Some more discussion on competitive debating and EA https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DEuYo4zxDyY7h7n74/debate-and-effective-altruism-friends-or-foes
Minor typo: "it’s often to reasonable to act on the assumption" probably should be "it’s often reasonable to act on the assumption"
A small and simple change that CEA could do is to un-bold the 'Effective' in their 'Effective Altruism' logo which is used on https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ and EAG t-shirts
I find the bold comes across as unnecessarily smug emphasis in Effective Altruism.
I think you might have accidentally linked to the 2019 report. The 2020 report seems to be here https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/govai/govai-2020-annual-report/
This seems to have strands of:
'rich people focused' 'rich people are more moral'
Nice! Could you do a version which is 70% lower resolution? 😁
It might be that SF has more people who are kinda into EA such that they donate 10% to givewell, diluting out the people who are representative of more extreme self sacrifice
Interesting about the idea that EA let's people off the moral hook easily: 'I'm rich so I just donate and I've done my moral duty and get to virtue signal'
It's interesting how that applies to people who are wealthy, work a conventional job, and donate 10% to charities, but doesn't seem like a valid criticism against those who donate way more like 50%+. That normally seems to be met with the response "wow that's impressive self sacrifice!". Same with those who might drastically shift their career
'Charity for nerds' doesn't sound like an awful low res version compared to others suggested like 'moral hand-washing for rich people'.
'Charity for nerds' has nice properties like:
Effective Altruism and its Critics, Iason Gabriel, Journal of Applied Philosophy https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294288831_Effective_Altruism_and_its_Critics