657Joined Sep 2022


Oops, thanks. Fixed it to say "Peter Watson". Fortunately Peter Watson is also in the screencap, so I'm leaving that as is.

This question is answered a couple of sentences after the bit you've quoted: "One of them was contacted but didn’t have time to give feedback, and was incorrectly credited in the acknowledgements, which we will change in future editions: this was an honest mistake."

Another falsehood to add to the list of corrections the Bulletin needs to make to the article. In the article, Torres writes,

And in the acknowledgments section, he lists 30 scientists and an entire research group as having been consulted on “climate change” or “climate science.” I wrote to all the scientists MacAskill thanked for providing “feedback and advice,” and the responses were surprising.

However, one of those scientists, Peter Watson, has recently tweeted that Torres did not contact him about the Bulletin article. Torres responds to this claim with an irrelevant question. 

As you can see below, Peter Watson is indeed one of the climate scientists who was thanked. If Watson is correct, then the Bulletin needs to correct Torres's claim to have contacted all the climate scientists who were acknowledged in the book. 

[edit: I originally wrote  and highlighted"Andrew Watson" instead of Peter Watson. Peter Watson, as you can see below, is also acknowledged]

I think that anonymity encouraged/enabled the negligence and was for that reason and to that extent bad. That's different from trying to harass Torres. Any malice or negligent defamation has been towards Cremer and Kemp.

I was just saying that a major reason Throwaway151 could reasonably desire anonymity is Torres's verifiable track record (see other comments on this post) of harassment. So anonymity is less evidence of ill intent than it would otherwise be. Of course, if Throwaway151 has in fact harassed Torres on Twitter as Torres claims, that is terrible. (I maintain that nothing Throwaway151 has done on the Forum constitutes harassment of Torres.)

Related small point: I think you mean "years worth of Torres's menacing behavior", not "years worth of Torres's falsehoods". As far as I can tell there aren't actually any lies in that thread, just unnerving behavior.

Tobias, I think you are absolutely correct. But I will note that this is a well-worn pattern:

Given a long list of tweets and articles that make it quite obvious that Torres is deliberately and repeatedly construing everything ever written or said by longtermists in order to make them appear maximally sinister and dangerous and racist, Torres protests that they have never actually written the sentence "Toby Ord is a white supremacist".

Rather, Torres is using the scholarly definition of white supremacy, not the every day definition. In this way there's always plausible deniability that Torres is waging a relentless campaign to portray (e.g.) the founders of Giving What We Can as racists. It's a classic motte-and-bailey.

Please note also that this "throwaway" account was created just this month.

My prior is that the reason Throwaway151 posted under a new anonymous account is not that they want to harass you. Rather, it's that there is public evidence that you yourself harass (evidence: your exchanges with Peter Boghossian) those who you perceive to be your enemies. Anonymity is not ideal but it's understandable given your history, in my opinion, even if you've admitted to and apologized for some of this past conduct.

Again, it goes without saying that none of this would justify Throwaway151 harassing you in turn, but I see no evidence that that has happened.

If by "share misleading and out-of-context screenshots about someone" you are referring to the screenshots posted above, I disagree strongly with this characterization. From what I can tell, the screenshots are not misleading, and the additional context you provided doesn't change what I take away from the screenshots: you have a history of online interactions with perceived enemies that are reasonably construed as menacing and upsetting.

In addition, the screenshot Halstead shared strongly adds to this impression.

It is available, there is just a typo such that there is a period included at the end of the hyperlink. Just take off the period.

Are you, as a community, okay with people creating anonymous Twitter accounts and anonymous EA Forum accounts to share misleading and out-of-context screenshots about someone?

I am confident I speak for the community when I say: no, absolutely not. If you are being harassed on Twitter, by Throwaway151 or by anyone else, that is wrong and unacceptable. I'd be especially angry and concerned if Twitter harassment is coming from EAs, and I emphatically condemn any such behavior.

Harassment on social media should warrant being banned from this website, especially when the harasser continues to conceal their identity.

I agree, and I expect the moderation team to take action if they have sufficient compelling evidence that this is in fact what has happened.

To recall, what you tweeted was this: "We had already finished a penultimate draft of the paper. I was removed. Forcibly. So much for academic freedom"

Did you or did you not, at the time, have definite evidence of being "removed forcibly" after the penultimate draft? It strains credulity that you could have been "misremembering" that this happened.

(a) To be honest, I doubt that there could be a "context" that would make your email look anything other than menacing and stalkerish. But I would be happy to hear what that context is. That is a pretty serious charges and I don't want to update on misleading or selective evidence.

Load More