos as well as widgets, either by buying or building a gizmo factory
5) send it home to shareholders"
My point is that within a day or so, some drive-by poster said something very close to, "What an idiot! There's a whole lot of other things to do with it! What a MORON! Thank G-d for the frowny face!"
(Note the absence of any helpful examples of what those things might be)
Three things resulted:
1) it was my first personal experience that the internet enables maligant/angry/frustrated/childish bullies to say things they wouldn't have the courage to say FTF. I remember it still as an object lesson.
2) many years later, either WEB, CAM or Mungo (don't remember which, but a wise person whose expertise I respect) said in a public forum, almost word-for word: "Y'know, there's only about five things a prudent corporation can do with excess capital..."
3) I am very happy with the ratio of (emotionally mature adults) to (everyone else) at Shrewdm
Thanks, Manlobbi
--sutton
No. of Recommendations: 18
many years later, either WEB, CAM or ... (don't remember which, but a wise person whose expertise I respect) said in a public forum, almost word-for word: "Y'know, there's only about five things a prudent corporation can do with excess capital..."
If I recall, I think Mr Buffett said something very similar, in the context of describing a phone call he got from Steve Jobs.
For the sake of completeness, I might add:
6) Sit patiently on cash till one of the first five alternatives becomes more attractive, and it's clearer which one is best
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 7
"6) Sit patiently on cash till one of the first five alternatives becomes more attractive, and it's clearer which one is best
Yah, I thought about making 1) a little more encompassing like "improve capital position" instead of "pay down debt". But your point is well taken.
But the real point of this followup message is that after posting, I had the idea to look through my Quotations file for the source of the remembered WEB/CAM/Jim quote.
No luck there, but (having used the word "wise" in my post) I did find the following, which seemed apropos for the original topic of this thread (bolding mine):
"Surveying both modern research and ancient texts, Jeste found that the concept of wisdom has stayed 'surprisingly similar' across centuries and across geographic regions: 'All across the world, we have an implicit notion of what a wise person is.' The traits of the wise tend to include compassion and empathy, good social reasoning and decision making, equanimity, tolerance of divergent values, comfort with uncertainty and ambiguity. And the whole package is more than the sum of the parts, because these traits work together to improve life not only for the wise but also for their communities. Wisdom is pro-social. (Has any society ever wanted less of it?) Humans, Jeste says, live for an unusually long time after their fertile years; perhaps wisdom provides benefits to our children or our social groups that make older people worth keeping around, from an evolutionary perspective.
'Wisdom is useful at any age,' he says. 'But from an evolutionary point of view, younger people are fertile, so even if they're not wise, they're okay. But older people need to find some other way that they can contribute to the survival of the species.'
' Jonathan Rauch, The Atlantic, Dec 2014" (referring to his conversations with and publications by Dilip Jeste, MD at UCSD)
--sutton
wishing he'd done a better job with the coffee this morning
