Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

I'm not against redistribution, and I think it's safe to assume you, I, and Tyler would roughly agree on how to do it. I do think the "you are the global 1%" messaging implies a problem with wealth (and even relatively minor wealth!) & has screwed up a lot of EAs' thinking

If we were starting again it's clear we wouldn't lead with 'give your money to the global poor' message! Probably not 'give your money' at all. So I mean, yeah, I'm in significant agreement. But hindsight is 20/20.

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, etc

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.

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 …

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)

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 content