I'm confused. What are you trying to say here? You linked a proposal to prioritize violence against women and girls as an EA cause area (which I assume you don't object to?) and a tweet by some person unknown to me saying that critics of EA hold it to a standard they don't apply to feminism (which probably depends a lot on what kind of critics, and on their political background in particular). What do you expect the readers to learn from this or do about it?
The link to the post on VAWG was my mistake - I intended to link to the comments specifically, which got noticeably heated after someone followed up what I thought was an incredibly well-researched and persuasive post with "but what about men's rights." What I thought were pretty charitable responses explaining how that's not actually relevant to the discussion got downvoted beyond belief. In my (limited, yet colorful) experience, EA seems to have a recurring problem allowing gender issues to be prioritized.
Are all posts asking for something explicitly? (A real question.) To the extent that they are, I think the takeaway is a greater commitment to understanding gender-based violence, including the everyday, as a goal with its own end. I was hoping someone could really help me figure out what exactly isn't clicking here, because clearly there is a recurring problem.
It seemed like you were asking for something, some urgent action, because you ended your post by saying, "This discussion needs to be in the open. And you need to have it right now."
It made me feel like you were in distress and asking for help, or maybe demanding change, but I couldn't really tell what it was you needed. I guess from your comment you don't know either.
Epistemic status: Speculation from two decently informed advocates armed with anecdata.
Note on process: After having some version of this conversation several times and saying, “we should probably write about this publicly,” we took the less heroic route: we recorded one of our conversations, fed the transcript into an LLM, and then substantially revised the structure, substance, and framing ourselves. We will not be sharing the transcript, as it is in...
TLDR: Take the population ethics quiz here: https://mdickens.me/pop-ethics/
Population ethics is an oft-overlooked subfield within ethics. Many people hold views that they don't realize contradict each other, or that have strange implications that they wouldn't endorse if they thought about it more.
Not just that—population ethics is a BIG DEAL. A lot of ethical decisions hinge on how you think about changes in future populations....
Headline finding: I audited 17 AI Safety Talent programmes. Zero of 17 have published any comparison group, rejected-applicant follow-up, matched control or randomisation. Not one. Every programme that mentions a counterfactual does it by asking participants to self-report.
Background
At least $70 million...
Alt. title: "If EA isn't feminist, let me out of it"
TW / CW: discussion of sexual violence, assault
Written in a state of: Hurry. Anger. A high degree of expertise.
This post does not include a sufficient discussion of the uniqueness of gender identity, and tends to oversimplify what it means to be a woman. I also would like to see an EA community-based discussion about supporting and caring for nonbinary people, as well as one that more carefully centers trans experiences. Even more crucially, it terrifies me to think about the poor quality of discussion that might result from addressing intersectionality.
I am so, so tired. I haven't even been here that long and I am so, so tired. I can't imagine how other people feel.
I would be extremely surprised to meet a woman who does not go through her life fearing violence from men, or that violence will be perpetrated against them because of some aspect of their gender, at least some of the time.
This should not cause controversy. This should not even remotely surprise you. This should not elicit any thought that is in any way related to "but what about-". I'm not saying it does; if it doesn't, that would be great. We (everyone) are allowed to say things that aren't surprising. And I shouldn't have to clarify that.
Usually, I try to make men feel better by saying things like "oh, well I know you're not like that," or "I'm sure that's not what you meant," or "I'm sure he just forgot," or by making jokes. I'm not doing that today. I don't know that you're not like that. I actually do know what you mean, because you said it. Because you forgot half the world's population, half your family and friends and coworkers and classmates (roughly, potentially) exist in a state of constant fear.
This attitude absolutely disgusts me.
If you're not aware of the backlash against feminism by now, you have been intentionally ignoring it. If you are intentionally ignoring the fight for gender liberation, in the context of my life you are a malicious actor, and I'm tired of pretending you're not.
Besides that, it's not about this one tweet. It's about seeing gender liberation as somehow anything other than completely integral. I don't understand it, and I don't want to.
Believe me, I would love to be able to trust men and assume that 99.9% of them/you actually wish me no harm and move through the world relatively unencumbered by the power differential that characterizes society, but I can't. Because I'm confident someone is going to openly relate this problem to the animal rights movement and not see a problem with that.
This is very clearly a high-pitched wail given words. You have to understand. One of you has to understand. One more person has to understand. I want to scream. I've wanted to scream for years, and I haven't, and this is as close as I've ever gotten.
I want to cry. I want to cry every time I see a story about a missing woman, or a missing girl. I want to cry every time I hear about women impregnated with sperm from their OB/GYN and not their partner or chosen donor. I want to cry every time someone sends me a news article that a woman in the middle of a C-section has been raped by her anesthesiologist.
I want to cry every day.
This discussion needs to be in the open. And you need to have it right now.
I'm confused. What are you trying to say here? You linked a proposal to prioritize violence against women and girls as an EA cause area (which I assume you don't object to?) and a tweet by some person unknown to me saying that critics of EA hold it to a standard they don't apply to feminism (which probably depends a lot on what kind of critics, and on their political background in particular). What do you expect the readers to learn from this or do about it?
The link to the post on VAWG was my mistake - I intended to link to the comments specifically, which got noticeably heated after someone followed up what I thought was an incredibly well-researched and persuasive post with "but what about men's rights." What I thought were pretty charitable responses explaining how that's not actually relevant to the discussion got downvoted beyond belief. In my (limited, yet colorful) experience, EA seems to have a recurring problem allowing gender issues to be prioritized.
Thanks for this clarification - I had the same response to the comments on that post.