I'll start.
- I don't like the concept of being overly judgmental about others' purchases. E.g. "clown cars." I think it should suffice to say that you should only buy what truly gives you value and leave it at that. MMM can be a little parochial/evangelical in this regard. You can think that someone else's purchase is unlikely to be financially wise without getting super judgmental about it.
Here's the thing about face-punches, "clown-cars" and the overal judgemental portion of this forum: "In the beginning" the message was about individuals looking at their own lives and giving themselves face-punches. It's been about recognizing your own financially stupid decisions, recognizing them and taking responsibility for them. Personal accountability, not exterior enforcement.
Somewhere along the line it became de vogue for members to issue face-punches to others, to call them out for wasteful spending, even when they weren't askinbg for feedback (e.g. with a 'case study'). It's made for some nasty threads and turned a lot of people away, and a few have been banned. It even violates two of the forum rules (#1: don't be a jerk, and #4: Be respectful...of other members). Re-reading the original blog posts it's clear that a face-punch is something you give yourself -- a way of acknowledging your past mistakes. In retrospect I think the metaphor could have been more constructive if it didn't have such a violent connotation to it. Instead of a 'face-punch" encourage users to dance the jig of financial stupidity (or whatever -- just an example). But 'Face-Punch" is succinct and powerful - probably why Pete used it in the first place.
I'll even fess up to issuing some unwarranted face punches myself (and by "unwarranted" I mean giving them to people why they weren't explicitly asking for others to examine their finances). It took another long-term poster - @Nords - to make me rethink and reread what the message and the metaphors were all about in the first place.
Part of the shift could be attributed to the shift in the forum members itself. We're bigger and far more diverse than before. In the first couple of years it was largely a bunch of left-brained North Americans that spent a great deal of time running mathmatical calculations to optimize everything. Now it's far more diverse (good!) but the math has to a major degree been replaced with emotion, and that has been often supplied wtih vigor and (sometimes) judgemental connotations from other, more frugal members.
I appreciate the tag, Nereo, I would've overlooked this thread. It's a very interesting discussion.
I realize that we're all posting about this subject with respect and tact, but I have to admit that it's ironic to face-punch the tactics of the guy who created the concept which ranks so highly on search engines.
Pete's first use of the phrase was "face-punch yourself", and it's specifically some members of this forum who derailed his intent by enthusiastically administering face-punches to other posters. A few of the new members perpetuated this accidental culture. And then a few others expanded the Hall of Shame portion of this forum. We all enjoy the Hall of Shame schadenfreude (and perhaps we learn how to help people who will eventually desperately need the help) but hopefully most of us evolve beyond that.
The same for "clown car" and "badassity"-- those types of keywords are not just richly rewarded by algorithms but are also a novel breath of fresh air to people who've read all the other personal-finance blogs.
He's writing stuff that people want to read and discuss. This forum also contains that material. It's a highly effective technique for growing an audience, but it occasionally gets out of hand.
He's also been writing for long enough that a large crowd of
analysts readers have had the time to dissect all of his content and point out the flaws. When that happens in my audience, I see the opportunity to write another blog post ("Here's Where You Think My Content Is Flawed, And Why It Is Or Isn't") but perhaps Pete has moved on from some of those discussions and is focused on new material. I feel the same way-- I've aged out of writing about how to reach FI (and how to retire early) and perhaps now my time is better spent on writing about FI for life.
A person's individual hypothetical tolerance for risk (and their attitude about it) may be based on their perception of "nothing bad has happened yet, and I can handle it." A tiny probability of disaster is still a statistic, while a black swan is a very personal disaster.
My spouse and I have survived a fairly hazardous lifestyle and have seen many bad things happen to good people. (We were paid to be expert at killing people and breaking things.) Yet we still take risks which perhaps have little justification. I wear helmets (but not surfer lifevests). We have health insurance (but not dental insurance). We have vehicle liability insurance, but no collision/comprehensive. We have home insurance (with very high deductibles) but no personal-property insurance. We have enough money for life yet we still invest >95% equities instead of in a TIPS fund or annuities.
