Fair. It’s just... if this take on EA is almost entirely novel *to me*, and if you have to be more involved in EA than *I* was to get the “real” message, there’s either a real problem with information transfer or a really serious disconnect between leaders & the movement
-
-
Idk, I think
@webdevMason's expectations are kind of unrealistic. Anytime you have 100s-1000s of people thinking about a complex topic, there's going to be a lot of non-overlap btwn exactly how they'd define key terms, exactly what they think the central focus should be, etc2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I am making the claim that most EAs think EA is primarily about redistribution — broadly defined as moving resources non-transactionally — and explicitly not primarily about growth.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Julia Galef Retweeted Mason 🏃🏻 ✂️
TBC I was replying to this tweet of yours, which I thought was about something else (inconsistent messaging from EA):https://twitter.com/webdevMason/status/1052956898318643200 …
Julia Galef added,
Mason 🏃🏻 ✂️ @webdevMasonReplying to @robertwiblin @DavidDeutschOxf @juliagalefFair. It’s just... if this take on EA is almost entirely novel *to me*, and if you have to be more involved in EA than *I* was to get the “real” message, there’s either a real problem with information transfer or a really serious disconnect between leaders & the movement1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @juliagalef @webdevMason and
As I've said, I agree EA isn't primarily about growth, but disagree EA is primarily about redistribution (except for some very broad & nonstandard definition of redistribution that includes things like getting factory farms to go cage-free & making sure the world doesn't blow up)
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
I don’t think I know what a standard definition of redistribution is, or a better term for “moving resources non-transactionally.” Insofar as EA is primarily about “doing good stuff better,” fair, I guess, although utterly lacking in content3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I think you're strawmanning. "Using reason and evidence to figure out how to do the most good" (what I said) != "doing good stuff better" (what you said). And yes, a single phrase cannot contain all the content around what we consider "good", but you can read the websites, (cont)
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef @webdevMason and
... and if you do you'll see it's not empty. Basically all EA cashes out "good" in terms of the welfare of sentient beings, in a consequentialist, scope-sensitive way, w/out unfairly prioritizing a single time period, locality, or species. This is very unusual.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
@MarkLutter Fairly funny that this discussion is happening among people who mostly agree on the direction EA should take.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @robertwiblin @juliagalef and
There are so many diverse pieces of EA that many criticisms are half right / half wrong. We're not focussed on redistribution, except for those who are. We're not focussed on growth, except for those who are. We're too focussed on evidence, except for those who aren't, etc, etc.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
If it is too diverse to criticize, it may also be too diverse to praise.
-
-
Replying to @robinhanson @juliagalef and
Maybe. Though scientists who disagree debating about what is true may be praiseworthy, even if half of them wrong, so long as they trend in the right direction. If we can't do better than chance, or improve, not praiseworthy.
0 replies 0 retweets 8 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.