Thanks, I will have a look. I stand by the point that just because parts of academia may have accepted a certain definition doesn't mean the general public has or should.
Thanks. Time and energy are definitely relevant factors. I'm quite ignorant of all of this, but when it comes to property renovation I would think you could be highly involved at the start (drawing up plans etc.) and then could more or less leave the builders to execute the plan, and then put it on the market. So not no time - but perhaps not a huge amount.
As I say I'm a complete noob so would appreciate any further information!
I hope it goes without saying that I'm asking this on earning to give/earning to save grounds by the way.
It is, as you said, entirely possible that it is due to ignorance or misinformation, and it may even be that the truth of the matter is that there is indeed no systemic racism in today's society, but none of this changes the fact that, in saying these things, we are being racist.
I've quoted the above because I think it provides a decent summary of what you're saying.
I would say this is the first time I've come across the idea that someone who (hypothetically) correctly says that systemic racism doesn't exist would then correctly be labelled as a racist. It is also the first time I have encountered the idea that it may not be wrong to be racist (other than from people who quite obviously think of other races as inferior). I don't really want to play the upvote game, but judging from comment votes so far I have a feeling I'm in the majority on this.
I can't help but see this new definition of racism as scope creep, and very harmful scope creep at that. We need to maintain a society where "being racist" is rightly treated with derision and if this is no longer the case then I am frankly worried.
Can you provide references that back up your claim that your definition of racism is widely accepted? I would say that even if academia has accepted this definition (I'm sceptical it has), that doesn't mean that the general public has also accepted that definition.
EDIT: Under this new definition a worrying number of people would be racist towards their own race. I don't think this is a good definition at all.
I have friends who I have watched first hand having to read through a racist Facebook thread who were subsequently unable to focus for hours afterward.
I just read through this thread and it just doesn't sit right with me to have called it a racist thread. In fact I would say that there are many people of colour who share the same views as the original poster in that thread.
All racists may deny systemic racism, but that doesn't mean that all those who deny systemic racism are racist. Perhaps the original poster is ignorant or misinformed (if he is in fact wrong), but I don't think there's enough in that thread to call him racist.
That's not to say we shouldn't take into account how threads like that make people feel and if they make people feel unwelcome or uncomfortable that is of course a bad thing. However I do think we are too quick to label things as racist.
FWIW I am a mixed-race person. Admittedly I haven't experienced racist discrimination in my life so can't properly understand what it must be like for people who do.
Thanks fair point. Although "throughout this post" is probably a bit harsh. The cute girl thing was explicitly mentioned to be relevant to me specifically. I certainly could have said "find a partner at EA Global" though.
P.S. Will MacAskill is the most dreamy EA of them all and this is coming from a heterosexual male.
P.P.S Dale also makes some good points
Glad to hear you think it's a good idea! How do you feel about events such as speed-dating / singles events versus websites?
Fair point. Overall I think I'm more positive about singles events / speed dating than a dating website. But I accept concerns over being able to find the right numbers and coming off as slightly cultish
Thanks. I'm someone who has historically shrugged off diversity as a low priority issue but I'm becoming more open-minded about it. I'm not particularly well-read about it but would like to change that
I didn't mean to make it seem that the underlying idea is that everyone in EA is a frugal vegan, that was meant to be a somewhat humorous example to illustrate a point. I think my core idea is that a significant proportion (but not all) EAs are sufficiently different to the average non-EA person as to make dating outside EA difficult (but not impossible).
I actually am someone who can compromise to a certain extent, for example I went to Singapore for my friend's wedding in January, but I am thinking of those who don't feel they can. I accept that one can more than make up for going on a holiday by doing good in their job, but taking a Singerian view seriously still means not going on that holiday in the first place and will probably entail aiming to find a girlfirend who lives nearby and not one who you have to fly to to visit.
All this to say that whether or not your girlfriend is an "Effective Altruist", you'll need to respect her beliefs and preferences and make some major compromises to have a healthy relationship.
Absolutely agree. My point is that if two similar EAs are dating these compromises may be less likely to seriously conflict with core ethical beliefs. Of course there will always be more personal compromises to make.