Our logic is inconsistent because now we're not just FI but excessively affluent and can afford to buy insurance. We should buy more insurance because its cost won't reduce our quality of life, but we still don't value it.
I rarely ride my bicycle, yet we recharge our EVs with free sunshine. I occasionally gun it on the highway because of "free", even though I still feel guilty about the suboptimal use of electrons and wear&tear on the motor generator.
Pete's values for helmets and insurance and Stoicisms are based on his life experiences and his attitudes. It'll be interesting to see how those values evolve with age and with more life experiences.
Here's a related
rant topic: it's the evolution of groups.
This forum has succeeded in its purpose by going the way of all successful forums. It started out as a quiet little neighborhood gathering on the back lanai with food & beverages and interesting discussions. Occasionally someone got a bit out of hand ("Hold my beer: cryptocurrencies!!") and they're quietly taken aside to change the subject or relax. That back-lanai philosophy lives on in Camp Mustaches and CampFIs and the MMM co-working space.
Meanwhile this forum has attracted a huge crowd requiring extra acreage, noise permits,
valets offsite parking with shuttle buses, and even security services. Most of the original forum members have moved on (or visit less often) because it's no longer the type of forum they enjoy.
I went through this cycle with Early-Retirement.org in the early 2000s. We didn't even have moderators until months after the forum had grown large enough to attract a few jerks (and at least one troll). Eventually it got to be too much-- too many new posts every day, too many new people asking the same ol' questions (and never reading the FAQs), too many rehashes of the perpetual debates... too much noise. I invested thousands of hours of time in that forum and my tool marks are all over it (along with a couple dozen other early members) and we enjoy remembering what we created... but it's gone corporate and we don't enjoy dealing with the crowds anymore.
I remember thinking that it was ludicrous of the founder of E-R.org to sell the forum (and stop posting there) just to spend more time with his grandbaby and to start other projects. (The creator of E-R.org and FIREcalc actually co-founded a web design startup and went back to work!) Today I have a new appreciation for his perspective, and it helps me laugh at myself while wondering where I'll be 25 years from now.
A few of us early members of E-R.org started our own back-lanai forum to continue our talks about FI for life. We only have six members. We're all moderators. We mostly talk about lifestyle sustainability and the challenges of aging on our bodies, not our finances. I'm there almost every day. Another guy uses the forum as a sort of online memory and project-management tool. One guy got a bit out of hand and eventually stopped posting there. A couple other members only show up once or twice a year.
It's not just one example. A few of us early attendees of FinCon have our own separate group of only 21 military personal-finance bloggers. (There are hundreds of military PF bloggers.) We spend more time there talking with each other than in the main FinCon group.
I'm in the same place here. I enjoyed reading the MMM forum every day until its daily updates grew over 200 threads. Now I only drop by weekly or so, and I search for my name and for the keyword "military." That's the topic where I spend the majority of my time, and if you're not military then you probably hardly ever notice my posts.
IRL I enjoy Camp Mustache (the one in North Bend) but I feel as if I'm hogging a ticket if I go back every year. (I think last year's tickets sold out in minutes.) I'd rather let others discover Camp Mustache all over again for the first time. I enjoy FinCon but it's grown so big that I no longer attend the FinCon events on the schedule... I hang out at the podcast tables and the video booths and the lounges talking with people. The people I want to chat with know how to find me, and I still do some mentoring & peer tutoring, but otherwise I avoid the noise. Last year I had a life-changing week at FI Chautauqua (even after 17 years of FI, it still changed my life) but again... small group, very popular ticket. I'm unlikely to return.
I really enjoy CampFI and I'll eventually do more of those when I'm no longer vulnerable to COVID-19-- especially when Stephen can schedule consecutive weekends in an area where I don't mind visiting for a few months.